Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
18 <br /> 1 been three or four, I don't know, it's been awhile, and it's been wonderful. They come quietly <br /> 2 and take care of whatever needs to be taken care of. We usually don't even notice that they <br /> 3 come. They take care of the grass. The grass is beautiful there. It's better than it is in our <br /> 4 pastures. The solar panels are gorgeous and it's actually a place of pride for us and for our <br /> 5 neighborhood, that, you know, North Carolina was maybe lagging in renewable energy <br /> 6 development before Strata came in, and now, you know if we have the choice between any of <br /> 7 the choices we have for energy, be it hydro fracturing or coal or nuclear, this is by far and away <br /> 8 the one that we want to support, Orange County. So, please give them every courtesy. <br /> 9 Thanks. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Commissioner Gordon: I just wanted to ask a technical question, because Johnny Randall <br /> 12 was sworn, but we didn't enter into the record what his credentials are to make those <br /> 13 statements. I don't know if that's important, but he does have credentials. You might want to <br /> 14 enter those into the record. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Johnny Randall: I am a professional biologist, plant ecologist, and botanist— Master's, PhD in <br /> 17 botany and plant ecology. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to: <br /> 20 <br /> 21 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to <br /> 22 the County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 8, 2014 BOCC meeting. <br /> 23 2. Adjourn the public hearing until May 8, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning <br /> 24 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Commissioner Rich: Commissioner Dorosin brought to my attention that we have two <br /> 27 recommendations on the back of the presentation and only one recommendation in the packet. <br /> 28 Is the recommendation in the packet the one that we're going with? <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Chair Jacobs: On the sheet that I'm operating from, there is only one. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Michael Harvey: If I may -We have a recommendation in the packet to take this, essentially to <br /> 33 adjourn your public hearing to May 8 and submit this to the planning board for them to move <br /> 34 forward. As I discussed with Chair Jacobs and Mr. Hartley, given some of the comments we <br /> 35 received from adjacent property owners via email, we suggested if the Board had additional <br /> 36 questions or comments, that there was an alternative that this Board could conceivably engage <br /> 37 in, with respect to adjourning this hearing to a day and time specific if they felt additional <br /> 38 testimony was necessary. Which is why, Commissioner Rich, you are seeing this on your <br /> 39 PowerPoint presentation; but the motion obviously was to go with staff's recommendation as it <br /> 40 is currently contained in the abstract. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Chair Jacobs: So, is it your intention to ask for a substitute motion, or are you satisfied with the <br /> 43 motion? <br /> 44 <br /> 45 Commissioner Rich: No, I just think for me it would have been good to have both of these <br /> 46 here, so I would have known what we were doing. It's fine. I'm fine with that motion. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Commissioner Gordon: I have a question about this. If we don't continue the public hearing <br /> 49 until March 18th, then there won't be a chance for applicant and staff to meet with local property <br /> 50 owners. Is that correct? <br /> 51 <br />