|
.4' 'PStmh ~ 7'! R ~t}ta ~ arvrisl nrP na...,~~ ssrle nn„r,1•tr
<br />N o„o u nt l t l
<br />itttenrsediabe sabegpry between a standard "permitted use' and a starsdatd "spade) use." Sasdtaty IandfiRs, along with quarries and
<br />demoifliWt iartdfdis, were made permRCed uses in all zoning distrEds subject to a sefies of'deveiopment standards." The language
<br />used to dest~lbe this hrtanrtedk~te sibeation -- •uses by right subject to spedaE requlrement~" and "uses under prescribed Conditions" -
<br />is not to be confused wilt a spedat use Permit and a conditional use pemslt. It is not tE-e'terms used by the ottiirrance to desaibe
<br />these permfls tllat has legal s[gnifisartoe; [r`ti*29] k is whet3ter the nahxe of the dttddon to be made is, in tact, quasFjudiciai or
<br />administrative.
<br />The 2 May 1989 amendment W Section 3124 of the l~leckknbuty County zonEt~ [**Sir4] oMinance eseabRshed stx cors~tiorss that
<br />must be ilret prior to issuance of a zoning permit for a sankary landt9fl. Several of theme are o6t1ectfve Standards that can reasonably
<br />be appped by the Zoning A~In}strabor, indudding the Yid required, ttner-ing, hours of aperatton, , and notion of
<br />adjolninp property owners. A cksser question is presentaed by Section 3224.2 regarding redamat~n re~.sistxnents. This includes an
<br />otsjecgve fhlding - whetfier the aniidpated fltttrre tsse proposed Dy the appflwnt ~ eonsisterst with fire county~s end tsse plan - as
<br />well as s d~ermination that the cost estlrrta0es for redamatbst era "re~abls.~"The Cotx-ty Board of Commissioners determined
<br />>hat this was an objadive fining Zl>at ootdd reasonably be mach by fire Zoning Admisslsq•aRor, with file assistance of the Director of
<br />p~P1ne if ne~ry. ~ Thvs, it was rat subjected to the evidentiary hearing requiremerk imposed for spedai use Petmk
<br />'FOOTNOTES .~~ .. -. ....__ .__._._.. _._ _.. .,.___. _...._.- _ _ ....
<br />r ~zTFA zotttng ortlinatu3e Is presstmed va4d, and the courts will defer m the govemtng boarcl's laglstative judgment unless K is
<br />dearly unreasonable or an abuse of dis»rratlon. • ~,~.~~.
<br />~ ?_14 N_[ 3 ~9T SG.}. 7061 a~Eef dISmJS3ad, .~~,s..~.(~9~1.5~se a180 tag of Eta Ya lg~ag~Y r ~3~S~o
<br />[#**$g] [3] Having debat7rtined that tins Is, in fact, an adminlstYatlve zoning derision that the Zan#is~ Adnrintstrator could properly
<br />rrtake, ['+&lk] we now address the question of whether an irnperrntssible cortRizt of interest is tabled because the applicant far the
<br />permit Is Meddanburg County. Sea gersaratty, David yN. chuens. Con/!!ds of Interrst -n caod-tire nla,ragernenr ~FO~ (i9so).
<br />At the outset„ it ~ important to note that the applicant ht this case is Medkenburg County atone, and the zoning administrator is the
<br />Ghaf'TOtoe-Madcienburg Zoning Administrator and as such h invo{ved wkh admtnistrdgon of zoning for Mecklenburg County and six
<br />mutddpatltleF within t{te'county,
<br />*Due prows resquls'as an hnpasdia{ dtu~}gnmaker. Yltith IegistaWe zotang dedslons, an etecbed offfdai wtlh a dkect and
<br />substantial flnartt#ai interest in a aning derision may not •part{tipate In malting that derision. M.C.C.~,,S by t.S~A ee (I991j,164A-75
<br />(1487). ~ YVhare tilers is a speclfle, substangal, and readfly identifiable finandai impact on a memberr, nonpartidpapon.is regesrexi.
