Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 b. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to Setbacks for Class II <br />3 Kennels Developed in the EDE -2 General Use Zoning District — Public Hearing <br />4 Closure and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) <br />5 The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, and <br />6 considered making a decision on an application proposing a text amendment to the Unified <br />7 Development Ordinance (UDO) related to the required setbacks for Class II Kennels developed <br />8 within the Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE -2) general use zoning district. <br />9 Michael Harvey said this item is to amend the existing setbacks for class 2 kennels in <br />10 the EDD2, from 100 feet to 25 feet. He said there is no additional comment at this time, only <br />11 the planning board recommendation. <br />12 Michael Harvey noted that the Easterlins have made expansions to their kennel that <br />13 conflict with required setbacks, and work has been done with staff to correct inconsistencies. <br />14 He said the Easterlins have chosen this course of action, as there was no other option. He said <br />15 planning staff is not in support of the proposal to amend the UDO. He said the planning board <br />16 voted 6 -2 to deny the text amendment, and the two individuals that dissented felt there should <br />17 be compromise available to the client. <br />18 He noted that the applicant's original text amendment proposal has been placed in a <br />19 vernacular consistent with the unified development ordinance (UDO). He said there is a memo <br />20 from Attorney Mike Brough with respect to this application. <br />21 <br />22 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to <br />23 close the public hearing. <br />24 <br />25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />26 <br />27 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to <br />28 approve the text amendment as contained in Attachment 5. <br />29 <br />30 Commissioner Rich asked what this means for future requests for variances in <br />31 setbacks. She asked if this is the only kennel in the EDD2. <br />32 John Roberts said that if a kennel was to be built in this area in the future, it would have <br />33 the same setbacks; however these standards cannot be used in another zoning area, unless a <br />34 zoning text amendment was made. <br />35 Commissioner Rich asked if this would be used as a reference in future requests for a <br />36 change. <br />37 John Roberts said that would be a reasonable argument. <br />38 Chair Jacobs said this motion does not represent a perfect solution to a dilemma, but is <br />39 an opportunity for the County to live by what they say regarding the desire to support existing <br />40 businesses in the County. He feels that this is a good solution. <br />41 Commissioner Pelissier said it is a good solution. She said she highly respects the <br />42 planning board, but in this case she differed with their recommendation. She said a 150 ft <br />43 buffer in this district does put a lot of restraints on its use as a kennel. She said if there were <br />44 another kennel in this district, which is unlikely, she would feel comfortable with these same <br />45 setbacks. <br />46 Commissioner Dorosin said it is beneficial for the Board to take a zoomed -out view of <br />47 this decision and see this as making the ordinance more consistent with the broad policy that <br />48 has already been developed. <br />49 Commissioner Gordon said she feels that this property is a wonderful operation; but she <br />50 agrees with the planning board's recommendation. <br />