|
Approved 1/11/2016
<br />
<br />OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 47 of 48
<br />
<br />then…. 1
<br /> 2 BarryKatz: Well you know, again, it’s two parts. There’s two phrases. That first phrase which has been submitted; be in harmony 3
<br />with the area in which it is to be located, rather than just, again, noticing compliant. The area in which it’s going to be located, what 4
<br />the heart of this whole thing is, I think it’s a great idea to have an event space, whether we need another one in this area is 5
<br />something for other people to decide. But locating it in this area creates some turmoil and risk for this community that it wouldn’t 6
<br />for every community but it does for theirs. 7
<br /> 8
<br />James Bryan: If I may… I heard about, Karen, you saying it’s allowable use and just to clarify it’s not permitted by right, it’s 9
<br />permitted based upon the SUP which is a rebuttal presumption so, they carry the burden... And also, one thing we have not 10
<br />spoken about, I haven’t heard, is the potential for conditions. Now, the applicant has offered some but if the Board can think of any 11
<br />conditions so, for instance, sound; I think it’d be unreasonable hearing about that Pine Bluff material if you would say you must 12
<br />contain all sound and if I hear you that’s not good, because that eliminates all development. So it has to be some level that you 13
<br />allow. And then, you can put conditions so if you believe that there may not have been evidence to support any condition like this 14
<br />but you might ask the applicant or the opponents what decibel level is allowable, let’s say 50 is allowable, that could be a condition 15
<br />that at your borders it cannot pass 50 decibel level. Same thing for if it’s weekly events, discontinuity, stuff like that- you could say 16
<br />nothing after 8pm, nothing this or that. So, something to consider. 17
<br /> 18 Barry Katz: But you’re asking a group of perhaps 250 people to come to an event and comply their partying, they’re going to 19
<br />comply with everything, they’re going to stay within doors, they’re not going to go outside, they’re not going to…. And different 20
<br />people each time. What are you going to do after they do it, shush them? 21
<br /> 22
<br />James Bryan: So, it’s a good question. 23
<br /> 24 Barry Katz: You know, it’s a hypothetical. This is the whole thing. On paper this looks great. 25
<br /> 26
<br />James Bryan: Right, and that’s what you have to consider though is on paper. There is a concern about this particular applicant vs. 27
<br />when they sell it to the next person. What you have to consider is not the applicant at all, and only on paper, because that’s what’s 28
<br />going to be enforced. It’s sort of the same thing, do you think it’s attainable, that’s not the question. The question is if attained 29
<br />would it comply within the rules, and what happens is you’ve got a parcel, you’ve got a use that has a SUP, if granted, and then 30
<br />they have to comply with it. So, if they’ve got, let’s say a buffer, you have to plant these trees, if those trees get uprooted the next 31
<br />week, the planning staff, the zoning administrator issues what they call a notice of violation. You are not in compliance with this 32
<br />and then, he could pull the permit and you’re not allowed that use any more so, that sort of addresses that concern. 33
<br /> 34
<br />Karen Barrows: That’s given somebody goes around and sees the trees been uprooted and does something about it. That’s 35
<br />problematic as well. But yeah, got your point. 36
<br /> 37
<br />Barry Katz: I can’t come up with conditions that I would propose. 38
<br /> 39
<br />Susan Halkiotis: Do we need to respond to that, individually, about conditions? 40
<br /> 41
<br />James Bryan: No. 42
<br /> 43
<br />Karen Barrows: So how are folks feeling about this finding? 44
<br /> 45
<br />Barry Katz: Well, so far we’ve gone through these three. Oh, do we have to vote on this one? 46
<br /> 47
<br />Karen Barrows: Yes. 48
<br /> 49 MOTION made by Barry Katz that that on section 5.3.2 a to c that the applicant has really not met the conditions that we would 50
<br />find favorable, I move that we reject the applicant’s meeting this criteria as far as it being within character, certainly the sound, has 51
<br />multifaceted risks of not meeting the harmony, as well as again the traffic issue that was raised and they’re depending on the 52
<br />behavior of individuals that come and go, to comply with that character and I say they cannot meet these conditions, for this 53
<br />particular location. Susan Halkiotis seconded. 54
|