Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
17 <br /> <br />the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying <br />the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material <br />and substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO. <br /> <br />e. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich seconded by Commissioner Price <br />that the applicant is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the Ordinance as <br />detailed in Attachment 9 (page 224) and this is supported by the uncontroverted <br />evidence presented in the public hearing. <br /> <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> <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 4 contains <br />the recommendations of the Planning Board and staff including the evidence <br />utilized to reach the conclusion. This ‘evidence’ must be spelled out explicitly by <br />the Commissioner making the motion. <br /> <br />If the motion is to deny then the Commissioner making the motion will have to <br />spell out the evidence within the record utilized to justify a negative finding): <br /> <br />i. A motion was made by seconded by Motion finding either there is or is <br />not sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section <br />5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the <br />public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and <br />developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. <br /> <br />This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into <br />the record of these proceedings, including: <br /> NOTE – the following represents the findings of the Planning Board and <br />staff. If the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to <br />find compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) this list must be read <br />verbatim so it is in the record. <br />• Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application <br />and site plan, presented at the February 6, 2018 Public <br />Hearing. <br />• Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various <br />provisions of the UDO. <br />• Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing. <br />• Attachment 1 of the February 6, 2018 Public Hearing package <br />including the following: <br />o Detailed project narrative (pages 22 through 26) <br />o Phase 1 Environmental Assessment <br />demonstrating there are no environmental impacts <br />associated with the project (pages 27 through 99) <br />o An appraisal completed by Kirkwood Appraisals <br />LLC indicating the project would not impact <br />adjacent property values (pages 104 through 127) <br />o Traffic impact analysis completed by Kimley Horn <br />(page 128)