Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
77 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 495 you were trying to do in writing it. I certainly,we all understand that you are trying to help citizens of Orange County <br /> 496 move forward with their applications in these SUPs and Variances. <br /> 497 <br /> 498 Michael Harvey: Regardless of the vote that is about to occur, and I am going to make the same comment in any other <br /> 499 motions that are made this evening, I like to offer a friendly amendment to the motion to approve. <br /> 500 <br /> 501 Lydia Wegman: Please do. <br /> 502 <br /> 503 Michael Harvey: In our haste to get this done,there are a couple of section references that I neglected to update, and <br /> 504 I've just discovered. So,with your indulgence,what I would like to point out is that the amendment,the approval would <br /> 505 need to include updating section reference in what is Section 2.10.2 Applicant Requirements Subsection B number 4; <br /> 506 the narrative outlining the answers to the five required findings detailed within it reads currently Section 2.10.3 that is <br /> 507 now actually become Section 2.10.4 with the re-numbering. <br /> 508 <br /> 509 Next, Section 2.10.5 Additional Criteria for Authorized Variances Special Flood Hazard Areas in addition to the criteria <br /> 510 contained within it says Section 2.10.3 that is the same reference that needs to be updated to Section 2.10.4 that is the <br /> 511 provision dealing with authorized variances. <br /> 512 <br /> 513 Section 2.10.6 Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratios in Subsection E reads that such requests may be <br /> 514 requested through one of the following provisions; through variance procedures of the Board of Adjustment as <br /> 515 described in this subsection. The subsection used to be 2.10.5 it is now re-numbered to 2.10.6. <br /> 516 <br /> 517 Last, required Findings of Fact that is listed in Section 2.10.3 that is now become Section 2.10.4. <br /> 518 <br /> 519 So regardless of whatever motion,whatever happens with this vote, I'd like there to be an acknowledgement and any <br /> 520 subsequent motions of those corrections as identified by staff. <br /> 521 <br /> 522 Lydia Wegman: Ok, thank you <br /> 523 <br /> 524 Craig Benedict: That can be incorporated by the person who made the motion and the person who seconded is in <br /> 525 agreement that can be amended. <br /> 526 <br /> 527 Hunter Spitzer: I would like to amend my motion to include what Michael said. <br /> 528 <br /> 529 Kim Piracci: I second that amendment. <br /> 530 <br /> 531 VOTE: 4-5 <br /> 532 Motion Failed <br /> 533 <br /> 534 MOTION by Adam Beeman to strike burden of persuasion out of the LIDO and to include the amendment made by <br /> 535 Michael Harvey relating to updating section references. Seconded by Randy Marshall. <br /> 536 <br /> 537 Michael Harvey: So,your motion would be to eliminate within Section 2.10.3 the sentence"further the applicant shall <br /> 538 have the burden of persuasion on those issues"to eliminate from Section 2.11.3 Burden of Proof to eliminate"further <br /> 539 the applicant shall have the burden of persuasion on those issues"and last in Section 5.3.2 Special Use Permits <br /> 540 "further the applicant shall have the burden of persuasion on those issues". <br /> 541 <br /> 542 Adam Beeman: And to include changes as identified by staff updating references in Sections 2.10.2., 2.10.5, and <br /> 543 2.10.6 as recommended by staff. <br /> 544 <br /> 545 VOTE: 7-1 <br /> 546 Motion Passed with Hunter Spitzer abstaining from the vote. <br /> 547 <br /> 548 Staff note: Abstaining from a vote is not an option the County's advisory board policy allows but where a member has a <br /> 549 conflict of interest the member may be excused by majority vote of the advisory board. <br />