BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 31 of 123 3.77 is excessive as well but the point is that the county’s 7.06 acre claim ended here at the time of the appeal is 1 inconsistent with what they presented to the Board of Commissioners in 2007 and 2008. 2 3 Jeff Schmitt: How many acres are there? 4 5 Michael Buck: In red or the total? 6 7 Jeff Schmitt: Outlined in red. 8 9 Michael Buck: 3.77. Again, I understand the idea of a negotiation but let’s take a look at the change in County 10 recreational active recreational claims over the years. In 2006, we are at .4 acres of active recreation, in 2007, 11 we are at about 3.35 and that is from a document that is in evidence but I am not showing right now. Then it 12 goes to 3.77 acres in 2008 and I will actually point you to the zoning officer’s response to my appeal and this is 13 the current, Mr. Harvey’s response to my appeal dated September 4, 2013 in Attachment B, page 8 (unmarked). 14 He also cites the 3.77 acre claim. Then we jump to 7.06 acres so there is changing claim the county is making 15 over time when nothing changed on the land. Between 2006 and the building of this picnic area in early 2009 but 16 certainly after July 17, 2008, nothing changed and yet the interpretation of the acreage allowed did change. That 17 is key. I mentioned last time that if we were talking about a tenth of an acre, a quarter of an acre or even half an 18 acre, there probably would not be concern here but I contend there are orders of magnitude between … 19 20 Larry Wright: Where is this going? I don’t want to cut you short, I want you to make your point but I really want to 21 know where this is going. What is the end point here? 22 23 Michael Buck: I make a claim that the Phase IV acreage is inadequate to satisfy the special use permit. In order 24 to understand that claim, you have to know what was on the ground prior to Phase IV and so I am trying to paint 25 the picture what was on the ground, what the County understood to be on the ground, what the County was 26 willing to count as already built active recreation was a number that whatever was added in Phase IV did not 27 allow compliance with the special use permit so I can move on from here to further that claim but we are talking 28 about an inadequate active recreation claim according to the special use permit. 29 30 David Blankfard: Is there a definition in the 1986 building code that says what “active” is… I want to ask Mr. 31 Harvey first. 32 33 Michael Harvey: I am not sure I can legitimately answer because of where are in these proceedings. This is his 34 closing argument. I think if you want to ask a clarifying question, I will give you an appropriate answer. 35 36 David Rooks: I would allow the applicant to finish his presentation and then you can ask each of them follow up 37 questions if you wish. 38 39 Michael Buck: I will make an argument on evidence about that. I will move this along. We look at the plan-o-40 meter estimates last time. I don’t think there is any dispute that the clubhouse, pool, tennis court, basketball 41 court, subsequent built gazebo and the top lot all certainly eligible. There is question as to whether the parking 42 lot is countable and areas that are sloped and not otherwise suitable for recreation can be allowed. Again, we 43 are looking at broad numbers, the plan-o-meter numbers were introduced as estimates so it is a little over an 44 acre. If we look at what the planning director noted in his 2006 letter, he is saying it is really closer to a little over 45 half an acre, almost three quarters of an acre. I will note the question came up before as to what counts as active 46 recreation, is it the entire land up the curb and so forth. The planning director’s 2006 letter was doing an acreage 47 calculation on the individual pieces. Now I think that cuts the acreage a little too close, I don’t think you want to 48