* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. UH, GOOD MORNING [00:00:01] EVERYBODY. MY NAME'S RON RAMSEY. [Board of Adjustment Officer Hearing] I'M A HEARING OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF SEDONA. UM, THEY HAVE, I THINK, THREE ON OUR ROTATION. SO I'M HERE RANDOMLY, UNLIKE MOST OF YOU. AND IF YOU NEED A PLACE TO SIT, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP TO THE TABLE. WE'RE NOT GONNA BE, UH, INSISTING THAT YOU JAM IN IN THE BACK IF YOU NEED SOME MORE ROOM. IN THE WAY OF SORT OF A PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE, I HAVE TO TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT OF MY BACKGROUND. I SEE WE HAVE OUR CAMP VERDE CONTINGENT. I WAS EXPLAINING TO THEM I WAS THE CAMP VERDE'S ORIGINAL ATTORNEY FOR LIKE 12 YEARS DOING A LOT OF THE ZONING WORK. AND THEN I WAS ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HERE IN SEDONA. AND ONE OF MY JOBS WAS TO MONITOR AND ATTEND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS, AND ADVISE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. UM, IT'S BEEN AT LEAST SIX OR SEVEN YEARS SINCE I WAS OFFICIALLY PART OF THE CITY. I DID LOOK AT THE PROPERTY THIS MORNING, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY CONNECTIONS TO THAT PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED, THE PROPERTY INVOLVED, BUT I WANT TO MAKE THAT KIND OF DISCLOSURE FOR YOU IN CASE THERE'S ANYBODY THAT HAS AN OBJECTION TO PROCEEDING WITH ME BEING THE HEARING OFFICER. I DO HAVE SOME BACKGROUND, BOTH WITH THE CITY OF SEDONA AND CANTERBURY CONCERNING ZONING. ALL RIGHT, WELL, WE'LL OFFICIALLY CALL THE, UH, THE HEARING TO ORDER. AND THIS IS CASE NUMBER A P P E 23 0 0 0 1. UH, CONSIDERING AN APPEAL REGARDING 55 NEW CASTLE LANE. HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY IS HERE FOR THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC. AND WE WILL NOW DO THE, UH, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. THE FLAG IS IN THE BACK. I PLEDGE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WELL, THAT WAS A VERY INTERESTING PACKET THAT WAS POSTED CONCERNING THIS PARTICULAR APPEAL. I SPENT SOME TIME IN REVIEWING IT. IT'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL BECAUSE NORMALLY WHEN I'M COME TO THESE, UH, APPEALS, I'M, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A VARIANCE AND AS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ANIMAL. UM, SINCE THIS IS A ANOTHER COMPLEX CASE AND WE HAVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION ON TWO SIDES, I'D LIKE TO READ A STATEMENT INTO THE RECORD. UH, PRIOR TO THAT THOUGH, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE, UH, THE APPLICANT TO STATE ON THE RECORD, UH, WHO THEY ARE REPRESENTING A NAME, AND THEN LIKEWISE FOR THE CITY. SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE APPLICANT VIA COMMENT. THAT WOULD BE ME. OKAY. UH, FOR YOUR RECORD, MY NAME IS TAYLOR EARL WITH THE LAW FIRM OF EARL AND CURLEY. OUR ADDRESS IS 31 0 1 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, AND I AM HERE REPRESENTING VINCENT VANK AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND THE GENTLEMAN WITH YOU IS, AND THIS IS MR. VAN HERE WITH ME. OKAY. THANK YOU. MAKE SURE THE RECORD, UM, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK UP KIND OF LOUD BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO PICK THIS UP WITH JUST A HAND RECORDER OVER HERE, AND HOPEFULLY WE'RE GONNA BE SUCCESSFUL. AND BEFORE WE MOVE ON, IS THERE AN LLC THAT, THAT ACTUALLY BN M REAL ESTATE LLC IS THE, UH, OFFICIAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. KURT FOR THE CITY. YEAH. KURT CHRISTENSEN, CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF SEDONA. WITH ME, DOUG, DR. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, UH, REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TODAY IS STEVE MERTIS, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, AND ALSO WITH THE CITY IS CARRIE MEYER, THE, UH, PLANNING MANAGER. THANK YOU. UM, I KNOW THAT LATER ON YOU'LL PROBABLY HAVE SOME COMMENTS, THOUGH. I'VE JUST ASKED THAT YOU, AGAIN, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD SO THAT WE CAN, UH, PICK UP THE AUDIO AND KNOW EXACTLY WHO'S SPEAKING. SO AS FAR AS WHAT I'D LIKE TO PUT ON THE RECORD FIRST, UM, THE PROPERTY IS A SIX UNIT MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX IN AN RS 10 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. AND ACCORDING TO THE SAN SEDONA LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 1.6 , UM, IT IS THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE EX EXISTENCE OF A NON-CONFORMITY IS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, IN EARLY 2021, UH, THE APPELLANT REQUESTED A CITY REVIEW WHETHER THE PROPERTY COULD OPERATE AS A LODGING FACILITY. UH, DEFINITION FOR THAT, UH, UNDER OUR CODE AT THAT POINT WAS BUILDING OR BUILDINGS OFFERED FOR TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS AT A DAILY RATE BASED ON PRIOR NONCONFORMING USE HISTORY AS A COCONINO COUNTY DEVELOPMENT. SINCE THE 1960S, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOUND IN A WRITTEN OPINION OF APRIL 13TH, 2021, THAT BASED ON THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED IN THE ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY AS NEW CASTLE ISLAND COTTAGES FOR DAILY, WEEKLY, OR MONTHLY RENTAL, THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN OPERATED AS A ALLEGING FACILITY PRIOR TO INCORPORATED INCORPORATION OF THE CITY IN MAY OF 1988, [00:05:01] WHICH CARRIED OVER THE COUNTY ZONING OF RS 10,000. THE OPINION THEN ADDED AS A NONCONFORMING USES MUST OPERATE CONTINUOUSLY. THE DIRECTOR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND THIS INTERPRETATION IF FURTHER INFORMATION IS PROVIDED, SHOWING THE LODGING USE HAS CEASED FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 1.6. THE OPINION ALSO STATED THAT IF ANY OF THE INFORMATION USED TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION WAS INACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE, THE OPINION WOULD BE NULLIFIED. LATER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPERTY RECEIVED BY THE CITY SHOWED THAT THE PRIOR OWNERS HAD CEASED NIGHTLY AND WEEKLY RENTALS IN 1983 IN FAVOR OF MONTHLY RENTAL, AND THEN SOUGHT IN 1986 TO RETURN TO THE NIGHTLY LODGING THROUGH THE APPLICATIONS TO THE COCONINO COUNTY PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION. AND THE CITY COUNCIL, BOTH, WHICH DENIED THE CHANGE BACK TO ENLIGHTLY USE COUNTY MINUTES, SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION WAS CONCERNED THAT REVERTING TO ENLIGHTLY USE WOULD HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC, SEWER NOISE, AND SETTING A POSSIBLE PRECEDENT FOR SPOT ZONING. THE, THE OWNER AT THAT POINT WANTED TO, UH, RETURN THE INCREASE, UH, TO THE LIGHTLY TO PAY FOR THE PROPERTY. UM, THE PROPERTY APPARENTLY WAS, UM, IN A NONCONFORMING STATUS AT THE TIME THAT THE COUNTY ADOPTED ITS OWN ZONING, UH, I THINK IN ABOUT 1981 OR SO, OR POSSIBLY EARLIER. SO THE GIST OF THAT PARTICULAR EFFORT BY THE OWNERS WAS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY WERE IN A NONCONFORMING USE AT ONE POINT THAT WAS NIGHTLY, WEEKLY AND, AND MONTHLY. UM, AND THEN THEY WENT VOLUNTARILY TO GO TO JUST MONTHLY, AND THEN THEY WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE, TO NIGHTLY, WEEKLY, OR MONTHLY. AND THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE FROM THEIR MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE, OF CORINO COUNTY SHOWS THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO ALLOW ONE NONCONFORMING USE TO GO BACK TO ANOTHER NONCONFORMING USE. UM, SO IT WAS DENIED ON SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022, THE DIRECTOR HERE FOR THE CITY ISSUED A REVISED INTERPRETATION STATING THE NONCONFORMING USE WAS LIMITED TO MONTHLY RENTALS. THE ADDITIONAL RECORDS SHOWED THE PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN USED FOR NIGHTLY RENTALS AT LEAST FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THE INSIDING CITIES OF SEDONAS AND CORPORATION. APPELLANT HAS RESPONDED THAT THE BROAD HISTORY OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE CONFINED IN TERMS OF LODGING DEFINITIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ADOPTED BY THE CITY IN 1988. AND THE VESTED RIGHT OF THE OWNERS TO REESTABLISH NIGHTLY RATES WAS NOT HISTORICALLY FORFEITED, AND THAT THE RELIANCE OF THE OWNER ON THE INITIAL DETERMINATION BY THE CITY CAUSED HIM TO MAKE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS IN THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD NOT BE RETURNED WITHOUT INCREASED REVENUES AVAILABLE FROM NIGHTLY RENTALS. A SEPARATE ISSUE RELATED TO THE NONCONFORMING USE HISTORY IS WHETHER THE PROPERTY CAN NEVERTHELESS BE DEVELOPED AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL UNDER ARS SECTION NINE DASH 5 3 9, THIS ARGUMENT IS MADE BY APPELLANT AND RESPONSE BY THE CITY INDICATES THE PROPERTY MAY NOT QUALIFY BY STATUTE BASED ON ITS CONFIGURATION AND OWNERSHIP. THE CITY ALSO RAISED IN QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS ISSUE IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER ON THIS APPEAL. SEDONA LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 8.9 E ESTABLISHES THE CITY COUNCIL AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND DELEGATES TO A HEARING OFFICER QUOTE, THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE ON MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHICH BY STATUTE INCLUDES A APPEALS FROM AN ALLEGED ERROR IN AN ORDER RE REQUIREMENT OR DECISION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR B, APPEALS FOR VARIANCES OR C REVERSE OR FIRM AND HOLD APART A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. THE BOA MAY NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES IN THE USES PERMITTED IN A ZONING CLASSIFICATION OR GRANT A VARIANCE IF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY ARE SELF-IMPOSED. ARS NINE DASH 4 62 ALSO LIMITS A BOA TO QUOTE HERE AND DECIDE APPLICATIONS FOR VARIANCES AND APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. SINCE THE ISSUE OF THE QUALIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY IS A SHORT TERM RENTAL, INDEPENDENT OF ITS NONCONFORMING USE. HISTORY HAS BEEN ARGUED AND ADDRESSED IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS HEARING, UM, INCLUDING ALSO SOME OF THE LETTERS WRITTEN IN SUPPORT BY ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. THE HEARING OFFICER WILL ALLOW FURTHER OTHER COMMENT ON THE RECORD, BUT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THAT THE ISSUE IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE VOA OR THE HO AS PRESENTED. THE QUESTION OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL QUALIFICATION WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE ADVISED DETERMINATION BY THE DIRECTOR. AND IN FACT, SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS ARE A SEPARATE PROCEDURE UNDER THE SEDONA LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PERMIT SECTION. FINALLY, THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER IN THIS CASE WILL INVOLVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF CASES, STATUTES, CODES, AND REGULATIONS, [00:10:01] MUCH MORE THAN A TYPICAL VARIANCE ISSUE, WHERE THE FACTORS INCLUDE WHETHER STRICT APPLICATION OF A CODE PRODUCES UNDUE HARDSHIP, GRANT A REQUEST OR CONSTITUTES A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER, OTHER PROPERTIES, OR THE PROPERTY HAS AN EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHY. PUBLIC COMMENTS WOULD THEREFORE BE MORE RELEVANT CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY THAN HOW IT HAS NOW BEEN IMPROVED UNDER THE RECENT OWNERSHIP. