BOA minutes 091013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 11/11/2013 OC Board of Adjustment – 9/10/2013 Page 11 of 38 Michael Buck: There is one bridge that has been built. I have another picture of a Google map I 1 will show you. That bridge has been built but these two have not. 2 3 Geof Gledhill: What is this attachment 2 document? 4 5 Michael Buck: The marked up version with the lines and phases. That was the map provided in 6 a letter from the county, from the planning director to one of the developers. It has lines and 7 markings but if you look closely, you can see the three bridges marked on them so it is hard to 8 read so the second one I sent out is a cleaner version of that map where you can see two of the 9 three bridges but because it is only a partial copy, the third bridge is not shown. To my eye, they 10 are one and the same map. My intent is to show the county’s understanding of the requirement 11 for three bridges. The county sent out a map that had three bridges on it…. 12 13 Geof Gledhill: I will object to that characterization. 14 15 Michael Buck: I will now move to the developers understanding of the need to deliver three 16 bridges. This is in appendix M beginning on pages 72 and 73 so I would like to offer this into 17 evidence. This is a letter from one of the developers, Churton Grove, LLC, to the county. This 18 letter is from 2002 and in this letter, the developer evidences an understanding and I quote, “walk 19 paths and a 100 foot buffer along the creek with three walk bridges”. So what I am attempting to 20 show on these last two slides is the county had an understanding of the need for three bridges 21 and the developer shared that understanding of the need for three bridges. 22 23 Geof Gledhill: Again, I am going to object, not to the introduction of these letters but the way it’s 24 characterized is what I object to. 25 26 Larry Wright: Sustained. 27 28 Michael Buck: Before I leave this letter from the developer. I would like to point out the use of 29 the word “requirements” at least three times in the document and all this is in reference to 30 condition 27 and this is important because one of the characterizations the zoning officer has 31 made is that condition 27 is not really a requirement. 32 33 Larry Wright: When a zoning officer uses a term requirement and a developer uses a term 34 requirement, would they necessarily have the same meaning? 35 36 Michael Buck: I would submit to you that in the context of the conditions and I am using the 37 conditions in air quotes, the conditions of the special use permit, I would submit to you that yes 38 they do mean conditions are requirements. I would like to refer to Orange County Zoning 39 Ordinance Section 8.7 and this is the zoning ordinance that was in effect in 1986 and continues to 40 be in effect in the UDO although there have been some modifications to this ordinance. I don’t 41 believe the modifications are applicable but I did want to call that to your attention. The ordinance 42 governing the special use has provisions as to how that special use can be modified. We heard 43 earlier testimony that there has been no formal attempt to modify the special use permit using the 44 approve process but I would like to read what the zoning ordinance says as to what constitutes a 45 modification. “The zoning officer is authorized to approve minor changes in the approved 46 plans/special uses as long as they are in harmony of the approved board but shall not have 47 power to approve changes that constitute a modification of the approval. A modification shall 48 require approval of the board having jurisdiction”. The ordinance goes on to site what are the 49 criteria that constitutes a modification. There are about 10 criteria listed and a number of them 50 don’t apply but I think the following do. These are not quoted, I have shortened slightly but I think 51