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