Agenda - 04-15-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

24 1 district. 2 3 Michael Harvey said there is no formal presentation for this item. He referred to a 4 display of the text markup. He referred to page 65 of the abstract and the proposed text 5 amendment on Attachment 1. 6 7 He said this is referring to a Class 2 kennel, which involves the keeping, boarding, care, 8 and training of more than 20 animals. He said the current requirement is a 150 foot setback 9 from all established property lines. He said the applicant is currently operating under an existing 10 Class 2 kennel permit, issued in 1986. He said the applicant has dog run areas within the 11 required setbacks, and the proposed text amendment would drop the required setback to 25 12 feet. He said this would, in effect, adhere to general zoning setbacks already established for 13 this district. 14 15 Michael Harvey said staff has some concerns, which are identified in the abstract and 16 the staff memorandum. He reminded the Board of an email in front of them from Mrs. 17 Easterland. 18 19 Michael Brough referenced a handout. He said the purpose of this is to correct an 20 unfortunate situation where the applicant is in violation of a zoning ordinance as a result of the 21 150 foot setback situation. He said it did not occur to the owners when the property was 22 purchased that the replacement of an existing fence would create a zoning problem. He 23 referred to a handout and a comparison of past and current site plans. He said the 1986 permit 24 was evidently in violation of the setback requirement, and the new owners were not aware of the 25 setback requirement. He said the initial notice of the zoning violation occurred back in 2006, 26 and there is no mention of the 150 foot setback requirement. 27 28 He said the amendment reduces the 150 foot setback that applies to kennel 2 uses, only 29 in the EDE-2 zoning district and where the property adjoins other property that is zoned EDE-2. 30 He said it does not apply to any other zoning district. He said the 25 foot setback would 31 continue to apply to this use, although the owners prefer to keep their existing fences where 32 they are. He said the change in ordinance only applies to the exercise yards, and it doesn't 33 apply to buildings. He referred to the proposed new language which states this. He said the 34 change to the 150 foot setback does not apply to buildings, as buildings can already go up to 35 the 25 feet. 36 37 Michael Brough said the most important aspect of the change is that the amendment 38 only applies in the EDE-2 district and where the property adjoins other EDE-2 properties. He 39 said this is important because the uses in the EDE-2 district are fairly intensive as compared to 40 other districts. He said there is low likelihood of any other type of uses in this area, due to the 41 location and lack of sewer. He said that makes this a very narrow amendment. He said the 42 benefit to the public of maintaining that 150 foot buffer is marginal, if it exists at all; however the 43 hardship that it creates for the owners is pretty extreme. He said there are no other practical 44 areas to place the exercise yards, and these are integral to maintain the business. He said 45 there are 300-400 signatures from customers and community members in support of this 46 business. He said there are 20 or more employees, whose livelihood depends on the business. 47 He noted the members of the audience in attendance to support this amendment. 48 49 Commissioner Gordon addressed Michael Harvey and referred to the staff analysis page 50 73. She asked for clarification on this, specifically items 6 through 9.