BOA agenda 021020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the location of the existing septic system and the location of the McCauley Lane right-of-way, a variance has become necessary to allow the project to move forward. STAFF COMMENT(S): 1. The application has been deemed complete. 2. As previously indicated, vehicular ingress/egress (i.e. a driveway) off of Neville Road (SR 1945) would not address this issue. The required setback from the McCauley Lane right- of-way would still be 40 ft. per Section 3.3 of the UDO. 3. As required under Section 2.12.6 of the UDO, staff notified all property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject property of the variance request. This notice also informed parties of the date, time, and location of the public hearing where the request will be reviewed. Copies of the letter, as well as our certification of mailing, are contained in Attachment 3. As of February 4, 2020, the writing of this abstract, staff has not received any complaints/concerns resulting from property owners notified of the request. 4. Staff has determined the granting of the variance will not create issues for adjacent property owners with respect to the development/re-development of their properties. 5. Staff determined the granting of the variance will not have a negative impact on existing traffic service levels in the area or be consistent with applicable access management standards. 6. As detailed within Section 2.10 Variances of the UDO, the Board is authorized to modify or vary regulations when strict compliance with the regulation or standard would result in unnecessary hardships upon the subject property. 7. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.10.3 of the UDO, the Board may approve a variance in cases where unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of the UDO, when substantial evidence in the official record of the application supports all of the following findings: a. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the Ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. b. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance. c. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. d. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. 8. Per Section 2.10.9 of the UDO, the Board is not empowered to grant a variance without an affirmative finding of fact supported by substantial evidence in the record of the proceedings before the Board. Further, the Board may impose appropriate conditions provided same are reasonable related to the variance request.