12.11.24 BOA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

STAFF COMMENT(S): 1. The application has been deemed complete. 2. As required under Section 2.12.6 of the UDO, staff notified all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property of the variance request. This notice also informed parties of the date, time, and location of the public hearing where the request will be reviewed. Copies of the letter, as well as our certification of mailing, are contained in Attachment 3. 3. As of November 5, 2024, the writing of this abstract, staff has not received any complaints/concerns resulting from property owners notified of the request. The application was reviewed at the October 17, 2024, Development Advisory Committee (DAC) meeting. Additionally, the Variance request was sent to the State Clearinghouse for review on October 8, 2024. All DAC and State Clearinghouse comments are available to the Board for review in Attachment 3 and compete State Clearinghouse materials are available through the Permit Portal. 4. As detailed within Section 2.10 Variances of the UDO, the Board is authorized to modify or vary regulations when strict compliance with the regulation or standard would result in unnecessary hardships upon the subject property. 5. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.10.4 of the UDO, the Board may approve a variance in cases where unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of the UDO, when substantial evidence in the official record of the application supports all the following findings: a. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the Ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. Staff Comment: Staff cannot attest that in the absence of a variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property or that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship. b. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance. Staff Comment: The applicant notes that the lot was created in 1992 as part of Deer Run Subdivision, which predated the 1994 zoning ordinance in which the 150-foot reservoir buffer was first implemented. However, the parcel was subject to a recombination on January 27, 2003. Due to this recombination, unlike many existing properties at Lake Orange, the parcel does not quality as an “existing lot” as defined in UDO Section 4.2.2(I) Existing Lots. Such lots may receive stream buffer and septic setback reductions administratively, provided they meet all of the review criteria. The two smaller, parent parcels of the subject parcel likely would have been eligible for the buffer reduction allowances. c. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist 18