BOA minutes 061013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 7/8/2013 OC Board of Adjustment – 6/10/2013 Page 91 of 92 Samantha Cabe: I can’t vote on the continuance but I would say that if the notice has been given in 1 accordance with the law and we have gone this far in the hearing, I would vote against the 2 continuance because the planning staff and the applicant have done everything they are required to 3 do in order to set this hearing for a date in addition to numerous hours of planning and all our time 4 here tonight and all the witnesses time on both sides of the issue. 5 6 Mark Micol: If we had a letter from his attorney requesting a continuance before tonight, I would be 7 more acceptable to a continuance but just to come in tonight after we have heard the testimony and 8 ask for a continuance, it’s not a good reason. 9 10 James Carter: I agree with my colleague. If we would have heard more, I am all supportative of Mr. 11 Dixon’s comments but if we had additional time earlier, I would support giving Mr. Dixon more time. 12 13 David Blankfard: What is Mr. Dixon’s recourse, can his lawyer appeal? 14 15 Michael Harvey: Every decision of the Board of Adjustment is subject to appeal to the Orange 16 County Superior Court. 17 18 David Blankfard: So he does have some recourse. 19 20 Karen Barrows: I am torn but I wanted to ask a procedural question, if we were to grant a 21 continuance for the neighborhood folks to come in with their lawyer to address Karen’s concern how 22 would she or her colleagues get to respond to what is said? 23 24 Michael Harvey: In my mind, the public hearing is adjourned to the date and time certain, Ms. 25 Kemerait and her experts will be coming back and as additional information is presented into the 26 record by Mr. Dixon’s attorney, they will obviously refute it at that point and time and offer additional 27 testimony at the time refuting or outlining why the information is incorrect. 28 29 Mark Micol: What is precedence for doing the continuation? Since I have been on the board, we 30 haven’t done that so is that maybe setting a precedence? 31 32 Michael Harvey: Each case it unique. In my tenure with Orange County, there have been two cases 33 that have been continued either due to latenesee of the hour, the need for additional information or 34 testimony; it is the Board’s prerogative. With all due respect to the both parties that have spoken, the 35 fact that we have gone an hour and half into testimony, in my opinion is irrelevant and that is my 36 opinion. You have a local property owner that has submitted a request, whether you believe the 37 request if valid or not, is your call, that is why you are discussing it. I believe there are practical 38 issues with getting all her experts and the cost that would incur to come back but Mr. Dixon has 39 presented you with a petition. You need to determine the viability and validity of the petition and you 40 need to determine if, based on the concerns that Mr. Dixon has, or anyone else, if continuance would 41 allow there to be entered into the record challenging either documentation. If you determine that you 42 don’t think it is going to happen, that has to weigh on your decision to vote yes or no. 43 44 Samantha Cabe: As a practicing attorney, Mr. Browner may be able to give additional testimony to 45 this. There is a current movement afoot in our legislature to put further restrictions on what decisions 46 can or cannot be made and I do have some concern that postponing this may allow time for 47 legislation that could go through that lessen our control over what is in our decision making power 48 and that may or not come to fruition but it is actually a concern that is out there in the legal 49 community. 50 51 James Carter: Are we looking at this regarding Mr. Dixon’s comments? You would look at the legality 52 aspects; we are going to disregard what she has to say about the petition? 53