Agenda - 01-08-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

� • D o proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment, if approved, would clarify the intent of Articles 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 in regard to the findings required for approval of Special Uses. Under Article 8.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, before any application for a Special Use Permit is approved, this applicant has the burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence, the existence of the facts and conditions which the Zoning Ordinance requires for approval. In addition, the Board of Commissioners, for Class A Special Uses, and the Board of Adjustment, for Class B Special Uses, must make written findings certifying compliance with the specific rules governing the special use under consideration and that the use complies with all the required regulations and standards, including three general conditions and all applicable provisions of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Among the three general conditions is the following: The use will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. Under Article 8.2.2, a similar finding is required. Where the Board finds a preponderance of evidence to indicate compliance with the general standards and specific rules governing the special use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless the Board finds, in some specific manner, that: The use will not promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. The findings referenced above are generic in the sense that they are widely used in zoning ordinances around North Carolina. The wording is also that with which courts are familiar. The use of the wording "will promote" and "will not promote" sets too great a standard for an applicant to meet. The principal concern is that a project not do harm to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Thus, a preferable standard, and that proposed for Articles 8.2 . 1 b) (2) and 8 .2.2 a) , is that a project at least "maintain" if not promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. Such a standard already exists in Article 8.2.1 b) (2) . The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case, the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property) . QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he was very pleased to see this recommended change in wording.