BOA minutes 070918 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 811312018 1 2 Samantha Cabe called for a motion to close the public hearing . 3 4 MOTION by Katz to close the public hearing . Halkiotis seconded . 5 VOTE : UNANIMOUS 6 7 Halkiotis disclosed that she has known Mark Micol for several years . She said Randy Herman noted that the agreement 8 (for use of the private roadway along the eastern property line) was just verbal . She said has had some experience with 9 neighbors agreeing to something and changing their minds and knows how it can happen and sympathizes with it , And 10 she is in favor of granting the variance , 11 12 Samantha Cabe asked for other comments . 13 14 Karen Barrows said she had highlighted Randy Herman Is note about actions resulting from the applicant but she is 15 comfortable with granting the variance . 16 17 Samantha Cabe asked for a motion with regard to the first finding , unnecessary hardship . She told the board it would 18 be making motions regarding each individual finding and asked board members to state briefly what evidence would 19 support that finding in the motion . 20 21 MOTION by Karen Barrows to approve the first finding , She noted that staff had said that the applicant was moving 22 forward and the agreement for the roadway fell apart and without the variance , the project cannot move forward , 23 Further Ms . Barrows indicated she agreed with staff' s findings . Barry Katz seconded . 24 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff BOA FINDINGS : In accordance with Section 2 . 10 . 3 of the UDO , the Board of Adjustment shall also consider the following before the application for a VARIANCE can be approved . Sec 2 . 10 . 3 (A) Staff abstract package including e- Yes Yes Unnecessary hardship would mails from James Baxter (Orange result from the strict application County Inspections ) , Marc Micol ( adjacent property owner) , of the Ordinance . It shall not be Application narrative , copy of necessary to demonstrate that, original approved site plan , and in the absence of the variance , copy of revised site plan denoting no reasonable use can be made re- location of building of the property . demonstrating that : 1 . Original , approved , site plan demonstrated compliance with the UDO based on the I use of the adjacent private roadway ; 2 . Roadway became unavailable for our use in the Spring of 2018 ; 3 . Without use of roadway , applicant cannot develop property consistent with applicable land use ( i . e . setback) or State Building 10