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

Browse Search

4 3. Staff is concerned reducing the required setback to 25 feet will increase `complaints' related to the operational characteristics of a kennel and its impacts on adjacent property development/redevelopment. 4. Staff is not convinced the 25 foot setback currently required for `permitted land uses' within the EDE-2 general use zoning district will provide sufficient separation from a kennel operation and adjacent properties to ensure protection from `adverse impacts' as required under Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO. It is also noteworthy that even uses permitted outright may not be allowed to locate as close as 25 feet from the property line if they cannot meet established performance standards, as detailed within Article 6 of the UDO, related to uses such as noise and vibration. Proposed uses could conceivable be required to locate further than established minimum setbacks from a given property line to mitigate identified impacts. The 25 foot setback is a minimum setback. It may be increased for those land uses that produce impacts to adjacent properties in order to mitigate them. Planning Board Recommendation: At its March 5, 2014 regular meeting, the Board voted 6 to 2 to recommend denial of the proposed text amendment consistent with the staff recommendation. Agenda materials from this meeting can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/3.5.14PBPacket.pdf. An excerpt of the approved minutes from the meeting are contained within Attachment 7. If there is a motion to approve this item, staff has revised the applicant's proposal, contained within Attachment 5, to make it consistent with existing UDO formatting and ensure the proposed standards are only applicable to Class II Kennels developed within the EDE-2 general use zoning district as proposed by the applicant. Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the UDO, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board's recommendation. The Planning Board may consider additional oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by County departments who have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation; 2. Close the public hearing; and 3. Take action on the request by either: a. Denying the request as recommended by the Planning Board and staff, or b. Approve the text amendment as contained in Attachment 5.