Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
b. Attachment 4 - Statement of Consistency authorizing the zoning atlas amendments as <br /> detailed herein. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> b. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to Setbacks for Class II <br /> Kennels Developed in the EDE-2 General Use Zoning District— Public Hearing <br /> Closure and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) <br /> The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, <br /> and considered making a decision on an application proposing a text amendment to the <br /> Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) related to the required setbacks for Class II Kennels <br /> developed within the Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2) general use zoning <br /> district. <br /> Michael Harvey said this item is to amend the existing setbacks for class 2 kennels in <br /> the EDD2, from 100 feet to 25 feet. He said there is no additional comment at this time, only <br /> the planning board recommendation. <br /> Michael Harvey noted that the Easterlins have made expansions to their kennel that <br /> conflict with required setbacks, and work has been done with staff to correct inconsistencies. <br /> He said the Easterlins have chosen this course of action, as there was no other option. He <br /> said planning staff is not in support of the proposal to amend the UDO. He said the planning <br /> board voted 6-2 to deny the text amendment, and the two individuals that dissented felt there <br /> should be compromise available to the client. <br /> He noted that the applicant's original text amendment proposal has been placed in a <br /> vernacular consistent with the unified development ordinance (UDO). He said there is a memo <br /> from Attorney Mike Brough with respect to this application. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to <br /> close the public hearing. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to <br /> approve the text amendment as contained in Attachment 5. <br /> Commissioner Rich asked what this means for future requests for variances in <br /> setbacks. She asked if this is the only kennel in the EDD2. <br /> John Roberts said that if a kennel was to be built in this area in the future, it would have <br /> the same setbacks; however these standards cannot be used in another zoning area, unless a <br /> zoning text amendment was made. <br /> Commissioner Rich asked if this would be used as a reference in future requests for a <br /> change. <br /> John Roberts said that would be a reasonable argument. <br /> Chair Jacobs said this motion does not represent a perfect solution to a dilemma, but is <br /> an opportunity for the County to live by what they say regarding the desire to support existing <br /> businesses in the County. He feels that this is a good solution. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier said it is a good solution. She said she highly respects the <br /> planning board, but in this case she differed with their recommendation. She said a 150 ft <br /> buffer in this district does put a lot of restraints on its use as a kennel. She said if there were <br />