The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutP-0140 - Special Use Permit Process 09-30-1985POLICY FOR INSERTION INTO THE POLICY MANUAL i MEETING DATE: September 30, 1985 NUMBER: P:0140 EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 1985 REVISIONS: POLICY: SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS Geoffrey Gledhill informed the Board members that the Special Use Permit process is not generally a public process. The rule is that a public hearing is held for the purpose of hearing evidence as to whether or not the conditions that are required by the Ordinance are met. As a general rule, the Board has open meetings where people are allowed to speak whenever they want. Excluding people from speaking on Special Use Permits is new and required by law. Once a public hearing on a Special Use Permit is closed, the evidence presented at the public hearing is the only evidence that can be considered by the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners. there 3s a surplus of deputies at budget time, the staffing needs would be evaluated at that time. Sheriff Pendergrass wised there is rro danger of overbite because of the turnpver within the department. 1Kotiort was made by Conadssioner Marshall, senortded by Caamissioner Carey to amend the 1985-86 budget as follawaa AppropriatioJrSheriff ~ 60,960 Santos-'t'ransfer frcn Capital Projects Furl ~ 11,500 Source-Transfer from DWI Safe Roads Act S 26,500 Source-Contingency $ 22,960 VOTE ~. - 30 . sf5` T _ ~r.ir l/~ej~ MEl~ffit P~J!t'Ft~t1AKE Pjj' P[ffisTC YL~1Rtlk~6 ~i SPPCTAr. LSf~ Oonmissicner MaxShall requested that newly appointed members be added to the policy. She questioned how a regtirement that an absent Board maaber review all documentary evidence presented and hear all tmti.oronial evidence by listening to the tapes of the Public Bearing could be verified. Catutty Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill indicated that at the time the requirement has beErt met, it could be so doamrertted in the minutes. 8e noted that it is each Board mmbers duty to vote cn raeryPhitrg that comes before the Board in which they don't have a financial interest. The point is that when yet are considering matters for which evid~x:e is taken and sitting in a quasi-judicial cape-city. yen need to kr~aw whnt the evit3enoe is before yvu can take part in the decisiars. 7# you mass part of .the public hearing then it beoame~s a Board policy to ~clude you fsozn voting or establish. a policy by which you become familiar with the item. Notion wee made by Commissioner Carey. seconded by Camnissicner Marshal to adopt the reoo~oorendatioti of the Ooutrty Attorney to 'authorize the Board member to vote oa such an issue with the requirement that the absent Board member review all of the doc~nroentary evidence primed and freer all of the tee*; M+~+; ~ ~ evidence by listening to the tapes of the Public se~arirrg" net the official policy in situations where a member of the Board does net attend a public heariryy. W-PEt iA+PlBID~S. 8 _ ~-1~,_s-Te'a'! SC~oOt. zx~t (Public Hearing to receive the Racaamerdatian from the Planning Board.) Planner Susan Smith presented for decision a request for a Class A bYaecial nee Permit for the snort-residential use of the historic Birgtramo School submitted to public hearing on August Z6, 1985. The Planning Board reooamends approval with the attachmestt of twelve (12) conditions. TfiB PUBi,TC HEE~RING ~3 DBG[,ARBa C[r06t~. lotion was made by Caanissioner Marshall, aeoonded by Ooomtssiorrer Carry that a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, and that the nee caaplies with all required regulations a~ud standards, that the application should be approved because it is fwirrd that the use will proaote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where propoeaed and developed and operated according to the plan as sutmitteds the use will maintain or enhancQ the value of contiguous propertyt and the use is in oampliance with the general plans for the physical deaelopmExtt of the County as enbodied in theme regulations or in the Coq~rehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the orange County Hoard of CaBaiissiorters and evidenced by the findinges of fact as set forth in Article 8 for SpECial Uses. Attactred to the approval are the following conditions: 1. