Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br /> 1 only referred to sections that would be one thing. But if there is a section in that rules or procedure that you felt might've been <br /> 2 violated or you felt might've been something to bring up in a future case, I don't want to know anything about that right now until after <br /> 3 that process is over. Does that make sense? <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Matt McDermott: It does, and I understand the dilemma here. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Leon Meyers: If you have something to say about the statement of standing,then as far as I'm concerned,that is not a conflict for <br /> 8 the cases at safe. James,would you like to tell us your thoughts on the statement of standing? <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Matt McDermott: Sure. My thoughts, and this is going to go to a segment within this speech. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Beth Bronson: Which can be included in next month's meeting agenda or communications of it need to be after that period of <br /> 13 January 5th. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Matt McDermott: Obviously, the obligation to prove standing was one that was let's say,tense. I reviewed North Carolina General <br /> 16 Statue 160D-406 talks to quasi-judicial procedure, Item No. D specifically. Presentation of evidence. The applicant, the local <br /> 17 government and any person who would have standing to appeal the decision under General Statute 160D-1402C shall have the right <br /> 18 to participate as a party at the evidentiary hearing. Other witnesses may present competent material substantial evidence that is not <br /> 19 repetitive as allowed by the board. Similarly, in the LIDO §2.12.3, Evidence and Testimony, states the following: Subsection A, <br /> 20 Interested Parties and Objections. Item No. 1, any interested party shall be permitted to present evidence or testimony cross <br /> 21 examine witnesses, inspect documents, and offer evidence of testimony in explanation or rebuttal. Note, all individuals expressing <br /> 22 opposition to the special use permit request were not found to have standing by the board. So, by default,we were deemed not to be <br /> 23 an interested party. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Nathan Robinson: I think we're talking about the case now. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Leon Meyers: If you, if you could limit your comments to the, um, statement of standing form,then,then I think we're all going to <br /> 28 be safe there and interested in your input as briefly as you can, please. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Matt McDermott: So, the standing of form ignores the fact that you all have the option to accept other testimony with, outside of <br /> 31 standing and there's nothing in this form that states that. It talks to nothing about, but specifically standing,where that is not the only <br /> 32 option afforded. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Leon Meyers: You're exactly right and that's my understanding for what that's worth also of the statute and in its guidelines. The <br /> 35 advice that we have from the County Attorney is that the board can hear testimony from witnesses who have not established standing <br /> 36 for the case, but the board may not consider that testimony in its decision. The choice is for the board to hear testimony that it can't <br /> 37 consider in deciding the case or to limit testimony to witnesses with standing only. And this form and the direction of the board right <br /> 38 now at least is to limit witnesses, limit testimony to witnesses with standing for that reason. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Matt McDermott: Why would prescribed law say you have this option if it weren't something that the authors intended for you to use <br /> 41 as consideration. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Leon Meyers: Right. And it is certainly an option. But, if you imagine being in a board seat hearing testimony that the statute <br /> 44 prohibits you from considering in deciding a case,that's, that's a very difficult situation for the board to be in. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Matt McDermott: But you could accept that,that risk,that challenge if the facts presented to you made sense,you in turn question <br /> 47 the applicant. This is a concern. Please, please explain to me why that is an unfounded concern. <br /> 48 <br /> 49 Leon Meyers: Yes. If you have a legal opinion that indicates that testimony from witnesses whose standing hasn't been <br /> 50 established can be considered by a Board of Adjustment in deciding a case,then I think that would make a difference. For me right <br /> 51 now, hearing one witness or lots of witnesses whose testimony I can't consider is not helpful. <br /> 52 <br /> 53 Matt McDermott: I think I'm missing the point. <br /> 54 <br />