BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 25 of 123 is the fact that it refers to ordinances that did not exist in 1986. The special use permit, inside the conditions of 1 the special use permit refers to ordinances not in existence in 1986 specifically Condition 44 refers to Section 2 7.2.8 and 8.4.1.11 which are not in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance that the county has provided in 3 Attachment H. I would also like to point to the zoning officer testimony to provide some evidence for the fact that 4 the March 31, 1998 date is what was being used. The zoning officer stated on the record that … and let me say 5 one thing here, I have talked with Mr. Harvey over the years and I would like to say that he was not party of any 6 of this, he did not join the department sometime after this occurred so I wanted to be clear that what Mr. Harvey is 7 testifying to took place prior to his involvement in the issues that are disputed here. In any case, he did say that 8 he discovered in 2012 that no 1986 copy of the ordinance existed in county files. When I hear that, it is difficult 9 for me to believe that the county was following the provisions of ordinance for which it had no copy. As additional 10 evidence for the case of the March 31, 1988 dated, I pointed to the fact that the county has enforced ordinances 11 that were enacted after, not only after the 1986 date they claim applies, the county’s position is that 1986 is the 12 demarcation point, we can’t enforce any ordinance, they are claiming they cannot even enforce the subdivision 13 standards enacted on August 4, 1986 but a few months after the approval of the conditions. They are saying we 14 can’t even enforce what happened in 1986 and yet we find they did enforce the Outdoor Lighting Standards, 15 Ordinance 6.3.1 which the record shows was enacted on June 26, 2003. The county is enforcing ordinance 16 selectively if they are enforcing a June 26, 2003 ordinance but not enforcing a 1986 ordinance. This is just 17 further evidence for … on this slide what I was pointing to is the Board of County Commissioner meeting minutes 18 which talked about the enactment of the Outdoor Lighting Standards. On the next slide … I have here TBD 19 because I didn’t know what it was going to be called. In Exhibit 1B, the zoning officer in a memo to the Board of 20 County Commissioners from October 23, 2007 on page 8 and 9 speaks to the enforcement of the Lighting 21 Ordinance and he said, and I say zoning office and I realize that is incorrect, it is the Current Planning Supervisor, 22 Robert Davis, at the time, he says, “Phases I and IIA have standard fixtures and Phase IIb, IIc and II have cutoff 23 fixtures, i.e. dark skies compliant, the lighting ordinance requiring cutoff fixtures was passed after Phases I and 24 IIa were platted”. I content this offers further evidence that the county is enforcing ordinance for 1986. The date 25 on which the county is saying they can’t do anything after that. An additional example of an enforcement of a 26 later ordinance can be found by looking at the plat in Attachment B and this is the plat that is at issue here, the 27 Phase IV plat, there is a certification on the plat signed by the developer, and the certification attests that the plat 28 will adhere to provisions of Orange County Lighting Ordinances as set forth in the Orange County Zoning 29 Ordinance. Not to reiterate too much but the ordinance was enacted after 1986 and it was enforced after 1986. 30 Additionally, there is another certification an acceptance of dedication certification contained on that same plat in 31 Attachment D and that plat was signed by the county manager. Well the subdivision ordinance that required the 32 acceptance of dedication certification was enacted with it, Subdivision Ordinance 5D6b which was not enacted 33 until August 6, 1990 per Attachment J so we have multiple examples of county enforcing ordinance after 1986. 34 The county has spoken … I believe there is no compelling evidence for the use of the May 20, 1986 date and if I 35 recall correctly the only argument the county has offered for the use of the 1986 date, is the statements of Marvin 36 Collins, who spoke in 1986 to the Board of County Commissioners with regard to the subdivision ordinances and 37 the county’s contention is that his statement, and it is very small there, in pink at the bottom, he said, “The 38 Scotswood project would be exempt from the ordinance since it was already approved” and I don’t dispute that is 39 probably exactly what he said however, if you read the context in the meeting minutes, what I think you will find is 40 he was responding to some questions about specific sections of that ordinance specifically, he was responding 41 and I highlighted here in orange, he was responding to the payment in lieu of dedication, Section IVB-7-b-5 and 42 IVB;7b6 and his statement in response to those sections of ordinance made perfect sense because the payment 43 in lieu of dedication provision requires that the payment in lieu of your dedication happened at the time you 44 submit your planning documents and that you are going through the process of approval. Well Scotswood had 45 already gone through that process so certainly they would be exempt. They can’t use that portion of the 46 ordinance because they have already gone through that process. I would further point out that his statement is 47 not this positive and what I mean is that he may have said that but that doesn’t make it true. Again, let’s go back 48