BOA minutes 061311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 11/14/2011 OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 23 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, on these activities that take place at the ag center, if you could reiterate how many had outdoor music? Mike Parker: Three. Tom Brown: At all three of those events, did they have external amplification? Mike Parker: Two had bands, like high school bands. And those are, I suspect, are what they are complaining of. And they played for about an hour each time. Tom Brown: And was that music aimed towards the residences, to the north? Mike Parker: I don’t know but I assure you, in the future, will not be. Mark Micol: It’s really a moot point too because if they agree to only having three or four, you are still in perpetuity, the SUP goes with the land? Others could come in and they could have 40 events with music. That discussion is moot. Michael Harvey: You are correct, the SUP goes with the land and that any provision, condition or regulation goes both ways. Sahana Ayer buys the Maple View Ag Center and in 10 years turns it into Sahana’s place. It has to operate in compliance with the application, testimony and regulations that exist at the time. Does that mean, they could have X number of events? Sure it does as long as it is compliant, consistent with all the regulations that regulate the use of this property. You still have a septic tank permit application, for example, that limits the number of attendees and the number of events on a daily basis. You still have occupancy loads enforced by the fire marshal’s office and building inspection’s office. You have parking that limits from a zoning standpoint, the number of attendees for any event. There are still all these limitations that go in place. I am not telling you this to make you feel better or it’s not a problem but I think in context you have to understand there is always room for certain activities to occur but it has to occur within the envelope of the regulations that are enforced by the county to address these issues. Mark Micol: And we could further limit the amplification? Michael Harvey: Without putting thoughts in your head or words in your mouth, if you wish to discuss with the applicant the option of requiring future outdoor music activities not involve amplified music or be situated where they occur away from the western property line in order to address noise for the adjacent owners, those are the kinds of things you can discuss with the applicant and if you feel appropriate, you oppose said conditions but that is a conversation you need to be having with them and not me. Sahana Ayer: One of the factors you have to consider while approving these additions is whether these additional uses are in harmony with the existing character of the neighborhood and if you determine that the additional uses are inconsistent with the harmony of the neighborhood then you can add any conditions you think that would bring it into compliance but those conditions can’t invalidate the existing special use permit. That is one thing you have to keep in mind but if you think, at this point, you need to add conditions about time, amplification, there are existing ordinances they have to comply with but you can add other conditions you think are reasonable. Tom Brown: Those specific instances you mentioned would not invalidate the current SUP, would that be correct, limiting amplified music or hours of operation, that would not have an impact on the current SUP or a modified SUP, is that correct? Sahana Ayer: It depends on the conditions you are thinking of adding. Tom Brown: Those specific conditions. Sahana Ayer: Yes. Tom Brown: Mr. Parker, what is your comment, what would your feeling be from the applicant’s prospective on limiting amplified music or redirecting to ensure the noise issue is mitigated?