County finalizes subdivision appeals

By Sam Harvey
Staff Reporter

Anyone feeling aggrieved by county Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission denial, or approval, of a subdivision will now have a right to appeal to county council (before taking the matter to Superior Court, if they still feel aggrieved).

It wasn’t easy. Council members didn’t agree on some of the fine points, and on others bucked Griffin’s recommendations. By the time all was said and done, Council Member George Cole no longer supported it.

“We need to have it, but we’ve fast-tracked it, weighted it against the aggrieved parties,” he said. “It could have been done better.”

But his was the sole opposing vote, and council adopted the new appeals process 4-1.

Council Member Vance Phillips had pushed for a 30-, 30- and 30-day limit, for (1) request for appeal, (2) submission of a transcript from the hearing before the P&Z and (3) council’s final ruling.

Griffin warned that it could be difficult for appellants, if they waited until the expiration of the first 30 day period and found themselves with just 30 days left to hire a court reporter to prepare the required transcript. He recommended 45 days.

The transcript is an important part of the new subdivision appeals process, because council will now make their ruling only on the existing record — no new evidence. County code was unclear on this point, and council found appellants commandeering a whole new public hearing more than once last year.

As Griffin pointed out at the time, the code didn’t specifically prevent applicants from presenting new evidence. But while they were clearing things up, he recommended the county also incorporate rights of appeal for all parties — not just the applicants — rights which exist in state law, but (until now) not in the county.

It’s not free — there’s a $500 fee, plus the cost of hiring the court reporter to prepare the transcripts. However, as Griffin pointed out, that’s probably a lot cheaper than taking the matter to court.

Back on the timeline, Phillips garnered 3-2 support (Cole and Council President Lynn Rogers opposed) for 30 days to appeal, 30 days to get a transcript. But Griffin’s recommendations swayed council on the third component — deadline for council action.

Phillips’ motion for 30 days failed 4-1, and Council Member Dale Dukes offered 60 days from receipt of the transcript instead (which passed unanimously).

Phillips recommended the new appeals process become effective only after the county cleared its backlog of subdivisions already in the pipeline — although Griffin and P&Z Director Lawrence Lank warned that might take a year.

“I would agree, if we were changing standards,” Cole argued. “But we’re just amending the appeals process to make everything fair, so I don’t see the problem.”

However, Phillips said that subjecting already applied-for (if not approved) projects to new laws would break with long-standing tradition, and possibly cost people money a lot of money. The motion passed 4-1 (Cole opposed).