Agenda - 10-06-2015 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

17 1 the record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with 2 Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b). 3 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4 5 iii. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs 6 to find there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 7 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is 8 to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development 9 of the County as embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan. 10 11 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into 12 the record of these proceedings, including: 13 NOTE—the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If 14 the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with 15 Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record. 16 0 Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and 17 site plan, presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. 18 0 Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various 19 provisions of the UDO. 20 0 Applicant Testimony, specifically: 21 o Mr. George Retschle a licensed professional engineer, 22 o Mr. Thomas Hester a licensed real estate appraiser, 23 o Mr. Richard Kirkland a licensed real estate appraiser, 24 o Mr. Richard Moretz a site developer with Cypress Creek Renewables 25 LLC and its subsidiary White Cross Solar LLC, and 26 o Mr. Thomas Cleveland a licensed professional engineer, 27 on how the project complied with the UDO as well as the submitted site 28 plan 29 And 30 0 A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into 31 the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. 32 33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 34 35 7. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to 36 approve the Special Use Permit subject to the conditions and applications agreed to by 37 the Applicant, and that are part of the package. 38 If the motion is to approve the Special Use Permit, this motion would also need to 39 include language indicating the BOCC imposes the recommended conditions as detailed 40 within Attachment 5 of the abstract package. 41 42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 43 44 c. Zoning Atlas Amendment—Conditional Zoning — Master Plan Development 45 Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Hart's Mill — Extension of Public Hearing 46 The Board considered opening the public hearing on a request to rezone a 112 acre 47 parcel of property within the Cheeks Township to Master Plan Development—Conditional 48 Zoning (MPD-CZ) district in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 of the Unified 49 Development Ordinance (hereafter `UDO'), and defer the hearing by adjourning it to November 50 5, 2015.