Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
32 <br /> 1 Michael Harvey said the rezoning for the previous item is necessary because it is <br /> 2 improper to have split zoned property. He said re-zoning does provide an abundance of <br /> 3 additional area where dog runs can be placed in compliance with the 150 foot setbacks. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Commissioner McKee said for him it boils down to aligning the setbacks with the zoning. <br /> 6 He said the EDE-2 zoning is high intensity, so you don't expect the same kind of setbacks and <br /> 7 development as would happen in a residential or EDE-1. He sees no problem with moving the <br /> 8 setback to 25 feet. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Commissioner Gordon questioned, given the statement that there is room for <br /> 11 compliance if the re-zoning is granted, why that cannot be done. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Michael Brough said this was anticipated, and this was examined. He said looking at the <br /> 14 maps, it looks as if there is sufficient space; but it is very difficult as a practical matter. He said <br /> 15 the three houses would have to be moved or trees cut down, and there is a creek through the <br /> 16 center of the remaining property, as well as some substantial elevation changes. He said the <br /> 17 application of the setback makes it a very narrow area, and there is also a required setback <br /> 18 from the cell tower on the property. He said, given these things, it becomes very difficult and <br /> 19 expensive, and it is of no benefit to anyone to do it. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Commissioner Gordon said it could be done, but it is expensive. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Michael Brough said he cannot say that it can be done, as he cannot survey it out. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Chair Jacobs said he assumes the Easterlings would know which was more onerous, <br /> 26 hiring a lawyer or moving the fence, and they chose to hire a lawyer. He said, based on what <br /> 27 Michael Brough is saying, it seems it is highly problematic to move the fence. He said he has <br /> 28 used Sunny Acres for years. He said this comes down the Board being forced to make a choice <br /> 29 between an abstract and a specific. He said sometimes the answer is to be inflexible in the <br /> 30 name of a greater good, and sometimes the answer is to recognize the situation in front of you <br /> 31 and choose that over the abstract. <br /> 32 He said a decision cannot be based on the property being recombined until a vote is <br /> 33 actually taken to recombine it, so this is also abstract. He would rather have dealt with this in <br /> 34 another way, but there is no other option. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Maxine Mitchell said she would want to see a layout of the area and some pictures at the <br /> 37 next discussion. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Tony Blake said one more point would be to find out if the adjacent owners have been <br /> 40 notified to find out if this is a problem for them. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Michael Harvey said the adjoining property owners were made aware of the text <br /> 43 amendment. He said no complaints have been received. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 Judy Foster said she owns the property next door to the kennel, and she has no <br /> 46 objection to the 25 foot setback. She said she would agree to this, and she is right next to their <br /> 47 parking lot. <br /> 48 <br /> 49 Commissioner Gordon said she is not unsympathetic to this; she is just trying to find out <br /> 50 what the options are. She said the question is a general question about universal standards <br />