Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
29 <br /> 1 Commissioner McKee said he is hearing two different versions, that the setback amount <br /> 2 it was unknown, and that it was known. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Michael Harvey said he stands by his answer to the Board. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Chair Jacobs said this is that what the Board of Adjustment is for, to allow someone to <br /> 7 articulate their beliefs and then to have County staff articulate what it believes the facts to be. <br /> 8 He said there is then a rendering of an opinion on whether an exceptional situation exists, or is <br /> 9 allowed to exist. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Michael Harvey said staff issued an opinion in 2006, and that opinion was not appealed; <br /> 12 so that opinion is the full force of law. He does not believe the owners have standing to appeal <br /> 13 it now. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 James Bryan said he would encourage the Board not to focus on this particular <br /> 16 petitioner. He said the Board has an obligation to consider all of the ramifications of this. He <br /> 17 said the question of how much EDE-2 is in the County, is a very relevant one. He said whether <br /> 18 this petitioner will benefit from it or not, or whether the petitioner has alternatives available to <br /> 19 them, is not a valid basis for an eventual decision. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Chair Jacobs said he feels that one of the things the Board is looking for is an alternative <br /> 22 to making a universal decision to address an individual circumstance. He asked if there is an <br /> 23 alternative avenue other than changing the buffer requirement in the entire district from 150 feet <br /> 24 to 25 feet. He said this would be to address the difference of opinion, interpretation, <br /> 25 understanding or experience. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 James Bryan said there are three alternatives: One is a variance; one is a new or <br /> 28 amended conditional use permit; and the third would be an appeal to any staff decision. He <br /> 29 does not know the details of all of these. He said a new or changed SUP is not viable, because <br /> 30 the Board cannot eliminate requirements in the ordinance. He said an appeal is basically the <br /> 31 back and forth that has been heard tonight, and the details would have to go through a <br /> 32 a quasi-judicial hearing with the board of adjustment. He said a variance is very much akin to <br /> 33 the SUP process, but it is fact dependent and the likelihood is not good. <br /> 34 Michael Harvey said a conditional use is not applicable here, since this district allows <br /> 35 Class 2 kennel operations and guidelines and restrictions have been established. He said the <br /> 36 UDO has language mandating that those guidelines and restrictions be observed in the <br /> 37 conditional use permitting process. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciates the attorney's advice that this is a legislative <br /> 40 decision and not a quasi-judicial one. He thought he read in the packet that the general setback <br /> 41 is 25 feet, so if this change were made, it would change the kennel setbacks to match the <br /> 42 setbacks of all the other permitted uses in the EDE-2. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Michael Harvey said this is correct. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Commissioner Dorosin said he would make a motion to adopt this change. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Chair Jacob said it is still early in the process. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Commissioner Price clarified that in order for the kennel to apply for a variance, it would <br /> 51 first have to come into compliance <br />