Orange County — Board of Zoning Adjustment

SE-03-03-013 — FLORIDA VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST ASSOCIATION, INC./Cont.. 4-3-03

Request: Special Exception in R-1A (single family-7,500 sq. ft. lots) zone to expand church by constructing paved parking lot adjacent to existing temple. (NOTE: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved this Special Exception application on a one-year trial basis April 2, 2002, with sixteen (16) conditions. Condition #14 requires that the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) conduct a public hearing on March 6, 2003, to revisit this Special Exception application, to review the success or failure of the 16 conditions, and to decide whether to recommend to the BCC that the Special Exception approval be extended or made permanent).

Decision: Denied

Hearing: Staff reported there were several outstanding issues not resolved with respect to the BCC's conditions of Special Exception approval rendered on April 2, 2002. Those issues were stated in staff's memo to the BZA dated March 26, 2003 (see page -----) The applicant's attorney, Jim Hattaway, stated his opinion that the Temple has now come into compliance with the outstanding issues. Four commentaries were received in favor. Six were received in opposition, and an approximate 60-signature petition was submitted in opposition. The opposition stated their opinion that a majority of the conditions have not be complied with throughout the one-year trial period. They cited examples such as use of residents' yards for parking, parking on the unpaved lot on Sundays, use of outdoor PA system on Sundays, extending the outdoor festivals beyond the designated hours. The opposition submitted a list of the violations of the conditions that they had observed and documented (see Pages --------). The opposition's main concern about the request is noise impact. The BZA members discussed the issue at great length during their deliberations. During discussion, it was noted the applicant had one year from the date of the BCC conditional approval to resolve the outstanding issues. BZA was not satisfied that the issues were either fully resolved or resolved in a timely manner. Based on the testimony received at the public hearing, BZA felt that many of the conditions imposed by the BCC had either been ignored or unresolved. The BZA recommended denial of the Temple's request to continue to use the vacant lot adjoining the existing temple property for parking. The BZA separated the issues of the use of the vacant lot for parking versus the use of the lot for festival activity. The BZA made it clear they were denying the use for parking, and that the temple could request a separate Special Exception to use the property for temple festivals. When the BCC granted the Special *