Agenda - 11-20-2012 - 6b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• 139 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record. • The August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing agenda packet and the October 3, 2012 Planning Board agenda packet containing the following information: • The application package and project narrative contained within Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package. • A letter from Joe Lyle, real estate broker, indicating the project will not impact the value of adjacent property contained within Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package. • The environmental report contained within Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package • Various letters from the State Department of Cultural Resources indicating no significant impact as the result of the proposed development contained within Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package. • Staff memorandum contained within Attachment 3 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package. • Applicant, engineer, and staff testimony from the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and the October 3, 2012 Planning Board meeting. • The applicants letters, dated September 25, 2012 and October 2, 2012, addressing questions about the project. and • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a).