11.12.25 BOA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 Leon Meyers: Land disturbance thresholds are cumulative to the parent tract and will carry over to any and all 2 subdivided lots. 3 4 Beth Bronson: And does that mean should this lot be subdivided further, or was this lot subdivided, and there is a 5 parent tract? That would be my only question. 6 7 Cy Stober: Permission to address the Board. 8 9 Leon Meyers: Sorry. Go ahead. 10 11 Cy Stober: It's the latter, Mrs. Bronson. It's a standard note from our county engineer that is more of a, it's 12 less relevant because this property could not be subdivided because it would result in non-13 conforming lots, but it is a standard note that the engineer places in his comments so that there is 14 awareness because there has not been awareness on other regulated subdivisions that 15 stormwater regulation is cumulative as a common plan of development to resulting lots and that it 16 must be regulated as such. And so, it's a best practice he's put into place as a precaution, and the 17 awareness for applicants. It is not relevant to this case. 18 19 Beth Bronson: And that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't insinuating that this was a subdivided 20 tract. 21 22 Cy Stober: No. Your statement before is correct, that this parcel was created in 1976, and prior to this 23 ordinance having been adopted, as well the prior ordinance, for that matter, and as such, any 24 parent predates our ordinance regulation. 25 26 Beth Bronson: Okay. Thank you very much for that explanation. With that said, then, I would make a motion to 27 approve the findings of fact as laid out in Attachment 5 and the applicant testimony today and staff 28 testimony today, as well. Motion to approve. 29 30 Greg Niemiroski: Second. 31 32 Leon Meyers: Any discussion on the motion to approve the findings of fact? All in favor, please say aye. 33 34 MOTION was made by Beth Bronson. Seconded by Greg Niemiroski. 35 36 VOTE: Unanimous. All in favor. 37 38 Leon Meyers: None opposed? Then, a second motion would affirm that the Board has found that the application 39 meets the four criteria to issue a variance listed on Page 68. And that's unnecessary hardship 40 would result. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property. Hardship did 41 not result from actions taken by the applicant, and the variance is consistent with the spirit, 42 purpose, and intent of the ordinance. 43 44 Beth Bronson: I will make a motion that this application meets the findings of facts, is, this application meets the 45 requirements for the variance under the UDO Section 2.10.4 based on the findings of fact. 46 47 Kyle Myers: Second. 48 49 Leon Meyers: Any discussion on the compliance motion? All in favor, please say aye. 50 10