BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 155 of 156 Barry Katz: They should’ve used a different word beside harmony. 1 2 Samantha Cabe: Is that from the statute or our Unified Development Ordinance? 3 4 James Bryan: Statute or case law, I cannot remember. 5 6 Barry Katz: This is a legal issue, essentially. Not a purely aesthetic issue in our opinions. We have 7 to have some material basis for making an aesthetic judgment. 8 9 James Bryan: Ok so, the Board definitely has discretion, but like everything else it must be based 10 upon substantial, competent, and material evidence. 11 12 Matt Hughes: So my thing is, I think we can look at harmony… Me, not being a lawyer, not know 13 case law. I think most people would read harmony and make the assumption it means, does it fit? 14 Is it not going to be out of sync with the rest of the area? And I think you’ve laid it out a few times 15 for us tonight that harmony has already been, in a way, established because the County 16 Commissioners, through the Unified Development Ordinance, have said this is an acceptable use 17 within the rural buffer, which I assume in order for them to have reached that conclusion they 18 would also have had to consult with the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Since they help 19 maintain the rural buffer through their joint planning jurisdiction. And so, therefore, I feel that 20 particularly how our local leaders tend to make policy that everything is thought out to the enth 21 degree, and that to get all of those jurisdictions onboard with allowing something like this within 22 the rural buffer had to jump through several hoops, in terms or whether or not this could be an 23 acceptable use in the rural buffer. Especially since the rural buffer is viewed to be very sacred to a 24 lot of people, for very understandable reasons. But because it is allowed by the County 25 Commissioners for the rural buffer and it’s not disallowed I believe it is in harmony with the rules. 26 And of course, like anything, if folks are really not happy about it or don’t like those uses then you 27 have County Commissioners who can make those changes. But, based on the rules that we have 28 today in front of us, I think it is in harmony with the area. 29 30 Barry Katz: I agree with Matt, based on the constraints that we have as a Board. Not merely as 31 casual residents of the County or people that might frequent Mount Carmel Church Road, and 32 experience, etcetera. I don’t see how we could reject this. Based on this standard. I don’t see that 33 we have the evidence to reject this. 34 35 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Is there a motion to find that the location and character. Well I’ll tell you 36 what; I’ll just make the motion. I move that this board find that the location and character of the 37 use, if developed according with the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is 38 to be located, and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the 39 county as embodied in these regulations or the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof adopted by 40 the BOCC. That finding would be based upon the evidence submitted in the application package, 41 including Narrative at tab 1, the impact analysis in tab 32, the site plan at tab 8, the balloon test 42 results at abstract attachment 5, as well as the fact that the prima facie case has been established 43 for the use being in harmony and there’s not been sufficient evidence to refute that prima facie 44 case. I move that the Board find that the Applicant has met this burden. 45 46 47 Motion made by Samantha Cabe to find that the location and character of the use, if developed 48 according with the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and 49 the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the county as embodied in 50 157