Minutes - 19850826 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

oooNo~ advised and that the County Attorney had stated during the preparatiou of the Ordinance that wording such as that proposed was incorrect. He felt what was proposed was significant and needed to be addressed. He continued that to require the applicant to meet all aspects of the general standards is unreasonable. particularly in the consideration that the general standards serve as the catchbasin for what the staff and Boards missed. Re noted that the Courts have demonstrated that they will not uphold such ordinances if the applicant does not know the specific requirements, that must be met. He reviewed the couxt literature on the issue. He maintained that the process is failing if the County does not anticipate specific requirements in advance for the applicant to be aware of and to answer in the application. Commissioner Lloyd commented that it makes the applicants guilty before proven innocent . Gledhill commented that the provision as spelled out satisfies the decision of the Court. Re asked that he be allowed to provide Che Beard with further information on this matter. Gledhill continued that offhand he objects to using generalized findings, though he recognises they are used by other jurisdictions, as they are not informative of the process. He cited a 1984 Court of Appeals decision on such a matter noting that one cannot determine from the decision what went on. Commissioner Willhoit commented that he was concerned about competent evidence and the need for more specific criteria. Gledhill responded that there is a difference between showing that you are meeting the general conditions versus shifting the burden of proof. Aa the current Ordinance provides. the applicant must show or establish that he has provided everything required by the Ordinance as apposed to proving some specific health, safety and welfare issue. He continued that i£ the process is being followed appropriately, then the current Ordinance provisions are satisfactory. Rizer noted that educative information is needed for the citizens on these matters. Smith cited the. letters regarding the special use permit procedures forwarded to all affected property owners as part of the notification process, an example of which may be found on page 106 of the agenda package. Gordon questioned the last paragraph of page 201. Gledhill responded that this provision applies to those opposing approval and occurs only after the applicant has established hie evidence. Kizer indicated that those in opposition should have real. legitimate evidence of a concern which the applicant should then be asked to address. Otherwise. the ordinance requires that the permit be issued. Bobby Nichols expressed concern with the proposed amendment and agreed with Dr. Rizer*s position. Gordon commented that she favored the proposed wording. ~I9 Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on September 3, 1985, 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners' doom of the Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Don Willhoit. Chair Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Secretary Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk