BOA minutes 030810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 3/8/2010 Page 78 of 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Section 8.2.2 of the ordinance further stipulates that those opposing the approval of the application on the grounds that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare or they have not met their burden of establishing compliance with the ordinance, have to do so also with the submittal of competent sworn testimony. You have to weigh whether or not A, the applicant has met their burden and if they didn’t, B, did the opposition also meet their burden as well. Any questions. With that Mr. Chairman, I am going to go through the specific findings that we are required to make a recommendation on. The first finding is Section 8.6, The application was submitted on forms providing full and accurate description of the proposed use, including location, appearance and operational characteristics. Planning staff has indicated that a complete application form, as we require to be filled out, was submitted and contained within this abstract. Section 8.8a, 10 copies of the site plan prepared by a registered land surveyor, architect, or engineer were provided. We stipulated they were. Jeffrey Schmitt: Members of the board, as Mr. Harvey goes through each of these articles (8.6 and 8.8), as he reaches the conclusion of Article 8.8, we are going to vote on each of those, that will save us some time. What we are voting on is the technicalities of this application, if you will, to make sure they have been followed. Michael Harvey: 8.8b) Elevations of all proposed structures to be used in the development. As you will recall elevations were submitted, not only with the application but entered into the record. 8.8c) Ten (10) copies of the Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact Statement, if required, by the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance. Staff has determined this is not applicable as it is not disturbing the required requisite land area in order for an environmental impact study to be generated so we are asking that you make a finding that it is not applicable. 8.8d) A fee, as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Yes, that fee was paid. Jeffrey Schmitt: Mr. Harvey just covered 8.6 and 8.8 included on pages 133 and 134 of the application. The recommendation was a vote of yes that the applicant has met the specific requirements of the filing. MOTION by Dawn Brezina to approve the findings 8.6 and 8.8 on pages 133 and 134. David Blankfard seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Michael Harvey: Page 135, Article 5. This is the corrected page. Essentially what you are asked to make findings on is whether or not the proposed lots in the proposed development complies with any and all setbacks minimum lot standards, etc. for the rural buffer zoning district and without reading it all, we are going to stipulate that a) through e) have been met that the lot is a minimum lot area of 87,120 square feet according to the application contained in your packet. The minimum lot width is 150 feet according to the site plan, the minimum lot width is actually 440 feet, the required front setback, per Article 5 for the Rural Buffer Zoning District is 40 feet, there are different standards for kennels, however, we will point out that the existing single family residence meets a front yard setback of 64 feet and that the proposed kennel is 210 feet from the front yard. The required side and rear setbacks are 20 feet per Article 5 for the rural buffer zoning district. Again, kennels have a different standard, however, we are going to stipulate for the record that the proposed kennel facility is approximately 230 feet from the eastern property line, 95 feet from the western property line and the proposed kennel facility is approximately 155 feet from the rear property line. Maximum building height is limited to 25 feet based on the renderings that we stipulate they comply with the maximum building height for Article 5. MOTION made by Tom Brown to accept recommended findings of staff as annotated on page 135. David Blankfard seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Michael Harvey: The next required findings deal with Article 6, specific findings that apply to various types of development dealing with land use intensity, compliance with the land use intensity system. There has been testimony about compliance with impervious surface standards. I want to remind the board that in accordance with Article 6, as it is not located within a protector of critical watershed is not obligated to impervious surface limitations or requirements. It is required to adhere to a maximum floor ratio of .088, a required minimum open space ratio of .84 and a minimum pedestrian landscape ratio of .21.