Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
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 /> If the motion is to deny then the Commissioner making the motion will have to <br /> spell out explicitly the evidence within the record utilized to justify a negative <br /> finding: <br /> i. A irnotlion was irnade Iby Coirnirnlisslioner (Rich, seconded Iby Coirnirnlisslioner <br /> IDoiroslin Ilindling elitheir lhei.r. li . sufiliclient evlidence In the irecoird the <br /> Cpiroject coirnpIlIes wlith Sectlion 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UIDO In that the use <br /> wlillll irnalintalin and Ipromote the Ipulblllic heallth„ safety and geneirall wellfaire„ If <br /> located wheire Iproposed and devellolped and operated accoirdling to the <br /> Cplan as sulbirnlitted. <br /> This irnotlion Is (based on competent irnateirliall and evlidence entered Into <br /> the irecoird of these Iproceedlings„ linclludling: <br /> NOTE —the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If <br /> the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find <br /> compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) this list must be read verbatim <br /> so it is in the record. <br /> • Application package and testimony including: <br /> • Biological Inventory completed by The Catena Group; <br /> • Forest Stewardship Plan completed by Kelly <br /> Douglass; <br /> • Impact Analysis completed by Everett `Vic' Knight <br /> • Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by <br /> SEPI Engineering <br /> • State Clearinghouse comments on how the project <br /> complied with the UDO. <br /> • Staff testimony and abstract package from May 26, 2015 <br /> quarterly public hearing. <br /> • Planning Board packet from July 1, 2015 regular meeting. <br /> AND <br /> • A lack of competent material evidence in the record <br /> demonstrating the applicant did not comply with the UDO. <br /> If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find <br /> the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the <br /> Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is <br /> absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the <br /> claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) <br /> (2) (a). <br /> V ..I..II: U ll'�W''�i II IIS U S <br />