BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 5 of 123 1 Karen Barrows: On the memorandum we got, it says this is to overturn the decision of the Planning Director. 2 Other stuff states the Zoning Officer, so whose decision are we actually looking at? 3 4 Michael Harvey: In the UDO, the term Orange County Planning Director/Zoning Officer are synonymous. 5 6 Larry Wright: Let me ask each person…Mr. Buck, do you have any additional evidence that directly relates to 7 Attachment B. Attachment B is your appeal. 8 9 Michael Buck: I know what you mean. 10 11 Michael Harvey: Attachment A from the September meeting is the appeal application. We have also included 12 here in 6 for edification as you requested. 13 14 Larry Wright: (To Mr. Buck). Do you have any additional evidence that was not covered on September 10? 15 16 Michael Buck: I do. 17 18 Larry Wright: Could you briefly present that evidence please. You have testimony as well? 19 20 Michael Buck: I do have two items of testimony I would like to present, two brief paragraphs. Is there a 21 preference on the order? 22 23 Larry Wright: Just make sure it is evidence. 24 25 Michael Buck: I appreciate the fact, I did not understand that last time. The digitized email view…I believe the 26 county has accepted the digitized view that was previously submitted but the county made a claim that it was a 27 purported document provided by the current planning supervisor. 28 29 Michael Harvey: That’s Appellant Exhibit 8 from the September meeting on page 35 of this packet. 30 31 Michael Buck: The county acceptance of the evidence, the claim was this was a purported view perhaps 32 indicating it is not from the current planning supervisor so I have the emails I received from the current planning 33 supervisor in 2008 in which that view was given to me. I would like to submit that if there is any concern about 34 the validity of that view and its source. 35 36 Geof Gledhill: In the evidence, on page 25, lines 5 through 19, the statement made by Mr. Buck was that it was 37 prepared by the County’s Engineer’s office showing community recreational area acreage. Our contention is that 38 is what Mr. Buck purports where this came from. There was nothing about the county planning director in earlier 39 testimony. 40 41 Michael Buck: I want to make sure that we are in agreement that it was a document that came from the county to 42 me via the current planning supervisor in 2008. 43 44 Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask, could Mr. Buck clarify for the record who that was. 45 46 Michael Buck: It was Robert Davis. 47 48