Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br /> 1 NOTE—The re-convening of a hearing is solely for the purpose of receiving the <br /> 2 Planning Board recommendation and allowing any new information, previously <br /> 3 submitted in writing, to be entered into the record. The hearing is not intended to solicit <br /> 4 additional input from the public or the applicant. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, <br /> 7 comments from the public or the applicant shall not be solicited. The accepting <br /> 8 additional public comments at this stage of the review (i.e. the reconvened hearing) <br /> 9 would constitute a violation of the UDO. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 3. Staff will review the abstract and ask it be entered into the record. Staff will review the <br /> 12 Findings of Fact (Attachment 5) for the Special Use component of the project. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 4. Questions will be asked of staff. <br /> 15 Commissioner Jacobs: Could you please just refresh my memory, since I wasn't at <br /> 16 that Public Hearing. The response that's been incorporated to the North Carolina <br /> 17 Wildlife Resources Commission. Concerns that are expressed in the letter that's <br /> 18 included in our packet. Page 13. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Michael Harvey: Thank you. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Commissioner Jacbos: Including saying "the project may impact the species and <br /> 23 consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service may be required." <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Michael Harvey: The Fish and Wildlife Commission's letter, as part of the State <br /> 26 Clearing House review, obviously identified potential concerns. If you go to page 14, <br /> 27 there are following gentle recommendations, and I will stipulate number 1, Orange <br /> 28 County is a leader in Environmental Protections; so most of the recommended stream <br /> 29 buffer standards, or buffer standards we exceed by leaps and bounds. In our review, <br /> 30 and that is specifically the local DEAPR office and the Planning Department in reviewing <br /> 31 other County documents as well, there are no endangered species, or any other <br /> 32 sensitive species on this property that would be impacted. In consultation with the <br /> 33 Department of Wildlife as well as North Carolina Department of Environment Natural <br /> 34 Resources, there was no identified — specific, excuse me— identified species that would <br /> 35 be impacted. And while we take into consideration the recommendation since the buffer <br /> 36 standards that we are going to impose, are greater than what they recommended, we <br /> 37 believe we are exceeding their suggested mandate with respect to how this project <br /> 38 should be developed. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Commissioner Jacobs: May I ask our Attorney a question? <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Chair McKee: Yes. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Commissioner Jacobs: When, and if, the legislature reduces buffer standards, having <br /> 45 already adopted these that can't be changed by the legislature. It would be an ex-post <br /> 46 facto, would it not? <br /> 47 <br /> 48 John Roberts: That would not apply to this, this Special Use Permit, no. <br /> 49 Commissioner Jacobs: Thank you. <br /> 50 <br />