BOA minutes 061311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 11/14/2011 OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 18 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 Tom Brown: Mr. Parker, do you have a rebuttal at this time? Mike Parker: No sir. Tom Brown: Mr. Rooks do you have any follow up at this time? David Rooks: I believe the board understands the issues. Tom Brown: Ms. Oglesby, I will allow you to follow up shortly and then we will go to staff. Nancy Oglesby: The reason we are concerned about things being different in the future than they were in the past is because it was our impression that things were just getting going when they were stopped and it is part of our negotiations and talking about how many events do you want and how many events do we want. We have said we don’t want more than two loud outdoor events a year. You know how many events do you want? At one point, you said as many as I can book. I remember that. Yes. I would like to know what the limit would be if we are going to talk about limits. If they are going to say we wouldn’t have very many but the permit says you can have as many you want. What are our rights, we don’t have any basically. In the beginning when this permit was put out, it was supposed to be for quiet, educational events during the school day and then all this other stuff happens and the response was, we didn’t know we had to have a permit for it. If we give them an unlimited permit but they say they are just going to do a few events a year then we don’t have any recourse or any way to negotiate. I just really wish we could sit down with a mediator and negotiate and come up with something everyone can live with. Although there haven’t been that many, at the beginning of the ag center there were none, then there were a few and then there were a bunch over a half year period so saying there were 28 over a 52 month period, I don’t think that is really fair and if there is going to be a commitment to having just that number or fewer, I just feel like we need to have it in writing. Tom Brown: Staff, would you like to proceed at this point? Michael Harvey: I am going to make a couple of comments and answer any questions you may have. I think it is important to understand we have a complete application submittal in front of you. This application submittal contains several different pieces of information that is necessary for you to make your decision. First, we have the original Special Use Permit, Attachment A, the application, Attachment B; the application contains a narrative demonstrating from the applicant’s standpoint their perceived compliance with the provisions of the code. They have also submitted additional documentation specifically in Exhibits 1 and 2 which you have been handed which is an analysis of adjacent property values. We have minutes from various meetings where this item has been discussed including the recent appeal. We have a map of the adjacent property; we have staff correspondence, which I have already articulated includes the existing septic permit that is governing the operation of this facility and the findings of fact, which I will go over in a moment. Essentially what you have before you, the board is being asked, as articulated in my abstract, to determine two things. First, are the uses and activities being proposed by the application as delineated within their application consistent with the existing county definition of camp retreat center? It is staff’s finding that those activities are consistent with the definition. Second, will the addition of these uses a) invalidate the existing approval or b) can you approve it based on the information you have heard this evening? Obviously staff cannot answer that question because you will be making it based on the sworn testimony this evening. What I can offer is whether this project complies with the various provisions of code which is the findings of fact sheet which I will go over in a minute. There have been several comments made this evening that I feel somewhat obligated to respond to. The first comment is concerning potential consumption of alcohol at this facility. While the application has made several references to the fact that no alcohol has been provided or they don’t advertise that alcohol can be consumed, may I remind the board that in order for the Maple View Ag Center to have alcohol allowed to be consumed, sold or anyway on this property they must obtain an ABC permit. That permit has to be signed off by the Orange County Planning Department (i.e. my office), the inspections department and the Orange County Fire Marshal ascertaining this use is in compliance with the current provisions of county code. Is there a reason I foresee that I could not sign such a permit, none at all. Has a permit been applied for? No. If it is not applied for then no alcohol can be consumed on this property. That is the answer to that question. With respect to concerns about the apparent carte blanche with no applicable regulation to the property, as currently articulated with Attachment A, the existing special use permit, and as I have testified to you all in previous hearings, the granting of a special use permit does not exempt the operator from compliance with various county regulations; whether it be zoning, noise, solid waste management, if there is a violation of these codes or provisions, the applicant is obligated to correct