BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 35 of 123 1 David Rooks: You would have to ask Mr. Harvey that question. I don’t know the answer as to whether the 2 subdivision ordinance required mandatory open space. 3 4 Mark Micol: That is a key point because if they weren’t required to offer up any open space … 5 6 Larry Wright: Let’s let him make his point. 7 8 Mark Micol: All of his argument is irrelevant if it based on that. 9 10 Larry Wright: I understand what you are saying. 11 12 David Blankfard: I think the 1986 code says you have to have a certain percentage of recreation space. 13 14 Mark Micol: He argued the recommended versus shall and why would they put recommended seven acres if it is 15 a shall seven acres. 16 17 Michael Buck: To summarize on the inadequate active recreation acreage, what is in evidence before Phase IV 18 exists is less than what is required, the shortfall is not met by what is being put in Phase IV and allowing the plat 19 to proceed with such a shortfall is a defacto modification of the SUP. Before I get to the next section, I wanted to 20 get into a side bar with the question of negotiation. Negotiation is not a power granted to the planning 21 department, not in the code, it is not allowable to the zoning officer … 22 23 Larry Wright: How much longer of a presentation do you have? We need to get an idea, we have people waiting 24 here. Is this another hour or two? 25 26 Michael Buck: I hope that I have 20 to 30 minutes left. 27 28 Larry Wright: We have to adjudicate this. I have to confer with our attorney. 29 30 Conversation with Larry Wright and David Rooks. 31 32 Larry Wright: There is a lot of repetition here. 33 34 David Rooks: I think you need to ask him come directly, he has made two points and if he has any other points 35 that directly bear on the decision made by zoning officer, make those and then … 36 37 David Rooks: Mr. Buck, your points need to come directly. You have a very tired board on your hands; you do 38 yourself a disservice by talking longer than you should. You need to come directly to the point you need to make 39 about anything that was wrong with the decision by Mr. Davis when approved the plat, very specifically and 40 directly. Twenty or thirty minutes is probably not satisfactory to this board. 41 42 Michael Buck: I will do this as briefly as I can in terms of another major point. Invalid recreation segmentation so 43 I have talked about the inadequacy of the acreage provided. The argument here is that the acreage is 44 inappropriately divided and the point being that sum of the parts is less than the whole. If you have a provision 45 for five acres in a centrally located site but you have said to implement that as five different tracks of one acre 46 each around the neighborhood, that makes it less useful as active recreation space and if you go and look at the 47 minutes of the meetings that approved the special use permit, you will find the board looked at this issue and 48