Agenda - 11-04-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

118 Ralph C.ochrane,, agent, not that in their analysis • Oakdale Drive is a viable secondary access. He . commented that they bad tried to acquire a second access onto Old IC 86 but had not been successful. ARTICLE 8 SPECIAL USE PERU-Ts Presentation by Smith. Kizer expressed concern- about the proposed amerdments, noting that what was currently iii. the ordinance was precisely what the County Attorney had advised and.that the County Attorney had stated stated during the preparation of the Ordinance that wording such as that proposed was incorrect. He felt what was proposed. was significant arel needed. to be- addressed. He continued that to require the applicant to net all aspects of the general. standaards is unreasonable, particularly in the consideration wthat the general standards serve as the catchbasin for what the staff and Boards missed. Ea noted that the Courts have demonstrated that they will not uphold such ordinances if the applicant does not know the specific requirements that rust be met. He reviewed the court literature ' on the issue.. He maintained that the process is failing if the County does not anticipate specific requirements in advance for the applicant to be aware of and to answer in the application.. • Commissioner Lloyd commented that it makes the applicants- "guilty before proven innocent". Gledhill coremnted that the provision as spelled out satisfies the decision of the Court. He asked that he be allowed to provide the Hoard with further information on this matter. Gleelte 1 1 • continued that off-hand he objects to using generalized findings, though he recognizes they are used by other jurisdictions, as they are not • informative of the process. He cited a 1984 Court of Appeals decision on such a matter noting that one- cannot determine from the decision what went on. Commis' sioner Ti11hojt coemented that he was• • concerned about ccmpetent evidence and the need for • more specific criteria. Gledhill I responded that there is a difference between showing that you are meting the general conditions versus shifting the burden of proof. es the current ordinance provides, the applicant roast show that show or establish that he has provided • everything required by the ordinance as opposed to proving some specific health, safety and welfare issue. He continued that it the process is being followed appropriately, then the current ordinance Provisions are satisfactory.