Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br />i.Setbacks for runs or buildings housing animals from property lines, <br />ii.Minimum land use buffer. Staff would recommend the Type A 20 foot land <br />use buffer as a minimum requirement. <br />e.Is there an opportunity for flexibility in allowing Kennel, Class II operations as a permitted <br />use in the rural areas of the County. <br />Staff Comment: From staff’s standpoint the existing process is reasonable and <br />should not be altered. <br />f.Does there need to be additional development criteria associated with the actual kennel <br />operation contained within the UDO. Current standards require the review and approval <br />of the facility by Animal Services prior to the issuance of a permit authorizing <br />development activity. <br />Staff Comment: Staff does not believe it would be prudent to include development <br />standards governingthe actual physical development of a kennel facilityin the UDO. <br />Animal Services is ultimately responsible for ensuring the facility is geared towards <br />the protection of the animals(s) housed at the facility. Planning staff should not be <br />interjected into this process as well. <br />g.Should required land use buffers be more readily defined instead being handled on a <br />case-by-case basis depending on the underlying general use zoning district. <br />Staff Comment: Staff wouldappreciate any suggestions. Staff haslooked at <br />requiring a 50 foot minimum land use buffer, but hasmet with some concern in the <br />rural areas of the County that this may be too restrictive. <br />h.Is the current 150 foot setback from adjacent property lines sufficient or does it need to <br />be increased. <br />Staff Comment: Staff would appreciate any suggestions from the BOCC as to <br />increases in setbacks. The Board may also want to consider requiring such facilities <br />have direct frontage along a State maintained roadway as part of the permitting <br />process. <br />i.Should there be allowances made foranimal rescue operations and affording them <br />additional opportunities to develop a kennel facility. <br />Staff Comment: Staff does not believe additional allowances for rehabilitation of <br />animals is necessary and believes current definitions and processes are adequate. <br />FINANCIAL IMPACT: <br />Consideration of this item, and the processing of any amendments <br />generated as a result of this discussion,will not create the need for additional funding for the <br />provision of County services. Existing Planning staff will accomplish anywork associated with <br />the development of text amendments arising out of the discussion. <br />RECOMMENDATION(S): <br />The Managerrecommends the Board: <br />1. Discuss the merit of issues associated with the review and permitting of Kennels, Class I <br />andII, with the intent to determine if further regulations are required; and <br />2.If necessary, direct staff to prepare formal text amendments accordingly. <br /> <br />