ORD-2012-039 Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas - Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit Modification

Browse Search

Having said that, what I would like to do this evening is briefly review with you the actions of the Planning Board. As you will note from Attachment 5 of your abstract packet, the Planning Board went through the Findings of Fact and determined that the applicant had met his burden with respect to compliance with the individual requirements of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance for the approval of this request. They also made specific Findings of Fact on the compliance with Section 5.3.2 (8) 2 a, b, and c, with respect to this project's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, with respect to this proposed amendment would not have a negative impact on adjacent property, and last but not least, the applicant had met his burden of proof that the proposal was consistent with surrounding land use. The Planning Board is recommending unanimous approval of this process and of the proposed rezoning. The applicant specifically in Attachment 4 has indicated his support for the conditions with one exception —the applicant requests that that the Board not impose a condition about the wooded access from this lot of the Pathway Court. As you will recall from the Quarterly Public Hearing, and this is detailed within Attachment 2 of your abstract packet, concerns were expressed by adjacent property owners about the potential for a road or a drive access from this property and ultimately the existing camp property to the east operated by Mr. Dickinson onto Pathway Court. Staff recommended the imposition of the condition at that time. Staff still recommends the imposition of this condition. The applicant respectfully requested in writing that you not impose it. Unless you have any questions, that is the end of my presentation at this time. Commissioner Jacobs: To the point he just made, do you feel that adequately addressed the concerns of Mr. Lamb that are on page 33 of our packet regarding the impact on the Heartwood development? Michael Harvey: I feel it does and with all due respect to Mr. Dickinson, I take a different viewpoint of why the condition was imposed. As this parcel of property is being removed from the confines of the Heartwood at Blackwood Special Use Permit and is not subject to the conditions of the Special Use Permit or the imposition of fees or other actions by the Heartwood Homeowners Association that is responsible for maintaining Pathway Court, it is my considered opinion that it would not be reasonable for us to allow there to be access onto Pathway Court by the adjacent camp, even though the property has frontage on it and even though there are other lots that were approved after the issuance of the Special Use Permit that have access on Pathway as well. I would argue that the County in hindsight, should have required an amendment to the Special Use Permit to allow for further subdivision activity to occur in the 80's and early 90's, which it did not. We do not need to perpetuate the same mistake, as this property has been removed from the confines and SUP and not subject to the local homeowners control and purview, it is my considered opinion that it should not be allowed to have access on a street that is maintained by that homeowners association. Commissioner Jacobs: Just in reading what Mr. Lamb said, I thought he was concerned that the parcel be restricted for use for the septic field and it says, "and no other activities or services or hindrances along the border of the community."