BOA minutes 051010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8/9/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 5/10/2010 Page 2 of 6 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 55 a. February 8, 2010 (Delayed from March 8, 2010 meeting) Tom Brown: This is the February 8th minutes, page one, line 36, it says individuals sworn in. To my recollection on February 8th we did not swear in anyone because the discussion was about whether there was sufficient time for the case to be heard. Then that was the discussion later with the attorneys where we decided when everyone was going to meet and we were going to have a long session. So, I don’t believe we swore in anyone at that February 8th meeting. Michael Harvey: I’ll have to go back to my notes. I know people signed up. I think your recollection, however, is correct. Tom Brown: If we could… I don’t guess it really matters. Debra Graham: I’ll check to make sure. Tom Brown: Maybe you can say individuals signed in for swearing and then that’s when it gets into the whole argument. Just say individuals who signed up to be sworn. The record should probably reflect that nobody was sworn because they moved it. I think it does that on the second page. Jeff Schmitt: Very observant Mr. Brown, thank you sir. Okay, on the bottom of page two, line 49, we are going to adjourn to this, ‘to’ needs to be struck. So we’re sort of going page by page here I guess so as you have a comment on the page go ahead and speak up and make your observation. Page 4, page 5. Page 5, line 11. See this is the ballpark thing. Michael Harvey: This is the meeting where you approved the order and certified the record. Jeff Schmitt: That’s got it. All right, on line 11, it should read ‘show that it is’ and strike out ‘not’. ‘Show that it is in violation of County ordinance.’ I think that’s what we’re saying there, correct? Michael? Michael Harvey: Yes Jeff Schmitt: Anything else on page 5? Page 6? Tom Brown: Page 6, line number 33, delete the word ‘at’ at the end of the sentence there. “Where is that documented? And then line 37, that should be a question mark. That was not a statement. ‘Staff agrees with her affidavit’ and I said that in a questioning tone because I did not think that staff would agree with that. And that’s all. Jeff Schmitt: Okay, page 7, on line 16. I’m going to change the wording here a little bit so beginning, it says ‘changing this so that what’ strike from ‘what all to understand, Debra, and I’ll read what I want to put in here. ‘The comments of the Board reflect the understanding that Section number whatever, requires’, so forth and so on. Is what I think we’re saying. Then on line 25, after ‘community,’ comma, should be ‘community building and fellowship’ strike ‘the extension of people getting together in a comradary fashion, that the church has the ability’, insert ‘to host and participate in this activity’ strike all of that and after the ‘building and fellowship’, Debra, insert ‘to host and participate in this activity.’ So it should read, I said ‘John, this doesn’t revolve around the ability of the church, under the guise of the extension of community building and fellowship to host and participate in this activity. This in not in contention whatsoever.’ Jeff Schmitt: Page eight, page nine. Dawn Brezina: On page 8; I don’t know what I said here but it certainly is convoluted. Line 22, if we could just ‘offer during daylight hours it is different than’ then just strike all that, ‘than nighttime.’ then period ‘so he goes back to the field…..’ Dawn Brezina: On line 22, where it says “offered during daylight hours it is different ‘than’ a ball field at nighttime.” Period. Debra Graham: ‘different than a ball field at nighttime.’ Dawn Brezina: Then the question to Michael is that it doesn’t seem to be a problem.