Minutes 08-23-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

that in greater detail in a little while. I also received today, and this is the green piece of paper — an email from David Sykes, the Orange County Fire Marshal, indicating that he had completed inspection of the building and he has found no violations to the fire code and he has no concerns with the school commencing operations at the facility. Very briefly, the abstract provides you with the general answers to the questions posed at the Quarterly Public Hearing for adjacent property owners. I will not review them in detail. I'll just call them to your attention. These questions are addressed with Attachment 5 of this abstract. With respect to the Environmental Health permit, which is Attachment 6 — the school and the church have already paid for the necessary permits and have done the necessary work to achieve an operations permit from the Health Department, meaning that they can commence operation, and they have made the necessary modifications to the septic system to support the school. I call your attention back to Attachment 2, which is the Special Use Permit Findings of Fact, which begins on page 8 of your abstract. As you all know, this is a quasi- judicial hearing and you are required to make findings of fact based on the project's compliance with the provisions of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as well as make any specific findings of fact with respect to this project's compliance with the general standards, which I'm going to go over specifically in a moment. What you will find as you go through this, is that the Planning Board, at their July 6tn meeting, has made an affirmative finding and affirmative recommendation stating that the school is a customary accessory use for a church and the application complies with the submittal requirements, specifically as detailed within Sections 2.2 and 2.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance, that the applicant has submitted sufficient documentation proving that the project complies with specific development criteria as outlined within Section 5.8.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance, that there was insufficient evidence and testimony entered into the record causing or allowing them to make a negative finding, and that they have recommended several conditions be imposed on this project if the Board of County Commissioners sees fit to issue them. So very briefly what I would like to do is go over the specifics with respect to the general findings, beginning on page 27. As the Board will recall, the County Commissioners are obligated to make findings that this project meets the general requirements of the ordinance, specifically, that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare if developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property unless the use is a public necessity and then finally, the location and character of the use of the development according to the plan submitted will be in harmony with the area and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the area. Going back to page 28, you will note that the Planning Board made an affirmative finding that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, or general welfare. You will note on page 28, their findings were based on the applicant's testimony of the May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing -the submitted the site plan; the issuance of the septic permit authorizing the school to operate from the church; the applicant's response as contained within Attachment 5 of this packet to those concerns raised at the May 23�d Quarterly Public Hearing; testimony from staff both at the Quarterly Public Hearing and the July 6th Planning Board meeting; and the staff correspondence has been entered into the record of the May 23�a Quarterly Public Hearing from the Sherriff's Office, the Fire Marshal's Office, and Environmental Health indicating that they had no concerns. The second criterion is that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. You will note the Planning Board made an affirmative finding that within the record there is an appraisal opinion offered by Mr. Mike Taylor, dated February 17, 2011, submitted