BOA minutes 110915 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 1/11/2016 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 38 of 48 like to point out that there are 2 other similar venues in the area, so it is not a completely unique type of venue. There is also I think 1 a slight miscommunication about the parking spots, I think Tim might be able to, it’s 125 not 150 and that is actually a condition 2 of the SUP application and not something that is within the control of Kara. So these are all the things that I wanted to address. 3 And I would just like to say that, you know, Kara has worked diligently to make sure that her project meets all the requirements of 4 the Orange County UDO and she’s shown that her application complies with the general standards and conditions set forth for the 5 class B SUP, so she is entitled to this SUP. And operating as a wedding event and venue will maintain the public health and safety 6 and general welfare. We would argue that it enhances the value of the surrounding properties and that the location and character 7 is in harmony with the surrounding rural area. I mean, the application is also in compliance with section 2.7 and the specific 8 standards set forth in 5.7.4 so all of our submitted materials, extra testimony and presentation shows by competent, substantial 9 and material evidence that Kara’s application meets all the standards and we request that the Board approve her application for 10 the SUP. 11 12 Karen Barrows: Thank you Sharon. David? 13 14 David Rooks: And I know that, vice chairman, you already know all this but, you have 3 new members here. The actual, general 15 conditions from the ordinance that you will have to vote on…. 16 17 Michael Harvey: David is that an existing exhibit? 18 19 David Rooks: It is. 20 21 Michael Harvey: And these are the findings this Board will have to make after hearing the evidence…. 22 23 Michael Harvey: And this is OP4. For the record. 24 25 David Rooks: As you know, the burden is on the applicant to prove to you that it is met the version on all three of these. It is up to 26 the opponent only to show that they’ve missed the burden on only one of these. If we can show only that they’re failed to meet the 27 burden on any one of these that you must deny the permit. I would submit to you that they have failed to carry the burden on any 28 of them. And that all three of these general findings should be resolved in favor of the opponents. I’ll start with the first one, the use 29 will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare. That’s what all this testimony about noise and light and dirt 30 and disruption and drunk drivers was about. It goes directly to demoting the general public health and safety, of the general 31 community. The second finding is, and this is, you may remember a specific question I asked to John McCall, is that the use will 32 maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Now, in his testimony he didn’t say that, and when I asked him if he had 33 examined anything about whether the use would maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous properties, he said he didn’t 34 know. So, there is no evidence presented by the proponents that this project is built as proposed, would enhance or maintain the 35 value of these properties. For that reason, alone, they should lose. And then the final finding is C: the location Kara could use to 36 develop according to the plans to fit it would be in harmony with the area where it is to be located. Well, that’s all evidence that’s 37 come from the opponents, has been exactly the contrary of that. It’s absolutely inconsistent and absolutely out of harmony with the 38 area in which is it located. So, I would urge the Board to make a negative finding on all three of the general findings, that’s not 39 supported by substantial evidence. 40 41 Karen Barrows: Are we finished? We’ve heard testimony, closing arguments. 42 43 James Bryan: Yeah, I would do a final call to see if there’s anybody. 44 45 Michael Harvey: The staff has some things to go over with you. 46 47 Karen Barrows: Excellent. 48 49 Michael Harvey: I have a couple statements that I’m going to let Pat review the script with you. The script is on pages 80-86. The 50 first comment to remind the Board is that if you approve the SUP any condition that’s imposed runs with the property. What does 51 that mean? That means that if Kara sells that barn to me, I have to abide by the same conditions in perpetuity, until the SUP is 52 actually abandoned or otherwise modified by this body. There’s been a lot of talk tonight about conditions. It is my 53 recommendation to you all that before you begin deliberation if you all have any questions about conditions you ask the applicant 54