Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
15 <br /> Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the change in the language does not change the <br /> burden on an applicant. <br /> John Roberts said no it does not. <br /> Commissioner Dorosin said if one is seeking a variance, it is incumbent on the applicant <br /> to meet the criteria of the variance. He said it is important to clarify that this does not change <br /> anything substantive for what an applicant must do. <br /> John Roberts said the only disagreement is in the highlighted section; the burden of <br /> persuasion, and the rest of the paragraph needs to be in the additional places where it has been <br /> put. He said the burden of persuasion language does not change anything. <br /> Commissioner Dorosin said, given that it does not change anything, and it actually may <br /> provide some legal support for the ordinance, it is worth keeping in, potentially with some <br /> additional explanation that nothing has changed. <br /> Commissioner Greene said she came to the meeting with the intention to leave the <br /> language in, but since nothing has changed, and it is fine with John Roberts to remove the word <br /> "persuasion", she is now comfortable taking it out. She wants to avoid unnecessary confusion. <br /> Commissioner Dorosin asked if staff could read the highlighted sentence. <br /> Michael Harvey said this is on page 86, section 2.10, page 92, 2.11, and page 134, <br /> section 5.3.2, and the disputed sentence reads: "further, the applicant shall have the burden of <br /> persuasion on those issues" (this is in a link, not in the abstract). <br /> Chair Rich asked if the burden of proof comes before the burden of persuasion. <br /> Michael Harvey said yes. <br /> Commissioner Price said she would be in favor of the changes, other than the <br /> pawnshops and the payday lending. She said she also agreed with the hypocrisy pointed out <br /> by Commissioner Marcoplos earlier. <br /> Chair Rich said she could be convinced either way. <br /> Commissioner Greene said in the Planning Board minutes a member said she was <br /> confused about the difference between burden of proof and persuasion. She said the lawyers <br /> response was that the burden of proof can be broken down into the burden of production plus <br /> the burden of persuasion. She said this is technical lawyer stuff, and this leads her to be more <br /> convinced of taking the persuasion language out. <br /> Commissioner Marcoplos said the burden of proof covers it. <br /> Michael Harvey said the Board's first action could be to make a recommendation <br /> whether the language establishing the burden of persuasion as contained in section 2.10 on <br /> page 86, section 2.11 on page 92, and section 5.3.2 on page 134 should be stricken. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos, that <br /> language establishing a burden of persuasion for variance, interpretation, and special use <br /> permits as currently contained in Section(s) 2.10 (page 86) ; 2.11 (page 92) ; and 5.3.2 (page <br /> 134) reading as follows: `Further, the applicant shall have the burden of persuasion on those <br /> issues' be stricken from the proposed table of permitted uses text amendment consistent with <br /> the approval of the County Attorney. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> Commissioner Marcoplos said the section on airport regulations needs to be updated, <br /> and the scenario when one has a small private airstrip. He asked if Michael Harvey could <br /> refresh the BOCC on these topics. <br /> Michael Harvey said currently an airport is allowed through the approval of a class A <br /> special use permit (SUP) in the rural buffer, agricultural residential and rural residential general <br /> use owning districts. He said it was decided that airports are not really wanted in the residential <br /> zoning districts, so this amendment package eliminates them from the RBAR and R1, and <br />