Agenda - 05-01-1995 - IX-A - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

15 LAW OFFICES COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ALONZO BROWN COLEMAN.JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL 129E TRYON STREET DOUGLAS HARGRAVE P.O.DRAWER 1529 IOM S7EFFAN HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 LANE B.DUTTON DOUGLAS P.THOREN (919)FAX(919)7% SAMUEL ELY COLEMAN FAX(919)73t-7997 March 7, 1995 Mr. Marvin Collins Planning Director Orange County Planning Department Post Office Box 8181 . Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Special Use Permits Dear Marvin: As you know, of late I have been busy with appeals of Board of Adjustment decisions. That activity has alerted me to what I see as a source of ambiguity in the special use permit application process and the need to modify the Board of Adjustment's Rules of Procedure. Presently Section 8.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance places the burden of proof on the applicant to prove the general conditions listed as (1) , (2) and (3) under subsection b) . Section 8.2.2 then purports to shift the burden of proof on those same matters to opponents of the special use permit. I think this process should be revised. The burden should continue to be the applicants to prove Section 8.2.1.b, (1) , (2) and (3) . Opponents of an application, on the other hand, should have no burden with respect to the matters contained in Section 8.2.2(b) and (c) . Opponents of an application will, of course, have the opportunity to present evidence on the matters contained in those subsections. Enclosed is a rewrite of Section 8.2.2 with highlighted (new) and cross through (eliminated) language that accomplishes this change. My reason for recommending that this change be made is to make it absolutely clear that the applicant has a burden to make a showing with respect to value of contiguous property and that the use must be in compliance with the County's "general plan" for development. These two items are fact specific and can be readily established by evidence available to the applicant at