Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br /> ( 1) Article 8 - Special Uses <br /> Presentation by Emily Cameron. <br /> This item is to consider a proposed amendment to <br /> the Zoning Ordinance which would clarify who <br /> bears the burden of proof in the consideration of <br /> Special Use Permits. <br /> The proposed amendment waq initiated and drafted <br /> by the County Attorney after reviewing several <br /> recent appeals of Board of Adjustment decisions. <br /> The proposed amendment clarifies that the <br /> applicant bears the burden of proof to show that <br /> a proposed Special Use is in harmony with the <br /> surrounding area, and that those opposing <br /> approval of a Special Use have the burden of <br /> proof in establishing that the use does not <br /> satisfy approval requirements. <br /> The proposed amendment was presented for public <br /> hearing on May 31, 1995. There were no comments. <br /> (A copy of the proposed amendment is an <br /> attachment to these minutes on pages . ) <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the <br /> proposed amendment. <br /> Barrows stated that she had spoken with the <br /> County Attorney about this item today. She was <br /> concerned about deleting 8.2 .b since it is the <br /> only place in the ordinance that addresses the <br /> value of contiguous property. She was concerned <br /> that citizens would not be aware of what they <br /> could speak about at the public hearing for a <br /> Special Use Permit. She continued that Gledhill <br /> indicated the best way to address her concern was <br /> to include a letter from the Board of Adjustment <br /> with the notification to property owners. The <br /> letter would let citizens know about the <br /> testimony that could be heard at the public <br /> hearing and how the Board of Adjustment uses <br /> testimony to make a decision. Gledhill said he <br /> would be available to assist Planner Eddie Kirk <br /> with such a letter. <br /> MOTION: Barrows moved approval as recommended by Planning <br /> Staff. Seconded by Jobsis. <br /> Katz expressed concern that some uses have much <br /> greater impacts than just on contiguous property; <br /> in particular, transmission towers and the visual <br /> impact beyond 500 feet. He felt that property <br /> values would be affected by the visual impact <br />