Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
18 <br /> (1) The use will maintain or promote,the public health,safety and general welfare <br /> if located where proposed,and developed and operated according to the plan as <br /> submitted; <br /> (2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property(unless the <br /> use is a public necessity,in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the <br /> value of contiguous property); <br /> (3) The location and character of the use,if developed according to the Plan <br /> submitted,will be in harmony with the area in which it is located, and the use is <br /> in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County <br /> as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion <br /> thereof,adopted by the Board of County Commissioners; <br /> The Board must make findings that those facts have been found. <br /> The confusion occurs when it is then required that those opposing the permit <br /> have to prove that the use would not maintain,promote or enhance where the <br /> applicant has presented evidence that the use will maintain,promote or enhance. <br /> Gledhill continued that he would like to remove this confusion by simply saying <br /> that the burden of proving that the use would maintain,promote or enhance falls <br /> on the applicant. It is hoped that the change will eliminate the need of persons <br /> opposing the project to prove that the use will not maintain or enhance property <br /> values. We want to be insure that the applicants know everything that they <br /> have to prove and not let them think that they are relieved of proving everything <br /> we want them to prove because there is some comparable provision for those <br /> opposing the project. <br /> Gledhill emphasized that he was trying to eliminate the confusion on these <br /> issues when cases do go into court. This would also eliminate attorneys for <br /> applicants thinking the permit will or should be granted simply because there <br /> may be no opposition. The burden of proof is clearly on the applicant. <br /> Barrows,referring to the Board of Adjustment, asked what an opponent could <br /> do when there are other objections as well as those addressing health,safety and <br /> general welfare that the applicant has already shown in the positive. Gledhill <br /> responded that if an opponent has evidence that the use will lower his/her <br /> property value,this amendment does not preclude the presentation of that <br /> evidence. All the opponent has to do is present evidence to make the Board of <br /> Adjustment not sure that the applicant is carrying the burden on that point. It <br /> actually reduces the opponent's burden. Before,once the applicant finished <br /> with their his/her evidence,the opponent had to start over and <br /> persuade/convince the Board of Adjustment otherwise. If the Board of <br /> Adjustment has doubts,then,the applicant has not carried his burden. <br /> Barrows expressed concern that citizens in opposition may not know what is <br /> required of them or what kind of evidence they must present. Gledhill <br /> responded that would be more of a process question/problem rather than a legal <br /> problem. He suggested that everyone who is notified be informed of what they <br /> need to do if they oppose a Special Use Permit application. <br /> Katz asked why an expiration date is needed and the criteria for an extension. <br /> Gledhill responded that it is an extra level of protection. Anyone purchasing or <br /> considering purchasing such property would be aware of the permit and its <br />