pf_03787 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment C City Council Minutes Regular Meeting October 23, 2006 Wetland Setback Variance Appeal for 527 Owasso Hills Drive Associate City Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the appeal of the recent Variance Board decision denying the Variance request by Thomas McDaniel for a Variance to City Code 1016 (Wetland) to allow a principal structure encroachment into the requirement setback from the wetland at 527 Owasso Hills Drive (PF 3787). Mr. Lloyd briefly reviewed the variance request prompted by the applicanYs desire to construct an addition of approximately 15' x 18' in size that would reduce the setback from the wetland to approximately 35'. Mr. Lloyd advised that the City Engineer, as the City's designated administrator of the Wetland Conservation Act, had determined that a natural wetland was present when the site was originally developed in 1995-1996, and had been enlarged as a result of the use of the wetland since then as a storm water retention pond. Both staff and the Variance Board (3/0 unanimous vote) had recommended denial of the request, citing no hardship; and under City Code, Section 1014.04C designates the City Council as the Board of Adjustment in variance appeal actions. Staff determined that the property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; and that, while the circumstances are unique to properties in this area, the landowner faces no plight if the original developable area on the property is not increased. Various maps, surveys, delineations and site plans were reviewed; as well as additional documents not originally in evidence at the Variance Board hearing and later provided by the applicant at City Council appeal at their October 4, 2006 meeting; and staff noted that the existing structure, with the applicant being the original owner, appeared to have been built up the required 50' setback from the "as-builY' wetland boundary delineation, in addition to having been built up to all other required setback lines. Discussion included a general perspective of the area, the existing and proposed structure(s); nature of the wetland; various delineations; apparent and documented boundaries; legal versus illegal encroachments into wetland setbacks; and wetland and shoreline definitions. Applicant, Thomas McDaniel, 527 Owasso Hills Drive Additional discussion ensued of a similar nature between the applicant, staff and the City Council. Mr. McDaniel opined that his key point was that some of the original plats shown, whether wetlands or wet lands, were drawings shown and utilized by developers and contractors laying out wetlands and properties when speaking to prospective buyers and during the permitting process; and that he was unaware of staff's "Attachment D" being used for discussion purposes and delineation determinations. Mr. McDaniel provided his historical perspective of the property development, providing visual aids; disputing the validity of staff's documents and the suggested invalidity of his documents. Mr. McDaniel opined that "Attachment D" referenced by staff was not an accurate rendition of the 1995 wetland area; and suggested that a professional be hired to determine the real boundaries.