Orange County Approved BOA Minutes 21 01 11

Browse Search

Approved 8/9/2021 1 3. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing 2 property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be 3 regarded as a self-created hardship; 4 The hardship is based on the topography of the lot and location of the existing stream along the eastern 5 property line. The applicant had no role in creating or imposing the current stream buffers standards on the 6 property, nor is the applicant responsible for the location of the stream on the eastern property line. 7 4. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Ordinance, such that public 8 safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. 9 Without the variance, the property is undevelopable. The granting of the variance merely allows the property to 10 be developed to support low intensity/density single-family residential housing consistent with County policies. 11 Mr. Herman said the requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the UDO and should be 12 granted given the preponderance of evidence demonstrating the hardship and lack of evidence asserting the issue is 13 somehow self-induced or not commonly experienced by other property owners within the area. 14 15 Mr. Herman indicated he would like Mr. Doyle to come forward and offer his expert opinion on the current stream buffer 16 regulations impact on the development and marketability of the parcel. 17 18 Chair Meyers indicated it would be appropriate to have both Mr. Herman and Mr. Doyle sworn in. Mr. Harvey reminded 19 the Board attorneys are not typically sworn, but that Mr. Doyle will need to be (Ms. Elaina Cheek swore in Mr. Doyle). 20 21 Mr. Doyle indicated he was sworn and was a local realtor and contractor with over 16 years' experience. Mr. Doyle 22 indicated the parcel's topography made development very challenging. These challenges are exacerbated by the 23 County's 80 ft. stream buffer requirement. Mr. Doyle indicated it is not possible to locate a dwelling and required septic 24 area on the property, abide by dimensional setbacks from property lines, and comply with the 80 ft. stream buffer. Mr. 25 Doyle indicated without the variance, the property could not be developed. 26 27 Mr. Herman concluded his presentation be reminding the Board the variance was in the spirit and intent of the 28 Ordinance in that the variance would allow appropriate development of the property and not result in a condemnation or 29 taking of property rights. A stream buffer would still be maintained on the property and there will be no mass grading 30 necessary to accomplish development. Mr. Herman indicated the variance requested was the minimal amount 31 necessary to allow reasonable development of the parcel consistent with applicable land use regulations. 32 33 Chair Meyers thanked Mr. Herman and asked if there were any questions. 34 35 Mr. Harvey indicated it was his professional opinion the granting of the variance would not create issues for adjacent 36 property owners with respect to the development/re-development of their properties. 37 38 Mr. Harvey said he agreed with the applicant's argument the property couldn't be developed without some relaxation of 39 required stream buffers given the topography of the lot, compliance with applicable setbacks for structures as enforced 40 by Planning, as well as well/septic system setbacks imposed by the Environmental Health department. There was no 41 evidence in the record indicating reduction of the required stream buffer by 30 ft. will substantially increase water runoff 42 onto adjacent properties or create flooding concerns. Mr. Harvey indicated part of his support for the variance request 43 was based on the applicant's protection of the State mandated 50 ft. buffer along the western portion of the stream with 44 no development activity being permitted to occur within this area. 45 46 Mr. Harvey reviewed the findings of fact contained in Attachment 4 as proposed by the applicant. 47 4