Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
73 <br />STAFF COMMENT: In reviewing this request staff would like to offer the following: <br />1. A completed application, including required review fee(s), has been submitted in <br />accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 of the UDO. <br />2. The Easterlin's are represented by an attorney, specifically Mr. Michael Brough of the <br />Brough law firm. <br />3. The amendment is in response to a Notice of Violation issued by staff related to the <br />illegal expansion of the kennel operation in violation of the SUP and UDO requirements. <br />4. Class 11 Kennel operations are allowed within the: <br />a. Rural Buffer (RB) <br />b. Agricultural Residential (AR) <br />c. Rural Residential (R -1) <br />d. Community Commercial (CC -3) <br />e. General Commercial (GC -4) <br />f. Agricultural Services (AS) <br />g. Economic Development Buckhorn High Intensity (EDB -2) <br />h. Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE -2) <br />general use zoning districts as a permitted use of property subject to the issuance of a <br />SUP reviewed and acted upon by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with Section <br />2.7 of the UDO. <br />The UDO currently does not distinguish/differentiate between the development of a Class <br />11 Kennel within a residential (i.e. RB, AR, R -1) or non - residential (i.e. CC -3, GC -4, AS, <br />EDB -2, EDE -3) general use zoning district. Development standards, including required <br />setbacks, and review processes are the same regardless of the zoning designation. <br />5. The rationale for the setback appears to be an effort by the County to provide sufficient <br />separation for adjacent property owners so they are not impacted by the noise (i.e. <br />barking) or odors associated with the operation. <br />6. From staff s perspective impacts generated by a kennel operation are universal and are <br />not mitigated just because said operation is located within a non - residential general use <br />zoning district. <br />The question here is what constitutes an appropriate setback for a kennel in an effort to <br />address potential impacts on adjacent property. <br />7. Staff is concerned reducing the required setback to 25 feet will increase `complaints' <br />related to the operational characteristics of a kennel and its impacts on adjacent property <br />development /redevelopment. <br />8. Staff is not convinced the 25 foot setback currently required for `permitted land uses' <br />within the EDE -2 general use zoning district will provide sufficient separation from a <br />kennel operation and adjacent properties to ensure protection from `adverse impacts' as <br />required under Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO. <br />