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PREFERRED REMARKS THAT I HAD. I HAVE COPIES OF THIS THAT WE CAN MAKE AVAILABLE OF ELECTRONICALLY, UM, AND I DIDN'T MAKE PRINTED COPIES. SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN THE HEARING OVER TO THE, UH, APPELLANT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. YES, SIR. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS ON WHAT I JUST COVERED BEFORE WE START THE NEXT STEP? NO, I'M TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE STAY SORT OF FOCUSED REALLY ON THE PROPERTY HISTORY AND THE QUESTIONS OF NONCONFORMING USE. I KNOW SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT ARE RECEIVED, AND YOU'VE SEEN 'EM IN THE PACKET, UH, ARE FROM NEIGHBORS SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD SOME IMPROVEMENTS DONE, AND WE LIKE THE IMPROVEMENTS. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S SORT OF AN ISSUE IS MORE RELEVANT IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A VARIANCE AND THE IMPACT OF VARIANCE MAY HAVE ON ADJOINING PROPERTY. AND THIS IS GETTING TO BE PRETTY ILLEGAL AS FAR AS THIS ISSUES. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. AND I WILL STEP OVER HERE SO I CAN SEE WHAT YOU WERE ON. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. WELL JUST HAVE TO, I'LL LOOK AT THIS MIRROR RIGHT HERE, AND THAT'S HOW I'LL SEE YOU. ALRIGHT, , UH, FOR YOUR RECORD, MY NAME IS TAYLOR EARL, UH, AGAIN, UM, 31 0 1 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE. SO, UM, APPRECIATE WHAT WAS SAID. UM, I THINK SOME OF THE, THE RELEVANCE TO RE REGARDING THE, THE WAY THAT THE PROPERTY'S BEEN UTILIZED, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT BACKGROUND. WE KNOW WE HAVE SOME NEIGHBORS HERE WHO MAY SPEAK TO THAT. I THINK YOUR POINTS ARE, ARE WELL TAKEN ON THAT. BUT I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, SPEAKING TO THE FACT THAT IT IS, UM, BE A BENEFIT, I THINK IT, I THINK IT DOES INFORM THE, THE DECISION, UM, IF NOT STRICTLY, UH, RELEVANT ON SOME OF THE LEGAL ISSUES. UM, SO LET ME JUST WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE HISTORY. I DON'T WISH TO BE COMPLETELY DUPLICATIVE OF WHAT'S IN OUR BRIEFING, BUT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT SOME THINGS. SO IN PART OF THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT WAS PERFORMED ON THIS, SO VINCENT VAN FLEET, WHO'S HERE WITH ME TODAY, DID REQUEST THE DIRECTOR INTERPRETATION REGARDING SHORT TERM RENTALS ON THE PROPERTY AND THE ALLOWANCE FOR THOSE. UM, AND THEN IN APRIL, 2021, SEDONA ISSUED THAT LETTER CONFIRMED THAT LEGAL LINE PERFORMING RIGHTS OF SHORT TERM RENTALS, UH, WERE PERMITTED. UM, IT WAS UPON RELIANCE UPON THAT, THAT MR. BENLEY CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING. NOW, I WILL JUST PAUSE HERE TO SAY THAT THIS TYPE OF DUE DILIGENCE, I WOULD CALL TYPICALLY UNCOMMON, UM, FOR PROPERTY PURCHASES LIKE THIS, THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD PAUSE, GO TO THE CITY FIRST, MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE COMPLETELY COVERED LEGALLY BEFORE CLOSING ON THE PROPERTY, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE INVESTMENT ONLY MADE SENSE IF THEY COULD DO, UH, THE, THE SHORT TERM, UH, RENTALS. AND SO, UM, I, I THINK IT'S NOT ONLY COMMENDABLE, BUT I THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO UNDERSTANDING THE, THE RELIANCE THAT WAS TAKEN, NOTWITHSTANDING THE BOILERPLATE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PUT INTO THE LETTER THAT A TERMINATION WAS, UH, FAIRLY DEFINITIVE IN PRACTICE, THAT, THAT IT WAS LEGAL AND COULD BE, UH, COULD BE DONE. UM, THEREAFTER, MR. VAN INVESTED ABOUT APPROXIMATELY HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ON THE PROPERTY. THOSE INCLUDED THINGS, UH, LIKE ROADWAYS, DRIVEWAYS, EMERGENCY EVACUATION BRIDGE, WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT ON THE PROPERTY TODAY. SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE DONE TO THE RAILINGS ON THAT, UH, WATERLINE INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS USED BY THE PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORS, INTERIOR UPGRADES TO THE UNIT. AND THEN ENGINEERING COST TO ADDRESS WATER FLOW, FLOODING AND LANDSCAPING, ALL TOLD ABOUT A HALF MILLION THAT WAS PUT INTO THE PROPERTY STILL UPON RELIANCE. NOT ONLY THE, AND THIS IS A SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE, THE PURCHASE PRICE, BUT, UH, DONE IN RELIANCE UPON THE REPRESENTATION BY THE CITY AND THE CONCLUSION BY THE DIRECTOR THAT WAS LEGALLY DONE. AND THEN ULTIMATELY, SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2022, THE CITY REVERSED THE DECISION, UH, AND WE WERE GIVEN 30 DAYS TO STOP THE USE BEING TOLD THAT IT WAS NOT PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY. SO I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT AGAIN, SOME OF THE FINANCIAL HARM, CUZ I WANNA SET SOME OF THE BACKDROP HERE. UM, SO THIS WOULD BE ABOUT A LOSS OF, OF ABOUT $348,000 PER YEAR FORCED TO, TO HAVE APARTMENTS, UM, IF THE NIGHTLY RENTALS WERE, WERE NOT PERMITTED. UM, AND SO THAT, THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY AT STAKE, WHY WE'RE PURSUING THIS, THAT WOULD EQUATE ROUGHLY NOT ACCOUNTING FOR INFLATION, NOT ACCOUNTING FOR INCREASES IN RENTAL RATES, BUT OF ANY 8.7 MILLION IF THAT WERE CALCULATED OUT OVER 25 YEARS. SO I DO THIS TO HIGHLIGHT, UH, A COUPLE OF THINGS. NUMBER ONE IS WHY, WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. UM, TWO, TO HIGHLIGHT THAT MR. BENLEY IS NOT A FLY BY NOT ORGANIZATION WHO DIDN'T DO ANY DUE DILIGENCE AND JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, WENT HALF COCKED INTO THIS, THAT HE TRULY WAS LOOKING AT IT CAREFULLY AND DILIGENTLY AND WAS TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING FROM THE BEGINNING, TRYING TO, UH, DIDN'T GO AND ASK THE NEIGHBORS FOR THEIR FAIR CONTRIBUTION. [00:15:01] HE SAW THAT IN SOME OF THE, THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, HE COULD HAVE ASKED FOR CONTRIBUTION TO AT LEAST SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE, THAT WERE PUT IN, DIDN'T ASK FOR THAT JUST WENT IN AND, AND DID THE IMPROVEMENTS. UM, AND, AND ULTIMATELY NOW FINDS HIMSELF IN THE SITUATION WHERE, UH, THERE WOULD BE TREMENDOUS FINANCIAL HARM, UH, IF, IF THIS WERE NOT TO BE ALLOWED. SO ULTIMATELY, WE'RE LOOKING FOR AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION HERE. UM, WE BELIEVE THAT THE HEARING OFFICER DOES HAVE THE RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW TO, TO CRAFT ONE AND TO, TO TAKE THOSE, THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION. UM, AND SO WE'RE, WE, WE RESPECT THE CITY AND KURT AND I HAVE WORKED GOOD WELL TOGETHER AND WE APPRECIATE CARRIE. THIS IS NOT PERSONAL TO THE CITY. THIS IS, UH, JUST, UH, SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE PURSUED BECAUSE OF THE, THE INTEREST THAT WAS PUT INTO IT. UM, I BELIEVE THAT IF, UH, THE, THIS WERE A CONVERSATION BEING HAD BEFORE CLOSING, UH, THAT VINCENT LIKELY WOULD'VE JUST SIMPLY WALKED AWAY. UM, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY, WE ARE WHERE WE ARE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO PURSUE, WE BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, HE CAME TO TALK TO ME ABOUT IT. UM, I BELIEVE HE DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE. ALL RIGHT, SO I MENTIONED THAT SORT OF ALLUDED TO THIS, UM, IN A SUPREME COURT DECISION. IT, UH, THIS SORT OF UNDERSTANDING THE SORT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAW, BUT THEN ALSO ADDING AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT HERE. IT SAYS, BECAUSE OF THESE NEGATIVE EFFECTS, NON-CONFORMING USES SHOULD BE ELIMINATED OR REDUCE THE CONFORMITY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT AS THE CAVEAT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE. AND SO, WHILE WE UNDERSTAND, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE NON-CONFORMING LIES THAT YOU WANT TO CONVERT THINGS TO CONFORMITIES, UM, THAT MUST BE DONE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE HOPING, UH, WILL BE LOOKED AT AND BE APPLIED BY TODAY, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHAT'S BEEN DONE ON THE PROPERTY. UM, ALSO, I WOULD NOTE IN ANOTHER, UH, DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT A NON-PERFORMING LAND USE IS A VESTED PROPERTY, RIGHT? UH, AND IS DEFINED AS LAWFUL USE MAINTAINED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS PROHIBITING SUCH USES. SO I WANNA TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY THAT TRULY WAS A RESORT PROPERTY. I THINK THIS IS GOING TO REALLY INFORM THIS DECISION, THIS THE, THE UNDERSTANDING OF, OF TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT DURATIONS. IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROPERTY COMMENCED, UM, AND, AND HOW IT'S BEEN UTILIZED, BUT REALLY UNDERSTANDING IT AS AS A RESORT. SO AS PART OF THE RECORD, UM, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE THAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE HARD CASTLES AND, UH, TALKED ABOUT THEIR PRIOR ESTABLISHMENT, THE VIEW MOTEL, AND THEN MOVING OVER TO HARD CASTLE ISLAND, CALLING IT A HARDCASTLE ISLAND RESORT. UM, THE EARLY ADVERTISEMENTS THAT WERE DONE UNDER THE HARD CASTLES, AGAIN, IT'S CALLED HARDCASTLE, NEW