Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-12-1996 - X-A
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1996
>
Agenda - 02-12-1996
>
Agenda - 02-12-1996 - X-A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2013 10:24:31 AM
Creation date
10/17/2013 10:24:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/5/1996
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
X-A
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19960212
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• 31 <br /> LAW OFFICES <br /> COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ALONZO BROWN COLEMAN,IR. <br /> A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL <br /> DOUGLAS HARGRAVE <br /> 129 E.TRYON STREET KIM K.STEFFAN <br /> P.O.DRAWER 1529 <br /> )ANSI B.DUTTON <br /> HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 <br /> (919)732-2196 DOUGLAS P.THOREN <br /> FAX(419)732.7497 <br /> SAMUEL ELY COLEMAN <br /> March 7, 1995 <br /> Mr. Marvin Collins <br /> Planning Director <br /> Orange County Planning Department <br /> Post Office Box 8181 <br /> Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 <br /> RE: Special Use Permits <br /> Dear Marvin: <br /> As you know, of late I have been busy with appeals of Board <br /> of Adjustment decisions . That activity has alerted me to what I <br /> see as a source of ambiguity in the special use permit <br /> application process and the need to modify the Board of <br /> Adjustment's Rules of Procedure. <br /> Presently Section 8 . 2 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance places the <br /> burden of proof on the applicant to prove the general conditions <br /> listed as ( 1) , (2) and ( 3 ) under subsection b) . Section 8 . 2 . 2 <br /> then purports to shift the burden of proof on those same matters <br /> to opponents of the special use permit. I think this process <br /> should be revised. <br /> The burden should continue to be the applicants to prove <br /> Section 8 .2 . 1 .b, ( 1) , (2) and ( 3) . Opponents of an application, <br /> on the other hand, should have no burden with respect to the <br /> matters contained in Section 8 .2 .2(b) and (c) . Opponents of an <br /> application will, of course, have the opportunity to present <br /> evidence on the matters contained in those subsections . <br /> Enclosed is a rewrite of Section 8 .2 . 2 with highlighted <br /> (new) and cross through (eliminated) language that accomplishes <br /> this change. My reason for recommending that this change be made <br /> is to make it absolutely clear that the applicant has a burden to <br /> make a showing with respect to value of contiguous property and <br /> that the use must be in compliance with the County's "general <br /> plan" for development. These two items are fact specific and can <br /> be readily established by evidence available to the applicant at <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.