|
Approved 11/8/2010
<br />
<br />OC Board of Adjustment – 10/11/2010 Page 24 of 35
<br />1
<br />2
<br />3
<br />4
<br />5
<br />6
<br />7
<br />8
<br />9
<br />10
<br />11
<br />12
<br />13
<br />14
<br />15
<br />16
<br />17
<br />18
<br />19
<br />20
<br />21
<br />22
<br />23
<br />24
<br />25
<br />26
<br />27
<br />28
<br />29
<br />30
<br />31
<br />32
<br />33
<br />34
<br />35
<br />36
<br />37
<br />38
<br />39
<br />40
<br />41
<br />42
<br />43
<br />44
<br />45
<br />46
<br />47
<br />48
<br />49
<br />50
<br />51
<br />52
<br />Michael Harvey: That is a correct statement, as the additional uses are to be incorporated into the existing Special Use
<br />Permit and how the additional uses comply with the various standards as articulated in Article 8 of the Ordinance.
<br />
<br />Dawn Brezina: So, again when we come finding of fact in the decision making process here, we can add amendments?
<br />
<br />Michael Harvey: It is my estimation, and I’ll let Sahana, the attorney break in because I think also she may want to
<br />answer part of this question. The Board has several options, you can affirm my decision as modified, as I have testified
<br />to this evening, finding that there has a modification inconsistent with Article 8, Section 8.7, and that the applicant has
<br />two options, cease and desist all activities inconsistent with the original approval or apply for a modified Special Use
<br />Permit. You can find that I have erred in my interpretation and that the expanded uses do not constitute a modification
<br />as defined by subsection a, b, and c of Section 8.7.1 and that the additional uses do not change a condition imposed
<br />during the approved Special Use Permit. That it does not represent an enlargement of the existing use and it is not an
<br />increase in the level of intensity of uses on the property. The Board can technically find that staff has not been in error
<br />but they want more and additional information on the potential impacts, I think some one used the term this evening,
<br />mediation. You can make a recommendation that technically the applicant engage in a mediation process to address
<br />both staff and the adjacent neighbors concerns, if they are so inclined to do, to provide additional information to either
<br />help you make a decision to affirm or refute staff’s contention. Essentially that’s how I see it and I am not going to
<br />speak for the applicant on that last item that is their decision.
<br />
<br />Tom Brown: In that case you’re simply deferring decision until subsequent meeting..
<br />
<br />Michael Harvey: You’re deferring decision, you’re adjourning the public hearing to a date/time specific in the future
<br />where you hear additional arguments and information submitted by both the applicant and the staff to address any of
<br />the concerns that have identified here this evening consistent with this courtesy notice. We have heard discussion this
<br />evening about issues that in my opinion are not germane to the courtesy notice that are not germane to this hearing.
<br />While the ag center staff may want to address those, your concern is with I have identified in here because that’s what
<br />they have been cited for at this time.
<br />
<br />Tom Brown: Thank you.
<br />
<br />David Blankfard: Mr. Harvey, the original Special Use Permit, was it granted for doing agricultural education only? Or
<br />was it for education in general?
<br />
<br />Michael Harvey: To answer that question sir, I will refer you both to attachment H and attachment A, which is their
<br />application. Attachment H is the Special Use Permit begins on page 121, if you’ll note, this is a point that Mr. Parker
<br />had brought up, 122 through 123 the provision of educational programs designed to provide a hands on experience for
<br />learning about the natural world and concepts of seasonal farm activities which is a statement taken from their
<br />application. On page 123 you will see that the terms of condition of the Special Use Permits are based on the
<br />provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations, applicable state, federal, and local
<br />regulations. The Mapleview Educational Facility Class B Special Use Permit application including any and all project
<br />narrative, site plans, reports, renderings, architectural and/or engineering design renderings, comments, commitments
<br />and supporting documentation contained therein, and the approved Mapleview Educational Facility Class B Special Use
<br />Permit application project file for the aforementioned project.
<br />
<br />Now, if I can refer you back, to the application which we have included in your packet, you will note, it begins on page
<br />59, the narrative which begins technically on page 61talks about, as I have already testified and Ms. Nichols has
<br />testified, a hands on educational operation where it would not only be focused on fieldtrips, day trips for students but
<br />seminars, educational opportunities teaching people about farming. There are proposals in their application. On page
<br />68, for example, where individuals will be taught about pickle and salsa making, canning and preserving, backyard
<br />composting, hands on instruction spinning, weaving, observing a beehive, sorting beans there are a myriad of different
<br />activities associated with what is considered for the purpose of this application an educational opportunity.
<br />Unfortunately, where the applicant and I do differ in our opinion is where that line ends.
|