BOA minutes 030810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 3/8/2010 Page 83 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 is also a certified appraiser who says while that data may be correct arithmetically and for the areas that are picked out, its relevance to this neighborhood is not pertinent. David Blankfard: Not applicable. Jeffrey Schmitt: But it is the only data we have. James Carter: Mr. Chairman, there was not enough data to justify either way. Jeffrey Schmitt: It would seem to me that doing studies like this is almost an impossibility for any situation like this. There are 20 variables that will affect the value of property that you have, where they are located, everything that is going on and isolating one aspect of that and trying to pull that out and saying whether it does or doesn’t is very difficult and that is why the data we have has some generalities in involved but again, it is the only data we have. David Blankfard: Who had the burden of proof to submit that data? To prove that… Jeffrey Schmitt: The applicant has provided the data to us. The applicant has provided what they think is relevant. If it is seen as not relevant or incorrect, then that is the issue we have in front of us. I think they have met their burden in regards to providing information in relation to Article 8.2.1. John Roberts: The applicant has the burden to prove that statement. The use will maintain or enhance the value. The proponents of the applicant then have the burden to prove by the same standard, competent materials and substantial evidence that the applicant has not met his required burden. Jeffrey Schmitt: The operative word here is competent material and substantial evidence of which I don’t believe there was any in regards to this. We heard from Mr. Tolley but he provided no empirical data at that point in time to us. Tom Brown: The only empirical data was what was provided by the applicant. Actual numbers, the only numbers provided on paper. This sales dates and things like that and I guess that the, I keep going back and forward on that. Where is the preponderance of doubt or …. David Blankfard: I could give you sales data on my neighborhood and say that applies, here is some numbers, is that what you mean. Jeffrey Schmitt: I don’t think it was that bad. Is it agreed that it was contiguous to a large, economic, commercial development, whether or not that is right, I think both of the witnesses, there is no absolute in regard to this. David has made a motion; I have asked for a second and did not receive a second. At this particular case, I will ask for another motion. Mr. Brown, can I call on you. Tom Brown: I can see both sides and there is uncertainty but when I am looking at the evidence, the most empirical was provided by the applicant and not by the community and that is where I am coming down with that looking at the numbers. MOTION made by Tom Brown to accept the motion that the kennel will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property based on the findings of fact of the professional testimony of the historical sales in the community near the dog kennels and that the property values will be maintained. John Roberts: There needs to be more in the findings on that particular motion. Jeffrey Schmitt: We had the testimony of Mr. Knight in regards to what has happened here and maybe elaborating on pieces of the testimony of the two neighborhoods. It adds to the issue in regards to this. MOTION made by Tom Brown to accept the motion that the kennel will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property based on the findings of fact of the professional testimony of the historical sales in the community near the dog kennels and that the property values will be maintained. Also, the empirical data provided by the applicant showed there is an