Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
20 <br /> have known,they were not aware of this setback at the time they purchased the property. <br /> But when the Easterlins learned of the 150' setback is not the issue before the Planning <br /> I <br /> Board. The issue is whether the ordinance should be amended to eliminate the 150' <br /> setback for Kennel II uses under circumstances where that requirement makes no sense <br /> (i.e. where the Kennel II property is zoned EDE-2 and adjoins other property zoned EDE- <br /> 2)and creates real economic hardship for an existing business. <br /> 4. The applicants submit that it- is entirely legitimate to draw a distinction between <br /> circumstances where the 150' setback may be warranted and circumstances where it is <br /> not Justified. Where the Kennel.11 property adjoins land that -is zoned to .permit <br /> residential and other lower intensity uses, perhaps the 150' setback, serves a usefiil <br /> purpose. But the EDE-2 is specifically described as a "higher intensity" use district, <br /> designed to accommodate a full range of manufacturing and similar uses. Residential <br /> uses are not permitted. If a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant or lumber yard could be <br /> located within 25' of the property line in an EDE-2 district, there is no reason why the <br /> ordinance should require a setback that is six times greater than that for a Kennel II use. <br /> If there are other circumstances where the 150' setback for Kennel 1I uses is not <br /> warranted, the County can address them at a later time. The point here is that <br /> applicability of the 150' setback requirement is not an"all or nothing"proposition. The <br /> setback is not appropriate in the limited circumstances addressed by the proposed <br /> amendment, and the amendment should receive a favorable recommendation by the <br /> Planning Board. <br />