Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />not a <br /> <br /> <br />on <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />crematonum. <br /> <br /> <br />s <br /> <br /> <br />was <br /> <br />some <br /> <br />to <br /> <br />an <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />43 <br /> <br /> <br />a <br /> <br /> <br />statute, <br /> <br /> <br />burden on <br /> <br />applicant. Moreover, it <br /> <br />create a time-consuming and expen- <br /> <br />sive burden <br /> <br />every municipality with respect to <br /> <br />conditional use applied <br /> <br />for-good or bad. Applicant wished to incinerate human remains in a residential <br /> <br />neighborhood, and it had a responsibility to <br /> <br />that such an activity would not <br /> <br />harm public health, safety and <br /> <br /> <br />Its attempt to shift this burden to the city <br /> <br />betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of position in this matter. <br /> <br />This question was squarely addressed by the North Carolina Court <br /> <br /> <br />peals in Butler v. Ci(v Council of Clinton. 44 As in this case, the landowner had re- <br /> <br />quested a conditional use permit for a crematorium in a residential neighborhood, <br /> <br /> <br />..15 <br /> <br />court <br /> <br /> <br />to <br /> <br />produce uncontroverted evidence to ensure that the proposed <br /> <br />42 Roseville City Zonimr Ordinance Q 1013.01.0. <br />~ '" . '-- '- <br />~.' Appelant's brief, 11. <br />44 BUller v. Citv Council OrCliillOl1. 1 N.C. App. 68 (2003), <br />.15 Jd. at 68. <br /> <br />II <br />