BOA minutes 020810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 2/8/2010 Page 10 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 John Roberts: Nick Herman is one of the most respected land use attorneys in the state and his quote about where that judge got the opinion about the notice is something that I can’t repeat. He thought less of it than idea. Staff didn’t make a mistake and neither did you. Michael Harvey: Is there anything you think we missed? Mark Micol: Just for clarification, the mere existence of the lights do not alter the accessory nature by extending the times the ball field can be used? Michael Harvey: We said no because it was still only going to be utilized in the manner we approved by the church league and by members of the church. Since it wasn’t open to the public, our argument to the Board of County Commissioners back in August when this first came up, that the mere presence of lights does not alter the nature of the land use the way the current ordinance is written. Should that be changed, probably but we are not there. Board of County Commissioners has not authorized the staff to amend the ordinance. It is in your purview to make a statement to the Board of County Commissioners saying staff did make an error, if you believe that is the case, but we really need to reevaluate this type of activity. You are being asked if staff did error in the way the ordinance is currently written and the way pervious decisions have been made with respect to what constitutes an accessory use. Jeffrey Schmitt: Is there anything else we have not discussed within the package that is documented and/or what was provided in the case last month. James Carter: Could we get more details in Section B? Jeffrey Schmitt: Yes. Thomas Brown: I guess I am okay with the intent as long as the chairman and the counsel believe this is cohesive and coherent and can be supported. All the facts are there but we are kind of throwing the kitchen sink back at them. John Roberts: The only way to defend it is to address each of those points because if you don’t address one, he will find that one and hammer that with a judge. I would say 99 out of 100 judges will throw this out because of a timing issue but you could always get that one. Mark Micol: We don’t know if they are going to appeal? Michael Harvey: Oh, they will appeal. John Roberts: He told me they were thinking about it. Michael Harvey: There were comments in the local paper where she indicated she would go. In all due respect to her, her attorney has got to make a decision as to whether or not he can win the appeal. Mark Micol: She has thirty days from the time the permit was issued for the lights? Michael Harvey: The ordinance specifically states that any individual grieved by the decision of the zoning ordinance will have 30 days from the date of the decision to appeal before the County Board of Adjustment. That is Article 2, Section 2.3.7.2 Mark Micol: When does the clock start ticking? Michael Harvey: Staff argued… Thomas Brown: In 2007, the accessory use was the ball field.