BOA minutes 030810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 3/8/2010 Page 71 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 Joan Austin: I called seven myself and nobody would do it. Rob Maitland: Was it because the price was too high or anything? Joan Austin: They said there is no data. Paul Snow said there is no empirical data and I wasn’t even sure what that means but I think it means there is no data. He said there is no data, I cannot do it. I said okay. Rob Maitland: Anything else? Joan Austin: I have this whole thing done but I am not going to do it. No. I don’t think it has been proven that there is no impact. I know as a realtor that Days on the Market certainly impacts property and I guarantee you that if I tell someone they have a dog kennel next door and I have a house up the street that doesn’t have a dog kennel, it will impact that property. Jeffrey Schmitt: Questions from the board? Rob Maitland: Mr. and Mrs. Southerland, have you two decided which one will testify? Harold Sutherland: My name is Harold Sutherland. I live on the property adjacent to Mr. Lonsway’s property. Jeffrey Schmitt: Have you been sworn in sir? Harold Southerland: Yes. Rob Maitland: How long have you been living at that property? Harold Southerland: I have lived on the property for six years. Rob Maitland: How long has that property been in your family? Harold Southerland: My wife was born on that property, her father owned it and she is 64 years old. Rob Maitland: Tell the board about your feelings. Harold Southerland: A lot of what I have written has already been said so I will try not to bore you with that but the property is on New Hope Church Road consists of single family dwellings ranging in price from $170,000 to over $400,000. These people paid big bucks to be able to live in a serene country setting away from all the stuff that goes along with commercial business. The property in question is surrounded by housing developments that have restrictions. Those restrictions are in place to permit someone from disrupting the harmony of the neighborhood. They can’t go behind their house and put up large buildings and engage in commercial business. Mr. Lonsway came along and wants to put a dog kennel right in the middle of the neighborhood and disrupt everything that these people paid good money for. You can travel the entire length of New Hope Church Road from Old 86 to New 86 and you will not see any property that has two large concrete buildings that total 5,000 square feet with a gravel parking lot complete with handicap spaces and a large sign next to the highway advertising the business. Webster defines harmony as a pleasing combination of elements having a component elements pleasingly or perfectly combined. An example of that is at the symmetry balance and proportion that is evenly done then the finished product appears to be in harmony. From that definition, this dog kennel can in no way, shape, form or fashion be in harmony with the neighborhood out there. Our well, we had trouble a few years ago, our well was contaminate with coli form, which is a bacteria that comes from surface water that is contaminate by animal waste. We had to have our well dug deeper to get a clear of the contamination and now we have animals coming back into the neighborhood and I have papers to certify that. A rural buffer is defined as land adjacent to an urban or transition area which is rural in character and which should remain rural, contain very little density of residential uses and not require urban services. Since when is a dog kennel considered a low density residential use? Everything else I have here, you have already heard it several times. My final comment would be if the data is inappropriate, then the study is inappropriate.