Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 811312018 <br /> setback. <br /> As a result the property cannot be <br /> re - developed and reasonable use <br /> cannot be achieved . <br /> 1 <br /> 2 VOTE : UNANIMOUS <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Samantha Cabe asked for a motion for the third finding that the hardship did not result from action taken by the <br /> 5 applicant or the property owner. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 MOTION by Barry Katz for finding three because the applicant or property owner moved forward in good faith and the <br /> 8 variance would benefit Orange County and alteration of setback . Susan Halkiotis seconded . <br /> 9 <br /> REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff BOA <br /> FINDINGS : <br /> In accordance with Section 2 . 10 . 3 of the UDO , the Board of Adjustment shall also consider the following before <br /> the application for a VARIANCE can be approved . <br /> Sec 2 . 10 . 3 ( C ) Staff abstract package , Application Yes Yes <br /> The hardship did not result from narrative , copy of original approved <br /> actions taken by the applicant or site plan , and copy of revised site <br /> the property owner.' The act of plan denoting re - location of <br /> purchasing property with building . <br /> knowledge that circumstances The hardship relates to the existing <br /> exist that may justify the width of the property , the current <br /> granting' of a variance shall not . ' development on the land ( i . e . the <br /> be regarded as a self- created existing structure is already in the <br /> hardship. setback and limits re -development <br /> options as currently oriented ) , and <br /> is based on impacts associated <br /> with the loss of use of an adjacent <br /> private roadway . <br /> 10 <br /> 11 <br /> 12 VOTE : UNANIMOUS <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Samantha Cabe asked for motion for the final finding . <br /> 15 <br /> 16 MOTION by Randy Herman that the board finds that requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose , and intent <br /> 17 of the Ordinance , such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved , There is already an existing <br /> 18 encroachment on the site , so the new building would not encroach more than the exiting building and the adjacent <br /> 19 owner has expressed that they do not believe it is a public safety hazard to have the building located closer. Barry Katz <br /> 20 seconded . <br /> 21 <br /> 22 <br /> 23 <br /> 24 <br /> 25 <br /> 26 <br /> 12 <br />