Minutes 09-01-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: NOTE —the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record. • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO. • Applicant testimony from Mr. Thomas Hester, a licensed real estate appraiser, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, a licensed real estate appraiser, on how the project complied with the UDO. This included a real estate evaluation indicating the project would not have an impact on adjacent property value. And • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b), the Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b). VOTE: UNANIMOUS iii. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to find there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan. This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: NOTE —the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record. • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO. • Applicant Testimony, specifically: • Mr. George Retschle a licensed professional engineer, • Mr. Thomas Hester a licensed real estate appraiser, • Mr. Richard Kirkland a licensed real estate appraiser, • Mr. Richard Moretz a site developer with Cypress Creek Renewables LLC and its subsidiary White Cross Solar LLC, and o Mr. Thomas Cleveland a licensed professional engineer, on how the project complied with the UDO as well as the submitted site plan