Minutes - 19870824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I~ definition. The proposed amendment YV-H-3-c-8 Access Restrictions , based on traffic counts, precludes most of the roads in Orange County. Jacobs noted that a lesser number should be considered. Szymik explained that the reason for using 5,000 vehicles per day is that on a standard 2-lane highway that 5,000 vehicles per day represents the volume of traffic which would represent traffic level "C" which is the level of service that can be carried before problems occur. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item - 5b Subdivision Regulation Amendment, section V Improvements to the Planning Board for a recom- mendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA - AMBERLY DEVELOPMENT (A copy of the Attorney's letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill responded to a request from the Board to determine. what Orange County can legally do in response to the voluntary annexation of land, the zoning of that land pursuant to Carrboro's Zoning Ordinance and the issuance of a conditional use permit by Carrboro, which actions together authorize the development of the Amberly Subdivision project. With reference to the annexation, the zoning action taken by Carrboro and the Conditional Use Permit action taken by Carrboro, he concluded that it would be unlikely that Orange County could withstand a challenge to pursue this matter. There is no law in North Carolina which address whether one local government can sue another over these points. There is no limitation. on the ability of towns to annex and very little room for challenge of those decisions. _ With reference to zoning and the Conditional Use Permits, the standard seems to be that only the "aggrieved party or aggrieved parties" who have special damages as a result of the. action and which damages are different from that suffered by the general public may pursue the matter. If action is to be taken to challenge the action taken by Carrboro, it must be brought by the right people with focus on the merits of the issue and not distracted by any side issues. Gledhill made the point that his comments are not to discourage any private citizen who may have standing to pursue those avenues that .are available for challenges to zoning and planning decisions. The area where the County may become involved is in the approval process of the wastewater disposal system. The County could request the Environmental Management Commission or the staff people of the EMC who will be reviewing the permit fora public meeting, and if coupled with a petition from concerned citizens in the area also asking for a public meeting would almost guarantee that one would be held. The statutes suggest that the only people who can appeal the staff decision on the permit are the ones who would be the recipient of the permit. However, there may be an opportunity for the County to intervene in this process. once the permit is issued, the County may then have some appeal rights if the County is unhappy with the process. In conclusion, Gledhill mentioned that the Environmental Policy Act authorizes local governments to require any private developer of a major development project to submit detailed statements of the ~ environmental impact of such projects. It was suggested to Gledhill by Milton Heath of the Institute of Government that the County might implement it by ordinance applicable to all major development projects as defined in the statute and in the ordinance. Gledhill stated that probably the best way to implement an ordinance would be for the Board to