BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 30 of 123 David Rooks: There is an argument that none of this is in your jurisdiction that this is actually not subject to a 1 matter over which this board has jurisdiction. This is a subdivision issue, not a zoning issue. You have 2 jurisdiction over appeals from zoning decisions. This is an appeal of a subdivision decision. I can’t site the case 3 but I reasonably certain that you do not have jurisdiction over it if you chose to decide it on that basis. 4 5 Larry Wright: I am at a loss here. 6 7 David Rooks: You can inform the applicant whatever you think about the argument he is following and he can 8 make his decision how far he wants to go with that. He can make his own decision about whether he wants to 9 continue making the argument. 10 11 Jeff Schmitt: Before this board or withdraw it or go back to superior court or the planning board or someone else. 12 13 David Rooks: Yes. 14 15 Mark Micol: Basically, the SUP called for 7 acres, both the plaintiff and the county agree that there is more 16 acreage on the ground today that what the SUP approved so basically he is talking about quality. 17 18 David Rooks: You could ask the applicant to move on to his next point. 19 20 Larry Wright: Could you move on to your next point please. 21 22 Michael Buck: With regard to jurisdictional questions and you are going to make the decision you are going to 23 make, I understand that. I would like to point out two things; I am following the process prescribed to me by 24 Orange County. When I raised the concerns I raised beginning in 2007 and up to, including and following the 25 time of the filing of the appeal, I was in contact with Orange County officials. Orange County officials provided 26 me with the appeal process we are in now so that would be my first point that I am following a prescribed process 27 that the county gave to me. My second point is that the delays in this process, I would put almost entirely on the 28 part of the county. I have attempted multiple times in excess of 50 or 60 times over the intervening five and one 29 half years to move the process forward with letters, emails, phone calls, meetings and so forth with the county so 30 the extent that I am in the wrong venue, I would say that I have been directed to the wrong venue by the county. 31 Additionally, I would say with regard to the powers of this board, Section 2.3.2 say that this board can hear, 32 review and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the 33 zoning officer on the performance of official duties. I will try to move this along in terms of the character of what 34 notes I am making here. Zoning officer memorandum from 2007 which I have entered into evidence and that was 35 Evidence 1-B. The claim is that “the SUP requires seven acres of active area”. Again, the definition becomes 36 key, active recreational area. I would like to read this one in detail and again let’s keep in mind the date on this. 37 This is a report made to the Board of Commissioners in October of 2007 so we are three, four, five months from 38 the submission of the Phase IV plat. “Staff determined that that the areas shown in Phase II plat were not 39 adequate to meet”, again this is not a letter, this is a report to the Board of Commissioners, “Staff determined that 40 the areas shown in Phase II plat were not adequate to meet the SUP’s seven acres of active requirement even 41 though the surveyor designated on the plat (skipping). Everyone understood that the topography limitations of 42 the clubhouse lot would require additional land to meet the entire seven acre SUP requirement. Then we get to 43 the digitized view which is Exhibit 8 and this digitized view as I showed with Exhibit 1A was provided to me by the 44 county on March 10, 2008 and the digitized view makes the claim that it is not really 7.06 acres on the Phase II 45 site but really 3.77 acres so to your question, I don’t dispute shows 7.06 acres but the county as of March 10, 46 2008 after the Phase IV plat had been submitted is saying that it is not 7.06 acres but really 3.77. I claim that 47