Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
35 <br /> 55 Michael Brough: Yes. It was constructed as a residence but it is not being used as that. <br /> 56 <br /> 57 Michael Harvey: The staff was asked to provide a visual representation of the property that would meet the <br /> 58 appropriate setbacks as currently required. The Easterlins'are proposing this. We wanted to provide the Board with <br /> 59 what would comply and what exists. <br /> 60 <br /> 61 Michael Brough: What we are making in the memorandum is that while that is an area that complies with the legal <br /> 62 requirements assuming the rest of the property was rezoned, there is a substantial portion of that property which <br /> 63 does not lend itself to the expansion of the exercise area. (Described map). There is an area they could build an <br /> 64 exercise area but that misses the point. From our perspective under the narrow circumstances this addresses, this <br /> 65 would be a very expensive proposition. What good does that achieve? It is multiple thousands of dollars. The point <br /> 66 of our request is it is a legislative matter when you weigh cost and benefits and the cost of this private business, <br /> 67 which serves a great purpose for the County and surrounding areas, is very high and the benefit is virtual non- <br /> 68 existent in this case. There have not been any complaints by either of the surrounding property owners and they <br /> 69 were notified of this amendment. It gets down to this question;those objections are essentially theoretical in context. <br /> 70 These properties will not be developed until sewer gets there. When it does get developed, it is hard to imagine this <br /> 71 area being developed in any way not a substantially intensive use. You have situation where you have a problem we <br /> 72 are trying to solve. We have come up with a solution that works and is narrowly drawn and has no real negative <br /> 73 impacts on any but provides a legal and practical solution that we have been trying to solve for years. There is a <br /> 74 legitimate distinction between why we are limiting this to EDE-2 when it makes no sense to have 150-foot setback if <br /> 75 the adjoining property is not intensively zoned for development or residential development. Those circumstances <br /> 76 maybe 150 feet is all right but when you have a situation like this, it makes no sense to have 150-foot setback. <br /> 77 <br /> 78 Michael Harvey: This property here is split zoned, this portion is EDE-1 so the 150 foot setback would apply, this <br /> 79 portion is zoned EDE-2. <br /> 80 <br /> 81 Michael Brough: Years down the road if this property were developed, anybody who moved there would already <br /> 82 know what is there. <br /> 83 <br /> 84 Paul Guthrie: Where is the current exercise yard? <br /> 85 <br /> 86 Michael Brough: In the blue lines. <br /> 87 <br /> 88 Paul Guthrie: Is this considered necessary, that space now being used as an exercise yard is clearly smaller than <br /> 89 the total area of proposed change so is it the configuration of the terrain of that limits its use or are there other <br /> 90 reasons. <br /> 91 <br /> 92 Michael Brough: There are buildings there and topographic issues in the lower part of the site that slopes. There is <br /> 93 an area that is flat and open. Whether that is one third or one half of that site that could be developed but while you <br /> 94 could have some exercise area it is very expensive and you are giving up acres of your site in the northwest corner. <br /> 95 There are two elements the costs of pulling down the fence and putting up a new fence and the other element is that <br /> 96 the 150 foot setback requires them to give up a substantial amount of property it amounts to acres of lands. <br /> 97 <br /> 98 Paul Guthrie: Is this an enlargement or maintaining the same level of animals that are cared for? Will you be <br /> 99 increasing or maintaining the same level of animal care? <br /> 100 <br /> 101 Michael Brough: The long term plan would be that the property would be consolidated and then divided to segregate <br /> 102 out a lot around the existing tower and the rest would be submitted for a special use permit covering all the remaining <br /> 103 property and the particular uses at that time would be to have an expansion into the area that would be permissible. <br /> 104 <br /> 105 Paul Guthrie: I understand the cost argument but is it necessary to tear down the old fence or will you recycle the old <br /> 106 fence? <br /> 107 <br /> 108 Michael Brough: I can't tell you. <br /> 2 <br />