Orange County NC Website
6 <br /> o Staff recommended condition formal environmental impact statement (EIS) be <br /> prepared for all site plan submittals. <br /> • Proposed development is consistent with existing and anticipated development within the <br /> area. <br /> • Land uses are compatible. <br /> Planning Board Comment(s): <br /> • Reviewed item at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting, <br /> • Voted to recommend approval with the imposition of conditions as recommended by the <br /> applicant, staff, and Board members, <br /> • Recommended conditions are contained in Attachment 11. <br /> Recommendation: <br /> The Administration recommends the Board: <br /> 1. Receive the proposal. <br /> 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comments. <br /> 3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional <br /> comments at a later date are permitted). <br /> 4. Decide on one of the following options: <br /> a. Adopt Statement of Consistency (Attachment 10), Ordinance amending the <br /> Zoning Atlas and imposing conditions (Attachment 11); <br /> b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date; <br /> NOTE: This is the most prudent course of action to address <br /> modification of conditions to address Applicant comments/concerns, or <br /> to address new conditions as recommended by the B000. <br /> a. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; or <br /> b. Deny the proposed amendments. <br /> Commissioner McKee made a statement to the Board of County Commissioners as <br /> related to his current employment with Summit Engineering. He said he sought direction from the <br /> County Attorney as whether he should recuse himself from this item, and received the following <br /> legal opinion below. He read North Carolina General Statute 153A-340(g), and said the Attorney <br /> concluded that he may not recuse himself from this matter. <br /> Commissioner McKee- <br /> You asked for an opinion on whether you need to recuse yourself from voting on this issue due to <br /> the fact that you work for Summit Engineering. You informed me you don't have an interest in the <br /> properties underlying the Settler's Point project, that in your employment you have not worked on <br /> or had involvement with the project, that your compensation from Summit is not related to or <br /> dependent on this project, that you will receive no bonuses related to this project, and that your <br /> employment is not dependent on or at risk from the fact that you may or may not vote on the <br /> project. Given these facts my analysis is as follows. <br /> The default position for determining whether you must vote on a particular agenda item is that <br /> you as a county commissioner have a duty to vote pursuant to G.S. 153A-44 which provides that <br /> the board may excuse a member from voting "only upon questions involving the member's own <br /> financial interest or official conduct or on matters on which the member is prohibited from voting <br /> under G.S. 14-234, 153A-340(g)..." This item is not a matter of your official conduct and G.S. 14- <br /> 234, which deals with contracts, is not applicable. The remaining consideration, that of your <br /> financial interest or G.S. 153A-340(g) is what must be analyzed. In this situation the question of <br /> your financial interest, which otherwise is a separate consideration, is directly addressed by G.S. <br /> 153A-340(g) and so there is only analysis to be made, whether you may be excused pursuant to <br /> G.S. 153A-340(g). <br />