Agenda - 04-15-2014 - 5b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

i Attachment 3 19 1 MEMORANDUM Memorandum to: Orange County Planning Board From: Michael B. Brough,Attorney for Don and Donna Easterlin Subject: Proposed UDO text amendment dealing with setback requirements for Kennel II uses in EDE-2 zoning district Date: March 5,2014 This memo responds to several points made in the Agenda Abstract relating to the request by the Easterlins for an amendment to the UDO that would reduce the setback applicable to Kennel 1I uses in the EDE-2 zoning district from 150 feet to twenty-five feet, which is the setback distance required for other uses in that district. Importantly, the reduced setback would apply only where the Kennel II use in the EDE-2 zoning district adjoins other property zoned EDE-2. i 1. The Abstract correctly states that I am in agreement with staff that seeking a variance from the 150' setback requirement is not a viable option for the Easterlins, although not exactly for the reasons stated in the Abstract. The problem with obtaining a variance is not that the hardship faced by the Easerlins was "self-induced." The problem is that, to qualify for a variance, the ordinance requires a showing that the hardship be caused by "conditions peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography." However, the hardship experienced by the Easterlins in this case is not caused by the uniqueness of their property in terms of location, size, or topography, but by the fact that the costs of complying with the ordinance are high and the regulation serves no useful purpose when the Kennel II use is located in the EDE-2 district and the adjoining property is also zoned EDE-2. This presents a legislative issue for the Board of Commissioners, not a variance issue for the Board of Adjustment. 2. The Abstract states that the Easterlins contend that they are unable to comply with the 150' setback requirement. To clarify,if the portion of their property now zoned EDE-1 is rezoned EDE-2 (as requested by Agenda Item 8), it would be physically possible to j create alternative exercise yards by fencing in some portion of this area. The aerial photo submitted by the staff shows an area circumscribed by a black line that depicts the portion of the site that complies with the 150' setback requirement. But much of this area cannot practically be used as an exercise yard, either because it is covered by buildings or trees or is steeply sloped or is within the fall line of the existing cell tower. More importantly, the cost of enclosing this area by a chain link fence at least six feet high creates an economic hardship for a small business,with no corresponding benefit. 3. The Easterlins agree with the statement in the Abstract that the issue of when they learned about the 150' setback requirement is moot. It is clear that neither the 1986 special use permit nor the 2006 violation letter indicates that such a setback is required, and the Easterlins continue to maintain that, whatever their attorney or surveyor may