BOA agenda 121216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

LeAnne Brown: I have no for the questions. Thank you. 1 2 Karen Barrows: So I think we're up to closing arguments. 3 4 LeAnne Brown: I did prepare findings of fact for you to consider and look through as I make my argument. I 5 was handicapped slightly by the fact that we were not as through as I thought we were when we left last 6 time so I don't obviously have findings of fact related to what happened tonight. But I want to go ahead and 7 hand it up to you so that you have something to look at as I'm talking to you. I also want to pass out to each 8 of you a notebook. This is an index of authorities. These are not exhibits. These are the legal authorities I 9 am going to talk about. And I want you to have a copy so that you can look at it if you want to while I'm 10 talking to you about it. And if the Board doesn't mind I can see better if I sit down and try to talk to you from 11 a seated position. The findings of fact that I have prepared and proposed are largely chronological. My 12 argument will not be totally chronological so bear with me on that please. The first thing I need to talk about 13 to you is one of the questions on your sheet that you'll be answering tonight. Whether the appellants have 14 demonstrated standing to proceed in this matter. With regard to standing we had a short discussion about it 15 last time. Does the Board believe it's decided on standing or do you need to hear me on standing? 16 17 Karen Barrows: inaudible 18 19 LeAnne Brown: If you have decided you have you don't need to hear me argue about why you're right so I'll 20 move on. The first thing I want to talk to you about is the document is the doctrine of estoppel. Included in 21 the materials I’ve handed to you is an unpublished opinion in a recent case, as recent as 2010. It's a case 22 called Marsh B Newman County and I provided it to you because I think it has an interesting parallel to this 23 case. In the Marsh case the landowner had been before the Board of adjustment with regard to a rodeo 24 operation that he wished to operate. He had a permit, it was revoked, he appealed, and the Board of 25 Adjustment upheld revocation. He did not choose to appeal and the court in looking at that said “you're 26 estop from bringing that back. You've already exercised your legal rights, you've lost, and you’re done”. 27 That's really the case that I think you have before you tonight and I first want you to think about this from a 28 pure estoppel point of view. Do you consider, and remember well, a SUP application for a design that looks 29 like, walks like, talks like, acts like the exact application for which a building permit it was granted? The 30 findings of fact set forth the information that's in your record that shows that the applications are virtually 31 identical with some change of wording on them. They are in fact the same plan with a few changes of 32 wording made on them. You will know that the disturbed area remains 85,000 square feet throughout. You 33 will note that the number of parking space is required for the wedding event venue remains the same for 34 125 to 150 people. The building actually grew a little bit between the SUP that you denied and the final 35 plans because I think the Loft got a little bit bigger. But basically what was ultimately granted a building 36 permit is ultimately the same set of plans that you reviewed and that you denied a SUP. Under the Orange 37 County UDO there is a provision of the UDO that prohibits you from filing an application for the same or 38 similar project for at least one year after denial. What happened here is that you denied this project and 39 within a couple of months you had a building permit application back before the county that Mr. Harvey 40 reviewed and still felt required a special use permit in January. Undeterred you have a property owner that 41 goes on forward with permits, with NCDOT and applying and then comes back and changes a couple more 42 words, adds some information which purports that the wedding venue is no longer the chief purpose of the 43 very design we looked at for wedding venue, and moves forward. I believe under the holding in the Marsh 44 case in the spirit of the Marsh case and under the provisions of 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 of the UDO this property 45 owner is estopped from proceeding with this building within the application. She went through the special 46 use permit process and she was denied. When I filed the original appeal what I said to you in the appeal 47 was that she did not appeal your decision. I was wrong. I didn't know she did because Orange County 48 89