Orange County Approved BOA Minutes 20 12 14

Browse Search

Approved 0810912021 1 Mrs. Weidner read a statement into the record documenting her standing with respect to Case A-4-20. This statement 2 summarized the previously submitted standing application provided to the Board and applicant. 3 Mrs. Weidner indicated she and her husband own property near the subject parcel, specifically 1001 Holly Creek Lane. 4 They believe the request is inconsistent with the rural nature of the area and will have a negative impact on the value of 5 their property, will cause security concerns, and will create public safety issues as the result of increased traffic. Mrs. 6 Weidner indicated she was not comfortable with allowing the proposed land use to develop near them given the 7 potential secondary impacts it would generate in a rural area of Orange County. 8 9 Mr. Weidner thanked the Board for being allowed to speak and indicated he and his wife made the chose to purchase 10 their property based on its Rural Buffer (RB) general use zoning designation, which indicated it was only appropriate for 11 rural development activities. Mr. Weidner indicated he and his wife may not have bought their parcel had they known a 12 commercial land use could be developed near them. The main roadway, Holly Creek Lane, is a private gravel road and 13 cannot handle the intensive nature of the proposed recreational land use. Mr. Weidner indicated he had spoken to 14 several realtors who informed him there would be a significant impact with respect to the value of their residence if the 15 cricket field were developed as proposed. 16 17 Chair Meyers reminded the parties the purpose of this evening's meeting was to establish standing and not get into 18 argument(s) over potential impacts. Such arguments would be handled at the January 2021 regular meeting. Mr. 19 Weidner expressed concern that Mr. Patil does not live in the area and allows a cricket league to operate from the 20 property. Mr. Weidner indicated they have been complaining about the operation of the league for at least 3 years and 21 are very concerned about the development of the recreation facility as Mr. Patil will not be leaving near the proposed 22 cricket fields. Mr. Weidner indicated information provided by Mr. Patil indicating he lives near the cricket field is 23 erroneous. 24 25 MOTION made by Vice-chair Halkiotis finding that Mr. and Mrs. William and Leslie Weidner were the owners of property 26 near the proposed cricket field, had provided information on potential impacts to property value resulting in the 27 development of the facility, and had standing to comment on the proposed special use permit, seconded by Mr. Qandil. 28 29 Mr. Mufuka asked to be recognized. Mr. Mufuka argued Mr. and Mrs. William and Leslie Weidner application of 30 standing indicating their application indicated they were speaking for themselves as well as surrounding property 31 owners. Mr. Mufuka objected to the assertion the Weidner's represented a group of local residents, which there was no 32 evidence supporting this claim. They could not make arguments indicating they represented other property owners who 33 had not provided documentation asserting standing. Further, Mr. Mufuka indicated the special damages they were 34 alleging were not supported by experts and did not allege specific harms. There was no substantiation of the purposed 35 special damages and his client objected to the presentation of documents alleging same. 36 37 There was general discussion amongst the Board members on the determination of standing with Mr. Bryan. 38 39 Chair Meyers called the question reminding the Board there was a motion and second on granting Mr. and Mrs. 40 Weidner standing. 41 42 Mr. Weidner indicated they would have 4 witnesses and asked if one of their witnesses would be allowed to submit an 43 affidavit offering testimony. Mr. Bryan indicated anyone intending to offer evidence should be available to attend the 44 hearing and be subject to cross examination. Mr. Bryan indicated staff cannot make legal determinations or offer 45 advice to a party. Mr. Bryan indicated the Board's responsibility was to weigh evidence and give it due consideration as 46 practically possible. The Board could accept hearsay evidence but that he would always recommend parties be 47 present, be sworn, and offer testimony in person. 48 49 VOTE: Unanimous. 50 9