Agenda - 09-18-2012 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

27 1 in your packets, Mr. Spence Dickinson is the owner of this property property that is currently 2 split-zoned Rural Buffer and Planned Development Housing rural Residential. I would like to 3 remind the Board that you have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation at your places for your 4 review. As indicated in the abstract, the property is currently split zoned and approximately two 5 acres is located within the boundary of the special use permit. The Heartwood at Blackwood 6 Mountain project is zoned Planned Development Housing Rural Residential and is directly 7 adjacent to existing camp/retreat center, also owned and operated by Mr. Dickenson. The other 8 portion of this property, which is two acres in area is to the north zoned Rural Buffer. It is not 9 and was not part of the original Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development. As 10 you will note from the abstract provided to you, at some point, Mr. Dickenson recombined this 11 tract of land (staff identified the portion of property zoned Planned Development) with this tract 12 of land (staff identified the portion of property zoned Rural Buffer), which technically constituted 13 a special use permit modification and should have been approved by the County at the time the 14 recombination occurred. This was done in the mid-90's. This proposal will correct that problem. 15 Ultimately, what Mr. Dickenson is requesting is lot 31 R in its entirety, this two-acre portion 16 currently zoned Rural Buffer, and this two-acre portion currently zoned PD-H-R1, be rezoned 17 totally to Rural Buffer and removed from the provisions of the Heartwood special use permit. 18 You will find a copy of the application in Attachment 1 of your abstract packet. As we indicated 19 in our abstract, as Mr. Dickenson argues the request is an attempt to address existing and long- 20 standing septic and development issues at the creative learning center, specifically the camp 21 retreat center operating to the east. Mr. Dickenson has been working with the current Planning 22 staff for several years to bring this particular parcel of property into compliance with the 23 provisions of the code. He is currently operating the retreat center on the property in 24 accordance with a previously issued Class B special use permit, issued by the Board of 25 Adjustment in 2008. 26 27 As indicated in the application and in this PowerPoint, the applicant only intends to recombine 28 the separate parcel with the adjacent camp property and construct the required septic system 29 and repair area for compliance not only with the special use permit, but the Orange County 30 Health Department. 31 32 This is a two-tiered process. The application involves a rezoning request changing the property 33 from PD-H-R1 and Rural Buffer to just Rural Buffer. That is a legislative decision. I will call the 34 Board's attention to Attachment 4 of your packet where staff has provided a chart outlining the 35 differences between legislative and a quasi-judicial, which is a special use permit process. We 36 also are looking at a modification of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with Section 37 2.7 inclusive of the Unified Development Ordinance. What Mr. Dickenson is modifying would be 38 to remove lot 31 R as it's currently shown on this map (staff identified the property on a map) 39 from the provisions and requirements of the special use permit. The decision on this 40 modification is rendered and based on the sworn testimony from the applicant, any supporters, 41 any detractors. The applicant still bears the burden of proof in order to determine whether or 42 not the request complies with the provisions of the code, the previously approved special use 43 permit and the required findings of fact. You will note from the abstract that staff's initial findings 44 are that the applicant has submitted all required documentation with this proposal, the request 45 does not appear to invalidate previously issued conditions or dimensional standards associated 46 with the Heartwood subdivision. 47 48 I will call your attention specifically to pages 2, 3 and 4 of your abstract where staff breaks down 49 the various provisions associated with the Heartwood special use permit. The removal of this 50 tract does not invalidate existing ratio standards or proposals for land use that Mr. Dickenson 51 had originally proposed for the Heartwoods project as approved by the County in the mid to late