The non-expert opinions/evidences submitted by the persons most familiar with the neighborhood have legal basis for decision-making about a proposed future use of an area. So let County Council know your opinions & the evidence that you have!
Here is what the Chancery Court said on the Steen v. Sussex County Council of 1989:
"The plaintiff argued there is no record evidence in opposition to plaintiff's application, that county council based its decision on layman opinion and unsubstantiated fears, and that the offering of opinion only does not constitute probative or substantial evidence.
"The fact that opponents to Mr. Steen's application did not present expert testimony regarding the proposed use, however, is not controlling. Council could consider "the evidence submitted by the persons most familiar with the neighborhood insofar as it bears on the objective factors important to the future of the area affected by the proposed use." Anderson v. Peden, 284 Or. 313, 587 P.2d 59 (1978). See also Sears v. Levy Court of Kent County, Del.Ch., C.A. No. 465-K, Berger, V.C. (Sept. 15, 1986).
"Plaintiff has not made any showing from which the court could reasonably conclude that county council's denial of Mr. Steen's application was arbitrary and capricious; that is, not reasonably related to the public health, safety or welfare. The record before council was sufficient (if somewhat sparse) and council's findings of fact in denying the conditional-use permit indicate that it considered the appropriate factors in reaching its decision.
"Defendant is therefore entitled to dismissal of plaintiff's challenge to the denial of a conditional-use permit."
