Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Binding Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orcus Greens binding site plan would formalize 10 condominium lots; owner asks to relax several conditions
Summary
Staff recommended approval of a binding site plan to create 10 legal lots for a previously approved clustered condominium project; owner Wally Gudgel urged the examiner to reduce or remove conditions on landscaping, stormwater verification and cultural‑resource survey requirements, citing prior work installed after the 2007 approval.
SAN JUAN COUNTY — The hearing examiner on April 22 heard a lengthy staff and applicant presentation on a binding site plan (land‑use 25‑0011) to formalize 10 lots for a clustered condominium project known in the record as Orcus Greens.
Jeff Morgan, senior planner, said the project stems from a 2007 hearing‑examiner decision that authorized clustered residential units on the parcel and that the current binding site plan would create 10 legal lots consistent with that approval. "Based on the staff's review of the record, the binding site plan complies with the applicable criteria, and we do recommend approval subject to a number of conditions," Morgan said. Staff described required conditions addressing open space (30% required), impervious surface limits, verification that county‑approved stormwater facilities were constructed as intended, private road plans and emergency access verification, and a cultural‑resource survey prior to building permits because of possible archaeological sensitivity.
Owner Wally Gudgel presented a decades‑long history of the project, saying the community purchased and conserved the golf course in 2006–07, installed roads, stormwater infrastructure and landscaping within the original 5‑year window, and spent significant funds to construct the improvements. Gudgel asked the examiner to ease or remove certain conditions — specifically cultural‑resource study requirements (condition No.1), additional stormwater submittals (No.8) and a current landscaping approval (No.12) — arguing that earlier approvals and installed infrastructure should satisfy county concerns.
Gudgel said he would provide photos and an as‑built stormwater memorandum (Heart Pacific) submitted April 21; staff and the examiner asked that all supplementary materials be submitted in PDF so they can be added to the official record. The applicant also referenced a 03/05/2007 letter and a 04/12/2010 Gaylord memo described during testimony and offered those as supplemental exhibits.
The county emphasized that the binding site plan approval criteria are found in county code (18.80.170 and related sections) and reiterated that the burden of proof rests with the applicant to demonstrate compliance. The examiner stressed the public‑record and title‑clarity rationale for requiring documentation: clear legal instruments reduce the risk of a clouded title and future disputes. With no members of the public appearing, the examiner took the matter under advisement and allowed the applicant time to submit PDFs of the supplemental exhibits for final consideration.
