Orange County NC Website
e. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner <br /> Burroughs that said there is sufficient seconded by will need to be made <br /> regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the Ordinance as follows: <br /> (NOTE —Whomever makes the motion will have to cite the `evidence' in the <br /> record utilized justifying the motion to approve or deny. Attachment 5 contains <br /> the recommendations of the Planning Board including the evidence utilized to <br /> reach the conclusion. This `evidence' must be spelled out explicitly by the <br /> Commissioner making the motion. <br /> i. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs <br /> to approve finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with <br /> Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public <br /> health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and <br /> operated according to the plan as submitted. <br /> This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of <br /> these proceedings, including: <br /> NOTE —the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If the motion is <br /> to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with Section 5.3.2 <br /> (A) (2) (a) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record. <br /> • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, <br /> presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. <br /> • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of <br /> the UDO. <br /> • Applicant sworn testimony from Mrs. Beth Trahos, Mr. George Retschle, Mr. <br /> Thomas Hester, Mr. Richard Kirkland, Mr. Richard Moretz, and Mr. Thomas <br /> Cleveland, on how the project complied with the UDO. <br /> • Copies of affidavits and a real estate report, completed by Mr. Hester, <br /> entered into the record providing additional information on the project's compliance <br /> with applicable standards. <br /> • Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public. <br /> And <br /> • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the <br /> record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. <br /> If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is <br /> in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the Commissioner making the motion will <br /> have to specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the <br /> record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section <br /> 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a). <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> ii. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs <br /> finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with <br /> Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of <br /> contiguous property. <br />