Planning Board minutes 030619 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/3/19 reach for and explained that an applicant should be able to reach for XYZ to get a variance. It should not be based on 167 the ability to convince someone to pass the applicant’s problem. 168 169 Randy Marshall added the applicant needs to understand what the boards were not persuaded on to give them a basis 170 for appeal. Adam Beeman stated that he understood Randy Marshall’s comment. 171 172 Michael Harvey reminded the board that every decision by either the County Commissioners or the Board of 173 Adjustment on Special Use Permits, variances, or appeals are automatically appealable within 30 days to the Orange 174 County Superior Court. 175 176 Randy Marshall expressed his desire to have the boards give reason for not being persuaded on an applicant’s case. 177 He stated there should be a responsibility on the basis of the board members who don’t agree to give a reason why. 178 179 Adam Beeman agreed. He expressed that this could pose an undue burden on the average homeowner. He 180 remarked that it would be a burden on an applicant to have to take the case to the Supreme Court of the County and 181 appeal because it didn’t pass. 182 183 Alexander Gregory stated he was okay as it was originally written but expressed that there was some confusion with 184 the language upon hearing the concerns of the other board members. He explained that when he originally read the 185 language he understood it to mean that a person could have all their pieces together but that would not mean someone 186 on the board would agree with that person, and so they would have to take it a step further to explain and to try to 187 convince somebody who would be voting on it. 188 189 Adam Beeman questioned what the reason would be for denying an applicant. Alexander Gregory stated that 190 someone could have their own personal reasons for denying the applicant. He again stated that he understood it to 191 mean that they should be prepared even if they have everything in order. 192 193 Michael Harvey resumed his explanation of the amendments. He explained that 25 (B-F), articulated in the table, is a 194 renumbering of sections to make them now compliant with the flow. The next change on page 25 (G) is the same 195 burden of proof language in interpretations. He then moved to Page 29 and explained it was included for consistency. 196 He explained that he made a change on page 30 in an attempt to keep the flow of pages correct. Page 29 updates a 197 reference to the provision of the UDO. He explained as pages are added and deleted, citations change so instead of 198 5.1.4, it’s now 5.1.3. He stated that the language on Page 30 has been there since the beginning, but he had shown it 199 as existing text, meaning it had not been highlighted in any way shape or form. It is new text and has to be identified 200 as new text, that’s the change and that’s the reason for footnotes. The note will also appear in the master table 201 provided to the board. 202 203 Michael Harvey mentioned that there were other changes to be discussed and continued to Page 56, under recreation, 204 Land Use, camp retreat. He explained that because of changes having to be made to the Assembly Land Use, retreat 205 centers would be split from recreation into assembly. Mr. Harvey explained that retreat had to come out of recreation 206 because of the character and the scope of the use and guided the board to this on page 56. He further explained that 207 they were also seeing the deletion of sweepstakes, cafe and parlor and stated that state law prohibits them. The 208 attorney has decided that if it’s prohibited by state law, to let state law tell people it’s prohibited and illegal. When and if 209 state law is ever changes this, an ordinance amendment will have to be done, but there will be a legal basis for 210 establishing a regulatory standard for that land use at that time. He explained that theaters were also being moved as 211 it is considered an assembly use. He explained that the board would also notice a renumbering as pages are deleted 212 or moved around. 213 Craig Benedict questioned what a camp was by itself without retreat center. Mr. Harvey responded that a camp is 214 basically like a boy scout or summer camp. Mr. Benedict sought reassurance that it was not an assembly. Mr. Harvey 215 replied, no, and remarked it was a recreation activity. 216 217 Randy Marshall inquired if it was similar to Camp New Hope. Mr. Harvey replied that Camp New Hope would be 218 considered a retreat center. Mr. Harvey explained that Camp New Hope was established before the requirement for a 219 Special Use Permit. Per the ordinance, Mr. Harvey said, they have what is deemed to be a de facto Special Use 220 Permit. He explained that the camp is considered to be conforming and further explained that changes don’t impact 221 anybody who had a Class B Special Use Permit for a retreat center in the county. He stated it does not undermine any 222