BOA minutes 101110 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 11/8/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/11/2010 Page 23 of 35 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 What we have here is an agreement at this juncture to disagree on several components of this operation. Your decision tonight will not shut down the ag center. Your decision tonight will either be to affirm my determination as documented within this courtesy notice, will be to modify that determination based on the testimony heard this evening, or to refute it and accept the position of the applicant. In any case the applicant has a valid and viable Special Use Permit that allows him and her to continue operations consistent with that approval. So no matter what your decision tonight, the SUP is not voided or invalid. The operation will continue. The debate tonight and the disagreement tonight focuses on whether or not all the uses that are currently operating on the facility are consistent with the original approval. Unfortunately, this is an adversarial process where staff takes a position and the applicant takes a counter position. I’d like to think that Mr. Parker, Mr. Nutter, Ms. Nichols, and I have worked diligently to try to address the majority of my concerns and I applaud them for addressing the majority of them. Unfortunately, they have not addressed all of them and that’s why we’re here. I’ll answer any questions you have at this time. Tom Brown: Mr. Harvey, would you agree that based on what you have testified thus far, on page 88, that at a minimum we would have to modify before any offer of determination to eliminate item number 3, 4, 6, and 7 from your list of items? Michael Harvey: I would testify for the record, as I already have, that the applicant has addressed my concerns and any action by the Board tonight if it is to affirm the decision as referenced in this letter would exclude the numbers you’ve just listed. Tom Brown: So an affirmation would automatically exclude those items that you have specified? Michael Harvey: If that is your recommendation, it should be part of your recommendation but I am testifying that those have been addressed to my satisfaction. Tom Brown: Thank you. James Carter: You’ve mentioned several times about modification, what needs to be done for the modification to meet your satisfaction? Michael Harvey: Dr. Carter, with all due respect, it’s actually spelled out in the Ordinance, it’s not to my satisfaction, it’s to the Board’s satisfaction. Obviously I am going to defend the Nutter’s, and Ms. Nichols, and Mr. Parker in this instance, they obviously chose an option they felt best prepared for in terms of cost because essentially what this boils down to is a whole new Special Use Permit application. Which means, as this Board is fully aware, a new public hearing, submission of a revised application, submission of a revised site plan, submission of a revised narrative the provision of supporting documentation proving compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance with respect to compliance to Section 8.2.1 which is the three mandatory requirements that have to be found. That the use promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare, that the use enhances or maintains the value of adjacent property and that the use is consistent with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. They will also have to re-file separate applications with various county departments, most notably the Orange County Health Department, in order to determine whether or not the existing septic system can support any expanded uses that they purpose to offer. Do I have a concern that is the case? No, I don’t however, they would still have to go through that process. You are essentially talking as if this would be almost a virgin application. In the several meetings I had with Mr. Parker to discuss this we both determined that it would probably be their best course of action initially to seek your guidance in terms of an appeal just because the potential cost of re-filing an SUP application. Tom Brown: Mr. Harvey, on a new SUP you would only be dealing with the additional uses, correct? Not be retrying…