BOA minutes 020810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 2/8/2010 Page 4 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 Michael Harvey: Staff has provided you with a script, a basic outline of the Order of Interpretation and who it will be issued to, from our standpoint to the Shields’ and the Lattisville Grove Baptist Church as they offered testimony on the case. Ultimately both parties have the right to appeal the Board’s decision. The “FOR” section is why we are doing this, we have included a general breakdown of what the applicant had requested. There is a purpose section and general findings of fact, which are not in dispute. This includes basic information relating to the case, for example that the Lattisville Grove Baptist Church is located at a specific property, 1701 James Ed Road, size, zoning and what not . These are intended to be the facts that are not in dispute. It is supposed to be universal. It is not supposed to focus on the board’s action. As a reminder we conclude the general fact section with the statement that the Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over all parties on the matter. Jeffrey Schmitt: Why don’t you give us a minute to read this? Jeffrey Schmitt: Part of this may revolve around this 30-day window once a permit was issued. The permit which was dated May 6, 2008, we actually have that permit? Michael Harvey: The permit was in the file, yes. Jeffrey Schmitt: It has that date on it. I think there is a 30-day window? John Roberts: That is correct, 30 days to appeal. Jeffrey Schmitt: On September 4, that is the first time we had received anything in verbal or writing? Michael Harvey: September 4 is the day we received the complaint from Ms. Shields. September 24 is the date we sent out our first courtesy notice of violation. Jeffrey Schmitt: This complaint was in the form of letter or phone call. Michael Harvey: Letter and phone call. John Roberts: This May 6 date was just for the lights. The ball field was approved in 2007. At the end of the last meeting or hearing, Counsel for Ms. Shields was saying that what they are appealing is the ball field itself and somehow they are arguing that this approval of the lights extended their appeal time for the ball field as an accessory of use even though that happened in 2007 and no one ever appealed anything or brought anything forward but he was suggesting that somehow the approval of these lights tolled the period they had to appeal. Jeffrey Schmitt: Is this is going to be appealed to Superior Court? John Roberts: If they decide to do that. Yes. Jeffrey Schmitt: That is why I wanted to make sure there is a documented record for all these dates that are cited that can be produced. Michael Harvey: There is not a date here that I cannot substantiate where staff specifically testified to the issuance of the lighting permit. If you will recall, I testified to the May 29th date, specifically when we authorized the church to begin using the lights for games. As detailed within Number 10 of your script, I testified to the May 29th date as well as the date when the appeal was filed, specifically June 26th. Jeffrey Schmitt: I know it went back and forth between the ball field and the lights.