|
1
<br />Beth Bronson: From the unitary ownership standpoint, I'm just saying, and I understand staff has reviewed this, and I 2
<br />understand that the application's being brought to the Board. 3
<br /> 4
<br />Nathan Robinson: I feel like we're getting thrown into a situation where I, and I'm in agreement with you, I'm just 5
<br />going to say it in other words. I feel like we're getting into a situation where we're asked to review an SUP that's already 6
<br />in violation, because there's Woods Edge up here, which is one ownership, and then there's another one here that's 7
<br />another ownership, so that condition that exists right now is in violation of the original SUP, and who's responsible for 8
<br />approving that, I don't know. Who was responsible for saying it was okay to separate that without checking back and 9
<br />seeing that that was a condition of the property prior to subdivision? I mean I don't know how that stuff works legally. 10
<br />That's not our problem right now, but I do feel like I'm presented with a situation where we're being asked to revise an 11
<br />SUP that's already being violated by saying if we don't revise it, then we can just build this anyway. 12
<br /> 13
<br />Beth Bronson: Correct. 14
<br /> 15
<br />Nathan Robinson: And that feels weird to me. I don't know how to respond to that. First of all, I don't think you 16
<br />could build this, the way that the SUP's written right now with this document that was illustratively driven, or written, or 17
<br />drawn, shows a road crossing on Woods Edge property across a part of the property that you can't put a road across. 18
<br />Leon Meyers: I don't think anybody's proposing to build that. 19
<br /> 20
<br />Nathan Robinson: This was what the presentation was. If you don't approve it, we can just build this property 21
<br />anyway, and then we could put all the houses here, and then that would be detrimental to the neighbors. And so in order 22
<br />to address that, because we could build this road, the proposal was that we'll put, there's already a rural buffer here, so 23
<br />you couldn't exactly do that because there's a rural buffer down here anyway, but we'll put a rural buffer here that's 100 24
<br />feet here and then up into the rural buffer this area. I don't know how to make a decision on this, when we're in violation 25
<br />already of the SUP. I honestly don't know how do we legally do that? 26
<br /> 27
<br />James Bryan: You're asking about how you can do that legally, and you're looking at me, so I'll go ahead and throw in 28
<br />my 2 cents. 29
<br /> 30
<br />Nathan Robinson: I'm just a dumb engineer. You have the legal stuff. 31
<br /> 32
<br />James Bryan: So, there's been some speculation about that the current SUP has been violated. That has not been the 33
<br />subject of an enforcement today. That would be the responsibility of the county, and they may do that in the future. They 34
<br />may not do that. That's really not relevant to this decision, because what you're looking at is the proposed changes and 35
<br />whether that would be in harmony with the neighborhood, increase or decrease the value, those things. So, I'll tell you a 36
<br />little bit about the precedent that this Board has, and it's usually in the form of variances. You'll have a property owner 37
<br />who comes and they're non-conforming. They said, oh, I built the shed, and I didn't realize I needed permits. I didn't 38
<br />know I needed a whole new rezoning. So, they come in, and they are in violation, and they're asking for the variance, and 39
<br />the variance has specific standards. It says is there something particular to your property? Is this going to harm your 40
<br />neighbors? Then this Board looking at that will say yes or no for that. If they say yes, it stays up. If they say no, then they 41
<br />have to tear it down. The one little wrinkle to this is that the form that we've all been discussing is this unity of ownership, 42
<br />and there was some argument from the applicant at the beginning that that may not be enforceable, so it's not really 43
<br />before this Board, but if you're just trying to wrap your head around it, it might have been a case where it should never 44
<br />have been a standard, a condition put on. You might imagine a scenario where a Board in Carolina Town meets at 11:00 45
<br />at night. They're tired. They're tacking on conditions at the end of the meeting, and something gets on that maybe 46
<br />shouldn't. We normally think of SUPs as running with the land, and we usually are agnostic to ownership of it, so it doesn't 47
<br />matter whether it's McDonald's owning this or not. It's whether it's a restaurant. It doesn't matter if it's McDonald's or 48
<br />Hardee's. We usually only look at the property use, not the ownership. That is sort of just taken for granted. There's not 49
<br />a lot of case law on that. Really, the only case law about ownership is with spot zoning, and that's really, really peculiar 50
<br />41
|