BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 32 of 123 calculate it that way but that is what the planning director was doing in 2006. The point of all this is there is a 1 range of potential what is allowed active recreation. It could be as low as .7 acres or as high as one and one half 2 acres if certain remediation activities were to occur on the land as it exists today. The bottom line is that the 3 historical claims of either 3.77 acres which were the claims made at the time of the appeal and for or the current 4 claim was 7.06 acres, those are invalid and if those are invalid, what is the range of acreage that was properly 5 built at the time and I would say the subtotal ranges. The subtotal before Phase IV is somewhere between two 6 and three one half acres built so in order to Phase IV to properly meet the requirements of the special use permit, 7 they need to provide somewhere between 4.9 and 2.7 acres to get … 2.7 to 4.9 acres to get to the total seven. I 8 have already submitted the photographic evidence, you have seen it, and the photographic evidence shows 9 slopes, asphalt parking lots, gravel parking lots, sewer easement, metal storm drain, high tension lines, developer 10 construction debris, damage and/or incomplete landscaping, silk fencing, dirt paths, general unsuitability for 11 active recreation according to code. The one thing I would say in regard to the dates of the pictures is that the 12 pictures begin in 2007 to the extent that the situation was improving, the developers were delivering what they 13 needed to deliver, you would expect that 2007, 2008, 2009 up to the present day, at least some of these 14 situations would be ameliorated, you do not find that in the photographic evidence. You find that it wasn’t right in 15 2007 and 2008 and still not right today and again I did date stamp the photos so you can make your own 16 determination. I would like to briefly talk about the developer recreation area site plans. You have in evidence in 17 Attachment D and also Attachment K, the County has submitted the same documents twice, the developer’s 18 recreation area site plan. For Phase II, they submitted an existing conditions map, they submitted a site plan for 19 the active recreation space, they submitted a grading and drainage plan and the dates of those were 2002, 2003, 20 2003 and 2008. Newland, the developer for Phase IV submitted a plan to describe their picnic area 21 improvements in Phase II. What I want you to understand is the developers in pursuit of their claims of this is 22 active recreation, went through the process of creating these site plans, submitted them to the County, they are in 23 evidence for you, the same process occurred for the multi-family site. You have in evidence in Attachment D and 24 Attachment K a site plan, after the date of the appeal but dated April 24, 2008 and a planting plan. What 25 evidence do you have of a recreation plan, site plans related to active recreation or recreation of any kind, what 26 evidence do you have before you for a corresponding acreage claimed in Phase IV? You have none. There 27 were no conditions, existing conditions map submitted. There was no grading and drainage plan submitted. No 28 recreation site plan submitted. No landscaping plan submitted. I would argue with you that the failure of the 29 developers to provide and the failure of the County to demand active recreation site plans for Phase IV as were 30 demanded and provided for the previous phases evidences a lack of intent to “appropriate equip the land for 31 active recreation land and improve the land for active recreation use.” Failure to update the approved site plan 32 with modified recreation proposal is also a violation of the ordinance. More on that later. With regards to 33 developer’s site plans, I just want to point out to you that the as built drawings you have in your evidence in 34 Attachment, they are not precisely correct. The orientation of the basketball court is different and the location of 35 the top lot was shifted down the hill. I didn’t want you to be confused as you look at the Attachment D and 36 Attachment K site plans that they don’t quite match reality on the as built document. There was a question or 37 concern raised that I am not a certified engineer surveyor and therefor I am unable to speak to the sloping issues 38 on the Phase II parcel and it is true I am not a surveyor however like everyone in this room, I have completed the 39 eighth grade where we learned that slope is rise over run and I a submit to you that if you pull out your ruler and 40 you look at the contour line on the grading and drainage plan map that you will find that the areas that I claim are 41 excessively sloped are in fact sloping in excess of the allowed slope according to ordinance and the pictures I 42 provide show locations, on the back of the tennis court, the back of the basketball court and the upper portion of 43 the grassy areas. I would like to repeat what the current planning supervisor said “everyone understood the 44 topography limitations at the clubhouse lot would require additional land to meet the entire seven acres SUP 45 requirement” and that is a statement that was made in 2007. Now let’s look at what the actual ordinance 46 requirements are. I claim that you should be looking at the ordinance enacted in August of 1986 with regard to 47 what is applicable. The County has already spoken to this so I will try to be brief. Section IV-B-7-d-3 concerns 48