Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• • <br /> 1• O <br /> -,-. <br /> 1 0 . <br /> , eAgillk <br /> NORMAN Block REAITORS 2 2 22 t <br /> 410 Airport Rd.,Chapel Hill,NC 27514•(919)967-9234,(919) <br /> • <br /> • • August 26, 1985 <br /> . • <br /> ,,, • <br /> Ms. Beverly Blythe <br /> t' Clerk of Board Uf Commissioners <br /> •Orange County Offices <br /> Hillsborough, NC <br /> :, i • <br /> , 1 <br /> rs, Dear Ms. Blythe,! • <br /> , - ' • . <br /> 1 am writing to you because -1 understand there is a public hearing tonight <br /> on several proposed changes to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance Texts.- I had <br /> hoped to be there in person and now find that I cannot be present. Please read <br /> this. letter for Me at the public hearing or in some other acceptable way make <br /> my feelings known to the Board of Commissioners. <br /> • I • .. <br /> It is my understanding that there are text amendments proposed for comment <br /> tonight that would change the burden of proof as to three specific findings in <br /> the Special Use Process in Orange County. As I understand our ordinance, we now <br /> have a system of review that carefully studies all development applications: . <br /> Our County staffj is very good about working with developers to help them under- <br /> stand the complexities of our body of regulations. Once an application is in <br /> proper form and comes before the Planning Board and then the Board of Commissioners <br /> for review, parties seeking to oppose a Special Use Permit have the opportunity <br /> ' to show that thel development should be denied on the grounds of adversely affecting: <br /> 1. health$1 welfare or safely <br /> 2. contiguous property value • <br /> 1 <br /> 3. compliance with the general plan for development of the County. <br /> 1 - 1 understanid that the proposals you are studying tonight would significantly <br /> change the burden on a developer by forcing him, as applicant, to "prove" that <br /> there is no adverse affect in any of these three categories. I fear that a chal- <br /> lenger would. merely have to.raise questions or concerns, perhaps real or perhaps <br /> spurious, in order to greatly complicate the task of meeting such a burden. I <br /> .1 <br /> feel that this is unfair and ill advised. If one is to make a challenge or seek <br /> denial of a plant that has been worked out under our rules and regulations, then <br /> the challenger.should have to make a substantive showing and carry some measur- <br /> able burden of proof that his or her argument is more than a pesonal or emotional <br /> question mark. . . <br /> - . <br /> - Our Special Use Process has many safeguard provisions in it. Developers <br /> are asked to go to great lengths to meet our requirements and work within our <br /> guidelines. All of that is good and proper, buta shift in this affirmative • <br /> burden of proof on these three areas of specific findings would be going too far. <br /> I appreciate your considering my thoughts and opinion as you study this <br /> matter. . <br /> . . . <br /> • . <br /> • Sincerely, ' <br /> . ,. <br /> \NULtAgke ' <br /> Norman E. Block <br /> . ' <br /> NEB .ikjb • • . . <br /> • <br /> ' • <br />