Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
26 <br /> 1 Commissioner Rich noted that this conversation started in 2006, and she asked what <br /> 2 has happened between 2006 and 2014. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Michael Harvey said there have been a lot of changes in attorneys and surveyors, and <br /> 5 there was no proposal to address the problem until recently. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Commissioner Pelissier asked how many acres in Orange County are zoned EDE-2. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Michael Harvey said, according to Craig Benedict, the amount is approximately 200 <br /> 10 acres. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Commissioner McKee said he is hearing two different versions, that the setback amount <br /> 13 it was unknown, and that it was known. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Michael Harvey said he stands by his answer to the Board. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 Chair Jacobs said this is that what the Board of Adjustment is for, to allow someone to <br /> 18 articulate their beliefs and then to have County staff articulate what it believes the facts to be. <br /> 19 He said there is then a rendering of an opinion on whether an exceptional situation exists, or is <br /> 20 allowed to exist. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Michael Harvey said staff issued an opinion in 2006, and that opinion was not appealed; <br /> 23 so that opinion is the full force of law. He does not believe the owners have standing to appeal <br /> 24 it now. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 James Bryan said he would encourage the Board not to focus on this particular <br /> 27 petitioner. He said the Board has an obligation to consider all of the ramifications of this. He <br /> 28 said the question of how much EDE-2 is in the County, is a very relevant one. He said whether <br /> 29 this petitioner will benefit from it or not, or whether the petitioner has alternatives available to <br /> 30 them, is not a valid basis for an eventual decision. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Chair Jacobs said he feels that one of the things the Board is looking for is an alternative <br /> 33 to making a universal decision to address an individual circumstance. He asked if there is an <br /> 34 alternative avenue other than changing the buffer requirement in the entire district from 150 feet <br /> 35 to 25 feet. He said this would be to address the difference of opinion, interpretation, <br /> 36 understanding or experience. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 James Bryan said there are three alternatives: One is a variance; one is a new or <br /> 39 amended conditional use permit; and the third would be an appeal to any staff decision. He <br /> 40 does not know the details of all of these. He said a new or changed SUP is not viable, because <br /> 41 the Board cannot eliminate requirements in the ordinance. He said an appeal is basically the <br /> 42 back and forth that has been heard tonight, and the details would have to go through a <br /> 43 a quasi-judicial hearing with the board of adjustment. He said a variance is very much akin to <br /> 44 the SUP process, but it is fact dependent and the likelihood is not good. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Michael Harvey said a conditional use is not applicable here, since this district allows <br /> 47 Class 2 kennel operations and guidelines and restrictions have been established. He said the <br /> 48 UDO has language mandating that those guidelines and restrictions be observed in the <br /> 49 conditional use permitting process. <br /> 50 <br />