Agenda - 08-26-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

NORMAN Block REALT• ORS :11_ER g •• 410 Airport Rd.,Chapel Hill, NC 27514 •(919)967-9234,(919)688.2302 �l • August 26, 1985 Ms. Beverly Blythe • Clerk of Board of Commissioners - Orange County Offices Hillsborough, NC • Dear Ms. Blythe, I am writing to you because 1 understand there is a public hearing' tonight on several proposed changes to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance Texts. I had hoped to be there in person and now find that I cannot be present. Please read . this letter for me at the public hearing or in some other acceptable way make • my feelings known to the Board of Commissioners. ' It is my understanding that there are text amendments proposed for comment tonight that would change the burden of g g proof as to three specific findings in • the Special Use Process in Orange County. As I understand our ordinance, we now have a system of review that carefully studies all development applications. Our County staff is very good about working with developers to help them under-- stand•the complexities of our body of regulations. Once an application is in proper form and comes before the Planning Board and then the Board of Commissioners for review, parties seeking to oppose a Special Use Permit have the opportunity • to show that the development should be denied on the grounds of adversely affecting: 1. health, welfare or safelY, 2. contiguous property value • 3. compliance with the general plan for development of the County. 1 understand that the proposals you are studying tonight would significantly change the burden on a developer by forcing him,' as applicant, to "prove" that there is no adverse affect in any of these three categories. I fear that a chal- lenger would. merely have to raise questions or concerns, perhaps real or perhaps spurious, in order to greatly complicate the task of meeting such a burden. I feel that this is unfair and ill advised. if one is to make a challenge or seek denial of a plan that has been worked out under our rules and regulations, then the challenger should have to make a substantive showing and carry some measur- able burden of proof that his or her argument is more than a pesonal or emotional question mark. Our Special Use Process has many safeguard provisions in it. Developers are asked to go to great lengths to meet our requirements and.work within our guidelines. All of that is good and proper, but_ a shift in this affirmative - burden of proof on these three areas of specific findings would be going too far. I appreciate your considering my thoughts and opinion as you study this matter. . Sincerely, . • & (( ' 0. Norman E. Block • NEB/kjb • •