|
70
<br /> with plan for th(.,, phy�;i(,-,,al d(.w(..1oprn(..ii1 of th(.'; Col.111ty w;
<br /> (..mbodk d in r( gtflatiow; and in th(.,. Plan,
<br /> Thig rnotion i�; bw;(..d on rnak.rial and into th(.,;
<br /> r(.,.(,-ord of th(..s(..� imdt'iding-
<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) (c) this list must be read verbatim so
<br /> it is in the record.
<br /> • Application package and testimony including:
<br /> • Biological Inventory completed by The Catena Group;
<br /> • Forest Stewardship Plan completed by Kelly Douglass;
<br /> • Impact Analysis completed by Everett `Vic' Knight
<br /> • Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by
<br /> SEPI Engineering
<br /> • State Clearing House comments
<br /> on how the project complied with the UDO.
<br /> • Staff testimony and abstract package from May 26, 2015 quarterly
<br /> public hearing.
<br /> • Planning Board packet from July 1, 2015 regular meeting.
<br /> AND
<br /> • A lack of competent material evidence in the record demonstrating
<br /> the applicant did not comply with the UDO.
<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) (c), 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) (c).
<br /> 7, Motion to approve, or deny th(.,, Sp(.,,(,-,,ial U;(.. P(..rrrdt
<br /> 11' th(.,, rnotion fir to approv(.,. th(.,; Sp( (,-,,ial U;(. P(..rrrdt, thin rnotion wotfld allo to
<br /> langi.iag(., indi(,-ating th(.,, BO CC irnpor ;(..s th(.,; (,-,,onditiow; w; d(.'Iafl(.;d
<br /> within A11a(-,,hrn(.,ii1 5 ofth(.; aN;1ra(,-,,1 pa(-,4,ag(..�, S(..(,-,,ond, Vot(.,;
<br />
|