Minutes 05-29-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

accordance with a previously issued Class B special use permit, issued by the Board of Adjustment in 2008. As indicated in the application and in this PowerPoint, the applicant only intends to recombine the separate parcel with the adjacent camp property and construct the required septic system and repair area for compliance not only with the special use permit, but the Orange County Health Department. This is a two-tiered process. The application involves a rezoning request changing the property from PD-H-R1 and Rural Buffer to just Rural Buffer. That is a legislative decision. I will call the Board's attention to Attachment 4 of your packet where staff has provided a chart outlining the differences between legislative and a quasi-judicial, which is a special use permit process. We also are looking at a modification of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with Section 2.7 inclusive of the Unified Development Ordinance. What Mr. Dickenson is modifying would be to remove lot 31 R as it's currently shown on this map (staff identified the property on a map) from the provisions and requirements of the special use permit. The decision on this modification is rendered and based on the sworn testimony from the applicant, any supporters, any detractors. The applicant still bears the burden of proof in order to determine whether or not the request complies with the provisions of the code, the previously approved special use permit and the required findings of fact. You will note from the abstract that staff's initial findings are that the applicant has submitted all required documentation with this proposal, the request does not appear to invalidate previously issued conditions or dimensional standards associated with the Heartwood subdivision. I will call your attention specifically to pages 2, 3 and 4 of your abstract where staff breaks down the various provisions associated with the Heartwood special use permit. The removal of this tract does not invalidate existing ratio standards or proposals for land use that Mr. Dickenson had originally proposed for the Heartwoods project as approved by the County in the mid to late 80's. Finally, I will say that there are policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence to the viability of this proposal. What you are being asked to do tonight is receive the application, conduct the public hearing, accept County Commissioner and Planning Board comments, refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be referred to the County Board of Commissioners in time for your September 18th meeting, and that you adjourn the public hearing until this date and time certain in order to receive the Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Dickenson, the applicant is here this evening. If you have any other questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. There were no questions from the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners. Spence Dickenson: I have been sworn in. I have owned Spence's Farm since 1984, and I've worked with over 10,000 children at the farm. I've made a significant difference in the people that have been there for 15 years and even worked for me at this point. At some point we looked at what to do to have the farm be legal, in compliance with everything. As a farm, it was exempt from the Planning zoning. We have been trying to bring it all into compliance. The only thing left at this point is the septic system. I have been turned down by the Health Department as far as being able to find any septic system on Spence's Farm proper. I own the adjacent land. Michael Harvey is of the mind that we couldn't go across the PDD to put it where we were going to put it on the upper piece until we took it out of the special use.