Comptroller Main Webpage

The Clerk of the Board is responsible for keeping accurate minutes and maintaining Board records for each Board of County Commissioner (BCC) and Value Adjustment Board (VAB) meeting. In addition, every 4 years, the Clerk of the Board office provides staff support to the Charter Review Commission (CRC) appointed by the BCC. Please contact our office if you need an accessible version of documents on this page, and one will be provided.

Selection options are described below:

1. To search BCC records by meeting date and/or a specific term between September 23, 1869 and December 14, 2010, view the 'BCC Meetings' page.

2. To view BCC records by meeting date between January 4, 2011 through September 22, 2016, scroll down to locate the BCC meeting date.

3.
To search BCC records by a specific term between October 4, 2016 through Present, select the 'Search Records' tab.      

4.    To view VAB records by meeting date between June 20, 2013 through August 21, 2018, scroll down to locate the VAB meeting date. 

5.    To search CRC regular business meeting records by a specific term between February 25, 2019 through Present, select the 'Search Records' tab.

File #: 24-1272    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Recommendation Status: Passed
File created: 8/18/2024 In control: Planning, Environmental, and Development Services Department
On agenda: 9/10/2024 Final action: 9/10/2024
Title: Acceptance of the findings and recommendation of the Environmental Protection Commission and denial of the request for variance to Orange County Code, Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-342(a)(5) to increase the allowable terminal platform size from 1,000 square feet to 1,632 square feet for the Steven and Christa Johnson Dock Construction Permit BD-24-01-001. District 2. (Environmental Protection Division)
Attachments: 1. Consent - Memo - Johnson BD-24-01-001

Interoffice Memorandum

 

DATE: August 18, 2024

 

TO: Mayor Jerry L. Demings and County Commissioners

 

THROUGH: N/A

 

FROM: Tanya Wilson, AICP, Director, Planning, Environmental, and Development Services Department

 

CONTACT: Renée H. Parker, LEP, Manager

 

PHONE: (407) 836-1420

 

DIVISION: Environmental Protection Division 

 

ACTION REQUESTED:

title

Acceptance of the findings and recommendation of the Environmental Protection Commission and denial of the request for variance to Orange County Code, Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-342(a)(5) to increase the allowable terminal platform size from 1,000 square feet to 1,632 square feet for the Steven and Christa Johnson Dock Construction Permit BD-24-01-001.  District 2. (Environmental Protection Division)

body


PROJECT:
Environmental Protection Commission Recommendation for Request for Variance for Steven and Christa Johnson Dock Construction Permit BD-24-01-001.

 

PURPOSE: The applicants, Steven and Christa Johnson, are requesting a Dock Construction Permit with approval of a variance to Orange County Code (Code), Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-342(a)(5) (terminal platform size).  The project site is located at 5056 Lake Carlton Drive, Mount Dora, FL 32757 (Parcel ID No. 07-20-27-0000-00-034) on Lake Carlton in District 2. 

On January 11, 2024, the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) received a Boat Dock Construction Application to construct a dock on the subject parcel.  Upon review of the application, EPD determined that the proposed boat dock did not meet the terminal platform size requirements in Chapter 15, Article IX.  On February 6, 2024, EPD issued a Request for Additional Information (RAI) to the applicants explaining that they could either revise the plans to propose a dock within the size allowed by the Code or apply for a variance to attempt to permit the boat dock as proposed.  In the RAI, EPD provided the criteria by which variance requests are evaluated. 

On February 22, 2024, the applicants submitted an Application for Variance, which was followed by a revised Application for Variance on April 9, 2024.  On April 15, 2024, and April 16, 2024, EPD received the final revised site plans. 

Section 15-342(a)(5) of the Code states, “The maximum allowable square footage of the terminal platform is the calculation of twelve (12) times the linear shoreline frontage, not to exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet.”  The applicants have a shoreline that measures over 300 feet at the Normal High Water Elevation, which allows for a maximum terminal platform size of 1,000 square feet.  The applicants are requesting a terminal platform size of 1,632 square feet. 

Section 15-350(a) Variances states “the applicant must: (1) Identify the sections(s) of this article that the applicant seeks a variance for and the extent of the requested variance; (2) Describe the impact of the requested variance on the surface water and the environment; (3) Explain the effect of the requested variance on any abutting or affected shoreline property owner(s); (4) Describe how strict compliance with the section(s) of this article would impose a unique, unreasonable, and unintended hardship on the applicant; and (5) Explain why the hardship is not self-imposed.” 

To address Section 15-350(a)(2), the applicants state, “There will be no impact to the surface water or environment.” 

To address Section 15-350(a)(3), the applicants state, “There will be no effect on the abutting property owners.” 

To address Section 15-350(a)(4), the applicants state, “I feel the dock will be beneficial to the lake’s ecosystem.  It will become a habitat for fish and birds.  I have over 500’ of lake front.  More than enough for a 1,659 sq.ft. (sic) dock.” 

To address Section 15-350(a)(5), the applicants state, “I have wooden boats that cannot be left in the water. The boathouse is only to house boats. There is no recreational space. I feel like for [sic] the dock will be beneficial for the lakes eco system. It will become a habitat for fish and birds. I have tons of birdhouses on my 2-acre property along with 4 duck houses at the water’s edge. I plan on keeping this going with my dock by adding birdhouse on the dock. The reason for the 2 larger boat slips is to house my wooden boats that cannot be left in the water overnight. It will only house boats as there is no recreational platform on the dock. Also, my shoreline is over 500 linear feet compared to other properties that are much smaller and have larger docks. I hope you can consider my 1659 sq.ft. [sic] dock for a variance.” 

On April 24, 2024, a Notice of Application for variance was sent to the owners of shoreline properties situated within 300 feet of the subject parcel.  No responses were received. The applicants were sent a notice on June 7, 2024, to inform them of the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) public hearing on July 2, 2024. 

Section 15-350(c) Variance criteria states, “A variance application may receive an approval or an approval with conditions if granting the variance: (1) Would not negatively impact the surface water or the environment or if there is a negative impact, sufficient mitigation is proposed pursuant to paragraph 15-350(d), if appropriate; (2) Would not be contrary to the public interest; (3) Where, owing to special conditions, compliance with the provisions herein would impose a unique and substantial hardship on the applicant; (4) Where the environmental protection officer has determined that the hardship is not self-imposed on the applicant; and (5) Would not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this article.”   

Staff evaluated the variance request for compliance with the criteria for approval.  The position of EPD is that the hardship is self-imposed since a dock could be constructed on this parcel that meets the size requirement.  Additionally, the request to increase the terminal platform size from the allowable 1,000 square feet to 1,632 square feet would be contrary to the intent and purpose of Article IX.  Therefore, the recommendation of the Environmental Protection Officer (EPO) is to deny the request for variance to Section 15-342(a)(5) (terminal platform size). 

EPD presented the variance request in a public hearing before the EPC at their July 2, 2024 meeting.  Steven Johnson was present and provided information in support of the request.  Based upon evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the EPC voted unanimously to accept the findings and recommendation of the EPO, and made a finding that the request for variance was inconsistent with Orange County Code, Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-350(a) and recommended denial of the request for variance to Section 15-342(a)(5) to increase the allowable terminal platform size from 1,000 square feet to 1,632 square feet.

 

BUDGET: N/A