Orange County Approved BOA Minutes 21 01 11

Browse Search

Approved 8/9/2021 1 Mr. Harvey asked the Board to enter the agenda packet for Case A-3-20, including all four attachments, be entered into 2 the record of the proceedings. 3 4 MOTION made by Chair Meyers entering the complete agenda package, beginning on page 27 of the agenda, for Case 5 A-3-20 be entered into the record, seconded by Vice-chair Halkiotis. 6 VOTE: Unanimous. 7 8 Mr. Harvey asked that the copy of the power point presentation, submitted by the applicant, be entered into the record 9 as well. 10 11 MOTION made by Chair Meyers entering the complete agenda package, beginning on page 27 of the agenda, for Case 12 A-3-20 be entered into the record, seconded by Mr. Jeff Scott. 13 VOTE: Unanimous. 14 15 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Brady Herman to come forward and present the applicant's request. 16 17 Mr. Herman thanked the Board for allowing him to speak on behalf of Mr. Dodson, the owner of 7218 Sunrise Road, 18 seeking a variance from County stream buffer standards as detailed in Section 6.13 of the Unified Development 19 Ordinance (UDO). 20 21 Mr. Herman reminded the Board they had previously determined Mr. Dodson had standing on this request. 22 23 Mr. Herman asked the Board to accept an affidavit from Mr. Doyle, a local realtor, who was present to testify on the 24 impacts the strict adherence to stream buffer regulations would have on the development and/or sale of the property. 25 26 The Board accepted the affidavit referred to Applicant Exhibit 1. 27 28 Mr. Herman indicated the variance request was to reduce the County's stream buffer requirement but would not require 29 reduction of the State's typically required 50 ft. stream buffer. Mr. Herman reminded the Board the County chose to 30 adopt more restrictive stream buffer standards that the State would require. Mr. Herman indicated the property was not 31 located within watershed protection overlay districts and not encumbered by identified floodplain. 32 33 Mr. Herman reviewed the required findings for variances as detailed in Section 2.10.10 of the UDO and summarized his 34 arguments on the justification for the variance request: 35 36 1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the Ordinance. It shall not be necessary to 37 demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property; 38 Strict application of the County's 80 ft. stream buffer makes the property undevelopable. Property owner 39 cannot comply with various development standards (i.e. stream buffers, setbacks, required septic areas, etc.) 40 and still develop the property. (Mr. Herman referenced maps in Attachment 1 and 2 of the agenda packet 41 denoting the area of the property encumbered by the 80 ft. stream buffer) 42 2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. 43 Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are 44 common to the neighborhood or general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance; 45 The hardship results from the presence of a stream on the eastern side of the property. As depicted in 46 submitted exhibits in the record, the property is severely encumbered by the County's required 80 ft. stream 47 buffer making development of the property almost impossible. The hardship is not a result of personal 48 circumstances and is not a condition common to the public. It is based on the topography of the lot and 49 location of the existing stream. 3