Agenda - 10-18-2011 - 7c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 21 and the revision in Section 5 Kennel Class 1, which is a change to the text. She read the bullet point, "Kennel Class 1 can be considered a customary accessory use to a residential land use." She said that this change seems to be premature and going too far to say a kennel can be considered a customary accessory use to a residential land use. She said that currently Kennel Class 1 is listed as a commercial use. Michael Harvey said that staff added this in because the Class 1 Kennel is not considered a commercial operation. The animals are kept only for the purpose of showing competitions and sport. There is no boarding or breeding or commercial activity for a Class 1 Kennel. This is an attempt to make it more consistent with existing definitions and services. Commissioner Gordon said that 19 animals could make a lot of noise. Commissioner Jacobs said that one of the biggest sore points in Orange County is the establishment of kennels in residential areas. He said that if it could be geared more toward density it would be better, but 20 dogs in a one-acre zoned area is too much. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the classification of whether it is a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit is not important, but the standards by which each case is judged are important. Judith Wegner said that there have been some contentious issues with kennels in recent memory that did not come through the Planning Board, so if the Board of County Commissioners know of any, she would like to be made aware of them. She asked Michael Harvey about his thoughts on these two cases and it was, "not in my backyard," from the neighbors because of the presence of too many animals. Judith Wegner asked to have a summary to the Planning Board from Animal services about what is different about the aggregation of animals. Michael Harvey said that a Class 2 Kennel is related more to a commercial entity. Commissioner McKee said that he has his own concerns about the noise potential to neighbors. He said that these kennels should be based on density. He said that if limits are set, it will be arbitrary. Annette Moore said that she works with Animal Services directly and they are seeing some of these cases as rescue/foster homes; and they are seeing upwards of 50+ or more dogs. This is where there are problems. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was an issue about ten years ago about a rooster that continued to crow and it was in a one-acre density, and people found it very intrusive but this is not regulated. He said that the County Commissioners need to remember that Orange County is becoming a more suburban community and there needs to be a more sophisticated analysis of this issue. Lany Wright asked Michael Harvey about the intent of this amendment. Michael Harvey said that the intent is to split the land use category into two separate uses, with no changes in standards. This will allow staff to do a comprehensive assessment of existing regulatory requirements for each use, which may lead to further discussion of the standards. Brian Crawford said that this issue would be referred to the Planning Board in September. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to receive the UDO text amendment request, refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the October 18, 2011 BOCC regular meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until October 18, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.