BOA minutes 110810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 3/14/2011 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 11 of 43 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 legal under the health department guidelines. Larry Wright: I find it curious that there seem to be spontaneous fish fries that go on and it doesn’t seem …. I have been trained in microbiology and I don’t understand all this. Thomas Brown: Do the other board members have any other questions of Mr. Harvey or any of the testimony prior to the closing of this case to the public? Larry Wright: When I visited that site, I did not see a sign of notification that this was coming before the board on that parcel. Michael Harvey: We posted the sign and it was removed. We don’t know why or how… within a couple of days of being posted. We have had similar problems with similar sites. Let me stipulate that one of the reasons we have to go through the arduous advertisement process we do is because signs disappear which is why we send out certified letters to all the adjacent property owners and advertise in the paper. We had a similar problem, in the next case and on a case two months ago with the dog kennel on Davis. James Carter: To Mr. Andrews, I applaud your interest in creating something positive for the neighborhood. Michael Harvey: When Mr. and Mrs. Andrews began talking about this, the obvious question since it was a ball field and used as a ball field at one point in time, why do we need a Class B Special Use Permit to reestablish the ball field. It was my determination that since the use had been dormant for several years, that it lost any status in order to claim that it had been a recreational facility based on the current definition of the ordinance and as such, in my mind, they had no choice but to come through this process. Larry Wright: This is submitted jointly with the HYAA? Michael Harvey: HYAA is partnering with the Andrews’ and HYAA will be the predominate user of the field according to the application. Larry Wright: And it is under lease agreement? Michael Harvey: Correct. Larry Wright: If for some reason, this lease was no longer renewed, would the spirit of this ball field still be a neighborhood ball field? Would it be inclusive of what the spirit of it was in the 60’s and the 70’s as a place for the youth to get together and would not be taken over by adult games. It was brought to us as a community endeavor and the spirit of it is to have a facility for the youth to have constructive athletic events. In the event that lease is broken or not be renewed, would that still exist or is that not germane to what we decide here? Michael Harvey: I think the application and the narrative, as I recall, is broken down twofold. One it talks about this cooperative relationship with HYAA and also providing opportunity for local kids to engage in softball/baseball activities. I think the applicant is voluntarily committing themselves to providing a recreational amenity geared and focused towards the provision of this field primarily for the use of local children. The HYAA lease agreement and their use of the facility is not secondary because it is a joint partnership. I think it is a benefit and if it dissolves, I think there is sufficient detail in the narrative and the application package that commits the use of this facility primarily as a place for the local children to play ball. Thomas Brown: The public hearing portion of case number A-4-10 is now closed. I would like to thank staff, applicant and citizens for their time and thoughtful testimony. We have heard the testimony of the applicant and the staff. The applicant has made a request for the Special Use Permit to operate a non-profit recreational facility specially a ball field. Testimony and evidence has been provided during this hearing and has been noted that there will be no ball