<br />Additlonai considarafions beyond theses fhtangal Irsterests requhe nonpactidpatton in quasE Judicial zoning daebiorts. I"#'x'31] A
<br />fixesd opinion that is not suse~stible to change rosy wetE eonstltute impermisslbie bias, as wifl undisdos~ ar parse commun(catksn or a
<br />close familial or business reladvnshlD ~ an applicant. ~+ v ^~ Qt'td ~rtllra, ~?SzN.~.. ~. ~4~ ~..~~~ ~.~(3°~?: Le.UrhBtt
<br />v. N C. Sthao/ of lire Alts, 80 N.r__ Ann. 3~, 342 5.E.2d Qi4. dEs~ rEV. dented, '{1~ N 07 $ S.E.2d f362 fib},
<br />FOOTNOTES ..... .. .. ... .. .._...... .......I
<br />S In K~nt-a9 v St~arei, t7R ti.G 461. 101 S_E_ i5 (14191. a case imioWtng a pay raise for themselves Voted Ors by a rAy courxtl, t
<br />j rite Court held, ~s"t"fhe public pocky of the State, found in the staltr}brs and judkttal deci~ons, has been pronounced against
<br />~ permittMsg one to sk in judgmatC oil his own cause, or to act on a trsauer affecting the pubic when he has a daect peamiary
<br />(lnterast, and this is a prindpie of the cortunon law which has existed for hundrttds of years.' Id_ at 4 , 101 s.>= at ? 6: ses
<br />:9w1e-aaY bavid W. , s.:on/1lds oflttten?St in land-(fse Menagetnent Daatsio»s (149Cj.
<br />....__. __..t..... ....._......._. ... ~_.._ .. _ _.._. ..._.~_. .._..Y._... ...,_....__.__. .. __..._.........._.. ......
<br />[**'~32] These oonsiderat{orw are {esS Ukaely to Dome into play wher- administrative zoning dedsksna are made strxe these Involve
<br />the detarmltation of objectlva !$dB without an element of disrJ'etton. Further, fire zoning esnabNrsg statutrs provide for a de now
<br />hearing before the board of adjustmerd If acs applicant or person aQgriaved oonte5ts "any order, requlremers~ dedsian, ~
<br />determination made by an adminstrative ofiidel' charged wkh zoning tmpterstentation. p1.Gta-S. $g s~s~a-345th). j~~~?tnl. ~
<br />TAbsant a dwwing ~ undue ~,*Si2l influ~nce,'the [*w815t~ fact that an appttcatipn is made by an enipto}Fing unit aF
<br />government does not M and of itself mrrsiftvte lmpermiss{bie bias for admiNstrative caning dedsions.
<br />f'OOTNOTES
<br />s Examples of conduct that otita' courts have held to be undue influence )n tiuasi~dldal zoning detemrNsations lnc{ude: ~.iC, i
<br />S.Yr~~r, 7~ F=~.ron. 92Z(n.C. 19641 (improper for high govermnant aENdais to oDntact subordinate board rnesnbers Ixior to
<br />dedsk-n); a r~ey,11.1'sk'h Aplt~..~3Fi1..'-¢e ro_W_~~+ aag 14asal (improper for goverrdr~ board srrember to appear before .
<br />zoning board ifsey appo&tt); i+bt.~ v. Aeard nFA.-~+uslrrreAt. a? N i 3zs 20D a2d 6n~ tt9sa~ (improper for mayor who appointed i
<br />board ct adjtsstmertt to appear before board as atxorrsey). axsz~A key dement in th[s debzsmination is fire degree of disrnegon .
<br />present In the deidtdon, which is also a key factor in tits zharadgrtratlon of a derision as qudsiyudidai or administrative. °the
<br />g the range of discrefion in exercising that autlarity, the 9r~ter must be the concern that the person exe:rdskt9 k be free of
<br />~k~tirtg personal krtesrestt:...." ~Y v. Beard oF~c~te+~t of MorerlAfi7o 2±3 N? ,sj~t~ f 09 C,1,~. ~iR a_7.d spa. s37
<br />[***397 This Coutt has previously held that:
<br />K^a~fhen a stabste, or ordinestoe, provides tltat a type of structure may not be•eretlad in a spesc~fed area, exoeptthat
<br />such strutxstre may be eredsd therein when certain contBtiorss exist, one her a rlgltt, under the statute or ardttanoe, to
<br />erect such structure upon a showing that'tht speeified'eondldans do exist, The legist~ive body may torsfer upon an
<br />adrNstlstrative officer, or board, the auttrottty ip determslrue whettrer the specified otmdltlorrs do, in fact. exist and may .
<br />
<br />~http://www.le7cils.cnnolresearc~ll~lrefrieve? xn=8S4Qc535U04351da7elceb95efa069a5&docnu... 3!6!200$
<br />
|