Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
23 <br /> 1 o Phase 1 Environmental Assessment demonstrating there are no <br /> 2 environmental impacts associated with the project (pages 34 through <br /> 3 110) <br /> 4 o An appraisal completed by Kirkwood Appraisals LLC indicating the project <br /> 5 would not impact adjacent property values (pages 111 through 134) <br /> 6 o Traffic impact analysis completed by Kimley Horn (page 135) <br /> 7 o Site plan completed by ESA Management as contained in Attachment 2. <br /> 8 • Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public. <br /> 9 And <br /> 10 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record <br /> 11 demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. <br /> 12 If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find <br /> 13 the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the <br /> 14 Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is <br /> 15 absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the <br /> 16 claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) <br /> 17 (2) (a). <br /> 18 <br /> 19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Commissioner Dorosin made a friendly amendment to make the 11 conditions be <br /> 22 entered, and this was accepted by the motioner and the seconder. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 25 <br /> 26 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to find <br /> 27 there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the <br /> 28 UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property based on competent material <br /> 29 and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: <br /> 30 <br /> 31 • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, <br /> 32 presented at the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing. <br /> 33 • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO. <br /> 34 • Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing. <br /> 35 • Attachment 1 of the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing package including <br /> 36 the following: <br /> 37 o Detailed project narrative (pages 13 through 33) <br /> 38 o An appraisal completed by Kirkwood Appraisals LLC indicating the project <br /> 39 would not impact adjacent property values (pages 111 through 134) <br /> 40 o Traffic impact analysis completed by Kimley Horn (page 135) <br /> 41 o Site plan completed by ESA Management as contained in Attachment 2. <br /> 42 • Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public. <br /> 43 And <br /> 44 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record <br /> 45 demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 48 <br /> 49 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to <br /> 50 find there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) <br />