ISLAND COTTAGES, YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE BANK OF OAK CREEK, SEPARATED, UH, PRIVATE INCLUDED, UH, UH, SECLUDED HUNDRED BEAUTIFUL NATIVE TREE, TWO TO SIX PEOPLE KITCHENS FULLY MODERN, EVERYTHING FURNISHED, SWIMMING, TROUT FISHING. UM, THIS IS THE TYPE OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR, AGAIN, A, UH, A NOT A, A LONG TERM SORT OF RENTAL. THIS IS, AGAIN, A RESORT. THIS WAS SET UP AS WAS ESTABLISHED AS, AND WAS OPERATED AS, UH, AGAIN, GOING FORWARD. UH, THIS SAYS FEW DAYS WEEKER MONTH COMPLETELY FURNISHED MODERN COTTAGES AND APARTMENTS ON THE BANK OF OAK CREEK, UH, IN SEDONA. SO I ALSO WANT TO STOP HERE AGAIN, STILL UNDER THE HARD CASTLE'S OWNERSHIP, UH, THAT THEY ARE USING THE TERM COTTAGES AND APARTMENTS, NOT WITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE STILL LOOKING AT THIS AS A DAYS, WEEKS, OR MONTH. AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT IT ISN'T SOMEHOW, UH, INCONGRUOUS WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT AND THE ORIGINAL OPERATION TO BOTH A, HAVE THEM AS A MONTHLY RENTAL OR BK, UM, IDENTIFY THEM AS APARTMENTS. SO AS WE PROCEED INTO THE LATER HISTORY TO, TO HAVE SOMEBODY TALK ABOUT RENTING THEM ON A MONTHLY BASIS, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT WITH HOW THIS WAS DONE ORIGINALLY. AND EVEN IF THE TERM WITH APARTMENT WERE USED, IT WOULD STILL BE A CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AS THIS WAS ESTABLISHED, UH, BACK BEFORE ANY ORDINANCE APPLIED TO THIS PROPERTY. UH, 1966, WE ARE STILL BEFORE, UH, ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS ANY APPLICABLE COUNTY ORDINANCE, WHICH MEANS THAT THIS WAS ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROHIBITION. AGAIN, WE SEE DAILY, WEEKLY, MONTHLY RATES, UH, COTTAGES AND APARTMENTS COMPLETELY FURNISHED. UM, AND SO AGAIN, HIGHLIGHTING THAT THAT TERM CONTINUES TO BE USED. AND YET YOU SEE HERE THE, UH, UH, ANTIQUE SHOP, WHICH AGAIN GIVES THIS, UH, HELPS US UNDERSTAND THE RESORT NATURE OF THIS. OKAY? THEN THERE IS A SHIFT. THE FORMAL HARDCASTLE APARTMENTS BECOME THE NEW CASTLE, UM, ISLAND. THIS IS WHEN THE CIS TAKE OWNERSHIP. UM, BUT YOU CONTINUE TO SEE THAT IT'S BEING UTILIZED IN THE SAME WAY. NOW, I'LL JUST NOTE SOMETHING THAT WAS ON THE RECORD. I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID. THAT'S A, THAT'S A, UM, AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. THERE ARE VERY FEW STATEMENTS BY [00:20:01] THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN THAT 1986 HEARING THE STATEMENTS AND THE APPLICANT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE STATEMENTS AND THE APPLICANT WAS A POTENTIAL PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. WHAT MRS. SIANI SAYS, STATED, AGAIN, ACCORDING TO THE MINUTES THAT THEY PURCHASED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS A RESORT, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO SELL IT THE SAME WAY. UH, WE'LL COME BACK TO THE FACT THAT SHE GOES ON TO SAY THAT HER HUSBAND IS PARTIALLY DISABLED AND CANNOT DO THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS OR MAINTAIN RESPONSIBILITY OF TAKING CARE OF THE UPKEEP OF THE PROPERTY. SO THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE POTENTIAL PURCHASER ABOUT THE WAY THE PROPERTY WAS UTILIZED, UM, OR NOT, UH, AGAIN, NOT MADE BY THE OWNER. UH, WE GO ON TO SEE SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL HISTORY ON THE PROPERTY, CONTINUING TO SEE, UH, THAT THE PROPERTY IS HERE LISTED AS A MOTEL AS IT'S, UH, IN, IN THIS LISTING HERE. UM, AND AGAIN, PART OF THE 1986 HEARING, THE THING I I, I, I WANT TO, UH, TALK ABOUT IS THAT THIS WAS, UM, A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE BY STAFF. THE STAFF SAYS IN 1970, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO THE PRESENT OWNER WHO ALSO OPERATED THE APARTMENTS ON A NIGHTLY BASIS UNTIL 1983. AGAIN, IDENTIFYING THEM, UH, AS APARTMENTS, IDENTIFYING THE, UH, A NIGHTLY BASIS, UM, BUT EXCLUDING THAT THEY WERE ALSO DONE ON A WEEKLY AND MONTHLY BASIS. UM, THIS SORT OF REPRESENTATION SUGGESTS THAT, WELL, IT WAS DONE A CERTAIN WAY FROM 70 TO 83, AND THEN A SHIFT OCCURRED AT 83. AND THAT'S, UM, I DON'T THINK INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING, BUT IT IS MISLEADING IF IT'S MISUNDERSTOOD. UM, IF READ IN THIS WAY, IT WOULD SEEM LIKE A SHIFT. AND YET, AS I'M ABOUT TO SHOW YOU, AND AS YOU'VE SEEN IN THE RECORD, THAT IT WAS OPERATED AS DAILY, WEEKLY, AND MONTHLY. UM, DURING THIS TIME PERIOD, 1972, WE SEE AGAIN, DAY, WEEK, OR MONTH, 1973, WE SEE DAY, WEEK OR MONTH, AGAIN, FURNISHED APARTMENTS USED YET CALLED DAY, WEEK, OR MONTH. AND THEN ALSO I NOTE AT THE BOTTOM, THE ANTIQUES AND GIFT SHOP, CONTINUING TO SEE, UH, HOW THIS WAS ESTABLISHED. UM, A LITTLE BIT HARD TO MAKE OUT HERE, BUT I BELIEVE IT IS SEPTEMBER 5TH, 1974 THAT DOES, UH, IT'S THURSDAY. I DID, UH, LOOK THAT UP. AND THAT IS THE THURSDAY WAS SEPTEMBER 5TH, 1974. EXCUSE ME, CONFIDENCE THAT THAT WAS IN FACT THE DATE. UM, OAK CREEK APARTMENTS DAY, WEEK, MONTH, 1975, AGAIN SEARCHED THURSDAY, JULY 24TH, 1975, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE DAY. THAT IS A THURSDAY. UH, YOU SEE THE SAME FEE DAY, WEEK, MONTH. THIS IS THE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT STARTED WITH THE HARD CASTLE, SO ULTIMATELY SOLD IT TO THE CIS. YOU SAW IN THE 1984 HEARING, THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE OWNER IN BETWEEN, UH, THE CURRENT OWNER AND THE SIANI FAMILY. SO, WE'LL, WE'LL PAUSE HERE. AND I THINK THIS IS THE, THE CRUX OF, OF WHAT WE WANT TO SAY. THE RECORD, UH, IN OUR OPINION IS UNCLEAR AS TO HOW, UH, TO WHETHER OR NOT NIGHTLY, UH, WAS DONE DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD. UM, I SHOWED YOU THE STATEMENT FROM THE ACTUAL OWNER THAT IS, THAT IS ON THE RECORD. THAT DOESN'T SAY WHETHER OR NOT, UH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS EXCLUSIVE TO, TO MONTHLY OR, OR NIGHTLY WASN'T INCLUDED. YOU HAVE A REPRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT. UM, BUT IT'S, THAT'S NOT THE OWNER, NOR IS IT CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS OCCURRING. UM, AND SO THE RECORD IS UNCLEAR, BUT IN OUR OPINION, THAT IS, UM, IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAD A LONG ESTABLISHED, FOR MANY YEARS LONG ESTABLISHED THAT THIS WAS TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION. YOU CAN USE A DIFFERENT WORD, BUT THERE WAS NO CODE IN PLACE WHEN IT STARTED. SO THERE IS NO WORD THAT WE CAN SAY, WELL, IT, IT CAME IN UNDER THE COUNTY CODE AS X AND THEREFORE THAT'S, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT DEFINITION OF WHAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO. THEY WERE EFFECTIVELY WRITING THEIR OWN USE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ZONING ORDINANCE IN PLACE AT THE TIME IT OPERATED. SO WE CANNOT LOOK THROUGH THE MODERN LENS OF TODAY'S ORDINANCE OR EVEN THE COUNTY'S ORDINANCE WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED TO IDENTIFY WHAT THE USE IS. SO I'M GOING TO USE THE TERM FOR TODAY TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATIONS BECAUSE I THINK THAT ACCURATELY REFLECTS IN THE LETTER WE USE COTTAGES. IT'S THE SAME PRINCIPLE THAT TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATIONS IS WHAT WAS OCCURRING AND HAD BEEN OCCURRING FOR A VERY LONG TIME, DAILY, WEEKLY, MONTHLY. THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THIS, YOU HAVE, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IF, IF, IF, LET'S FOR A MOMENT, LET'S SAY THAT, THAT IT WAS, UH, FOR A TIME LIMITED TO MONTHLY, THAT DOES NOT MEAN YEARLY. IT DOES NOT MEAN THE TYPICAL THING. WE WOULD THINK, WELL, I PAY MY MONTH RENT TO RENT ON A YEARLY CONTRACT. UM, AND THAT WOULD CONSIDER THAT AS MORE SORT OF SEMI-PERMANENT, [00:25:01] UH, RE RESIDING OR, OR ACCOMMODATIONS. IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, THE PROPERTY DOES MATTER. UM, NOT ONLY IS IT LOCATED ON OAK CREEK IN A FISHING AREA, IN A, IN A TOWN THAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN ONE, UH, THAT HAD HIGH LEVELS OF TOURISM, UM, THAT CONTEXT MATTERS. SO IF YOU GO TO A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE MONTHLY, UM, IT IS STILL A TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION. UM, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE CONTEXT, BUT BECAUSE BY DEFINITION, MONTHLY IS NOT A PERMANENT RE RESIDENT SITUATION. UM, WE CAN LOOK TODAY FOR MODERN EXAMPLES, UM, OF LONG-TERM STAYS. UM, I CAN GO INTO, UH, SOME OF THESE LONG-TERM STAYS. I CAN STAY THREE DAYS. UM, I CAN ALSO SET UP SHOP THERE FOR A MONTH OR TWO. UM, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT PARTICULAR FACILITY FROM BEING A, UH, HOSPITALITY OR A HOTEL TO SOMEHOW NOW BEING AN APARTMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE OFFERED A LONGER DURATION. THE NATURE OF IT IS TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATIONS. AND, AND THAT HAS BEEN CONSISTENT. UM, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD, RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS EVER ANYTHING OTHER THAN, THAN A TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION FROM, FROM THE BEGINNING. AND THAT TO FOCUS ON ONE PARTICULAR DURATION, UH, AGAIN, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE RECORD COULD AFFIRMATIVELY ESTABLISHED THAT THAT OCCURRED, DOESN'T, ISN'T INCONSISTENT WITH THE USE AS IT WAS ESTABLISHED. AND SO, AS WE BROUGHT UP AN ANALOGY, I THINK THIS ANALOGY, UH, IS, IS TRUE, WHICH IS THAT IF YOU HAD A FARMER'S MARKET, AND IF THIS PROPERTY WERE TO SAY BE USED FOR A FARMER'S MARKET, AND IT HAD THREE DIFFERENT VEGETABLES THAT WERE BEING USED AS PART OF THAT, UH, POTATOES, TOMATOES, UH, AND CARROTS, EVEN IF DURING A PERIOD THERE WAS A FOCUS ON POTATOES BECAUSE THERE WAS A, BECAUSE IDAHO HAD A PARTICULARLY GOOD, UH, SEASON FOR A TIME THAT WOULDN'T SOMEHOW CONVERT THIS INTO A DIFFERENT USE, THE REALITY WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD BE A FARMER'S MARKET. THE NATURE OF WHAT WAS SOLD AT THEIR FARMER'S MARKET WOULDN'T BE A CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT USE. IT WOULD BE A, A PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE USE. