|
u~w.~ae - rL ,t~~1aw - ayv~,aae tray (~ettuu wrrs wur„rty
<br />c.rt
<br />which resulted in ptigetiott between most of tJte plaintiffs in the instant case and Meci3ertburg County.
<br />Thd 3 August 1988 judgtrrdtt estabflshed, in effect, that plkkufffs (then petitioners) were deprived of their due process tlght~bec{
<br />the Meddenburp Crsunty Board of Commissioners mold not, as a rr>attet of law, bean impartial tribunal with regard m the s
<br />use permit application by Mecklenburg County and, also, that Meddenbur9 County failed [***i7] to offer corttpettri;, ~:~:
<br />and suitstantiai avidenoe fp meat some of the ater(pt,.,,;}
<br />required fktdirtgs of the old otc9nance. The 1985 spatial ttse perrnlt was declared riu[I ~;..
<br />and void. The S August 1988 judgment went ar- to say that "tile Meddenburg Board of Commis9~ers MRq be requireA to amend its? ~~
<br />Zoning Ordinance in one or more cruets, before further action mar be taken with respett to this samitaty 1andNtl site." The 3 August: w~"'.°-'•
<br />1988 judgment was not appealed. --
<br />[*5QS] As a result oftha 1988 judgment, hkdclenbuig County did amend 1~ ranln9 ordGtartoe. The i May f989 amendment, krYer
<br />aAa, rrinovCd sanitary landfills fleets the speclai use permk secdort and placed them in Section 3141 as uses by right "subject >p
<br />special n~quirernenls"Ponder prescribed oandido~" (fie two phrases are used intarhangeabry). We hereafter rater to this type oP
<br />use by rift as a "use by right ands prescribed mnditiorts' ar a "use under prescribed mndttfons." .
<br />The plaintiffs contend that the tMappeafed 3 August 1988 judgment pret~des the Meddeaburg County Board of Commissioners from
<br />abta<ning a permit under the or+dtrtance as amended. We disagree. The effect of the 3 August 1958 Sudgmartt of the
<br />Mecklenburg [f * •i8] County St~eria Court must be analyzed in the context of what was before the court at the time.
<br />[**Bii] Under the ordktance ax it existed prior ro the 1 May 1989 8mertdments, the Board of Coanmissioiters sat as a quasi-~udklal
<br />body to gram ar to deny Rs own special use permit application (which was not a •use by rust") with no de now appeal available. The
<br />1986 judgment Is binding only as to that procedure. The 1 May 1989 amendments produced a totally di[ferent procedure that involves
<br />both a "by right" use and a db novo reviex by the Board or Adjustment.
<br />The 1968 judgment pravkled that "the tecklenburg Board of Commissioners wifi be required to amend its Zoning Onfinanoe in one ar
<br />mare respet'hs, before further action may be taken wRh respect !p this sanitary landfill eke." The 1 May 1989 amendmenus followed
<br />the direCtlveS Of the 1988 jus~pme(it, tllai ls, rite zoning ardkrance was amended so dwt the frdt(al determination watdd be made by
<br />the Charlotie-l~teCklenburg' 'loving AdmintstraOPi' and so that thereaRer the Zonng Administrator`s determinatbn or deberminativns
<br />would be subjectto aompiete de nova review by the Board of Adjustment.
