BOA minutes 020810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 2/8/2010 Page 8 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 ordinance. I am saying that the lit ball field does not meet the parameters of an accessory use.” That is what he has appealed. A lit ball field does not constitute an accessory use. Jeffrey Schmitt: So defacto, he is saying that if it is not okay? John Roberts: They are arguing the timeline is to preserve their rights to appeal this? Michael Harvey: Yes. Let me also call your attention to line 35, the same page, and Mr. Ferguson statement, “What we appeal from is the zoning officer’s decision whether this meets and fits within the accessory use. Counsel, “Are you saying that the ball field is not an appropriate accessory use, that the lighted ball field is not an appropriate accessory use or that the lights are not an appropriate accessory use?” Mr. Ferguson, “I don’t think you can segregate it because when you determined accessory use under the polices, you have got to look at all the use, not bits and pieces of it, to make a determination if it dwarfs the principal use and so forth. You can’t piecemeal it, you have to look at what the use is and in fact, the use is the ball field.’ He is trying to use the lights to cause the whole accessory use question to be brought back to be examined but testimony throughout contradicts these statements that is what we are arguing here. Dawn Brezina: But he still goes on and says that if it is offered during daylight hours it is different than a ball field at nighttime. Michael Harvey: Yes, it is the contradiction. David Blankfard: He was saying that if it is a baseball field that is fine, if it is a lit baseball field that is different. It is the lights that are trying to change its accessory use. Michael Harvey: He is essentially arguing that the lights change the nature and therefore reevaluated whether or not a lit ball field constitutes an acceptable accessory use. And as John Roberts, there is no distinction in the ordinance. Jeffrey Schmitt: Item C. Michael Harvey: Erection of outdoor sports field lights requires a special use permit. During various times of Ms. Shields’ testimony and their actual appeal application, the argument was made that we did not require the church to get a special use permit. Obviously, it was staff’s argument that there is no place in the ordinance requiring the special use permit for the simple erection of outdoor sports field lights. We are saying that the board finds there are no legal requirements within the ordinance requiring the issuance of a special use permit prior to the erection of outdoor sports field lights in and of itself, nor is there a requirement that the property owners are to be notified or invited to attend a special hearing to review a site plan where outdoor sports field lights are proposed for permitted uses of property as detailed within the ordinance. If you recall from the abstracts, one of the arguments made were there were no other land uses in rural portions of the county that would be allowed to erect sports field lights without having to go though the special use permit. That is a falsehood. Essentially, there are two things you are finding, there is no special use requirement and there are uses that you can erect sports field lights without going through a formal review process inviting the public in. Permitted uses don’t have to go through that process. Suggested findings were obviously referencing testimony from staff indicating there is no such provision, review of the ordinance we submitted in the record, review of our abstract that we entered into the record during the meeting, failure of the applicant to provide documentation outlining the specific section of the Ordinance they were relying on to make this argument. Finally, a certified copy of the August 24, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing which Ms. Shields’ petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to do exactly what she is arguing here. Basically going on to say this proves that she knows this provision doesn’t exist. Page 5, “The use of property constitutes a “Recreational Facility”.