Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
7 38 <br />153A- 340(g) states "A member of the board of county commissioners shall not vote on any <br />zoning map or text amendment where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably <br />likely to have a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the member" <br />(emphasis added). Assuming the facts above to be true: <br />There appears to be no direct financial impact because you have had no involvement in <br />this project through your employment with Summit and will experience neither a financial <br />benefit or detriment regardless of the outcome of the vote on the project; <br />Even if there is an indirect financial impact to you from some positive or negative outcome <br />experienced by Summit as a business this indirect impact is not at this time quantifiable <br />and is certainly not so substantial that it is apparent to a neutral observer, so this may not <br />be considered for purposes of whether you may be excused from voting; <br />Neither your compensation nor your continued employment are related in any way to this <br />project and so I also cannot determine that there is a readily identifiable financial impact <br />to you from the project. <br />There is a North Carolina case that, although not directly on point, provides guidance in this <br />situation on the question of what constitutes direct and substantial impact. City of Albemarle v. <br />Security Bank & Trust Co., involved a council vote on the condemnation of property owned by <br />Security Bank & Trust Co. Three members of the council voted on the condemnation, which <br />directly impacted the bank's business and property. The three were employed by another bank <br />that was in direct competition with Security Bank & Trust Co. They held positions of Director, <br />Assistant Vice President, and Branch Manager. The Court held that even though they may <br />experience some indirect impact to their financial interest from something negative happening to <br />Security Bank & Trust Co., the impact was "too remote and infinitesimal to give rise to a conflict of <br />interest." Similarly, you could have some positive or negative experience if the company that <br />employs you has a positive or negative impact from the Board's vote on the project, but your <br />personal experience will not, pursuant to the facts you've provided, be direct, substantial, or <br />readily identifiable. <br />There is no provision in the law as it relates to county boards of commissioners that allows <br />commissioners to recuse themselves from voting. The board itself must excuse, by vote, a <br />member from voting and then only in the stated circumstances. The mere appearance of <br />impropriety or appearance of a conflict of interest is not sufficient to warrant an excusal. To a <br />person unfamiliar with the voting statutes it may appear that impropriety or a conflict exists based <br />on your employment with Summit, however, the facts you've related to me suggest no actual <br />impropriety or conflict of interest exists. <br />My conclusion is that You may not be excused by the Board from voting and have a <br />statutory duty to vote on this item. James Bryan will be at tonight's quarterly public hearing <br />and I've discussed this issue with him. I've also copied the Board and as you requested the <br />manager and planning director. <br />Let me know if you have any questions. <br />John L. Roberts <br />Orange County Attorney <br />Commissioner Marcoplos said he noticed that schools are an allowable land use, and <br />clarified that a school can be sited there, but there is no land designated for a school in this area. <br />Michael Harvey said yes, there is no designated area. He said the Applicant did request <br />that a school be an allowed use, but noted that staff's recommendation is that any school <br />developed in this project only be allowed subject to the review and approval of a class A Special <br />