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATIONS, UM, THAT ENCOMPASSES DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THAT DAILY, WEEKLY, MONTHLY, TO FOCUS IN ON ONE PARTICULAR ASPECT FOR A TIME DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE USE CHANGES. UM, AND THAT'S WHY I HIGHLIGHTED WHAT I, WHAT I DID EARLIER, WHICH IS IF IT WERE ONLY EVER NIGHTLY FOR 10, 13 YEARS, AND THEN IT SHIFTED TO ONLY EVER MONTHLY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A DISTINCT FACT PATTERN. THE FACT THAT IT WAS ESTABLISHED AS BEING DIFFERENT TYPES OF DURATIONS, THAT OPENS UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE DURATIONS. NOW, I THINK THERE WAS A STATEMENT IN THAT, THAT, THAT MY ASSERTION WAS THAT ANY DURATION, UH, WOULD SOMEHOW BE FAIR GAME. AND, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE PURPORTING. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THE DURATIONS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED ORIGINALLY THAT ARE CLEARLY EVIDENCED IN THE RECORD THAT ANY ONE OF THOSE COULD BE UTILIZED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AND STILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE USE AS IT WAS ESTABLISHED. UM, I WOULD ALSO NOTE THIS, THERE WAS NO ATTORNEY PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AT THAT TIME. THE FACT THAT THEY WENT INTO A PROCEEDING TO CHANGE FROM ONE NONCONFORMING USE TO ANOTHER DOES NOT SUGGEST OR, OR PROVE THAT IT WAS A NECESSARY HEARING. UM, HAD, UH, THEY HAD REPRESENTATION AT THE TIME, UM, THEY MAY WELL HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED TO BE IN THAT, IN THAT HEARING PROCESS FOR THE REASONS I'VE JUST STATED. BUT, UM, AGAIN, CITY'S CONCERNED ABOUT THE SEASONS OR DURATIONS. UM, BUT AS I'VE STATED, IT'S ALL THE SAME TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATIONS. UM, AND I THINK THERE'S ALSO AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT HERE TOO, THAT GOES INTO CASE LAW, WHICH IS, IF NOT FOR THE COUNTY, THE NIGHTLY RENTALS WOULD'VE OCCURRED AT ANNEXATION OR INCORPORATION, I SHOULD SAY. AND THIS IS, THIS IS CRITICAL BECAUSE CLEARLY THERE WAS AN INTENT FOR THERE TO BE NIGHTLY RENTALS, UH, IN THIS 86 HEARING, WHICH PREDATED THE INCORPORATION. AND IT WAS THE COUNTY'S ACTIONS AS A GOVERNMENT ACTOR THAT FORECLOSED OR AT LEAST TOLD THE, THE OWNER, YOU, YOU SHALL NOT, UH, AND PUT A BAR UP AT AT THAT TIME. AND SO, LOOKING AT, UH, AND, AND HERE WE HAVE THAT THE NEW ORDINANCE APPLIED IN 1988. UM, IT CAME IN IN MAY OF 1988. UM, I BELIEVE THAT THERE, THERE WAS IN FACT A GAP BETWEEN THE INCORPORATION AND THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW ORDINANCE. UM, I BELIEVE THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT THAT SOMEHOW CARRIES OVER. UM, THAT IS NOT HOW WE READ. THE STATE STATUTE BELIEVE THAT THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WOULD CARRY OVER FROM THE COUNTY, BUT THE ACTUAL ZONING OF A PROPERTY, UM, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT CARRIED OVER. I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS, IN FACT, A GAP IN TIME SO THAT THAT CLOCK RESETS. AND WE'D BE LOOKING AT WHAT OCCURRED IN BETWEEN THE, THE INCORPORATION, UH, IN JANUARY AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ORDINANCE IN MAY, AND DURING THAT TIME. BUT FOR THE COUNTY'S PRIOR GOVERNMENTAL SORT OF REPRESENTATION [00:30:01] THAT IT COULDN'T BE DONE, THEY CLEARLY WOULD'VE GONE BACK TO ALSO INCLUDING NIGHTLY. SO WHILE WE DON'T THINK IT'S RELEVANT, WHETHER IT WAS NIGHTLY OR MONTHLY, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE HEARING OFFICER THINKS IT IS, UM, I'M, I'M POINTING OUT THAT THAT CLOCK RESETS AT THIS TIME, AND IT WAS A GOVERNMENT ACTION THAT PREVENTED THAT FROM OCCURRING AT THIS TIME. NOW IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, UH, CASE HERE, THAT THAT'S BEEN CITED IN OUR, OUR MATERIALS. UM, THE COURT NOTED THAT ON THE OTHER HAND, GLENDALE MAY NOT TERMINATE A USE JUST BECAUSE ONE YEAR PASSES SOME CONDUCT WITHIN THE CONTROL OF AND TRIBU TO THE PROPERTY OWNER MUST BE A CAUSE OF THE CONDITION JUSTIFYING THE TERMINATION. AND SO, AGAIN, TO THE EXTENT THE HEARING OFFICER THINKS THOSE DURATIONS, UH, CHANGE THE USE, WHICH WE DON'T BELIEVE IT DOES, THEN WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT AT THE TIME THAT THAT INCORPORATION OCCURRED, THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN, UM, AT THAT POINT THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS CLEARLY HAD CLEAR INTENT THAT THEY WOULD'VE MADE THE SALE, THAT THAT WOULD'VE, THAT WOULD'VE, UH, UH, LED TO THERE BEING, UH, NIGHTLY RENTALS AND THEREFORE THE CONTROL OF THE PRO TRIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. THERE WAS NO INTENT OR WILL HERE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THAT WAS STRICTLY BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTION THAT WAS PREVENTING THAT FROM OCCURRING. IN THAT SAME CASE, THEY CITE POSITIVELY TO THIS CASE HERE, MIN FISHER, UM, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LONG READ, BUT I DO THINK THIS ENTIRE SECTION IS RELEVANT. SO I WILL READ IT. IT SAYS, SOME SITUATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY OWNER ARE FINANCIAL INABILITY THE OWNER TO CONTINUE IN BUSINESS, INABILITY TO FIND A TENANT DESIRES OF USING THE PREMISES FOR A PURPOSE PERMISSIBLE AS A NON-CONFORMING USE NON-USE BECAUSE OF NECESSARY REPAIRS AT ALL TIMES, RELEVANT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING WAS ATTEMPTING TO FIND A SUITABLE TENANT OR PURCHASER, OR WAS REPAIRING THE BUILDING. THERE ARE NO INDICATIONS OF A LACK OF DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE OWNER AND ATTEMPTING TO FIND A SUITABLE TENANT FOR THE BUILDING. AND WE THEREFORE BELIEVE THAT THE, THAT THE APPARENT PRESUMPTION OF ABANDONMENT CREATED BY THE PASSAGE OF TWO YEARS WITHOUT THE BUILDING BEING USED SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE, AND THAT THE PRESENT NONCONFORMING USE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO CONTINUE. WE SO HOLD. UM, SO AGAIN, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A DISTINCTION HERE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, AGAIN, ASSUMING THE ACCURATE THE RECORD IS ACCURATE, THAT THEY FOCUSED ON NIGHTLY RENT OR MONTHLY RENTALS AT A CERTAIN PERIOD. UM, AGAIN, WHAT'S RELEVANT IS THAT PRIOR TO THE, TO THE REAL DEMARCATION POINT OF WHEN THE ORDINANCE GOT APPLIED IN 88, THERE WAS A MOMENT WHERE THEY WOULD'VE GONE BACK. BUT FOR THE GOVERNMENT ACTION, THE OTHER THING I WOULD HIGHLIGHT TOO, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS LANGUAGE, TALKED ABOUT FINANCIAL INABILITY OF THE OWNER TO CONTINUE INABILITY TO FIND THIS SORT OF INABILITY IDEA. AND THAT'S WHY I CITED TO THAT STATEMENT IN THE RECORD THAT IT WAS, UH, UH, AN IMPORTANT, UH, AND HERE THIS IS A, UH, QUOTE HERE, HER HUSBAND IS PARTIALLY DISABLED AND CANNOT DO THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS FOR MAINTAINED RESPONSIBILITY OR, UH, TAKING CARE OF THE F THE PROPERTY. SO NOT ONLY WAS THERE THE GOVERNMENT ACTION, BUT SHE ALSO HAD THE PROPERTY OWNER STATING THAT, UM, THERE WAS AN INABILITY, UM, THAT THAT PLAYED INTO THAT DECISION. SO NOT A PURPOSEFUL DECISION, BUT, BUT DONE BECAUSE OF INABILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AT THE TIME. SO WE DO WANNA TALK ABOUT THE STATUTORY RIGHT, MR. HEARING. OFFICER WRIGHT, I HEAR ABSOLUTELY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID. I DO THINK IT'S RIPE. AND SO I WOULD, I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHY I BELIEVE IT'S RIGHT FOR TODAY'S CONVERSATION AND WHY I DO THINK THAT YOU HAVE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE CASE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE MERITS OF THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS RIGHT TODAY. SO THE STATUTORY BASIS, THERE WERE, WE HAVE STATEMENTS FROM THE REVISED LETTER THAT SAY AS FOLLOWS, THEREFORE, THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY IS NIGHTLY RENTAL LODGING HAS NOT BEEN LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED. UM, IT IS ESTABLISHED, UH, BY STATE STATUTE THAT IS A PERMITTED USE ON THE PROPERTY. BASED ON THIS REVISED DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION, PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF THAT THE UNITS ARE BEING RENTED ON A MONTHLY BASIS. WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS LETTER, THE INFORMATION IS NOT PROVIDED. THE CITY MAY MOVE FORWARD WITH ISSUING A NOTICE OF VIOLATION. YOU EARLIER STATED THAT THERE IS AUTHORITY WHEN THERE HAS BEEN AN ERROR IN AN ORDER REQUIREMENT OR DECISION. UM, I BELIEVE THAT THIS FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN, UH, WHAT WE, ONE OF EITHER ORDER REQUIREMENT OR DECISION TO CEASE THE USE ON THE PROPERTY. WE BELIEVE THAT WAS DONE IN ERROR BECAUSE THERE IS A STATE RIGHT NOW, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE MERITS OF THAT. BUT THE SUGGESTION THAT IT'S NOT BEEN TEED UP OR RIPE, I THINK IS INCORRECT BECAUSE IT IS A DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY THE CITY, UH, TO STATE THAT THE USE COULD NOT CONTINUE AND MUST STOP IS SOMETHING THAT WE BELIEVE WAS STATED IN ERROR. AND THEREFORE, PART OF THIS DECISION, UH, AND APARTMENTS AND LODGING ARE NOT A PERMITTED USE IN THE RS 10 ZONE. WHILE WE WILL AGREE THAT WITHIN THE DISTRICT STATEMENT, IT IS NOT LISTED AS A PERMITTED USE, IT IS NEVERTHELESS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN RS 10 WITHIN THE CITY OF SEDONA BECAUSE OF STATE PREEMPTION. AND SO IT IS NOT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT TO SAY THAT, THAT THE USE IS NOT PERMITTED FOR A PROPERTY THAT WAS WITHIN RS 10. UM, THE CITY WOULD EVEN AGREE WITH THAT. [00:35:01] WHAT THEY WOULD DISAGREE WITH IS WHETHER OR NOT IT CAN BE DONE WITH A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS, BUT WITHIN RS 10 BECAUSE OF STATE PREEMPTION, UM, THAT IS BEING, BEING PERMITTED. AND, AND I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, I'M SURE HE'LL HE'LL SPEAK TO THAT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS, UH, AGREEMENT ON THAT POINT. SO, UH, THE, THE SHORT TERM RENTAL STATUTE, UH, STATES THAT A CITY OR TOWN MAY NOT PROHIBIT VACATION RENTALS OR SHORT TERM RENTALS. UH, THERE ARE GOES ON TO STAY AND BE THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE, UM, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE NOTICE AND REGISTRATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THE DEFINITION THEN OF, WELL, OKAY, WELL WHAT IS A VACATION RENTAL OR SHORT-TERM RENTAL BECOMES IMPORTANT. AND THEN, AND THEN IT GOES ON TO DIS TO DEFINE IT IN THE SAME SECTION. IT SAYS VACATION RENTAL OR SHORT-TERM RENTALS MEANS ANY INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVELY OWNED SINGLE FAMILY OR ONE TO FOUR FAMILY HOUSE OR DWELLING UNIT EMPHASIS ADDED OR ANY GROUP, AND THEN GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT CONDOS AND OTHER THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO THE, THE, THE, THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT THIS REFERS TO A PROPERTY THAT THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES MUST HAVE BETWEEN ONE AND FOUR. UM, BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT THIS READS. WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT INDI INDIVIDUALLY OWNED SINGLE FAMILY OR ONE OF OUR NINE HOUSE OR DWELLING UNIT, UH, MEANING A STRUCTURE, A HOUSE THAT HAS FOUR, UH, YOU KNOW, FOUR, WE CALL IT, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, RIGHT? MULTI-FAMILY HOMES. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE VERSUS A MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE STRUCTURE AND HOW MANY, UH, INDIVIDUAL UNITS, UH, ARE, UH, FAMILIES, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THAT. SO ONE TO FOUR FAMILY HOUSE OR DWELLING UNIT REFERS TO THE BUILDING ITSELF, NOT THE PROPERTY, UM, IN THE, IN THE LETTER THAT WAS PART OF THE BRIEFING. NOW, OH, BEFORE I GET TO THAT, WE CAN APPRECIATE THAT. UM, ON THE PROPERTY, IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE THERE'S ONE STRUCTURE, BUT THERE ACTUALLY ARE TWO STRUCTURES. ONE HAS, UH, THREE, AND IT NEVER GOES OVER FOUR. UM, HERE IS PART OF THE WAY YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THE FRONT, IT MAY BE A LITTLE MISLEADING, BUT FROM THE ROOF STRUCTURE, IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE ARE TWO ROOF STRUCTURES. THEY HAVE SEPARATE FOUNDATIONS, THEY HAVE SEPARATE BUILDING STRUCTURES, SEPARATE, UH, UTILITY METERS. THERE SIMPLY WAS A CONNECTION MADE, UH, AND A ROOF CONNECTION TO COVER THE WALKWAY. BUT THEY ARE IN FACT TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES. AND THIS IS A SURVEY THAT WAS, UH, ALSO DONE ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH SHOWS THOSE SEPARATE STRUCTURES. NOW, THERE WAS A, A STATEMENT IN THE, IN THE CITY'S LETTER THAT TALKED ABOUT, UH, THIS PROVISION HERE, SIX B, UH, WHICH SAYS THAT THERE WERE, UH, INDIVIDUAL ADDRESSES AND EACH INDIVIDUAL ADDRESS, THEREFORE, THIS MUST BE REFERRING TO PROPERTIES, UM, THAT READING, UH, IS INCORRECT BECAUSE THIS IS, IS A NOTICE PROVISION. WHAT IT'S SAYING IS THAT WHEN YOU DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PARAGRAPH, SO IF YOU GO UP TO, UH, SORT OF THE LAST THREE LINES OF THE, THE LARGE PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS, THE OWNER OR OWNER'S DESIGNEE SHALL DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PARAGRAPH BY PROVIDING THE CITY, YOUR TOWN WITH AN ATTESTATION OF NOTIFICATION COMPLIANCE THAT CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION, THE ADDRESS OF EACH PROPERTY NOTIFIED. SO THIS IS TALKING ABOUT, WHEN I SEND OUT A LETTER THAT I'VE GOTTA LIST THE ADDRESSES OF EACH PROPERTY THAT WAS NOTIFIED. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. UM, THERE'S ALSO A STATEMENT THAT THERE'S AN ILLUSION TO, UH, AGAIN, SORT OF GOING BACK TO THE BEGINNING, UH, THE FIRST, THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE WHOLE STATE STATUTE SAYS, UH, SIGAR TOWN MAY REGULATE VACATION RENTALS AND AS FOLLOWS. AND YOU'VE DROPPED INTO TWO AND IT, IT REFERENCES A COUPLE OF SECTIONS. AND, UH, THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT IF WE LOOK AT THOSE SECTIONS, THEY GIVE US A CLUE, UH, ABOUT WHAT'S OCCURRING IN THIS STATUTE. I, I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, IT, IT DOESN'T, THAT'S REFERRING TO SOMETHING TOTALLY SEPARATE. BUT EVEN IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THOSE, UM, THOSE TALK ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, FOUR TALKS ABOUT UNDER 42 DASH 1,204, UH, RESIDENTIAL HOUSING FACILITIES, AND FIVE, IT TALKS ABOUT RESIDENTIAL CARE INSTITUTIONS OR LICENSED NURSING CARE INSTITUTIONS. UH, AGAIN, SIX, IT TALKS ABOUT REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY CONSISTING OF NOT MORE THAN EIGHT ROOMS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT ARE AT LEASE OR RENTED TO TRANSIENT LODGERS. THE OTHER, THE FURNISHINGS NOT MORE THAN A BREAKFAST MILL. THIS WOULD BE LIKE A MOTEL WHERE YOU HAVE AT LEAST EIGHT UH, UNITS THAT ARE BEING RENTED OUT. SO, UM, EVEN IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THAT, IT ACTUALLY MAKES THE OPPOSITE ARGUMENT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT CAN GO ABOVE THE NUMBER THAT WAS LISTED. THE OTHER ONE ALSO REFERENCES, UH, IN ONE, IN SECTION NINE, IT TALKS ABOUT REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT IS DEFINED AS TIMESHARE PROPERTY. UH, AND THEN YOU, YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION, IT REFERS YOU TO TIMESHARE PROPERTY MEANS ONE OR MORE ACCOMMODATIONS, MEANING ONE, EVERYTHING ABOVE ONE COULD GO UP TO 10, 20, 30. UH, AND THEN WHAT IS AN ACCOMMODATION MEANS ANY APARTMENT, CONDOMINIUM, CABIN LODGE, HOTEL, OR MOTEL ROOM. SO ACTUALLY THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. IF WE LOOK AT THOSE PROVISIONS, THEY ACTUALLY REFER TO SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE, UH, LODGINGS AND YOU HAVE, UH, THINGS THAT ARE DONE IN, IN MULTIPLE UNITS. BUT AGAIN, WE GO BACK TO, [00:40:01] UM, I THINK THE MOST RELEVANT HERE IS THE STRAIGHT LANGUAGE, WHICH IS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT TALKS ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE, AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, IT SAYS THAT THE CITY CANNOT, UH, I'M GONNA JUST TIE THESE BACK TOGETHER. SO AT THE BEGINNING OF THE, THE CODE, IT SAYS, CITY OR TOWN MAY NOT PROHIBIT VACATION RENTALS OR SHORT TERM RENTALS. WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY. AND THEN WE, AGAIN, WE LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF THAT. WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY IS THAT CITY OR TOWN MAY NOT PROHIBIT A PROPERTY FROM HAVING OR, UH, OR TALK ABOUT A PROPERTY OWNER. WHAT IT INSTEAD SAYS IS, SHALL NOT PROHIBIT THE VACATION RENTALS OR SHORT TERM RENTALS. WELL, WHAT IS A RENTAL? WELL, A RENTAL IS SOMETHING THAT HAS ONE TO FOUR UNITS, WHICH WE ABSOLUTELY COMPLY WITH. AND SO IT ISN'T TALKING ABOUT THE PROPERTY, IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL RENTAL. UH, AND SO THAT WE MEET THE DEFINITION OF, SO THERE'S NOTHING HERE AGAIN THAT TALKS ABOUT THE PROPERTY. SO I BELIEVE THAT WE ABSOLUTELY FALL WITHIN THE STATE'S STATUTE PROTECTION. AND I BELIEVE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY, UH, WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE HEARING OFFICER TO DECIDE THAT BECAUSE THE, THE CITY'S POSITION WAS THAT WE MUST STOP. THAT WE CANNOT CONTINUE, THAT IT'S NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE ZONE, AND THAT WE MAY FACE, UH, PENDING VIOLATIONS IF WE DON'T, UH, IF WE DON'T ACT. I THINK THE CITY'S, UH, POSITION THAT IT'S NOT RIGHT FOR DISCUSSION TODAY IS RESPECTFULLY, I WOULD SAY IS, IS NOT ACCURATE. I BELIEVE IT'S WITHIN THE PURVIEW AND THAT WE, THAT WE DO MEET IT. SO, UH, PULLING, PULLING BACK, UM, AGAIN, I I HIGHLIGHT THAT, UH, VINCENT HAS DONE THE RIGHT THING UPFRONT. I BELIEVE HE PURSUED DUE DILIGENCE, WHICH WAS, UM, DID THE RIGHT THING. HE INVESTED IN REASONABLE RELIANCE UPON THE CITY'S THE CITY'S STATEMENT AND THE CONCLUSION THAT WAS MADE AND THEN CONTINUED TO INVEST MORE INTO THE PROPERTY, WHICH HAS BEEN A BENEFIT, UM, TO THE NEIGHBORS, UM, RECOGNIZED THE CITY LEFT IN LANGUAGE. UM, I DON'T THINK THAT, UM, UNDERCUTS, UH, A CLAIM THAT WE HAVE EITHER LATCHES OR WAIVER, UM, OR AN EQUITABLE DOCTRINE THAT'S APPLICABLE HERE THAT I THINK A HEARING OFFICER COULD AND SHOULD APPLY THAT. UM, ALL ELSE BEING SET ASIDE FOR A MOMENT, THE FACT THAT HE REASONABLY RELIED UPON THAT REPRESENTATION. AND ONLY UNTIL AFTER ALL THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE, UH, AND ALL THE BENEFITS WERE, WERE GIVEN TO, TO THE AREA THAT THE CITY REVERSED IT. AGAIN, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WAS DONE IN ANY ILL WILL OR UNDERHANDEDNESS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS THE CASE AT ALL. UH, I SIMPLY STATING THAT, UM, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THIS FACTS, UH, PLAYED THEMSELVES OUT, I THINK THAT THERE'S AN EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF PLAY HERE TOO. AND, AND SO FUNDAMENTALLY, IT GOES BACK TO THIS POINT OF, UH, THE RECORD TESTS SOME ON CLARITY ON THE DURATIONS. BUT OUR POSITION IS THAT, THAT BECAUSE OF HOW IT WAS ESTABLISHED AS DAILY, WEEKLY, NIGHTLY, THAT ANY ONE OF THOSE THREE DURATIONS WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL USE FOR TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATIONS AND DIDN'T SOMEHOW TRANSFORM THE USE FROM ONE TO ANOTHER. UH, WHILE THAT WAS FOCUSED ON IT, WHICH GIVES, UH, VINCENT, UH, THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO FOCUS IN ON, ON, UH, ONE PARTICULAR OF THOSE. HE'S MORE FOCUSED ON THE NIGHTLY. UM, BUT FRANKLY, EVEN UNDER SHORT-TERM RENTAL LAW, UH, YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY STAY FOR A MONTH OR TWO. UM, AND SO THOSE, THOSE THERE, THEY, THEY, THOSE SITUATIONS OVERLAP. YOU CAN HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S THERE FOR A SINGLE MONTH, CLEARLY THAT'S A TEMPORARY CONDITION. THEY CAN STAY A LITTLE LONGER. YOU CAN HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S THERE FOR NIGHTLY, THEY CAN STAY LONGER TO, TO NOW START TO, TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN, WELL, HOW LONG DID THEY REALLY STAY? AND, AND REALLY IS STARTING TO DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A LEGAL PIN. IN MY OPINION. THE, THE BROADER PICTURE IS THAT THIS WAS A TEMPORARY, UH, ACCOMMODATION PROPERTY. IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT WAY. IT'S BEEN OPERATED THAT WAY. IT CONTINUES TO BE OPERATED THAT WAY. AND, UH, WHILE WE UNDERSTAND NONCONFORMING LAW, I STATED UP UPFRONT, AND I'LL CONCLUDE WITH YOU, THAT THERE, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS WITH SITU, WITH AN EYE FOR FAIRNESS AND EQUITY. AND TO, TO, TO REALLY START TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE TWO IN A HYPER-TECHNICAL WAY, WE THINK REALLY IS OUTSIDE THE SPIRIT OF THE NON-CONFORMING LAW, WHICH IS TO ALLOW USES THAT WERE ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT CAME IN AND MADE A CHANGE TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE BECAUSE THERE IS A VESTED PROPERTY. RIGHT? SO WITHOUT HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, MR. HEARING OFFICER. THANK YOU. WE'LL HOLD OFF ON ANY QUESTIONS AND I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE, UH, THE CITY OF SUDO AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION. WOULD YOU NEED THIS AS WELL? I DO NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER, I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF. THE, I I FEEL LIKE THIS DECISION WAS DECIDED BACK IN 1986. UM, THE OWNER CAME IN AND ASKED THE, THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY AT THE TIME, THE COCONINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OR COCONINO COUNTY FINDING ZONING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONVERT THEIR APARTMENTS, [00:45:01] UH, TO BACK TO NIGHTLY RENTALS. AND THAT DECISION WAS DENIED. UH, BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT, I WANTED TO TALK JUST A FEW BRIEF HIGHLIGHTS AND POINTS. UH, THE TIMELINE'S BEEN A LITTLE CON CONFUSED HERE, UH, STATED BY THE, THE APPELLANT ON MARCH 31ST, 2021, V M REAL ESTATE LLC APPLIED FOR A DIRECTOR'S OPINION, UM, ON THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE NONCONFORMING USE OF NIGHTLY RENTALS AT THE, AT 55 NEW CASTLE ON APRIL 5TH, 2001, UH, THEY CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY. THE DEED WAS RECORDED, AND THEY OWNED THE PROPERTY. AND IT WASN'T UNTIL APRIL 13TH, EIGHT DAYS LATER THAT THE DECISION WAS PROVIDED BY THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, UH, AT THE TIME, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THEY PROVIDED, UH, ALLOWING OR STATING THAT IT WAS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE HIGHWAY RENTALS ON THE PROPERTY. SO AFTER THAT POINT, UH, THE CITY LEARNED, UH, THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, THE PLANNING AND ZONING, KOO COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARING, AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING. UM, AND IN THERE THE APPLICANT, UM, OR IN THE MINUTES OF IT, IT CLEARLY STATES, UH, THAT THE OWNER CHANGED THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE PREVIOUS NIGHTLY, MONTHLY, UH, WEEKLY, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT. THE, THE TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATIONS THAT STATED BY MR. ILL WERE CHANGED TO APARTMENTS RENTED ON A MONTHLY BASIS. AND THAT WAS IN 1983 THAT USE CONTINUED UNTIL 1986. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD. AND THE MINUTES OF THAT WAS COERCION FROM ANY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY THAT ANYONE FORCED THE OWNER TO DO THAT. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE, UM, IN THE RECORD AT ALL AS TO WHY THE OWNERS DECIDED TO DO THAT. PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, IT'S PURE SPECULATION. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE, THE POOR HEALTH AND, UH, THE OF THE, ONE OF THE OWNERS. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT, UH, THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE, UM, EVEN THAT CASE FROM NORTH DAKOTA THAT WAS DECIDED BY THE APPELLANTS, IT DOESN'T BRING IT INTO THAT AREA, SAYS IT WASN'T LIKE THEY HAD NO USE OR NO TENANTS OF, OF THE PROPERTY, OR THAT THEY WERE STRIVING TO STILL DO NIGHTLY AND THAT NO ONE COULD COME. THEY VOLUNTARILY CHANGED IT FROM, FROM NIGHTLY RENTALS TO MONTHLY RENTALS. UM, SO THE, THE LAST LEGALLY ESTABLISHED USE OF THE PROPERTY WAS, WAS THE, THE MONTHLY RENTALS APARTMENTS, UM, BEING USED ON A RENTED ON A MONTHLY BASIS. SO A FEW POINTS HERE, VM CLAIMS THAT THEY RELIED ON THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION. UM, THEY DID NOT DO THAT, UH, WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. UM, USUALLY IF YOU'RE CLOSING ON A PROPERTY ON APRIL 5TH, RECORDING A DEED, UH, YOU ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACT LONG BEFORE THAT. AND SO THERE'S PROBABLY, EVEN BEFORE THEY ASKED FOR THE DIRECTOR'S OPINION, UH, THE PARTY STIPULATED AND THE RECORD SHOWS UP BY 1975, WHICH IS WHY ALL OF THE ADVERTISEMENTS THAT THE APPELLANT OFFERS, UH, MAY BE ENDED EVEN BEFORE THAT. BUT THE LAST ONES WERE ABOUT 1975. BY 1975, THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED BY THE COCONINO COUNTY AS RS 10,000. UH, THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT TO THE CITY ZONING RS 10, UH, THE RS 10 ZONING STILL EXISTS TODAY. RS STANDS HERE, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 10,000, THE, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE 10,000 SQUARE FEET. UH, THEY ARGUE THAT THERE WAS SOME, UH, MAGICAL TIME PERIOD WHEN THE CITY INCORPORATED THAT THERE WAS NO ZONING. UH, BETWEEN 1988 JANUARY OF 1988, WHEN THE CITY INCORPORATED, AND A FEW MONTHS LATER WHEN THE CITY ADOPTED A ZONING ORDINANCE, UH, THAT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE. ARS NINE DASH 1 0 4 STATES THIS, IT SAYS, WHEN COUNTY TERRITORIES INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A NEWLY INCORPORATED CITY OR TOWN, ALL CODES, RULES, REGULATIONS MADE, ESTABLISHED, ADOPTED, OR ENACTED BY SUCH COUNTY RELATED TO ZONING, BUILDING, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL HEALTH. SANITATION SHALL APPLY WITHIN SUCH NEWLY INCORPORATED CITY OR TOWN. AND THEN IT GOES ON THE STATE. IT WILL CONTINUE TO APPLY UNTIL THE CITY, THE NEWLY INCORPORATED CITY ADOPTS DIFFERENT ZONING. UH, SO THERE IS NO GAP. THERE IS NO, UH, TIME PERIOD THERE. AND EVEN IF THERE WAS A GAP, THERE'S BEEN NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANTS AS TO WHAT THE PROPERTY WAS USED DURING THAT DEATH PERIOD FROM THE 1986 HEARING UP UNTIL CORPORATE INCORPORATION FROM INCORPORATION UNTIL THE CITY ADOPTED A ZONING ORDINANCE, WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE, UH, NO DOCUMENTATION TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS, UH, NIGHTLY, NIGHTLY USE ON THAT PROPERTY. IT WAS FROM 83 TO 86. WE KNEW IT WAS, UH, APARTMENTS BEING RENTED ON A MONTHLY BASIS. UH, APARTMENTS RENTED ON A MONTHLY BASIS IS NOT A, UH, TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION, UH, IN ANYONE'S DEFINITION. UH, IT'S, UH, AND THEN, THEN THE, THERE'S REALLY A GAP IN THE HISTORY. WE DON'T KNOW, UH, WHAT THE PROPERTY'S USED FOR UNTIL, UH, MR. VAN AND BM REAL ESTATE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY WAS THEN CONVERTED INTO SHORT-TERM RENTALS ON APRIL 5TH, 2021. UM, THIS HEARING IS NOT THE PLACE TO DECIDE WHETHER SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY OR NOT. UH, THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT FALLS APART CUZ AS, AS SOON AS THEY DEL DELVE INTO THE ARGUMENT, THEY PULL UP THE STATUTE, ARIZONA [00:50:01] REVISED STATUTE NINE 500.39. UH, AND THE DEFINITIONS OF THAT, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THE DIRECTOR INTERPRETED. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THE DIRECTOR CAN INTERPRET. IT'S NOT HIS, HIS ROLE. UH, THE ROLE OF THE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND WHO IS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CITY UNDER THE LDC 8.9 POINT F IS TO INTERPRET THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. UH, HE'S NOT TASKED WITH INTERPRETING ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES. UH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE PERMITTED BY STATE LAW. THEY'VE PREEMPTED THE CITY, UM, IN SOME, IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. UH, BUT THAT IS IN THAT THE ABILITY TO DO SHORT-TERM RENTALS IS CONTROLLED BY CHAPTER 5.25 OF THE SEDONA CITY CODE. NOT THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NOT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. UM, THE DIRECTOR DIDN'T HAVE AN OPINION OR INTERPRET THE STATE'S SHORT TERM RENTAL. AND SO EVEN IF, IF YOU FELT THAT WAS SOMETHING THE DIRECTOR COULD DO, UH, AS AN ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT THERE, UH, THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. AND SO THERE'S NOTHING HERE FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING OFFICER TO REVIEW. UH, THE, THE, THE, THE PROPERTY REALLY SHOULD REVERT AND MUST REVERT BACK TO ITS LAST LEGAL LEGALLY ESTABLISHED USE, WHICH WAS MONTHLY, UH, APARTMENTS OR RENT OR APARTMENTS RENTED ON A MONTHLY BASIS, MIS MONTHLY BASIS. UM, THIS DECISION WAS MADE BACK IN 1986. UH, VN, UH, REAL ESTATE LLC ASKED YOU TO IGNORE THE COUNTY COCONINO COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION, UH, WHERE THEY DENIED THE, THE, THE APPLICATION TO USE THE PROPERTY, UH, FOR NIGHTLY RENTALS, FIVE TO TWO. AND THEN THE UNANIMOUS DECISION OF THE COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS UPHOLDING THAT DENIAL, UH, WHEN THEY ALSO TURNED DOWN THE REQUEST TO CONVERT BACK FROM WHAT USED TO BE NIGHTLY RENTALS. UM, WE'VE STIPULATED TO THAT AND THE FACTS THAT WHEN IT, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS STARTED, IT'S USED IN 1965, IT WAS USED AS NIGHTLY, MONTHLY, WEEKLY RENTALS. UH, BUT IN 1983 THAT CHANGED THE DEPARTMENTS. UH, AND THAT NEEDS TO REMAIN NOW, UH, ABSENT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. AND SO WE JUST, WE ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION, UM, AND THAT THIS IS NOT, NIGHTLY RENTALS IS NOT A LEGAL, UH, CONFORMING USE OF THE PROPERTY PROPERTY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SINCE THERE WILL PROBABLY BE SOME FULLY COMMENTS, UM, CONCERNING BOTH OF THESE PRESENTATIONS, I'D LIKE TO OPEN THAT UP AT THIS POINT AND THEN I'LL ALLOW EACH, EACH SIDE TO COLLECTIVELY MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT, UM, ON THE RECORD. SO AS FAR AS THOSE, I'VE GOT A NOTICE OF, WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, UM, I THINK WE HAVE JOHN SMITH, MR. JOHN SMITH. MR. SMITH, OKAY. YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE IF YOU ARE. JUST MAKE SURE WE ARE IN RANGE HERE WITH OUR MICROPHONE. PLEASE COME HERE. UH, I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 20 YEARS, MORE THAN 20 YEARS, AND I'VE SEEN GOOD, AND I'VE SEEN BAD. I LISTEN TO THIS. IT'S MORE LIKE HE SAID, SHE SAID, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL PART OF IT. UH, AND I DON'T PROFESS TO UNDERSTAND IT. BUT I WILL TELL YOU ONE THING. I WALK MY DOGS, I WALK MY DOGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOUR OR FIVE TIMES A DAY UNTIL JUST RECENT OWNERSHIP CHANGE. DID I WALK MY DOGS DOWN ON NEW CASTLE ISLAND. CAUSE I WAS AFRAID TO CAUSE OF THE TENANTS THAT OCCUPIED THOSE APARTMENTS. AND WHAT THEY'VE DONE, I THINK IS, IS AN ASSET TO OUR CITY. WHEN I WALK DOWN THERE, I BECOME AN AMBASSADOR TO THE