Minutes 11-20-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including the bullets listed in the top % on page 140, Attachment 7. • 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. • Applicant testimony from the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and the October 3, 2012 Planning Board meeting. 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) (b), 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) (b). Commissioner Gordon: Again, I don't believe that the record shows enough competent material and substantial evidence to meet the applicant's burden of proof. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs) iii. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is incompliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan. This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: bulleted items at the top of page 141, Attachment 7. • The application package and project narrative contained within Attachment 1 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) (c), 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) (c). Commissioner Gordon: Same statement. There is not enough competent material and substantial evidence to meet the applicant's burden of proof. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs)