Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
7 <br />1 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of <br />2 these proceedings, including: <br />3 • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan. <br />4 • Staff testimony on the project's compliance with the UDO from the Public Hearing and the <br />5 March /April Planning Board meetings. <br />6 • Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. <br />7 Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO including the affidavit entered into <br />8 the record at the Public Hearing and written correspondence submitted to the March and April <br />9 Planning Board meetings. <br />10 • Adjacent property owner a -mails and applicant responses. Comments from the BOCC, <br />11 Planning Board, and the general public; and <br />12 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating <br />13 the project's lack of compliance with established standards. <br />14 <br />15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />16 <br />17 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee <br />18 finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) <br />19 (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property. <br />20 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these <br />21 proceedings, including: <br />22 • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan. <br />23 • Staff testimony on the project's compliance with the UDO from the Public Hearing and the <br />24 March /April Planning Board meetings. <br />25 • Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. <br />26 Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO including the affidavit entered into <br />27 the record at the Public Hearing and written correspondence submitted to the March and April <br />28 Planning Board meetings. This included a real estate evaluation indicating the project would not <br />29 have an impact on adjacent property value, and: <br />30 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating <br />31 the project's lack of compliance with established standards. <br />32 <br />33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />34 <br />35 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier <br />36 finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) <br />37 (c) of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the <br />38 use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in <br />39 these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan. <br />40 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these <br />41 proceedings, including: <br />42 • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan. <br />43 • Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. <br />44 Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO and <br />45 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating <br />46 the project's lack of compliance with established standards. <br />47 <br />48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />49 <br />