BOA minutes 110915 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 1/11/2016 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 45 of 48 think, on the weekends. Maybe not so much during the week but certainly during the weekend. So I would have a concern as it 1 relates to that. 2 3 James Bryan: If I may, for my clarification, the Board is going to take a Board vote so you don’t have to individually agree with 4 everything, as long as the Board does. But for Matt, am I understanding you’re in agreement with the previous statements about 5 the… you mentioned increased traffic, but Barry mentioned a particular clientele that is not a repeat customer that perhaps, a 6 school Monday through Friday, same people, and church every Sunday but it’s the same people every Sunday, would you agree 7 with that concern? 8 9 Matt Hughes: Yes. 10 11 Karen Barrows: Is there any further discussion on this point or do we feel ready to entertain a motion? 12 13 MOTION made by Barry Katz that the applicant has not met the standard of 5.3.2 a. to a. based on our discussion. 14 Susan Halkiotis seconded. 15 VOTE: Unanimous 16 17 Karen Barrows: Yes. And we’re up to section 5.3.2 a to b. 18 Barry Katz: This is property values. 19 20 Susan Halkiotis: I had concerns about the sheets that we were given, the data that was collected from other similar venues, with 21 regard to sales and the 2-mile range was of concern. But, the other thing, and perhaps I’m the ignorant one here, but the other 22 concern that I had was I didn’t know the age or how long those venues had been in place. So one might argue that if at some point 23 they may have affected property values. You know, you don’t know if they’re all older than 2 years, I think that was the date range, 24 you’d expect that that’s not oranges and oranges when you’re introducing a new venue into a rural community. So, I 25 questioned the appropriateness of that data being introduced to prove that property values would be maintained or enhanced. I 26 don’t think that they’ll be enhanced and I suppose that it’s like any other situation when you’re speaking in general terms about 27 property values of contiguous property or 2 miles, whatever it is. If you know of one piece of property that’s not going to be 28 maintained or enhanced, then the rule is shattered. And I don’t believe that anyone living across the road from the Morrow Mill 29 Road entrance is going to have their property value maintained or enhanced. And I haven’t seen this property, I’ve only seen the 30 evidence that we’ve been presented with but, I have seen houses that have had buffers built to try to protect from headlights 31 shining directly into the home and that’s really hard to do in an attractive way, or in a way that would enhance the property. Which 32 is why I asked that question. So, that’s the one piece of property I’m looking at when I consider this question. 33 34 Barry Katz: Well, the other three properties, I think there were three that came off the other entrances. Same issue. Maybe not as 35 dramatic because of the level of traffic but there could be some issue there. But, Mr. McCall was very competent guy and he 36 gave honest testimony, he basically said you know, within 2 miles he had no documentation for properties adjacent so, there is no 37 evidence. This was the point, that he knew there was no evidence, he gave what he could give and that would be equivocal, the 38 evidence he gave. But, it’s not pertinent to this, it would have taken a miracle for him to find it comparable. And he didn’t. 39 40 Karen Barrows: There was no evidence of the value of the contiguous property and he admitted that… Matt? What are you 41 thinking? 42 43 Matt Hughes: Well I certainly understand in that point, I know it’s been raised before, not being able to find something that’s 44 comparable. I guess, in my mind, I think you could go either way. Ok so, there’s no evidence that it has decreased property value, 45 there’s not evidence that it’s been maintained or enhanced. I think someone could go either way in saying this use is ok and I think 46 you could go the other way in saying that it’s not. And, I’m not comfortable to borrow a phrase of passing something and we’ll find 47 out what happens. That doesn’t jive with me; pass it and we’ll find out what’s in it. So, I’m not entirely comfortable saying that these 48 folks’ property values will be maintained at the worst and enhanced at best. 49 50 Barry Katz: These property values would have to disclose the fact that they were at the location of where they are and what the 51 ingress and egress would be as a material factor in value of the house when someone wants to purchase it. 52 53 James Bryan: I would probably urge towards not to consider that fact. You’ve got enough facts that you’ve mentioned and that’s 54