CITY OF SEDONA AS A DESTINATION LOCATION. I MEET PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND THEY ARE 100% HAPPY. I'VE NEVER HEARD A NEGATIVE COMMENT ABOUT THE LOCATION, ABOUT THE PEOPLE, ABOUT THE RENTAL. I, I, AS I SAY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LAW. IT'S, UH, BEYOND MY SCOPE OF UNDERSTANDING. BUT I THINK THAT THEY HAVE DONE A MARVELOUS JOB. I HOPE IT CONTINUES AS IT IS. CAUSE I THINK IT BRINGS GOOD PEOPLE TO OUR CITY WHO ENJOY AND TAKE IT BACK HOME AND SPREAD THE GOSPEL OF SEDONA. UH, THANK YOU, SIR. I'M ALSO HAVE, UH, IS IT PATTY POP? P O PPP. PPP. THAT'S IT. OKAY. UM, I'M A NEIGHBOR OF, UH, VINCENT'S AT, UH, 35 NEWCASTLE. I DON'T LIVE THERE ANYMORE. I MOVED TO A UP THE ROAD, BUT I DID LIVE IN THAT PROPERTY SINCE 2009. I DID WANNA MAKE ONE POINT THE OWNER BEFORE VINCENT RENTED THOSE AS SHORT TERM REYNOLDS. SO VINCENT, TAKING THEM ALL FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME THEY WERE USED AS QUOTE UNQUOTE [00:55:01] SHORT TERM RENTALS. BEFORE THAT THE OWNERS THESS THAT HAD THE PROPERTY WERE ABSENTEE OWNERS. AND YEAH, THERE WERE ALL KINDS OF SKETCHY PEOPLE. WHO KNOWS HOW LONG THEY WERE THERE, AS JOHN SAID. AND I LIVED RIGHT ACROSS THE ISLAND FROM WHERE THEY WERE. UM, NIGHTTIME WAS ALWAYS, UH, INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO HEAR, WHAT WAS GOING TO MANIFEST, WHAT KIND OF CAR TRAFFIC THERE WAS GONNA BE UP AND DOWN THE ROADS. SO I MEAN, WHATEVER, HOWEVER, THE SIGNEES HAD THOSE PROPERTIES RENTED WEEKLY, MONTHLY, UM, DAILY. IT WAS NOT WHAT I WOULD CALL THE BEST ELEMENT OF SEDONA. AND WHEN THEIR FRIENDS SHOWED UP, IT MADE IT EVEN WORSE. UM, THE THING THAT I WILL KIND OF REITERATE WHAT JOHN HAS SAID, THOUGH, UM, AS FAR AS VINCENT AND MICHAEL, THEY'VE IMPROVED THE PROPERTY. THEY HAVE IMPROVED THE TRAFFIC FLOW. WE HAVE A MUCH BETTER GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE, VERY KIND THAT I HAVE. I EVEN HAD TO GIVE A, A RIDE TO ONE OF HIS, UH, GUESTS. I DON'T THINK I EVER TOLD YOU THIS, WHO NEEDED TO GET TO THE ENTERPRISE, RENT A CAR, AND HE WAS GONNA WALK UP THERE ON A HOT DAY, AND I WAS WORKING AT MY CABIN. I'M LIKE, GIVE ME FIVE MINUTES, I'LL TAKE YOU. BUT IT WAS A LOVELY YOUNG MAN FROM CHILE, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW, BUT I'M JUST TELLING YOU, THIS IS THE KIND OF, OF, OF, OF OF PEOPLE THAT WE ARE NOW SEEING OVER THERE. IT IS NOT AS SCARY. YOU GUYS SAW THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT FON AND MICHAEL DID. THE OWNER BEFORE HIM DID SOME, BUT REALLY NOT THAT MANY. SO, UM, AGAIN, LIKE JOHN, I'M NOT, I'M NOT A LAWYER, I DON'T KNOW THE LAW, BUT I WILL TELL YOU, PAST USE, IT HAS BEEN PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN USED FOR DAILY, WEEKLY, MONTHLY. I CAN'T GIVE YOU NAMES CUZ QUITE HONESTLY, THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE IN THE SIGNAGE OUT PROPERTY, I, I, I DIDN'T REALLY WANNA KNOW WHO THEY WERE AND IF THEY WERE THERE FOR VERY LONG. SO IT WAS ONE OF THESE SITUATIONS WHERE IT WAS A VERY TRANSI COMMUNITY AND, UH, THE, THE PREVIOUS OWNER THAT, THAT CHANGED A LITTLE BIT WITH VINCENT AND MICHAEL. IT'S BEEN NIGHT AND DAY AND I WILL POINT OUT THEY ARE OUR NEIGHBORS, MICHAEL AND VINCENT ARE NEIGHBORS. THE SINESE WERE NOT, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE THERE ON OCCASION, MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE, UM, UH, MAYBE EVERY, EVERY OTHER MONTH. THE OTHER OWNERS, WELL THEY DID HAVE A, A FAMILY MEMBER LIVING ON ISLAND. SO THEY, SO THEY WERE THERE. UM, BUT STILL HAVING MICHAEL AND VINCENT THERE HAS MADE A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN OUR COMMUNITY. I FULLY SUPPORT THE SHORT TERM RENTAL USE FOR THEM. IF YOU ASK ME ABOUT ANY OTHER SHORT TERM RENTAL USE IN SEDONA, I COULD KEEP IT FOR HOURS ON WHY THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. BUT FOR MICHAEL AND VINCENT, ABSOLUTELY, I ABSOLUTELY FEEL THEY THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN THAT CAPACITY. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE CHANCE TO SPEAK. I HAVE A CARD NOW WITH SARAH WHEEL, W I E H L. HI. HI. I'M GONNA MAKE IT VERY BRIEF CAUSE SINGLE MOM PROBLEMS. I HAVE TO PICK MY KID UP AT NOON. UM, I AM HERE IN A HUNDRED PERCENT SUPPORT OF VINCENT. MY NAME'S SARAH WHEEL. UM, I'M A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER IN THE AREA. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. I'M A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER IN THE AREA, CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANNING, SINGLE MOM. AND I ALSO VOLUNTEER MY TIME ON THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, WHICH PUTS ME IN A LITTLE BIT OF A INTERESTING SPOT IN THIS SITUATION. UM, I KNOW NOW WHY I DIDN'T GO INTO LAW BECAUSE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THE LAWS, THERE'S SOME INTERPRETATIONS AND THEN I THINK THERE'S DOING THE RIGHT THING. UM, AND I THINK SOMETIMES THOSE THINGS DON'T NECESSARILY ALIGN AND I'M REALLY HOPING WE DO THE RIGHT THING IN THIS SITUATION. UM, I REALLY APPRECIATED THE FARMER'S MARKET EXAMPLE. YOU KNOW, DOING SHORT TERM, DOING DAILY, DOING MONTHLY, THAT'S A CHOICE. UM, I KNOW FIRSTHAND SHORT TERM AND NIGHTLY CAN BE VERY INTENSE. AND SO IF SOMEBODY MADE A CHOICE TO SWITCH TO MONTHLY, UM, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, CHANGE THE USE. UM, SO I REALLY LIKED THE FARMER'S MARKET EXAMPLE. I THINK THAT'S VERY APPLICABLE. I THINK APPLICABLE. I THINK A LOT OF ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO THAT. I THINK ALSO IF YOU LOOK BACK AT WHY IT WAS DENIED BACK BY THE COUNTY, THERE WERE SEVERAL REASONS, LIKE CONCERNS AROUND THE ROAD, CONCERNS AROUND THE SEPTIC TANKS, AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. THEY'RE ON CITY SEWER NOW. VINCENT HAS DONE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ROAD. UM, SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AS WELL. I MEAN, WHAT'S REALLY SAD IS I THINK BACK IN THE DAY, PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND THEY GOT SMACKED FOR IT. AND THE POINT IS, IS IF WE TAKE THE 40,000 FOOT VIEW AND WE STEP BACK, THIS HAS BEEN OPERATING AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL FOR, YOU KNOW, A VERY SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME. AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WE WANT TO BE SUPPORTING IN OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT VINCENT AND THE PROPERTY, IT'S ABOUT THE CLEANING SUPPORT THAT DOES IT. THAT IT'S ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING. IT GIVES JOBS TO PEOPLE IN THE, IN THE AREA. IT PROVIDES, YOU KNOW, A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY OF EXPERIENCE FOR PEOPLE THAT COME BY BEING ACCESSIBLE TO THE CREEK. UM, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THINGS CAN BE VERY BLACK AND WHITE. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GRAY AREA HERE AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, [01:00:01] WHICH I THINK IS LACKING SOCIETY NOWADAYS, THAT WE REALLY DO THE RIGHT THING IN MAKING THIS DECISION. AND I FEEL VERY PASSIONATELY ABOUT WHAT THAT RIGHT THING IS. AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO SUPPORT VINCENT AND HIS PROPERTY AND FIND WAYS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. UM, AND I THINK THERE'S SOME FEAR ABOUT A PRECEDENT BEING SET. UM, BUT WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THAT, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FEAR AROUND PEOPLE TAKING THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND CONVERTING THEM INTO THIS KIND OF A SITUATION. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE A SITUATION CORRECT THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING. AND SO, YOU KNOW, FEARS AROUND PRECEDENCE BEING SENT I THINK SHOULD BE THROWN OUT. UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN EITHER COME FROM A PLACE OF EMPOWERMENT AND DO THE RIGHT THING OR WE CAN COME FROM A PLACE OF FEAR. AND I THINK IT'S ABOUT TIME YOU START STEPPING UP AND DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR PEOPLE. UM, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE THAT CONTRIBUTE SO MUCH TO OUR COMMUNITY. UM, AND YOU KNOW, STATEMENTS LIKE , YOU KNOW, DOING THE DUE DILIGENCE WASN'T REALLY DOING THE DUE DILIGENCE BECAUSE IT WAS, YOU KNOW, DONE A FEW DAYS DURING CONTRACT. WELL, YOU KNOW, ANYBODY WHO'S BEEN IN A HOMEOWNER'S CONTRACT KNOWS THAT YOU CAN CANCEL AND UNTIL THE LAST DAY, SO HE WAS DOING HIS DUE DILIGENCE, HE WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING. SO THAT'S MY PIECE ON IT AND I HATE TO RUN, BUT I REALLY HOPE THAT WE CAN COME TOGETHER AND REALLY SUPPORT SOMEBODY WHO'S VERY VALUABLE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND DO THE RIGHT THING. THAT'S MY PIECE. THANK YOU. IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON THE RECORD, YOU MAY NOT HAVE REALIZED THAT WE, YOU HAVEN'T FILLED OUT A CARD. I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE RECORD ON THIS ISSUE IN THIS MATTER. ALRIGHT, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS EXACTLY WHAT SHE JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, AND SHE, SHE NAILED IT RIGHT THERE. YOU NEED TO COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF IF YOU'RE GONNA SPEAK, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE IS IT? YEAH, I KNOW, BUT OKAY, WELL, I WAS JUST THROWING OUT A COMMENT AND YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, SIR. UM, I'M PAUL KAISER. I LIVE AT 91 NEW CAST LANE, UM, RIGHT BEFORE YOU THE WASH AND GO OVER TO VINCE'S PROPERTY. AND JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, THE LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO BACK AND FORTH DOES NOT RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS. I THINK AT SOME POINT YOU JUST HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE THE PARTICULAR SITUATION IN MIND AND REVIEW IT AS AN INDIVIDUAL SITUATION, NOT BY BROAD OVERVIEW, UM, REGULATIONS THAT HAVE COME OUT OF THE PAST. I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT IT SHOULD REALLY BE LOOKED AT AND COME UP WITH A, A DECISION THAT'S NOT BASED ON, WELL, THIS WAS WRITTEN, THIS THEN THIS IS WRITTEN NOW. UM, I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION AND CHANGE SOME REGULATIONS. EVERYBODY THAT KNOWS VINCE KNOWS THE ISLAND IS A HUNDRED PERCENT SUPPORTIVE EXCEPT FOR ONE NEIGHBOR WHO'S IN A SNIT. SO IN A DEMOCRACY, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THE RIGHT GROUP OF PEOPLE CAN OVERCOME