BOA minutes 120814 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 6/8/2015 OC Board of Adjustment – 12/08/2014 Page 10 of 49 revising the determination rescinding that notice of violation. Page 89 is Attachment 3C which is Land v. Village of 1 Wesley Chapel, a North Carolina Court of Appeals decision. Page 101 is Attachment 3D which is a staff 2 memorandum that was given to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Attachment 4 which begins on 3 page 109 is various forms that have been prepared and provided by the County Attorney’s office dealing with 4 evidence, findings and common objections. 5 6 In summary, and I am looking at pages 43 through 47, as you will note, we issued a Notice of Violation to Mr. Klein 7 indicating that we believed there was an establishment of a land use on the property. Either a 77 acre parcel 8 developed as the Bingham Woods Mobile Home Park or an undeveloped 34 acre parcel of property south of this 9 mobile home park. This Notice of Violation informed Mr. Klein that the discharge of fire arms on these properties 10 either, (a) constituted an illegal expansion of the mobile home park if said shooting activities were a recreational 11 amenity provided for the mobile home park residents and would require the review and action on a Class A Special 12 Use Permit application through the Orange County Board of Commissioners or (b) the establishment of a recreational 13 facility non-profit on the 34 acre parcel of property, as defined within our Unified Development Ordinance requiring a 14 Class B Special Use that is reviewed and acted upon by this board. Mr. Klein subsequently appeal ed that 15 determination arguing [he had] not developed a recreational facility of any kind. He had not expanded the mobile 16 home park to include a shooting range facility for the benefit of th e residents. He argued that there was no direct 17 evidence establishing the determination by the county that an illegal land use had been instituted. And he argued 18 that the county’s action was inconsistent with the established case law. After consultation with the county attorney’s 19 office in February 2014, staff determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the Notice of Violation as written. 20 Specifically, we had no direct evidence of who was engaged in the activity. We did not physically catch a nybody. 21 The sheriff’s report didn’t provide us any documentation on who was doing the shooting activity. We found no 22 evidence of actual facilities, building, parking, structures, etc. There was no direct evidence of a recreational facility 23 non-profit as defined in the Unified Development Ordinance being established and as I indicated earlier, in 24 consultation with the county attorney’s office, we made the determination that existing case law, specifically Land v. 25 Village of Wesley Chapel, a North Carolina Court of Appeal’s decision did not support the NOV as was issued by 26 staff. We rescinded the NOV due to a lack of evidence and then obviously we are here because the adjoining 27 property owners appealed that determination. Mr. Chairman, at this point in ti me, I would like to enter my abstract 28 including Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4 inclusive into the record. I would also like to enter into the record a copy of the 29 Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. 30 31 Larry Wright: What date did you say was the first NOV? 32 33 Michael Harvey: April 29, there is only one NOV on April 29, 2013 and that is on Page 53 of your packet. 34 35 Larry Wright: Okay. We would be looking at the UDO relative to that date? 36 37 Michael Harvey: Correct. 38 39 Larry Wright: On what basis did you issue that initial NOV? 40 41 Michael Harvey: I had meetings with several concerned property owners related to the discharge of fire arms. 42 43 Larry Wright: What was the evidence? 44 45 Michael Harvey: The evidence at that point in time was audio evidence denoting the shooting activity. Various visits 46 to the site by the Orange County Sheriff’s office. I will call your attention to the actual NOV itself. The NOV was 47 written from the standpoint that it was not the purpose of our order, and I’m on page 54 and 55 now, it was not [the] 48 purpose of our order or letter; excuse me, to require Mr. Klein to cease engaging in what could be construed as a 49 lawful activity from his property. It was to inform that if he wished to allow non-family members, members of the 50