BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 85 of 113 Michael Harvey: No. I will read the email for the record as it appears on page 76. “Ms. Brown, as an update 1 to the barn project on Morrow Mill Road I would like to offer the following: As you may already be aware the 2 applicant has filed a building permit application proposing Construction of an agricultural structure (i.e. A 3 barn) along with an affidavit indicating the structure will be used for agricultural purposes exempt from 4 zoning. As a result from the submitted documentation no zoning approval of the project was required for a 5 building permit. Future zoning enforcement will be dependent upon actual use of the property and whether 6 it is consistent with the County's UDO or state statutory exemptions. The permit itself, as detailed on SPG 7 exhibit 22, was issued on the 2nd of June 2016”. We were informing Miss Brown of the planning 8 departments review of the project and this statement was derived after consultation with the County 9 Attorney's Office on whether or not there was zoning Authority as defined by the statute to review a zoning 10 component of the project as submitted with CB16-00020 of the building permit application. 11 12 Andy Petesch: Okay thank you very much. 13 14 LeAnne Brown: I have no for the questions. Thank you. 15 16 Karen Barrows: So I think we're up to closing arguments. 17 18 LeAnne Brown: I did prepare findings of fact for you to consider and look through as I make my argument. I 19 was handicapped slightly by the fact that we were not as through as I thought we were when we left last 20 time so I don't obviously have findings of fact related to what happened tonight. But I want to go ahead and 21 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 22 of you a notebook. This is an index of authorities. These are not exhibits. These are the legal authorities I 23 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 24 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 25 a seated position. The findings of fact that I have prepared and proposed are largely chronological. My 26 argument will not be totally chronological so bear with me on that please. The first thing I need to talk about 27 to you is one of the questions on your sheet that you'll be answering tonight. Whether the appellants have 28 demonstrated standing to proceed in this matter. With regard to standing we had a short discussion about it 29 last time. Does the Board believe it's decided on standing or do you need to hear me on standing? 30 31 Karen Barrows: inaudible 32 33 LeAnne Brown: If you have decided you have you don't need to hear me argue about why you're right so I'll 34 move on. The first thing I want to talk to you about is the document is the doctrine of estoppel. Included in 35 the materials I’ve handed to you is an unpublished opinion in a recent case, as recent as 2010. It's a case 36 called Marsh B Newman County and I provided it to you because I think it has an interesting parallel to this 37 case. In the Marsh case the landowner had been before the Board of adjustment with regard to a rodeo 38 operation that he wished to operate. He had a permit, it was revoked, he appealed, and the Board of 39 Adjustment upheld revocation. He did not choose to appeal and the court in looking at that said “you're 40 estop from bringing that back. You've already exercised your legal rights, you've lost, and you’re done”. 41 That's really the case that I think you have before you tonight and I first want you to think about this from a 42 pure estoppel point of view. Do you consider, and remember well, a SUP application for a design that looks 43 like, walks like, talks like, acts like the exact application for which a building permit it was granted? The 44 findings of fact set forth the information that's in your record that shows that the applications are virtually 45 identical with some change of wording on them. They are in fact the same plan with a few changes of 46 wording made on them. You will know that the disturbed area remains 85,000 square feet throughout. You 47 will note that the number of parking space is required for the wedding event venue remains the same for 48 125 to 150 people. The building actually grew a little bit between the SUP that you denied and the final 49