BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 19 of 113 Alice Wilkman: Yes that is my concern. 1 2 Barry Katz: Well it wasn’t made plain that you would have potential liability for people looking to have some 3 interest in that pond. Perhaps getting into the pond, or whatever. Ok. 4 5 Karen Barrows: Thank you. 6 7 LeAnne Brown: And finally for this part, I’d ask you to bring the certified copy of the Minutes of the Board Of 8 Adjustment meeting. And I’d like to mark that a Exhibit 7 and ask that the Board receive the Exhibits and 9 testimony that we have marked. The reason I have marked the Minutes of the previous Board Of 10 Adjustment meeting was that this Board made a finding of fact that this use as proposed would not maintain 11 or enhance the value of contiguous property and I’d ask you to take judicial notice of your finding to that 12 effect as an acknowledgement that these contiguous and adjacent property owners are suffering a special 13 damage and so if that’s the evidence on standing I’m ready to move onto issues about the project, unless 14 there’s anything we need to do on standing. 15 16 Karen Barrows: Are we good? 17 18 James Bryan: The Board could make a determination. It could just see if there are any objections to it and 19 just move on. Whatever the Board’s pleasure is. 20 21 Barry Katz: Do you have any objection to standing? 22 23 Andy Petesch: The property owners’ would simply note their objection to standing that the testimony that 24 the Board heard was primarily inaudible the individuals, their animals; it wasn’t addressed to property 25 value. There was no certified state appraiser that presented evidence as to diminishing property values. 26 Now, the Supreme Court in Mangum vs. the City Of Raleigh Board of Adjustment did say that monetary 27 damages were not necessary however the Court of Appeals recently altered that determination in another 28 case in Raleigh and the Supreme Court denied cert review of that decision and so that landscape has 29 changed and I believe now that monetary damages are required. But, I simply would note that for the 30 record and that’s all. 31 32 Barry Katz: When we reviewed this property in the past were there any realtors that came out and made a 33 statement one way or the other regarding the value of the property and the impact that this would have on 34 their property? 35 36 James Bryan: Let me address just the legal questions. You can ask other people about the recollections of 37 it. 38 39 Barry Katz: Well it would be in the Minutes. I just don’t recall them. 40 41 James Bryan: So for standing you need special damages. Special damages isn’t perfectly clear but 42 proximity is part of it. The most common one is property value. The statutes aren’t clear that you need an 43 expert witness to establish property value that elite person cannot do that. I would advise the Board not to 44 rely on a previous hearing that the Board had if it is separate from this hearing. So the last one was a SUP 45 that had a lot more information to it. This is about a determination by staff based on just a building permit 46 without the additional information. 47 48