BOA minutes 101110 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 11/8/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/11/2010 Page 27 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 Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I would just add one final statement. I think that if the inclination of the Board is to do the final option, I don’t think you can technically close the public hearing. I think that you would have to agree that it’s what you wish to do, discuss the alternatives in terms of what would be required or what could be achieved with Mr. Parker’s input, my input, and then you would adjourn the public hearing to a date/time certain because once you close the public hearing there can be no further evidence entered into the record. I think, you may be looking to do a straw vote in terms of if mediation is something you wish to pursue. Tom Brown: Thank you. Dawn Brezina: Mr. Harvey, one more question, if we were to rule that staff had erred then can we add certain restrictions to the issues as we go down the list? Michael Harvey: That may be a better question for Sahana. However, my opinion is that no you cannot because you would be determining that I erred and my determination you can’t impose conditions to address perceived issues. I either interpreted the Ordinance correctly or did not. To impose conditions would almost be to affirm my decision in a reverse manner. Dawn Brezina: Ok, so that’s not an option, is that correct? Sahana Ayer: Yes Tom Brown: Before we close the public hearing I just want to get a sense of the Board. As I said to Mr. Harvey, I am not advocating that we go the mediation route. I am not at this point confident that we would not be rehashing all the same issues over again, so I am not seeing that the mediation really is viable. I think we need to address either affirmation or reversal as a clean decision on the zoning officer’s determination. That would be where I see this right now but seeking your guidance before we close the public hearing because once that’s done it will be done. James Carter: What are the logistics involved, you mentioned earlier about arbitration, what would be the position involving that? Sahana? Sahana Ayer: Well, it’s not arbitration like Michael said, it has to be mediation. You would bring the two parties together and you would go over what the issues are basically and try to reach a conclusion of what can be resolved with conditions. If they are going to come back with the same issues but the trees, it’s not going to work out. You have to say try and resolve what uses can be permitted, whether they can use it for the yoga center or not. You have to be fairly specific. You can’t just let them go out and talk about it and come back with the same problems again. James Carter: I like Mr. Parker’s analogy he said earlier about plowing the same ground twice. How can you avoid that? Sahana Ayer: Like I said, we’re talking basically about three issues here, whether they can use it for rental property, whether they can use it as a yoga center, and the fund raising so they’ll have to go out and discuss those issues and see how they can either not conduct those activities or conduct them so that they comply with the conditions of the Special Use Permit. Dawn Brezina: But that would be part of mediation, right? Sahana Ayer: Yes David Blankfard: The way I am seeing this is that some of these things are allowed under the Special Use Permit and some of the things are not. How can we say Mr. Harvey is correct and then not incorrect at the same time?