BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 34 of 123 slopes, stumps, tension lines, etc. they are also excluded in the 1986 code. They are clearly excluded in the later 1 code but they are also excluded in the earlier code as well. I am trying to point out is the importance that the 2 Manual of Acceptable Practices and the minimum property standards, it is not just sufficient to give you land but 3 land that is appropriately equipped. You can’t just make a provision for space; you have to do something that 4 makes it viable for use an active recreational component. It must be appropriately equipment, “appropriately 5 equipped” and appropriately improved. I have already shown how the developer’s failure to provide recreation 6 site plans into evidence demonstrate that lack of intent to appropriately equip and appropriately improve and I 7 would further say that what exists on the ground today in 2013 furthers that case. That hasn’t been appropriately 8 equipped and improved. There was no intent in 2008 and hasn’t been completed in 2013. 9 10 Larry Wright: I think we have gone astray here. 11 12 David Rooks: That argument has nothing to do with Mr. Davis’ decision to approve the plat which is the only 13 thing that is before this board. I think if you would direct your arguments concisely and directly to that point, I 14 think you would find the board receptive. 15 16 Michael Buck: I disagree vehemently. The reason I disagree vehemently is because you can’t approve the 2008 17 plat and the acreage that it will supposedly provide without knowing how much acreage is already accounted for. 18 19 David Rooks: You have made that argument. 20 21 Larry Wright: You have made that argument. Can you go on? 22 23 Michael Buck: I will move on but I need to directly rebut something Mr. Harvey said regarding 6.12.2 so this goes 24 directly to his interpretation of his validity of the 2008 plat using the 1986 code. Mr. Harvey indicates that he 25 relies on Section 6.12 of ordinance for recreation area interpretation. Section 6.12 is specifically cited as support 26 for allowing parking within the recreation areas. I won’t reread what he said but he is saying parking is allowable 27 because the ordinance allows it. I would like to point out the section he is citing 6.12.2.6 with regard to open 28 space says that recreation space which is part of “total and livability open space is exterior area appropriately 29 approved for common recreation use”, recreation use part of total and livability open space. It is hard to see 30 there but what is the definition of livability space? Livability space is part of total open space appropriately 31 approved, etc. and shall not be used for vehicles except for incidental service, maintenance or emergency action, 32 none of which parking is. Here is a diagram that shows how it all works together but we are talking about 33 recreation space which is part of livability space as livability space precludes and prevents the use of vehicles for 34 parking so it must also be that recreation space cannot allow parking to encumber it as well. 35 36 Larry Wright: I would like to know what incidental service is. I would argue, not that I believe that that none of 37 those vehicles are permanently parked there. It is incidental, dropping somebody off there, swimming or 38 whatever. I mean, we are making a point here and I would like to … I am making an issue that I don’t know what 39 one of knows what incidental service is. 40 41 Mark Micol: He is referring to the MAP and MPS standards, was the developer compelled to abide by those 42 standards in 1986 or 1998? 43 44 David Rooks: Only if the ordinance required him to do so. 45 46 Mark Micol: We talked about the terms recommended versus shall and under 27 it says recommended a 47 minimum of seven acres so were they compelled to offer up any recreational acreage at all in 1986? 48