7.24.24 BOA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

and odd. So, my advice is to not get hung up on that and focus on whether the proposal meets the requirements of being 1 in harmony with the plans, property value, those things. 2 3 Leon Meyers: The minutes were very helpful for me on that, because I believe the intent of applying that condition was 4 to be sure that the proper buffers didn't get changed somewhere along the line, and here they are changed, but the 5 applicant would say for the better. 6 7 Nathan Robinson: Yeah, I mean the way it was written that a title lawyer won't pass the title to someone who would 8 think they could buy this open land, open space. It could only be changed with governmental action. I guess the question 9 then is, is what's being proposed consistent with the motivation of continuing to be open land, and when we say open 10 land, what was your intent of that? Was it to lock up the land? Was it for people to use it? What was the intention of 11 that? 12 13 Jeff Scott: It appears that the amendment or the change of moving it was to further utilize the land in a different 14 configuration. So this is a continuation of that same idea. 15 16 Leon Meyers: Anything else? 17 18 Beth Bronson: I have no other question about that. I mean I do find it very odd. 19 20 Nathan Robinson: Yeah, I just find it odd. I just feel like error on top of error is never- 21 22 Beth Bronson: It feels weird. I'm just in the same vein of not wanting to inadvertently set any kind of precedent about 23 the way that special use permits are interpreted, or historical special use permits are interpreted, I think is my concern, 24 and I would need more time to review the material, I think, in order to make a decision based on the finding of fact, 25 because there is so much evidence. 26 27 Leon Meyers: You need more information, or you just need to reflect on it? 28 29 Beth Bronson: Yeah, I would need more time to reflect on that to understand that the finding of fact that there is 30 consistency with the UDO and the comprehensive plan and the way that would be changed. 31 32 Leon Meyers: Well, I think we have lots of evidence that that it is consistent with the UDO in the record. 33 34 Beth Bronson: And I'm saying I need time to review that. I mean again, at the same time, I'm not saying that it's not. I 35 guess my concern is setting the precedent that we're, just again, changing a special use, or issuing a special use permit 36 for something that's being done retroactively, but also that is in line with plans that are not actually in this application? I 37 guess it's all just very, very piece meal, and so I'm just not understanding the need to do a special use permit adjustment 38 to reallocate the 25 acres if the intention is actually to have the 25 acres of hundreds of acres saved for green space or 39 open space I mean. So again, I'm not, and I'm not trying to bring in any kind of discussion that's not before the Board. 40 I'm just having a hard time understanding why it is consistent if the intent is to dramatically change the existing setup of 41 the parcels and the zoning and the intent. 42 43 Leon Meyers: Well, the parcels are already changed, so that's not a question before the Board tonight, right? 44 45 Beth Bronson: The parcels are already changed to what? 46 47 Leon Meyers: The parcels have changed from their configuration in 1991, when this special use permit was approved, 48 to today, and there was a change that went through the county process and got approved. 49 50 42