BOA minutes 030810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 3/8/2010 Page 82 of 86 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 Jeffrey Schmitt: Article 8.2.1. The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property). Council, could you spend a minute and educate all of us into the phrasing here so we all know specifically what these words say. John Roberts: The definition of maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, there has been a lot of testimony that you have heard about differences in appreciation rates. The language in this section of the ordinance does not refer to the appreciation rights; it refers to the actual value of the property. Whatever testimony you have heard that has referred to appreciation in the comparison samples, there is no evidence presented that the value of the surrounding properties, this parcel will depreciate and the only consideration for you is will this lower the value or will it maintain the value or enhance the value. Jeffrey Schmitt: As a matter of law, the definition of maintain from a perspective as it is here is that the value of the property, whatever it is in some point in time, will not fall below that level. John Roberts: That is correct. Jeffrey Schmitt: Any other questions for council and/or between ourselves. Was that your question Mr. Brown? Tom Brown: Just to make sure we get to the nub of it because we have been discussing maintaining and then appreciation values and all these other things. I wanted to make sure we are clear and what is that value that we are required to look at and that is my main concern. WE don’t get a choice to look at all these other things. I want to know what is required and we have to look at. Jeffrey Schmitt: Can I ask for a motion on Article 8.2.1? MOTION made by David Blankfard that we do not believe that the use of the kennel will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties based on the fact of Mr. Tolley’s appraisal testimony that we heard tonight. Jeffrey Schmitt: It is your motion that the use will not maintain in the midst of that stuff. Do I hear a second for that motion? Not hearing a second for that motion, I ask another member of the board if they wish to submit their motion for 8.2.1. David Blankfard: The reason I think we should not is because we have not heard any testimony tonight that says in either way that it will maintain or will not maintain the current value. There is nothing on the record that says; in fact we have heard two different things. One that the data that was presented in the report impact study is invalid so that throws that whole impact study. In my mind there is no impact study. Tom Brown: I guess the problem I have with that is just because you have a lot of conflicting data does that always mean you can’t make a decision. David Blankfard: My decision is no. Tom Brown: That is my point, do we have enough that we can look at and say we have a reasonable thought that values can be maintained and I guess you are saying you don’t think that data contained will be enough to meet that burden. David Blankfard: Correct. I don’t think there is any data. Jeffrey Schmitt: Other questions regarding that. David Blankfard: Also, there is no data that says it will go down or loose value either. I have heard nothing whether having the kennel there will maintain or depreciation the value from either side. Mr. Tolley says he cannot make a decision about this. All I can tell you is the report is no good. Jeffrey Schmitt: So we have conflicting opinion if you will. We have Mr. Knight’s data which was submitted and all the issues that are attendant with Mr. Knight’s data but it is the data we have in regards to that and then we have Mr. Tolley who