BOA agenda 121216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

counting on that but really it is a concern. Given where the driveway is the pond, I think, is going to be 1 visible and attractive to people that want to get out and away from the heat. 2 3 LeAnne Brown: And just for the record a water point is when a property owner allows a fire department to 4 put in a stand pipe to allow them to fill pump trucks to fight fires in a neighborhood. 5 6 Alice Wilkman: That’s correct. 7 8 LeAnne Brown: I have no other questions of Ms. Wilkman. 9 10 Barry Katz: I have a question. Just regarding… You have a pond over there right? And that’s what we’re 11 talking about? I see it. So you’re concern is that people would come onto your property and perhaps… 12 13 Alice Wilkman: Fall in and drown. 14 15 Barry Katz: And you would be exposed to some liability. 16 17 Alice Wilkman: Yes that is my concern. 18 19 Barry Katz: Well it wasn’t made plain that you would have potential liability for people looking to have some 20 interest in that pond. Perhaps getting into the pond, or whatever. Ok. 21 22 Karen Barrows: Thank you. 23 24 LeAnne Brown: And finally for this part, I’d ask you to bring the certified copy of the Minutes of the Board Of 25 Adjustment meeting. And I’d like to mark that a Exhibit 7 and ask that the Board receive the Exhibits and 26 testimony that we have marked. The reason I have marked the Minutes of the previous Board Of 27 Adjustment meeting was that this Board made a finding of fact that this use as proposed would not maintain 28 or enhance the value of contiguous property and I’d ask you to take judicial notice of your finding to that 29 effect as an acknowledgement that these contiguous and adjacent property owners are suffering a special 30 damage and so if that’s the evidence on standing I’m ready to move onto issues about the project, unless 31 there’s anything we need to do on standing. 32 33 Karen Barrows: Are we good? 34 35 James Bryan: The Board could make a determination. It could just see if there are any objections to it and 36 just move on. Whatever the Board’s pleasure is. 37 38 Barry Katz: Do you have any objection to standing? 39 40 Andy Petesch: The property owners’ would simply note their objection to standing that the testimony that 41 the Board heard was primarily inaudible the individuals, their animals; it wasn’t addressed to property 42 value. There was no certified state appraiser that presented evidence as to diminishing property values. 43 Now, the Supreme Court in Mangum vs. the City Of Raleigh Board of Adjustment did say that monetary 44 damages were not necessary however the Court of Appeals recently altered that determination in another 45 case in Raleigh and the Supreme Court denied cert review of that decision and so that landscape has 46 changed and I believe now that monetary damages are required. But, I simply would note that for the 47 record and that’s all. 48 21