Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
25 <br /> 1 Michael Harvey said he would reject some of what Michael Brough said. He said the <br /> 2 setback being referenced was enforced in 1986, and the applicants were made aware of the <br /> 3 problem, as were their attorney and their surveyor. He said the existing language of the UDO, <br /> 4 as was enforced in 1986, indicated that the minimum setback distances would not apply if all <br /> 5 elements of the operation were in an enclosed facility; but the ordinance clearly states that all <br /> 6 buildings and runs must meet the setback requirements. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 He referred to Commissioner Gordon's question and said staff's initial observation is that <br /> 9 impacts observed from kennel operation are universal and are not mitigated because the <br /> 10 operation is in a non residential district. He believes the question here is what constitutes an <br /> 11 appropriate setback for a kennel in an effort to address impacts on adjacent properties. Staff is <br /> 12 concerned that the reduction of the setbacks to 25 feet will increase complaints related to the <br /> 13 operation of the kennel and its impact on adjacent property development. He said staff is not <br /> 14 convinced that the 25 foot setback will provide sufficient separation from adverse impacts. He <br /> 15 said staff is also concerned that this proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use <br /> 16 Plan. He said staff understands the situation that the kennel is in, but it is their opinion that the <br /> 17 cons outweigh the pros. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Commissioner Gordon said it sounds like there is a situation of existing use, but the <br /> 20 remedy is to change the whole zoning ordinance. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Michael Harvey said that is the applicant's contention. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Commissioner Gordon asked if there is any other approach, such as a variance under <br /> 25 the Board of Adjustment, for hardship. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Michael Harvey said no, not in his opinion. He said there is an existing special use <br /> 28 permit, and the kennel is in violation of that permit. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Commissioner Price asked why the variance is out of consideration. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Michael Harvey said this facility is operating under a previously issued special use <br /> 33 permit, and the facility is now out of compliance with that permit and with the ordinance. He <br /> 34 said the kennel has to bring the site into compliance with the code in order for the special use <br /> 35 permit to remain valid and the operation to continue. He would also argue that this situation is <br /> 36 self created, and the operation has been expanded. He said, as a result, this would not qualify <br /> 37 for a variance because the hardship is not unique, and it is self induced. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board could amend the terms of the conditions of the <br /> 40 special use permit. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Michael Harvey said the ordinance would have to be amended in order for the conditions <br /> 43 of the special use permit to be modified. He said the 150 foot setback applies. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 Commissioner Rich questioned whether an amendment to this ordinance would mean <br /> 46 anyone with a kennel could request this change as well. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Michael Harvey said it would only apply if a kennel was in the EDE-2 zoning district. He <br /> 49 said there are no other kennels in the EDE-2 zoning district. <br /> 50 <br />