My view on Mayor Ireton's Legislative Package Part 4

This the second most controversial piece of legislation.  

My whole issue with these code violations is the fact that an issuance of the violation acts as a conviction.  So that when you go for an appeal you have essentially already been convicted and are considered guilty.  You must now prove your innocence as the burden of proof is on you. 

I am not for this legislation, as I believe all burden of proof must be on the government or the one accusing you.  I also believe all should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Below the underlined sentences is the language being added.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALISBURY TO AMEND CHAPTER 17.12 TO CHANGE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PROCEDURES FOR APPEALS RELATED TO NONCONFORMING USES.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council recognize that a fundamental principle of zoning under Maryland law is to reduce nonconformance;

WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council are concerned that a shortage of safe, code compliant, low and moderate income housing exists in the City of Salisbury and that the past conversions of single-family residences to multifamily residential use have provided and continue to provide, in many cases, unsafe and non-code compliant low and moderate income dwelling units in the City, which pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the Citizens of Salisbury;

WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council recognize that nonconforming use enforcement efforts are being undermined by the practical effect of certain provisions of the hearing procedures set forth in the Salisbury Municipal Code for the Board of Zoning Appeals: specifically, the presentation of affidavits, which often cover periods of time in excess of fifty years, in lieu of live testimony and the desire of the board to question witnesses regarding discrepancies that appear in the affidavits and evidence presented.

WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council have determined that an applicant or appellant should have to meet a more demanding burden of proof when seeking to have a nonconforming use declared lawful because a fundamental principle of zoning law is to reduce nonconformance.

WHEREAS, the purpose of these amendments is to promote the goal of returning nonconformance to conformance by ending unlawful nonconforming uses, establishing uniform standards and criteria for remedying the problem of unlawful and, in some cases, lawful conversions from single-family to multifamily residential uses and, in so doing, incorporate the concepts of equity necessary to protect those who should be deemed faultless. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the rights of any person under the provisions of the Zoning Code.

17.12.120 Hearings and meetings—Actions on similar application—Time Limit
A. The board shall fix a reasonable time and place for the public hearing of an application, appeal or other matter, give public notice thereof, as well as due notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same within a reasonable time. All meetings of the board shall be open to the public.

1. Hearings other than Nonconforming Uses. At the hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney and testify as to any material facts. The burden of proof and persuasion on all questions of fact, which are to be determined by the board by a preponderance of the evidence, shall be on the applicant or appealing party.
2. Hearings on Nonconforming Uses. At the hearing, a party shall appear and may be represented by an attorney. A person offering testimony shall appear and testify in person. The burden of proof and persuasion on all questions of fact, which are to be determined by the board by clear and convincing evidence, shall be on the applicant or appealing party.