Agenda - 02-19-2013 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

25 1 • Various letters from the State Department of Cultural Resources indicating no significant 2 impact as the result of the proposed development contained within Attachment 1 of the August 3 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package. 4 • Staff memorandum contained within Attachment 3 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public 5 Hearing package. 6 • Applicant, engineer, and staff testimony from the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing 7 and the October 3, 2012 Planning Board meeting. 8 • The applicants letters, dated September 25, 2012 and October 2, 2012, addressing questions 9 about the project. and 10 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating 11 the project's lack of compliance with established standards. 12 If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is in 13 compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the Commissioner making the motion will have to 14 specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing 15 the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a). 16 17 Commissioner Gordon: Again, I don't feel that there is enough competent material or 18 substantial evidence in the record to meet the applicant's burden of proof. These are general 19 findings and the others were specific. 20 21 Commissioner Jacobs: I think that the fact that we asked for additional information that would 22 have satisfied some of the Commissioners' concerns and it was not given shows that there is 23 disrespect to the Commissioners, the residents, and the environment and we should not just 24 accept that this is the way we do business in Orange County. 25 26 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs) 27 28 ii. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner 29 Hemminger finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies 30 with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of 31 contiguous property. This motion is based on competent material and evidence 32 entered into the record of these proceedings, including the bullets listed in the 33 top 3/4 on page 140, Attachment 7. 34 35 • The application package and project narrative contained within Attachment 1 of the August 27, 36 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package. 37 • A letter from Joe Lyle, real estate broker, indicating the project will not impact the value of 38 adjacent property contained within Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public 39 Hearing package. 40 • Applicant testimony from the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and the October 3, 41 2012 Planning Board meeting. and 42 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating 43 the project's lack of compliance with established standards. If the motion is to find there is 44 insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) 45 (b), the Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is absent and 46 explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are 47 in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b). 48 49 Commissioner Gordon: Again, I don't believe that the record shows enough competent 50 material and substantial evidence to meet the applicant's burden of proof.