BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 117 of 123 Grove plat. Did he err by not applying the 1998 standards? Question number 2, did the development officer 1 approve the Phase for Churton Grove plat in violation of the active recreation requirements of the subdivision 2 ordinance in effect on May 20, 1986, which is the date the special use permit was approved so those are the two 3 dates. March 31, 1998 which is the date the permit was actually issued and the date of rezoning and May 20, 4 1986, the date of the special use permit. Question 3, did the development officer approve the phase for Churton 5 Grove plat in violation of the special use permit. That goes to the argument he was making about the quality of 6 the open space provided did not meet the standard. Question number 1, did Mr. Davis commit an error in 7 approving it without complying with the ordinance in effect on March 31, 1998 in Phase IV. 8 9 Jeff Schmitt: Phase IV has been appealed. 10 11 David Rooks: That answer will be yes or no. Did the development officer approve the phase for Churton Grove 12 plat in violation of the active recreation requirements of the subdivision ordinance in effect on May 20, 1986 then 13 the third question, did the development officer approve the Phase IV Churton Grove plat in violation of the special 14 use permit. This is an up or down vote. This is not like a special use permit. 15 16 Larry Wright: Could you address the jurisdiction? This is a point that has been tossed around that, could you 17 please address that? 18 19 David Rooks: The County actually raised the question as to whether this board has jurisdiction to hear this 20 appeal at all. That flows from the fact that the state enabling legislation allows a county to have a Board of 21 Adjustment and grants it authority, said that its authority is to deal with planning not subdivision, zoning not 22 subdivision so there is an argument that you have no authority to hear a decision on an appeal to grant or deny a 23 subdivision plat. 24 25 Jeff Schmitt: Subdivision meaning in this case, Phase IV? 26 27 David Rooks: Right. All that is being appealed is the approval of a plat. 28 29 David Blankfard: Where are they in construction? 30 31 David Rooks: Done. 32 33 Jeff Schmitt: I find myself in two separate cans about this. I find it hard to believe that the county and the 34 developer would think that they could either live with and/or go forward with a special use permit 12 years after it 35 was put into effect. The world has moved on. This thing was put in holding pattern for that time period and I think 36 it is almost naïve to think he could go forward with these very limited and unstructured things but conversely I 37 hear Mr. Gledhill’s comment about what that is and what the law is in this case. I don’t know if anything like this 38 has every come up. I have a lot of empathy as to what is going on. Part of the issue is there has been no zoning 39 enforcement about what is going on. They submitted a plat and nobody has paid any attention to what has 40 happened to it. They have put this stuff out there and nobody has come along and said that is not right. 41 42 Mark Micol: Is there any precedence for this? 43 44 David Rooks: I have not seen anything like this ever. 45 46 Karen Barrows: I am of the opinion this is beyond our jurisdiction. It is a subdivision thing and that is not what we 47 are here for. 48