OCPB agenda 100715 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Article 2: Procedures Section 2.7: Special Use Permits Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-23 (2) Barring the presentation of non-expert opinion, (3) Interrupting digressions into immaterial testimony, (4) Interrupting repetitive testimony, (5) Reasonably limiting the time allotted each witness or cross-examination, (6) Providing for the selection of spokespersons to represent groups of persons with common interests, (7) Interrupting personal attacks, and/or (8) Ordering an end to disorderly conduct. (E) Where the Board finds compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless the Board shall also find, in some specific manner, that: (1) the use will not maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. (F) Those opposing approval of the application on the grounds that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare shall have the burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence, the specific manner in which the proposed use does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application for a Special Use. 2.7.9 Review and Decision (A) For Class A Special Use permitsPermits, the following shall apply: (1) All applications shall be referred to the Planning Board for review and recommendation after the Neighborhood Information Meeting but prior to the public hearing.27 (2) The Planning Board shall make a recommendation and proposed findings of fact on the application, including the findings required in Section 5.3.2 of this Ordinance 28. The Planning Board’s action on an application shall be one of the following: (a) Recommend approval based on proposed findings of fact, (b) Recommend denial based on proposed findings of fact, (c) Recommend approval based on proposed findings of fact but with specified conditions. (3) Should the Planning Board fail to make a recommendation prior to the public hearing, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners without a Planning Board recommendation. 27 The Staff Attorney has advised that a greater level of legal sufficiency is reached if the Planning Board reviews applications and makes its recommendation prior to the quasi-judicial hearing than during or after the hearing. 28 The Planning Board has stated it wants to make a recommendation on the findings required in Section 5.3.2 (e.g., use will promote public health, safety, and welfare; use will maintain or enhance value of contiguous property; location and character of use is in harmony with the area). Staff notes that an applicant cannot be required to divulge the evidence they intend to present at the evidentiary hearing (quasi-judicial hearing). In the event an applicant chooses to withhold information until the quasi-judicial hearing, there may be cases where the Planning Board will not have access to all information at its meeting. In such cases, the Planning Board may note deficiencies in information in its recommendation. 77