BOA minutes 020810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 2/8/2010 Page 11 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 Mark Micol: How would she know the clock is ticking… how would she know the permit was issued? Michael Harvey: When she called staff in the summer of 2007, staff told her that we issued a permit and we were allowing the ball field. Technically I could see an argument from that point on that was 30 days but she didn’t file. From a standpoint of the lighting, she obviously knew we had issued a permit in September 2008 that we issued lighting because I told her we had. Mark Micol: Did we tell her she had 30 days? Jeffrey Schmitt: How did she know that? Michael Harvey: My recollection was that I told her in September that we had made the decision back in May and that technically I told her she had lost her appeal right. Craig told her in January that she could appeal that decision so part of my argument is going to be that on the 12th of January that she had 30 days from then that Craig said he would allow an appeal which should have been in February. Jeffrey Schmitt: There are no minutes documented from any of those conversations nor do we have a document provided by the county that said we have issued this permit on such and such a date for lights to be added to the ball field. You have under section X that you have 30 days to appeal. There is nothing that she has formally in her hand. John Roberts: And there is nothing that is required to be given. A land use situation is one that is open and notorious and an aggrieved party can see that it is there and the law is available for that person to learn and figure out that I have 30 days from when I became aware of this to appeal. Since she was given verbal notice in January, apparently in January, that she could appeal this, then technically the 30 days would start then. She needed to take the affirmative action to learn what the law was and appeal within that time period. Staff is not required to give her anything to say that she has 30 days to appeal this. David Blankfard: Can you add, in your findings of fact, that it was determined that the baseball field was stated to be an accessory use? Michael Harvey: Yes. David Blankfard: If we put that in the findings of fact then nothing is debated and then they will get to the heart of the matter. When you add the lights, that changes it, because there is nothing that we as a board can say, there is nothing to change that. Jeffrey Schmitt: Can we go off the record with this? John Roberts: I would suggest that we not go off the record because this is all part of your findings. Jeffrey Schmitt: I would rather not include that. David Blankfard: Okay. Jeffrey Schmitt: I don’t think the board needs to be in the position of interpreting and/or making law about all the things that can constitute an accessory use at a facility like this. And by saying that, that is what we are going on the record and saying. Thomas Brown: Aren’t we saying that anyway, defacto, by taking the position we are. Jeffrey Schmitt: Yes, but from my perspective, I would rather that it sit behind it as opposed to being right out front. David Blankfard: It is a finding in the back, the last sentence in the conclusion.