ONE PERSON THAT'S DISGRUNTLED AND NEVER REALIZE THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL CLOSE THE HEARING THEN FOR PUBLIC INPUT. UM, COUNSEL, DID YOU HAVE WANNA OFFER ANYTHING ELSE ON THE RECORD TODAY? YEAH, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE A FEW LOOK BACK COMMENT. YEAH, GREAT. THE INFORMATION IN NOR IN NO SORT PARTICULAR ORDER HERE, I I'LL JUST ADDRESS A FEW THINGS. UM, I, I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, THE STATEMENT WAS MADE SORT OF ABOUT PRECEDENT. I GUESS WHAT I WOULD ALSO SORT OF ADD TO THAT IS THAT THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION. UM, I DON'T THINK THERE'S LIKELY TO BE, UH, BETO SOMEHOW A RUSH TO USE, UH, A DECISION THAT'S IN OUR FAVOR TODAY TO SOMEHOW OPEN THE DOOR TO, UH, TO SHORT TERM RENTALS ACROSS THE CITY. WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT OUR LEGAL NONCONFORMING, UH, INTERPRETATIONS VERY NARROW AND, AND WE'RE FRANKLY PREFER THAT TO BE THE BASIS OF, OF THE DECISION. UM, TODAY THERE'S ALSO, UM, UH, KURT MENTIONED TO, UH, THE ARS NINE DASH 1 0 4, WHICH REFERENCES CODES, RULES AND REGULATION. UM, IN, IN MY READING, THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ZONING OF A PARTICULAR PROPERTY, UM, WHICH IS, UH, A LEGISLATIVE ACT THAT OCCURS. UM, YOU CAN HAVE A CODE IN PLACE, UM, AND YOU CAN HAVE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN PLACE. UM, BUT TO SUGGEST THAT THAT DE FACTO MEANS THAT PROPERTY IS ZONED A CERTAIN WAY IS, IS DIFFERENT. UM, IT DOES NOT GO ON TO SAY, BUT COULD HAVE GONE ON TO SAY THAT THE ZONING WOULD, UH, BE DE FACTO CARRIED OVER. UM, WHEN YOU HAVE ANNEXATIONS THAT, UH, PROPERTY IS REZONED. UM, SO I I [01:05:01] DON'T BELIEVE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS IN FACT A GAP IN TIME AND THEREFORE THAT'S RELEVANT. UM, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ACTION WAS INTRODUCED IN, IN THE TIMELINE THAT PRIOR TO THAT POINT THERE WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE SURE THAT NIGHTLY RENTALS WERE PART OF THAT. UH, AND THE GOVERNMENT ACTION, UH, PREVENTED THAT FROM OCCURRING BECAUSE OF THE STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. AGAIN, I'LL REITERATE ONE MORE TIME THAT WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS RELEVANT. WE THINK THAT WHAT'S RELEVANT IS THAT IT CONTINUED TO BE ONE OF THE THREE, UM, DURATIONS, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT ANYBODY THINKS THAT BELIEVES THAT IT IS, I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT TIMELINE. UM, REGARDING THE STATE STATUTE ARGUMENT, UM, I WOULD NOTE THAT, UH, KURT MENTIONED THE THINGS OVER WHICH THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAS AUTHORITY. I WOULD ALSO ADD TO THAT, THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAS AUTHORITY OVER, UM, UH, WHETHER OR NOT A PROPERTY IS IN CONFORMANCE AND, AND WOULD THEN LEAD TO ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. AND THE STATEMENT OF THE LETTER CLEARLY FLEXES THAT AUTHORITY TO SIT TO, TO DIRECT AND, AND MAKE A RULING AND ORDER THAT THE PROPERTY MUST STOP A CERTAIN USE. UM, WHETHER OR NOT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR THE INTERPRETATION OR THE, UM, THE DIRECTOR AT THAT POINT MADE A DECISION TO DEFEND THAT BY SAYING THAT THE STATE STATUTE DIDN'T APPLY IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE OR PROVIDE THE, THE RATIONALE FOR IT ISN'T ISN'T COM ISN'T THE, THAT WHAT'S CONTROLLING, UM, THEY, THEY MADE A CONCLUSION AND THAT CONCLUSION IS INCORRECT, WHICH GIVES ME THE RIGHT TO, TO, TO, UH, APPEAL THAT DECISION. IT ISN'T NECESSARY THAT THE DECISIONS SAY YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE BECAUSE OF X, Y, AND Z. AND THEN IF WE'RE UNLIMITED TO ARGUING AGAINST X, Y, AND Z, I'M ALLOWED TO ARGUE AGAINST THE CONCLUSION, MEANING THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO SWITCH AND HE DOESN'T BECAUSE OF THE STATE STATUTE. SO AGAIN, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S RIGHT. THERE WAS A REFERENCE MADE TO, UM, THE COURT OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION AS IF THAT WERE SORT OF ALREADY DECIDED AND DONE. I WOULD HIGHLIGHT AGAIN THAT THAT WAS NOT A NECESSARY HEARING FOR THE REASONS I'VE STATED, THAT THEY DID NOT NEED A USE PERMIT TO SWITCH FROM ONE NONCONFORMING USE TO ANOTHER BECAUSE THEY NEVER MADE A SWITCH. IT WAS ALL THE SAME TEMPORARY LODGING. UM, THE WORD WAS CONTINUED TO BE USED THAT THEY CONVERTED IT FROM, CONVERTED IT FROM, UM, THAT IS, UH, A WORD THAT GIVES THE PAINTS THE PICTURE THAT IT WENT FROM A PARTICULAR USE TO ANOTHER USE. AND AGAIN, THAT ISN'T WHAT OCCURRED. THEY WERE FOCUSING ON AN ASPECT OF A PARTICULAR USE, UH, AND IT REMAINED THE SAME. UH, AND THEN FINALLY, UH, THE WORD WAS USED THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY SWITCHED IT, THEY CONVERTED IT TO APARTMENTS. AND THAT'S WHY I HIGHLIGHTED FOR YOU IN THE RECORD THAT THE TERM APARTMENT WAS USED ALL THROUGHOUT THAT HISTORY OF DAILY, WEEKLY, NIGHTLY, OR DAILY, WEEKLY MONTHLY ADVERTISEMENTS THAT WERE AN APARTMENT WAS USED, UH, REPEATEDLY. SO THAT TERM, UM, WAS NOT, UH, SO YEAH, APARTMENTS WERE USED, BUT BACK WHEN IT WAS ALSO DAILY, UH, THE ADVERTISEMENTS WERE SHOWING IT SO THAT THAT TERM'S BEEN USED, UH, THROUGHOUT. UM, THERE WAS ALSO A COMMENT TODAY ABOUT IT BEING TRANSIENT. UM, THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO SAY TEMPORARY IN TERMS OF ACCOMMODATIONS. UM, AND, AND WE BELIEVE THAT, THAT THIS HAS CONTINUED TO BE TRANSIENT IN NATURE. THESE WERE NOT LONG-TERM, UH, YOU KNOW, ANNUAL TYPE. UH, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS EVER USED THAT WAY, THAT IT WAS CONTINUED TO BE USED IN A VACATION TOWN ON THE CREEK TO BE USED AS TEMPORARY LODGING. UM, TO, TO START TO PARSE OUT MORE THAN THAT WE THINK IS AGAIN, BEYOND THE SPIRIT, UH, OF WHAT THE NONCONFORMING, UH, PROTECTIONS ARE FOR. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER. SO V AND M ARGUES THAT A DENIAL OF NIGHTLY LODGING USE IN 1986 MEANS THAT NIGHTLY LODGING USE IS STILL ALLOWED TODAY, AND I JUST DON'T SEE IT. UH, MORE IMPORTANTLY, LIKES TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE OWNER VOLUNTARILY CHANGED THE NIGHTLY LODGE AND USED TWO APARTMENTS, UH, IN 1983. AND THAT USED CONTINUED AT LEAST UNTIL 1986. THE REASON IT WAS THE APARTMENTS WAS USED BACK IN THE ADVERTISEMENT, APARTMENTS, COTTAGES, WHATEVER, IS BECAUSE IT HAS A DIFFERENT MEANING. APARTMENTS IS ARE USED ON A LONG TERM BASIS, UM, RENTED AT LEAST MONTHLY IS WHAT THE MINUTES SHOW US. UH, A NON-CONFORMING USE CANNOT BE CHANGED OR EXPANDED. UM, ONCE, ONCE IT'S ESTABLISHED. UH, THEY HAD, THE OWNERS LIKELY HAD A NONCONFORMING USE OF THE PROPERTY, BOTH THEIR TWO NONCONFORMING USES HERE, REALLY THE BUILDING, UH, BEING MORE THAN A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT, AND THEN THE USE, UH, BEING NIGHTLY VERSUS LONG-TERM RENTAL. UH, THE BUILDING'S NOT AN ISSUE, IT'S THE NONCONFORMING USE OF THIS PROPERTY. UH, THAT'S THAT ISSUE HERE. AND THEY GAVE UP THAT USE. THEY ALTERED THAT NIGHTLY USE IN 1983, THE OWNERS DID, AND THERE'S BEEN NO EVIDENCE OF IT BEING REESTABLISHED LEGALLY SINCE THAT TIME PERIOD. AND SO WE ASKED [01:10:01] THAT YOU HAVE PULLED THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION. UH, LASTLY, THE, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IS NOT PART OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS. UM, UH, SHORT-TERM MENTAL CODE ENFORCEMENT IS DONE THROUGH, THROUGH THE SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. THE DIRECTOR MAY BE, UM, AT, AT TIMES, BUT NOT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH IS THE PURVIEW OF THIS HEARING. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, THE STATUTE IS CLEAR THAT, UH, A ZONING, UM, CODE IS, IS WHAT ESTABLISHES THE ZONING ON A PROPERTY. AND SO THE STATUTE, IT CLEARLY REFERENCES THE, THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT'S WHAT APPLIES HERE. IT SAYS, WHEN THE COUNTY TERRITORIES INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A NEWLY CORPORATED CITY OR TOWN, ALL CODES RELATING TO ZONING SHALL APPLY. UM, AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU, MR. HEARING. OFFICER, IF I, THERE'S ONE THING I MEANT TO MENTION THAT I THINK WOULD ACTUALLY BE HELPFUL, IF THAT'S OKAY. GO AHEAD. UM, REGARDING THE TIMELINE OF THE TRANSACTION, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THERE WAS, OUR DATES WERE A LITTLE BIT OFF, BUT, UM, PRIOR TO THE CLOSING, THE VINCENT HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY THAT, UM, WAS A POSITIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE WAY THAT THE DECISION WOULD BE WRITTEN. AND WHILE WE DON'T HAVE THAT DOCUMENTED HERE TODAY, THAT AGAIN, THERE WAS RELIANCE UPON, UPON REPRESENTATION BY THE CITY BEFORE CLOSING, UH, VINCENT WOULDN'T COME THAT FAR JUST TO CLOSE AND THEN HOPE IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO TO GET THE LETTER. SO, SO IF THE LI TIMING WAS OFF, I APOLOGIZE THAT I DIDN'T NEED TO BE MISLEADING ON THAT. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE, YOU'VE HAD A SHORT TERM LESSON ON ZONING LAW , UM, AND I, I THINK YOU CAN SEE THE COMPLEXITY THAT, UH, WE ARE FACED WITH AND BOTH SIDES. I I CONGRATULATE YOU FOR MAKING VERY GOOD PRESENTATION OF YOUR POSITIONS, UM, IN THE VARIOUS CONTEXT. I KNOW THAT THE HEARING OFFICER HAS TO DO A DECISION WITHIN 21 DAYS, UH, AND THEN, THEN THERE'S OTHER APPEALS IF POSSIBLE, OR IF NECESSARY AFTER THAT. I DON'T SEE THAT SAME ONE HERE. SO LET ME JUST SAY THAT, UH, I FEEL THAT I HAVE TO MAKE A WRITTEN DECISION IN FINDINGS IN THIS MATTER WITHIN SAY THE NEXT, UH, 15 DAYS. THAT BEING SAID, UM, IF EITHER PARTY WISHES TO SUPPLEMENT WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE TODAY, UH, I WOULD GIVE YOU THE NEXT 10 DAYS TO FILE ANY WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU FILE FEEL MIGHT BE RELEVANT. UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS CASE IS HISTORY IS ONE WHERE WE KEEP FINDING MORE AND MORE POSSIBLE RELEVANT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE PROPERTY USE, AND I DO THINK THAT'S THE CRITICAL THING HERE. SO, UM, IF YOU DO HAVE ANY MORE DOCUMENTATION THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT OR USEFUL, UH, YOU'D LIKE TO FILE THAT, UH, WITH, WITH THE HEARING, UH, OFFICER, UH, PLEASE DO SO IN IN THE NEXT 10 DAYS. IS THERE ANY OTHER MATTER ON THIS HEARING? NO. NO. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WE'LL ADUR THE HEARING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.