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

Browse Search

27 1 feet. He said this would, in effect, adhere to general zoning setbacks already established for 2 this district. 3 4 Michael Harvey said staff has some concerns, which are identified in the abstract and 5 the staff memorandum. He reminded the Board of an email in front of them from Mrs. 6 Easterland. 7 8 Michael Brough referenced a handout. He said the purpose of this is to correct an 9 unfortunate situation where the applicant is in violation of a zoning ordinance as a result of the 10 150 foot setback situation. He said it did not occur to the owners when the property was 11 purchased that the replacement of an existing fence would create a zoning problem. He 12 referred to a handout and a comparison of past and current site plans. He said the 1986 permit 13 was evidently in violation of the setback requirement, and the new owners were not aware of the 14 setback requirement. He said the initial notice of the zoning violation occurred back in 2006, 15 and there is no mention of the 150 foot setback requirement. 16 17 He said the amendment reduces the 150 foot setback that applies to kennel 2 uses, only 18 in the EDE-2 zoning district and where the property adjoins other property that is zoned EDE-2. 19 He said it does not apply to any other zoning district. He said the 25 foot setback would 20 continue to apply to this use, although the owners prefer to keep their existing fences where 21 they are. He said the change in ordinance only applies to the exercise yards, and it doesn't 22 apply to buildings. He referred to the proposed new language which states this. He said the 23 change to the 150 foot setback does not apply to buildings, as buildings can already go up to 24 the 25 feet. 25 26 Michael Brough said the most important aspect of the change is that the amendment 27 only applies in the EDE-2 district and where the property adjoins other EDE-2 properties. He 28 said this is important because the uses in the EDE-2 district are fairly intensive as compared to 29 other districts. He said there is low likelihood of any other type of uses in this area, due to the 30 location and lack of sewer. He said that makes this a very narrow amendment. He said the 31 benefit to the public of maintaining that 150 foot buffer is marginal, if it exists at all; however the 32 hardship that it creates for the owners is pretty extreme. He said there are no other practical 33 areas to place the exercise yards, and these are integral to maintain the business. He said 34 there are 300-400 signatures from customers and community members in support of this 35 business. He said there are 20 or more employees, whose livelihood depends on the business. 36 He noted the members of the audience in attendance to support this amendment. 37 38 Commissioner Gordon addressed Michael Harvey and referred to the staff analysis page 39 73. She asked for clarification on this, specifically items 6 through 9. 40 41 Michael Harvey said he would reject some of what Michael Brough said. He said the 42 setback being referenced was enforced in 1986, and the applicants were made aware of the 43 problem, as were their attorney and their surveyor. He said the existing language of the UDO, 44 as was enforced in 1986, indicated that the minimum setback distances would not apply if all 45 elements of the operation were in an enclosed facility; but the ordinance clearly states that all 46 buildings and runs must meet the setback requirements. 47 48 He referred to Commissioner Gordon's question and said staff's initial observation is that 49 impacts observed from kennel operation are universal and are not mitigated because the 50 operation is in a non residential district. He believes the question here is what constitutes an 51 appropriate setback for a kennel in an effort to address impacts on adjacent properties. Staff is