BOA minutes 070918 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 811312018 1 eastern property line . He pulled up a copy of the approved site plan and indicated even though the document has the 2 word draft on it, the document is a copy of the approved site plan . He oriented the board to where the privately 3 maintained driveway is located in relation to Old Hillsborough Road . He indicated where the existing 3 , 000-square-foot 4 building is located and where the proposed addition that met the 25-foot setback along the western property line would 5 have been located . He reviewed that the applicant experienced issues in complying with all applicable land use 6 standards , most notably drive aisle width to handle two-way traffic of 24 feet as required in Article 6 of the Unified 7 Development Ordinance , installing required parking area of 180 square feet per required space as required in Article 6 , 8 and also complying with state building code for turn radii of vehicles . He said at the time it (site plan ) was approved by 9 staff, there was an agreement in principle that the applicant could use the private driveway for access . The applicant 10 sought out from the owner of this driveway permission , which was agreed to in principle , to use same foe ingress and 11 egress purposes . This allowed the applicant to get approval of the site plan and proceed . 12 13 Karen Barrows asked when ( permission to use the driveway had been granted ) . Michael Harvey answered in February 14 of this year. 15 16 Michael Harvey said unfortunately in March or April of this year, that approval was rescinded and using the private road 17 became unacceptable . The applicant found himself not in compliance and not able to complete the project as originally 18 approved . The applicant and his engineer, Chad Huffine , looked at how to redesign the site to meet applicable (land 19 use and building code) requirements and found no practical methodology . The applicant then chose to seek a variance 20 from the setback requirement, moving the building to a point on the western property line to observe a 10-yard setback . 21 That would mean the applicant would comply with required drive aisle , parking and turn radii requirements . In 22 Attachment 4 of the packet, staff has been able to provide the board with an email from Mark Micol , owner of adjacent 23 property ( Michael Harvey indicated that property for the board ) , indicating his support for the request, and an email from 24 James Baxter of Orange County Building and Inspections that indicates that moving the building brings the property into 25 compliance for the turn radii requirements . Staff has had a conversation with the individual who maintains this driveway , 26 who has also indicated support for the variance request . 27 28 Michael Harvey said that as indicated on Page 31 , the application is complete , and staff has notified all property owners 29 required to be notified (of the public hearing ) . Michael Harvey said it is his testimony that granting the variance will not 30 create issues for adjacent property owners for developing their property and will not impact buffers . It is his testimony 31 that granting the variance will not impact traffic flow in this area and does not create a public safety concern from a 32 traffic standpoint . He also pointed out Page 32 , No . 7 , that staff has provided the criteria , outlining the standards , the 33 required evidence , the findings the board must make . In conclusion , he said the board cannot grant a variance without 34 substantial evidence the applicant has met the required burden of proof. And staff recommends granting the variance . If 35 no one has any questions for staff, the applicant' s attorney has a presentation he would like to make . 36 37 Randy Herman said the approved site plan does not seem to indicate access to the private road . Michael Harvey 38 indicated at the time the site plan was approved access to the driveway on the eastern property line had been agreed to 39 in principal by the owner of the roadway and the applicant . 40 41 Samantha Cabe asked if it is the same copy that is available on Page 47 of agenda packet . Michael Harvey said Page 42 47 is the revised site plan showing the building being re-located along the western property line and is part of what was 43 sent out for public notification , Attachment 1 is a blow-up of what is on Page 40 . The board should also have larger 44 copies of Pages 40 and 47 in their packet ( 11 x 17s) . 45 46 Michael Harvey asked the applicant's attorney to come forward . 47 48 Patrick Byker with Morningstar Law Group addressed the board . He had been duly ,sworn . He disclosed that Board 49 Member Leon Meyers has been a friend for 20 years and Leon Meyers ' company is building an addition on his house . 50 He said he understood Leon Meyers is an alternate on the case but he wanted to disclose it for the record . 4