BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 27 of 123 provided in the project. I am going to set context for Phase IV. Phase IV was the last of the project phases for 1 which Newland, the developer, had an interest in the project. Newland was not working in other areas of the 2 project so it is the last phase for a particular developer. Just for information, concurrent to the work going on in 3 Phase IV, there is ongoing work in the multi-family phase. The only remaining significant area acreage was what 4 was in Phase IV. In 2008, you have got this large tract of land in Phase IV and to the extent that we need some 5 additional active recreation, we need some additional space that is the only place you will get it. You are not 6 going to get it in the areas that have already been built and you are not going to get it in the multi-family. There is 7 just not enough acreage. Additionally, the county had established expectations from one of the prior developers 8 and this will become key. There was some testimony that talked about the fact that the Newland interest in the 9 project was acquired from an earlier developer, Jim Moore and Churton Grove, LLC which is still operating in 10 multi-family area but there was a time when some ownership rights switched but I will show in the record where 11 the county had expectations that they established with that previous developer and yet the new developer comes 12 in and now all of the sudden the county backs off on those requirements they established with the earlier 13 developer to the detriment of residences of the neighborhood. Additionally, and this is key for the reason I have 14 to go into so much detail to paint the picture here. I mentioned when I first spoke before you the mind numbing 15 detail that I was going to get into and I apologize for that but in order to adequately understand the issues with 16 the recreation space, it is important to understand the as built situation with regard to recreation so you can make 17 a determination of … given what was on the ground with earlier phases and what the plat for Phase IV shows 18 allow compliance with the special use permit so I have to get into some of the understanding of the as built 19 situation. For evidence of the acreage and adequacy, this is the evidence I am going to use to make my 20 argument. The planning director letter which we have already talked about, zoning officer memorandum to the 21 Board of Commissioners, the zoning officer’s digitized view, the plan-o-meter estimates, photographic evidence, 22 the developer site plans and Orange County Ordinance citation. After I go through that evidence, I will walk 23 through why again I think it is clear if you use the later date that all this applies but even if we use the earlier date, 24 the argument still holds that the acreage is inadequate. Looking at the planning director letter; this letter is dated 25 from the planning director in 2006. I encourage you to read this letter in its entirety. I am going to quote sections 26 out of it and I don’t want to be accused of quoting anything out of context. Please read the entire letter 27 completely. He says, I am quoting the planning director, Craig Benedict from November 1, 2006 in his letter, 28 “Development presently includes approximately .4 acres of active recreation, .4. Number 2, “The site 29 development plan shows five acres in one central area for recreational purposes that has not been installed. The 30 development currently lacks much of the seven acre active recreation area required by Condition 27. Note the 31 word required. Next bullet, In reference to “active recreation plan on Phase IIa plat”, page 80, and the planning 32 director says, “Much of this 7.06 acre recreation area was never put on the ground.” Let me pause here and say 33 the county has put into evidence the plats and I don’t dispute that the plat does say there is 7.06 acres of active 34 recreation on that parcel. It is definitely there in the plat. That plat was filed well before this letter was written on 35 November 1, 2006. Despite what is written on the plat, the county in the guise of the planning director and I am 36 going to show other instances as well, is saying that, yeah it says 7.06 acres of active recreation but we know 37 that is not adequate, you have got to do more. I am showing here a picture of what the active recreation 38 acreage looked like circa 2006 because I want you to see as he is writing this letter; here is what is actually there. 39 To give some provenance to this picture which is already in evidence in Exhibit 7 but how do I know that it is from 40 about 2006 because right here, you see there is no bridge which was built 2007/2008 completed early 2009 so 41 this is what the parcel identified as active recreation contained at the time of the letter and just for purposes of the 42 record and to point it out. We have a parking lot, a club house, swimming pool, a tennis court, a basketball court 43 and a top lot. I am reading now again from the planning director’s letter, “Planning staff’s interpretation of the 44 SUP and rezoning plan indicates there is currently a deficiency between the acreage provided for active 45 recreation in the development and the acreage necessary for compliance with Condition 27”. I am skipping some 46 text now, “In addition to the recreation space referenced above that have been installed, the site development 47 plan shows five acres in one central area for recreation purposes, i.e. play areas that has not been installed; 48