Agenda - 11-19-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• 1 12 impervious suifaces in protected watersheds in one. of three ways. The • preferred method is on-site infiltration through the retention of undisturbed, vegetated areas; the other two methods are structural or engineered infiltration measures, such as trenches or retention ponds, which reduce the amount of runoff and detention structures that reduce the rate of runoff. These methods will be used on a site specific basis. Smith noted that Orange .County is the only agency at this time which is evaluating every project that is in a protected watershed. It is felt that a mininim cutoff is reasonable from a technical and administrative standpoint in terms - of evaluating a site • plan. Staff would like to provide some flexibility in the administrative procedures so that those sites 80,000 sq. ft. or larger would not have to be reviewed through detailed calculations, yet would have, some site specific . requirements. Also proposed is a revision of the Impervious Surface Ratios Table by district to reflect State requirements. Gordon inquired-if the Planning Board reviewed these proposed. amendments. Smith responded yes. Smith continued with Article 8 ZelEnlaWantutta • In reviewing recent requests for the issuance of Special Use • - Permits, members of the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board have_ expressed coacen regarding the burden of proof in determining compliance with . the General Standards'specified in Section 8.2 of Article 8. The Ordinance provides that' where the Board finds a preponderance of evidence to indicate Compliance with the general standards, specific rules' governing the specific use and that the use complies. with all required regulations and standards, the • aplication must) be approved unless the Board finds, in some specific manner, • that the general standards have not been satisfied. Under the present Ordinance, the burden of proof'rests primarily with those opposing the issuance of the SpecialiUse Permit to prove that the general and/or specific standards have not been satisfied. - Theiproposed amendment would require the Board to make specific findings that the general standards have been met. Those opposing the issuance of the Special Use Permit would continue to have the burden of proving that the . general standards have not been satisfied. Kizer expressed concern about the proposed amendments, -noting that what was currently in the ordinance was precisely what the County Attorney had . advised and that the County Attorney bad stated during the preparation of the Ordinance thatlwording such as that proposed was incorrect. He felt what was • proposed was significant and needed to be addressed. He continued that to require the applicant to meet all aspects of the general standards is unreasonable, particularly in the consideration that the general standards . serve as the catchbasin for what the staff and Boards missed. • He noted that the Courts have demonstrated that they will not uphold such ordinances if the applicant does' not know the specific requirements that must be met. He reviewed the court literature on the issue. He maintained that the process is failing if thelCounty 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 commented that the provision as spelled out satisfies the • decision of the Court. . He asked that he be allowed to provide the Board with further -information on this matter. Gledhill continued that offhand he objects- - I� 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. Commissioner Willhoit commented that he was concerned about competent evidence and the need for more specific criteria.' Gledhill responded that there is a difference between showing that 1, you are meetingthe'general conditions versus shifting the burden of proof. As' . •