Agenda - 09-01-2015 - 5b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

65 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record. • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO. • Applicant sworn testimony from Mrs. Beth Trahos, Mr. George Retschle, Mr. Thomas Hester, Mr. Richard Kirkland, Mr. Richard Moretz, and Mr. Thomas Cleveland, on how the project complied with the UDO. • Copies of affidavits and a real estate report, completed by Mr. Hester, entered into the record providing additional information on the project's compliance with applicable standards. • Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public. 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). ii. Motion finding there is or there is not 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 and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: