BOA agenda 060815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 Mark Micol: Is there a reason why you didn’t? 2 3 Michael Harvey: Yes sir. I didn’t have permission from the property owner to go on the property but I felt that I had 4 sufficient evidence to issue the NOV as I did in 2013. 5 6 Jeff Schmitt: There have been comments made that I have sort of read in here that before a determination can be 7 made for a profit or not for profit, there has to be some level of physical facility on the property, that is the implication I 8 am getting, is that correct or not? Some structure, something that would indicate… 9 10 Michael Harvey: Let me go back very quickly to make the following statement. I am going to get the board to redirect 11 their attention to Attachment 3A beginning on page 53. That is my Notice of Violation. On page 54, staff had initiated 12 the dialogue with Mr. Klein in 2012 concerning shooting activities from his property and told him at that point in time 13 that if it was just him and his family shooting on his 34 acre property from our standpoint, that was not a violation [of 14 the UDO]. If he allowed the general public to come on the property, then that to us constituted the creation of a 15 [regulated] land use. We cited Mr. Klein because we felt we had antidotal evidence supporting the fact that non-16 family members were engaging in shooting activity on the property. 17 18 Jeff Schmitt: How many members are in Mr. Klein’s family? 19 20 Michael Harvey: At this point, I don’t know sir. Within our Notice of Violation we did request documentation from Mr. 21 Klein as to how many family members were engaged in shooting activities for the property and was determined, after 22 consultation with the county attorney, that I had overstepped my authority in asking for said information since it wasn’t 23 germane to any regulation of the UDO. With respect to the [operation of a shooting] facility, I will point you to my staff 24 response to the appeal and I will pick on Mr. Carter, only because he is convenient. If Mr. Carter was doing research 25 at his residence on a project or he was writing a paper, that work doesn’t constitute a research facility as defined by 26 the UDO. It is the development of amenities, structures, support structures that then morph the use of property into 27 something that would be regulated. 28 29 Jeff Schmitt: In other words, there does need to be some physical presence of something at some place for it to be 30 considered non-profit or profitable from the UDO perspective? 31 32 Michael Harvey: From the standpoint of the UDO, the definition of [recreation] facility, there has to be structural 33 elements creating this facility. There also needs to be, as we have articulated in our letter of rescinding the Notice of 34 Violation, there has to be evidence there is a non-profit operation going on on the property. I am going to call your 35 attention to page 50 of our staff response. No evidence of an established formal or defined recreation facility was 36 found to be evidence. Some of this evidence might include installation of structural elements (i.e. parking for patrons, 37 berms, booth, etc.) 38 39 Jeff Schmitt: You don’t know that Mr. Harvey since you never went down there. 40 41 Michael Harvey: Correct statement. Since we didn’t have that evidence, we were advised by the County Attorney’s 42 office that our original Notice of Violation lacked sufficiency. If we had sufficient evidence, we would not have 43 rescinded the NOV. 44 45 Larry Wright: I noticed in our packet that both the applicant and the county, it is opened looking or evidence, right? 46 Is the county still pursing, is this an open case? 47 48 39