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall porn with Orange le~ttery~af credit in an amoantle equal to~they oo~st ~ all public imprav~nt-s plus 108. Tire amcunt shall be determined on the basis of fully eaceatted construction contracts or certification os~ aRANG$ covNTz BOARD CF CaIQISSIONERS Aotion Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date; SCPTEMBER 30, 1985 SUBJECT; BOARD MEMBER ATTENDANCE AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS DEPARTMENT; COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING; ~(es ~LNo ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGERS CFFICB, X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: COUNTY ATTORNEY LE?TER DAT® Hillsborough -732-8181 SEPTEMBER 25, 1985 Chapel Hill -968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE; To consider adopting a poiioy or procedure to matters whioh Done before the Board in its quasi-judicial capacity when one or more Board members is absent during the presentation of evidence on the matter. NEED: September 25, 1985 letter of County Attorney is attached. IMPACT: RDCOI~MENDATION(S) As the Board decides. os~ COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ. DICKERSOY, IiERNHOl.Z. C7LEDHII.I. sc $1-RGRAVE AT'IOR1Y$YS AT LAW I10 CHUR7'ON SIREET HtU580ROUGH. AI. C. 272~a 918-r~2-ash 919842-8000 cHAri:t H{u omcE SUITE ZO, 1iWSUN 8{i{LD{80 1~7 E. 7•RANI{Lix ST1[E8T C{{APCL H{11,N.C.97014 91Y-92Y-7L9 ALON20 8• COLB{I/W. JR. sTLVEN A. DERNNOLi DONALD R. D{CXBRSO.V RoctR a. arRxHOu uEOFFREY 8.GL8DN{LL DouGLAs HwI;ORwvE xARTr.{ v. seANaoLz NH:t{ARD J. SN{DBR.JR• JANS c. e. ussovo~t O. NICHOLAS H8R{tAN LYNN e..wDRews W CO.M.M BONi:CR D• SAWYCR (wog-wrtl September 25, 1985 Donald Willhoit, Chair !loses Carey Ben Lloyd Skirl Marshall Norman Walker Orange County Board 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North of Commissioners Carolina 27278 Re: Board member absences during special use permit public hearing Dear Board Members: A person interested in the outcome of an application for a Class A Special Use Permit has raised the question of the Board's policy/procedure when a Board member is absent from the public hearing or any portion of the public hearing during which evidence is presented for and against the application. This issue has not been addressed by the Board. It should be addressed and a procedure adopted. The pertinent law is as follows: I. N.C. Gen. Stet. Section 153A-340 says, in pertinent part: "when issuing or denying special use permits..., ,the board of commissioners shall follow the procedures for boards of adjustment except that no vote greater than a majority vote shall be regl;ired for the board of commissioners to issue such permits...." 2. Section 2.1.3 of the Ordinance says, in pertinent p. Commissioners when considering approval of Special uses, sits capacity and shall be bound by the Board of Adjustment acting orange County Zoning irt: "The Board of applications for in a quasi-judicial the same requirements as on similar matters." 3. The Board of Adjustment "requirements" are contained in N.C. Gen. Stet. Section 153A-345 and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.3. Neither the statute nor the ordinance section prescribe a rule governing the absence of board members from public hearings on special use permit applications. os~ 9oard of Commissioners Page Two September 25, 1985 4. The court decisions in North Carolina, generally do not require every member of a board or agency sitting in a quasi-judicial (fact-finding, law concluding and decision making) capacity to attend every meeting of the board or agency during which evidence is received by the board or agency. However, where a board member does participate in the decision of the board. there is a very clear directive that the board member know the evidence presented. Sased.on the foregoing, it is my opinion that tha eoard can establish one of two policies to address this issue. They are: 1. exclude a board member who has not attended a public hearing during which evidence has been presented from participating in the dQCision before the Board; or 2. authorize the board member to vote on such an issue with the requirement that the absent board member review all of the documentary evidence presented and hear all of the testimonial evidence by listening to the tapes of the public hearing. It is my recommendation that the latter alternative be chosen in order to minimize the risk that no decision can be made because of a tie vote and because a decision requires a majority of the members of the Soard, regardless of the numbQr actually voting. By xerox copy of this letter I am requesting Mr. Thompson to place the following action-item on the Board's September 30, 1985 agenda: -- Establish eoard policy for deciding matters which come before the Board in its quasi-judicial capacity when one or more Board member is absent during the presentation of evidence on the matter. Very truly yours, e Gledhill GEG/lag xc: Marvin Collins Ken Thompson \,