BOA minutes 091013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 11/11/2013 OC Board of Adjustment – 9/10/2013 Page 18 of 38 Michael Buck: The zoning officer, Attachment B, the last lines on page one reads: “the 1 development of the planned development special use is governed solely by recorded SUP 2 consistent with the provisions of the ordinance in existence in 1986 when the special use was 3 approved”. The evidence I would like to offer is that the zoning officer has enforced ordinances 4 enacted after 1986 and the two cases I would like to show are…. 5 6 Geof Gledhill: I object to this. Does it relate to this project? 7 8 Michael Buck: Yes. This is Phase IV. I only have one copy of this letter which I am happy to 9 offer into evidence. This is a letter from Newland Community to the county dated December 15, 10 2006 and in it, reads, “during one of our meetings with Robert Davis, it was explained that current 11 subdivision regulations”, current December 15, 2006, “required a 50-foot buffer along both sides 12 of the power line easement. This came as a surprise because it was not mentioned in the SUP 13 and not shown on the approved master site plan”. 14 15 Larry Wright: Ms. Graham, did you get this into evidence? 16 17 Michael Buck: I would like to offer it into evidence. 18 19 Larry Wright: You want to see this Mr. Gledhill? 20 21 Geof Gledhill: I think I will object to this because this was a he-said, she-said letter. There are no 22 women involved in this correspondence (that is an expression). It is not evidence, nothing to 23 identify it as a planning document….This letter is hearsay. All letters are hearsay, if it has not 24 been authenticated or identified. The general rules of evidence, it is not admissible. 25 26 Michael Buck: This is a letter received by the county and we supposedly have before us a 27 complete record of the county’s documents related to this project and this is a letter from a 28 primary developer, the primary developer of Phase IV to the county. W hy is this not in the 29 county’s evidence before us? 30 31 Larry Wright: I think that we are going to see what the content of this is. I can write a letter to the 32 county, while they may archive it, it doesn’t mean what I write in there is fact. 33 34 David Rook: A report of what a county employee was is actually a third party. What he may have 35 said to somebody else so it is hearsay and it would technically not be admissible. 36 37 Larry Wright: I’m sorry Mr. Buck; I am going to have to sustain the objection. 38 39 Michael Buck: The second certification comes from the County’s attachment D, it is Phase IV, 40 Book 103, page 63…. 41 42 Michael Harvey: Mr. Buck, I will also stipulate and remind the board that this is the same plat that 43 you submitted with your appeal application. 44 45 Michael Buck: Yes. I am referring to County Attachment D, Book 103, page 63. On that page, 46 there is a certification that reads, “W e hereby certify that the lights to be installed on all streets 47 and commonly owned lands depicted on the plat will adhere to the provisions of the outdoor 48 lighting standards as set forth in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance”. I would like to point out 49 that the Orange County Lighting Ordinance was not enacted until June of 2003. The SUP was 50 recorded on March 31, 1998, effective date March 31, 1998, and the property zoning change 51