BOA minutes 020810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 2/8/2010 Page 5 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 Michael Harvey: I am going to make the following statement. Towards the end of the meeting, the applicant’s attorney, in the minutes, made several comments relating to the ball field. The applicant testified that she would not care if the ball field was there, only if the lights were gone. Our argument, at the end, was that the applicant has conceded the point that the ball field is a customary accessory use. They are arguing over the lights and because we allowed them to erect lights, they attempted to argue that the simple erection of the lights changed the nature of the accessory use and because of the change, it takes it out of that category. That is what he is essentially trying to argue at the end of the evening. Staff doesn’t buy that. When we start going through the conclusions, you will see what staff’s thought process is and it will give you some guidance on what to include for the record. Jeffrey Schmitt: There is nothing in these findings of fact that state that there has been a measurement of illumes to show that it is in violation of the county ordinance regarding that? Michael Harvey: On page 2, numbers 9 and 10, staff stipulated that from October 2008 to May 29, 2009 we conducted numerous inspections of the ball field and required substantial work be done reorienting the lights requiring additional shielding be erected. On the 29th of May, 2009, we conducted an inspection and concluded the lights were compliant and could be utilized by the church. If the board wants to add to number 10 compliant with all applicable county zoning standards, that is fine. Jeffrey Schmitt: Counselor, is number 10 sufficient from your perspective? John Roberts: I would prefer to see more detail in the actual finding. Jeffrey Schmitt: Part of the evidence she submitted is the picture taken from her porch with the glaring lights. Can we just make these modifications and I can come in and sign this? Michael Harvey: I would suggest that if you see anything you want to add, let staff know. I would suggest that you go over the conclusions and how it should be formatted. These are not the only findings you have to make. Let’s move on to page 3. Basically, we have said we held the Public Hearing on January 11, 2010 which is not in dispute and that after the hearing and reviewing all the submitted evidence, the board affirmed the decision of the zoning officer relating to the erection and use of the outdoor sports field lighting on the church property. In rendering this decision, the Board relied on the following: Timeliness of appeal – ball field as accessory. Mr. Roberts had talked at length about this as reflected within the minutes but what we have essentially recommended is that the board make a finding that the appeal, as submitted, was not timely and you made this decision on the following: the applicant’s testimony and affidavit indicating that she was fully aware of the County’s decision to allow the ball field as an accessory use on the church property in the summer of 2007. This includes conversations with the church representatives as well as an unidentified member of the Planning Department. In her affidavit she clearly states she called a member of the planning department and asked and was told that yes we allowed them to erect the ball field. While I dispute some of the humorous she puts in her affidavit as to what this individual said, it was nevertheless that she was informed of the decision. The second point, based on testimony by the church members, was that they had met with the applicant and informed her of their intention to develop a ball field on the property. Next, statements made by the applicant during the hearing indicated that she did not mind the ball field as much as she minded the use of the outdoor sports field lights. Further the applicant indicated during cross-examination that if the lights were removed she would not mind games being played on the ball field. I added at the bottom, it is the Board’s contention that the development of a ball field on the property is not the issue the applicant wishes to appeal. It is the ball field with lighting they wish to appeal. At issue for the board is that the appeal was not written in this manner. It brings the accessory nature of the ball field into question. The Board finds that the appeal of the decision to allow the ball field in the first place is not timely. John Roberts: I would add the reason that it is not timely is because it was not appealed within 30 days of whatever the date is. That demonstrates to the judge that not only is it not timely but it is two and one half to three years not timely.