BOA minutes 061311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 11/14/2011 OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 22 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 Mike Parker: No, we do not. We do not have an alcohol permit so we don’t need one. Tom Brown: Do the Board members have any questions? Keep in mind when we close the hearing, we will go into the specific and general standards. The specifics are fairly straight forward but the general standards we need to make sure all questions are fielded now before we get into fact finding. Mark Micol: We can ask counsel during the deliberations? Tom Brown: Up to a point but you cannot have a detailed discussion. Larry Wright: (Directed to Mr. Harvey) You were talking in respect to accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and were you citing the Land Use Elements in Chapter 5? I was looking and I did a lot of studying on this and I was pretty much in the natural and the agricultural chapter 6, you were referring to chapter 5? Michael Harvey: Actually I am referring the Comprehensive Plan as a focusing document. The comment I made is that the applicant in Attachment B has provided you several sections of the Comprehensive Plan as an entity that they believe demonstrate their compliance with respect to this development. Staff doesn’t offer comment on that because the general nature of this finding and what our limitations are from a staff’s standpoint in the ordinance. I did want to remind the board that the applicant had provided that detail. Larry Wright: I misunderstood your comment partially. Thank you for clarifying. Mark Micol: Is there any way we can make the approval contingent on one of the events being tested. I do have a concern that we are setting the stage for them to increase the sound and there is no way to limit that? Michael Harvey: My only comment is that regardless of the action you take tonight whether to approve or deny the applicant’s request, they are still obligated to comply with the noise ordinance. If the Sheriff’s department goes out and determines there is a violation, standard procedure is that Maple View be afforded two opportunities, reduce it to take another reading and keep it reduced to meet the decibels before they can cease and desist or risk being cited. Mark Micol: I guess the only example we have that you referred to where there was no testing done when they did exactly what you stated. They called the Orange County Sheriff’s department, they didn’t test. Michael Harvey: The testimony as articulated in the October hearing where I referenced the minutes, the Sheriff’s Department did go out and conduct an investigation and determined there was no violation. That was the testimony from the October hearing. Mark Micol: I would feel a lot better if they would have said 45 decibels were read. Michael Harvey: That is a true statement, however, what is in the record is that the Sheriff’s department completed their investigation and determined there was no violation. Mark Micol: The way I read that statement was that if the time had been after 6:00 PM they would have been in violation based on what we just read. If the time had been after 6:00 PM then they would have been in violation. It was between 50 and 60 decibels so if they had a decibel reading of 57 and it was between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM during the daylight hours, they would not be in violation. Michael Harvey: I can only answer the question the way I talked to the Sheriff’s office, not the way it was entered into the record. I did not and was not asked to go out and verify findings. Our planning department is not responsible to enforce the ordinance so I did not go out and take any readings. All I will stipulate to is no matter what you do, any activity at the Maple View Ag Center will have to be compliant with the noise ordinance and if not, then they have two options; they can either voluntarily reduce the noise or cease and desist or they may get cited.