BOA minutes 030810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 3/8/2010 Page 10 of 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Nick Herman: You had mentioned the septic system to service the property; will that system need to be approved by any governmental entity? Tony Whitaker: Yes. The Orange County Health Department has jurisdiction over that system and the Orange County Health Department approved that system originally developed for the house and now that we are going to use it for a kennel facility, they have imposed additional requirements that are unique and specific for kennel facilities which the applicant has agreed to. Nick Herman: Did you mention, the Orange County Animal Department, in addition to licensing the facility, they have to approve the site plan? Tony Whitaker: Yes. Nick Herman: Would you briefly explain to the board, since you wrote this statement on behalf of the applicant, why you believe this application meets the criteria that the use will be in harmony in the area in which it will be located. Tony Whitaker: Yes. As you know it is a requirement to show that the use will be, if built and operated in accordance with the application, will in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. I have taken a look at the different elements, the site design, the elements of the property itself and the use itself and accessed incrementally for each of those, whether I think those uses will lead toward harmony and disharmony. I have found that in all those cases, the use will be harmonious. Number one, the use is a permitted use in the rural buffer zoning conditions. Some of those conditions have to do with property and the specific design, which I believe and can verify are net. Another condition is there will be a Special Use Permit granted by this board for that use. I believe that all the findings required for that Special Use Permit have been met so I believe in terms of land use, the use is inherently appropriate given the conditions that have been met or can be met as a result of this hearing. I think the size is important. This is a small facility housing only 20 dogs. By kennel standards, that is small so I didn’t see any use or discontinuity or disharmony related to the scale of the facility. I thought the size being small let toward a condition of being in harmony. Low visibility, I think it is important to realize that this facility won’t be visible from the road very much. You might get a little view if you turn your head the right way at the right time driving by. This is not a prominent facility visually. It is behind the house and other features associated with the house and behind trees, etc. so it does not present itself to the road as a conspicuous as commercial use or anything that conspicuously or unharmonious with the neighborhood. It has adequate buffering to the adjoining properties. We have not been able to identify any reason to think that the adjacent properties would be adversely impacted from a visual or any other condition associated with use because of that screening and the physical separation that exists. It is a low traffic generator where there really is not, by virtue of the business model, that Mr. Lonsway employees there is really not much traffic that comes in and out. The average customer will bring their dog on a certain day and drop that dog off for several days and pick the dog up at the end so the person is not driving in and out everyday. We have talked about the noise and the sounds down beneath that proposed building and we believe that the lack of any adverse noise condition really does go a long way to providing the harmonious presence of this facility in the neighborhood. It is a controlled environment. The operator and owner lives in the house on the property. The fact can be said that the closed house to this facility is occupied by the owner and operator so it is a very controlled environment and we think that is a mitigating factor. That is minimal grading and clearing and land developer work needed to get this facility in. In fact, we are taking away a very ugly, unpleasant structure that is already on the site and replacing it with new construction and we think that is a positive thing. We had to take a look at what happens outdoors in that fenced exercise area as part of the application and the applicant has committed to only having one or two dogs at the time would be in that area. To me it felt like a residential use where a person is exercising and playing with their own dogs once a day which is certainly an appropriate in a rural area.