Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br />Issues: During the initial phase of developing the UDO, as well as the processing of the <br />aforementioned text amendment, BOCC and Planning Board members indicated a need for <br />additional discussion on kennels, includingthe following topics: <br />a.Should a Kennel, Class II operation, viewed by many as a non-residential land use, <br />continue to be permitted within the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district. <br />Staff Comment: This seems to be a question posed by both BOCC and Planning <br />Board members. <br />When the RBzoning district was created, the Countytook existing permitted land <br />uses within the Rural Residential (R1) zoning district and applied them. At the time <br />Kennels, Class II was a permitted use in the R1 district subject to the issuance of a <br />Class B Special Use Permit. <br />Staff believes it is still acceptable to allow this land use within the RB district given the <br />permit review process and development restrictions. <br />b.Are the current number limits established within the aforementioned definitions <br />reasonable or should there be some modification to specify a different number of <br />allowable animals for kennels in and outside of the RB district. <br />Staff Comment: From staff’sstandpoint the aforementioned limits appearto have <br />been initiated to ensure uniformity between the various classification(s) of kennel <br />operations recognized, and permitted,by Animal Services and Planning. <br />Recent amendments eliminated contradictions with respect to these definitions. Staff <br />incorporatedAnimal Services Director Bob Marotto’s suggestions with respect to the <br />new definitions of each kennel classification. <br />Staff is unsure how the existing number restrictions were created and if Planning <br />adopted Animal Service standardsor vice versa. What staffcan say is the definitions <br />are now consistent with one another. <br />Staff does not believe it is reasonable to have different ‘animal thresholds’ for different <br />general use zoning districts (i.e. RB versus AR) as this would only create confusion <br />for both Animal Service and Planning staff. <br />c. Should Kennel, Class II operations be approved through the Class A Special Use <br />Permitting process in the RB zoning district (i.e. acted upon by the Board of County <br />Commissioners). <br />Staff Comment: From staff’sstandpoint the required findings and process are virtually <br />the same with the notable exception that a Class A Special Use Permit is acted upon <br />by the BOCC, with a recommendation from the Planning Board,and the Class B <br />permit is acted upon solely by the Board of Adjustment. <br />If the applicant establishes the project complies with the applicable development <br />standard(s), the permit is required to be issued. There does not appear to be a <br />compelling reason to alter current review processes. <br />d.Should there be specific development standards associated with a Kennel, Class I <br />operation. <br />Staff Comment: From staff’s standpoint there may be a need for development criteria <br />even through the use is permitted by right. Staff would suggest the Board to consider <br />the following: <br /> <br />