BOA minutes 061311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 11/14/2011 OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 19 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 the identified violations. If they do not then they are subject to having the special use permit revoked by my office. That is articulated not only within the ordinance but it is always articulated in the special use permit document that you take action on. I understand the confusion created with terminology. This is going to be a camp retreat center as defined by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The term “party barn” has no definiti on and has no place in our ordinance, however, it becomes a synonymous term and you need to understand that what is being applied for is a camp retreat center and that issue, at least from my read of the testimony offered here this evening, is a concern there will be activities occurring at the Maple View Ag Center that are more characteristic of a party or celebration event rather than an educational component and that is what you are determining whether or not is reasonable or viable now. What I will stipulate to is that the activities that the applicant is asking to be allowed at this facility are consistent with the definition contained within the ordinance and are consistent with the interpretation that has been made with several other similar applications during my tenure with the county and predating my tenure with the county. If the board doesn’t have any questions of me, I would like to move onto Attachment G. Larry Wright: Could you please explain that last statement you made? Michael Harvey: With respect to the characteristics of this operation? Larry Wright: Yes. It wasn’t quite clear. Michael Harvey: We have a definition for camp and retreat. The interpretation of said definitions not only during my employment and tenure with the county but previous interpretations by zoning officers has been that this allowed for recreational social activities to occur, whether it is a wedding or fundraiser. Those types of activities have been considered synonymous with the county’s definition of camp retreat. The only point I am making is that while I understand the concern in opposition, the only comment I will make is that the proposed, the requested use, is consistent with the definition and previous interpretations of what is acceptable at a camp retreat center. Larry Wright: That definition was not changed with the UDO? Michael Harvey: That is a correct statement. Actually, Mr. Chairman, before I go on, with respect to defense Exhibit 2, which is the item in your packet, Mr. Oglesby had testified to the information packet prepared by Maple View II homeowner’s associations which we did include in your packet and they did enter it into the record. There are a couple of points I want to make with respect to Appendix 7, the map of the party barn, and that map begins on page 20 of this document. Obviously, we know what the first property is. The second property is a bed and breakfast that was legally permitted by the Orange County Planning Department for three or less bedrooms and of course with provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, they are allowed to have weddings and special events as a permitted accessory use of this application. The individual who operates this particular bed and breakfast is Camille Andrews, who is in the process of applying for a Class B Special Use Permit to expand the nature and use of this property. Unfortunately, she has not completed her submittal. The next picture is the Barn of Valhalla. That is Duffy Gilligan, as you all know, that received a Class B Special Use Permit from this board after three public hearings. To the north of this are several single family residences ranging in acreage from two to five acres. The next picture is the Rigmore House, which was approved in 2006 as a camp retreat. It is primarily utilized for weddings and other similar receptions. The Snipes Farm, unfortunately, I don’t have a file on Snipes Farm, so it my duty to investigate the validity and viability of that particular use and if it is determined they are not operating with the appropriate permits, they will have to come before the board as the current applicants have been forced to. I would like to go over Attachment G. First, this is the typical finding of fact you are familiar with from previous meetings as the board is already aware but I will share for the benefit of those present. The county planning staff does not make a formal recommendation with respect to approval or denial of a project. That is not our requirement or purview as defined in the zoning ordinance. We will however provide you direction in terms of our perceived compliance with the provisions of code that we are obligated to respond to. I am going to go through this sheet, providing you some directions, answers and then sum up and you can ask questions. Please remember that once you close the public hearing, you cannot ask questions of me, the applicant or anyone else in the audience that includes Mr. Rooks, or the individuals he is representing. Michael Harvey read the following: Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant complies with the specific standards as outlined within the UDO with respect to the physical development of the property.