Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-08-2014 - 5a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2014
>
Agenda - 05-08-2014 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 05-08-2014 - 5a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2015 12:32:23 PM
Creation date
5/2/2014 2:36:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/8/2014
Meeting Type
Budget Sessions
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5a
Document Relationships
Minutes 05-08-2014
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
67 <br />This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the <br />record of these proceedings, including: <br />NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If <br />the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find <br />compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) this list must be read verbatim <br />so it is in the record. <br />• Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application <br />and site plan. <br />• Staff testimony on the project's compliance with the UDO from <br />the Public Hearing and the March /April Planning Board <br />meetings. <br />• Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret <br />Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on <br />how the project complied with the UDO including the affidavit <br />entered into the record at the Public Hearing and written <br />correspondence submitted to the March and April Planning <br />Board meetings. <br />• Adjacent property owner a -mails and applicant responses. <br />Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general <br />public. <br />and <br />• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered <br />into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance <br />with established standards. <br />If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find <br />the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the <br />Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is <br />absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the <br />claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) <br />(2) (a). <br />ii. Motion finding there is or there is not sufficient evidence in the record the <br />project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use <br />will maintain the value of contiguous property. <br />This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the <br />record of these proceedings, including: <br />NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If <br />the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.