<br />The fact lilac tfie 1988 ~rdgRtent [*+'*iB] held that the Caurtty had failed to make a sutfklertt'sfsowing to support the findngs of
<br />mrmpllanoe with the then-efi+ecUue state regulations Etas no bearing upon the 199FJ permit applkation, es drat requiremenE of the
<br />earlier ordinance was eiimfnated by the 1 May 1969 amendments. Under the amended ardlnance, only the slate determines whether
<br />the application for-the state permit meets the state's wrrern rules. '
<br />[*S06] 1f one compares the pre-1 May 1989 spatial use ptrmit requireements for sarritaty landffils wilt the uses under prescribed
<br />mnd{dorts M the 1 May 1969 gmendments, k is obvious drat the Board of CammisSionetS fundamentally changed and lessened tise
<br />requiements for a sankary iendfilt roving permR as compared to dse old requirements for a special use permk. -
<br />NK~'U-. nl6ce specal use permits, zoning permits are issued by the Zoning Admirstretor widwut a public hearktg and as an
<br />admirtlstradve matter of right lithe objective criteria are met. Separate permits for site approval, dory end operation of
<br />sanitary landtlMs are subjed to the rigorous r+aiuiremersts of file tdortts CaralKSa Solid Waste Management Rules. Before one may even
<br />apply'bo the state for a sanitary [***20] land permit or permits, ~= aRPt must comply with state regutatioris, whkh provide
<br />t1~t the appllcerrt must fUtYtfsh a letfier from the unit of government having YOt1k1g jurlsdictiac- over the Site YvMch states that the
<br />proposal rrreeL4 ail of the requirements of file Eacal zoning ordinance. s
<br />FOOY'NOTES '
<br />i
<br />~ s The.mning permit issued by the Zanlmg Administrator that fs included In the record on appeal was Itlcisuied by Meckenburg i
<br />r County in Its $ppfication for a state lendltfl permit. The effect of the ruling by the trial judge was bo cancel the validity of the
<br />( zoning permit and,. aceordingiy, tO make Maddersburg fiaunty's 8pplicatiort for a state laitdfiil pertnR incomplete. The effect of the
<br />{ 7 July 1992 aplnion of the fRortlt CaroUna Court of Appeals is to make the County's application complete orrae agaht.
<br />i
<br />~'~ ett appAcant Is dissatlsfled wkh the Zoning Administrator's dedsion, the appUcant may appeal 6o tdre Board of Adjustment
<br />2]~Wa~unow address t3te important issue of the fadal mrsstitutirmailry of Sedfon 3124, entitled [**'e212 "Sarsitary tarrdfig," of the
<br />r'g County makng ordinance es K t8latas to a provision that allows the Charlotte-Meddenburg Zoning Administrator ZD
<br />approve the permit appficadons filed by the County.
<br />Pfaintifts contend that the MedderlbUrq County zoning ordinance violates the ma• p~.~ da~+e2 of the ~rJUg~ttt arrsgg_mnene or me
<br />t a+i~d Batas ConstlE~ won becaust the parson who determines whether the pennih in quest4on t9 Issued ~ biased in fiavar of the
<br />appAcant by reason of his employment. Ws disagree.
<br />~. tDUe process requlremarrts mandate ttrat certain quaswlud[cial zcntrrg dedsions comply with ail fair ti9ai standards when thetc are
<br />made. However, 51Kf1 mmpltanCB Is not segr,dred for administrative [*S07] mntng dedsions. tlye must, d-etetore, determine into
<br />wMch ~9or'Y the zoning decision ealkd tar here tabs.
<br />[*rtf312] ~+Zoring derdsians are typically charaderized as being in one ~ fbur differerrt categories - IegLlative, advisory, quasi-
<br />judlda4 and administrative. In this case, the question Is whether the issuance of a pemMt tar a landfill as a permitted use with
<br />prescribed mndiKons is property eharatterized as a quasi-judi4tal decision or as an administrative [***22] zoning declston.
<br />+u°rIn making quasf~irdidal dedaions, the dedsionmatcers must "investigate facts, or ascertain ttte existence of fads, hold hearings,
<br />weigfi evidence, and draw candusioor from them, as a basis for ttietr ofRcial adlon, and m exercise disvedon of a gta9dal nature.'
<br />6fadc~ taw Dkdona-Y 1245 (fait ed. 19SO). In the zoning context, titese quasi-judkiat dedsions involve the appikatSmr of mnin4
<br />policies to indtviduai ptuations, such as variances, spatial and mnr~i~rsal use permits, and appeals of administrative deterrrslnations.
<br />firrrr~ elf & Rg~Q~ Ce v ~ rd ~f ~ -'t n Ae N d.C4 2~~ ~.9 2 Q f La74I; ?Arrn."J V. ~tYl of Ad!/rM!- Z~J Po.G 478.
<br />~ttp:!/wv~y,lexis.c~rn~tesearch/retrieve4 zx>=854UcS35004351da7e1ceb95efi~.069x5&docnu... 316/2A08
<br />
|