BOA minutes 110810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 3/14/2011 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 29 of 43 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 Michael Harvey: No sir. That is the distance separating the two. On page 158, the proposed septic facility for the barn is that northern most septic system and the other septic system would be for other ancillary facilities on site and there has to be a separation distance outside the stream buffer. With respect to adjoining property owners, I have only spoken to one individual, Jane Williams, who expressed no opinion. She wanted an explanation of the project, specifically were they boarding dogs. Of course the answer is no. We did post the property and the sign disappeared due to the election. I would like to call you attention to the Findings of Fact on page 177. On page 188, with respect to the Findings of Fact, staff stipulates that we have heard no evidence this evening that would cause us to make a negative finding with respect to Section 8.2.1, 8.2.2, subsection 1, the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed. Staff will stipulate the stream buffers on this property are being preserved in their entirety which limits ultimate locations for pasture and horse areas. That the facilities as proposed comply with the minimum setback requirements, that the applicant demonstrates they will comply with the Type B buffer requirement as stipulated by the ordinance. That the applicant chooses to live on the property which means there will be continuous security and monitoring of the horses to ensure their perpetual safety. Staff will also stipulate that as the applicant has attained approval for the septic systems from the Orange County Health Department that there is no issue that the property will not comply with the various necessary health standards with respect to the disposal of generated waste on the property. With respect to Section 8.2.1, subsection 2, you have testimony from Mr. Parker indicating that it is his experience as a realtor in the area for many years that this type of development actually enhances and promotes adjacent property values given the fact that this is currently the term utilized in both his assessment and that this will make purposeful use of the property and as the applicant will be preserving the existing stream buffer. Staff will further argue that the environmental integrity of the property will be preserved and will only enhance the value of the adjacent property. With respect to compliance with 8.2.1, subsection 3, staff would remind the board that we have determined that the project is consistent with several goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as articulated on pages 127 through 128 of our abstract. We further find that based on the findings or based on the testimony submitted by Mr. Sykes that there are no fire or safety code issues based on this being located in agricultural residential land use category as defined by the Comprehensive Plan as an area intended for promoting stable agricultural development which we believe is consistent with that land use category and this is consistent with promoting and preserving agricultural development of the county. We urge you to make an affirmative finding. On page 189, we have recommended seven conditions. Thomas Brown: Does the board members have any questions for Mr. Harvey? If not, we will close the public hearing and begin deliberation. The public hearing portion of Case A-5-10 is now closed. I would like to thank the staff and citizens for their testimony. We have heard the testimony of the applicant who has made a request for a special use permit to operate a commercial boarding and training for horses which falls under the category of Class II Kennel/Riding Stable. There will be no competition or horse shows on the property. The Board now has the responsibility to decide the SUP request based on the testimony. We will be begin with the specific standards contained on pages 177 through 187. Mr. Harvey went through these in sufficient detail so that if we have a motion to stipulate as long as there is no problem with this process I would say we can entertain a motion to approve all specific standards on pages 177 through 187.