Minutes 11-20-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

John Roberts: You don't have to read each bullet. If you want to site the page number and the bulleted information, I'm comfortable that it's adequate to defend this in the event of any litigation. Commissioner McKee: Then I have one more sentence to read at the top of page 139. This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including the bullets listed on the top % of page 139 of Attachment 7. • 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). Commissioner Gordon: Again, I don't feel that there is enough competent material or substantial evidence in the record to meet the applicant's burden of proof. These are general findings and the others were specific. Commissioner Jacobs: I think that the fact that we asked for additional information that would have satisfied some of the Commissioners' concerns and it was not given shows that there is disrespect to the Commissioners, the residents, and the environment and we should not just accept that this is the way we do business in Orange County. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs) ii. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property. This motion is based on competent material