BOA minutes 061311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 11/14/2011 OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 14 of 44 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 David Rooks: No. I would say noise, safety and traffic. James Carter: This idea about if it is revised, you are saying you will have more traffic, more noise and possibly excessive use of alcohol if it is revised? David Rooks: Yes. James Carter: This is what you anticipate? David Rooks: Based on the fact, not the alcohol, but the noise and traffic, we have seen it when they have had events that were in violation of the original SUP so we are just taking that as examples. That is all we have to go on. We are saying we don’t like the examples and if you increase the frequency so they can have more than an average of two events per month which presumably is part of the issue in terms of wanting to be more profitable as a non-profit in terms of paying for what it cost to put that there. James Carter: You have potential and you are saying profit and also non-profit. You say you increase your potential for having activities you are going to try to make a profit. You mentioned earlier it was a non-profit organization. If they increase their activities because of the cost incurred, what are you anticipating? David Rooks: They built a very nice ag center, it costs money, they are paying the mortgages. That is a question for the Nutters but the point is they have bills to pay like we all do and their idea was that and I remember when we talked at the very beginning, I think you all had gone out and researched and said can we make what we invested at a minimum and they went to a lot of the schools and it was right before the downward trend in the economy. It was an unfortunate act. Again, that is why we suggested a lot of alternatives that are so educationally oriented that don’t need to go where they are going to have weddings and holiday parties and that sort of thing. Mark Micol: She mentioned that the Orange County Sheriff was called, what did they say? Allison Nichols: I spoke with them and actually if you look at the note from last time, it was brought up and I made a statement regarding that and that was the last time she acknowledged that she called the police. So you want to refer back to that? Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Micol, with all due respect, the information she is referring to is on page 118 in your packet, in the minutes for the October 2010 regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment during the appeal. Comments begin on line 4 with Ms. Oglesby and go down to approximately line 19 where there are direct conversations related to the Sheriff’s Department and the investigation of noise complaints. Mark Micol: It says they were not in violation because of the time of day, not because of the original question, you talked about the noise ordinance and breaking the noise ordinance and using a device to monitor. When they came out, they just referenced because it was time of day, 12:00 to 6:00 so there was no device used when they were called out. Michael Harvey: All I can testify to is that there are noise limits established for specific hours of the day per the Orange County Noise Ordinance. There is decibel limits established, 65 decibels between the hours of 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM. What was testified to and all I am commenting on is there was no violation detected in my mind so as the Sheriff’s Department concluded after taking decibel readings there was no violation of the noise ordinance. Mike Parker: Isn’t it true that those decibel limits would apply whether there is a special use permit or not? Michael Harvey: Correct. Tom Brown: It is actually 60 db during the day and 50 db in the evening. Mark Micol: But if we approve the revised SUP, we are creating an environment where more and more traffic and more and more noise could be created.