Agenda - 02-24-2014 - C2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Dec 20 13 10:55a p.4 53 NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT EASTERLIN OF AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DON AND DONNA REQUESTING A GENERAL, USE IDENTIFIED REZONING OF THE PROPERTY IN THE APPLICATION FROM EDE -I TO EDE -2 The applicants submit that the properties identified in this application should be rezoned from zoning district EDE -1 to EDE -2 for the following reasons: I. Applicants own and operate a "doggie day care" and boarding business known as Sunny Acres Pet Resort at 5908 U.S. 70 Business in Orange County. The previous owner of this property operated a similar business, the Durham Boarding Kennel, on this site pursuant to a Special Use Permit issued by the Orange County Board 1986. of Adjustment on March 10, 2. The tract originally permitted for use as a dog kennel in 1986 is an irregularly shaped Property approximately 7.5 acres in size. Since the applicants acpuired this property, they have purchased additional adjoining lots (a total of approximately -- acres of additional land), such that they now own a nearly square tract, with expanded frontage along the north side of US. 70 Business and a common boundary line with a large tract of land immediately to the east. Applicants plan to file an exempt subdivision plat recombining their existing lots and creating two new lots: (i) a smaller lot surrounding the existing cell tower located at the rear Of the property, and (ii) a larger lot consisting of the former Durham Boarding Kennel site plus the additional adjoining properties that the applicants have since acquired. Section 153A -34I of the North Carolina General Statutes states clearly that zoning regulations shall be made "with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the county." It is plain that the "most appropriate use" of the lots more recently acquired by the applicants is to integrate them into the business already conducted on the remainder of the property. However, as shown on the map included with this application, while the majority of the applicants' property is zoned EDE -2, a portion of their property on the east side is zoned EDE -1. Under the existing UDO, the applicants' business is classified as a "Kennel II," a use that is permissible in the EDE -2 district with a special use permit issued by the board of adjustment, but is not permissible at all in the EDE -1 Therefore, to make it possible for all the property owned by the applicants at this one location to be used for the same purpose (in the applicants case, the proposed use would be a Kennel II, but the same principle applies even if the property were to be used for another purpose), the requested rezoning should be granted. In short, the existing zoning is in error because it unnecessarily divides Property under common ownership into separate zoning districts. The more logical place to draw the dividing line between the EDE -2 and EDE -1 zoning districts is along the common boundary line that separates the applicants' property from the adjoining tract to the east. This will better serve the public welfare by "encouraging the most appropriate use of [the applicants') land."