Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
16 <br /> 1 NOTE—the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If the motion is <br /> 2 to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with Section 5.3.2 <br /> 3 (A) (2) (a) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record. <br /> 4 0 Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, <br /> 5 presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. <br /> 6 0 Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of <br /> 7 the UDO. <br /> 8 0 Applicant sworn testimony from Mrs. Beth Trahos, Mr. George Retschle, Mr. <br /> 9 Thomas Hester, Mr. Richard Kirkland, Mr. Richard Moretz, and Mr. Thomas <br /> 10 Cleveland, on how the project complied with the UDO. <br /> 11 0 Copies of affidavits and a real estate report, completed by Mr. Hester, <br /> 12 entered into the record providing additional information on the project's compliance <br /> 13 with applicable standards. <br /> 14 Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public. <br /> 15 And <br /> 16 A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the <br /> 17 record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. <br /> 18 If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is <br /> 19 in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the Commissioner making the motion will <br /> 20 have to specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the <br /> 21 record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section <br /> 22 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a). <br /> 23 <br /> 24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 25 <br /> 26 ii. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs <br /> 27 finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section <br /> 28 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous <br /> 29 property. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of <br /> 32 these proceedings, including: <br /> 33 NOTE—the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If the motion is <br /> 34 to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with Section 5.3.2 <br /> 35 (A) (2) (b) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record. <br /> 36 Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, <br /> 37 presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. <br /> 38 Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of <br /> 39 the UDO. <br /> 40 Applicant testimony from Mr. Thomas Hester, a licensed real estate <br /> 41 appraiser, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, a licensed real estate appraiser, on how the <br /> 42 project complied with the UDO. This included a real estate evaluation indicating the <br /> 43 project would not have an impact on adjacent property value. <br /> 44 And <br /> 45 A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the <br /> 46 record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. <br /> 47 If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is <br /> 48 in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b), the Commissioner making the motion <br /> 49 will have to specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in <br />