Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 6/13/2011 <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 3/14/11 Page 24 of 59 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />determined it would be in their best interest to come before the court asking for, as they have testified tonight, 30 <br />total runs to house 30 animals. In answer to your question, strict interpretation of the zoning, if Mr. West comes <br />before this board with a site plan showing 16 constructive runs with a note on the site plan as contained on the <br />original document saying there will be additional runs constructed at a later date unspecified, according to Article <br />8, Section 8.7.1 of the ordinance, my determination is that would be a modification and would have to come back <br />before this board to obtain the additional runs to be constructed. What I am hearing the applicant indicate this <br />evening is they wish the board to take action on allowing this facility to be developed with 30 runs to house <br />animals. That would include canines and felines. <br />Gene Poveromo: Could you summarize the permit if it is granted as currently proposed would allow how many <br />runs? <br />Michael Harvey: The site plan has already been pointed out by one of the board members and shows 28. I <br />believe the applicant’s attorney has testified that it would show 30 total runs to be constructed. <br />Gene Poveromo: So this permit would approve 30 runs? <br />Michael Harvey: As the applicant has asked for this evening. <br />Gene Poveromo: The current application shows an exercise boundary. If that was to be expanded, would that <br />require a new permit? <br />Michael Harvey: It might… with wording of the current ordinance and I might also add the wording of the <br />proposed Unified Development Ordinance, yes. <br />Gene Poveromo: Okay. <br />Michael Harvey: For the board’s edification, as you all are probably aware, Orange County is in the process of <br />adopting a Unified Development Ordinance which is a combination of all existing land use regulations. At least <br />that is what we hope and pray for. Dr. Wright also serves on the planning board as we are working on this item <br />but for the board’s edification, the standards and regulations governing permits and whatnots are not being <br />altered. <br />Gene Poveromo: Mr. Stewart, I have some questions for you. In fact, you mentioned something about 65 <br />decibels at the property line. <br />Noral Stewart: I don’t believe I did. The property line ordinance limit is 60 so it would be below 60. <br />Gene Poveromo: Sorry 60. Help me understand when you are referring to 60 decibels, what are we measuring? <br />Let me re-phrase the question. Are you stating that there is a county ordinance that regulates barking of dogs and <br />requires a 60 decibel reading at the property line? <br />Noral Stewart: There is a county ordinance that regulates sound crossing property lines of any source. Doesn’t <br />have to be barking dogs. It could be your air conditioning condenser. It limits it during the daytime to 60 decibels. <br />Gene Poveromo: So would it include dogs? <br />Noral Stewart: It would include dogs. Certain things may be exempt but dogs are not one of those things that are <br />exempt. <br />Gene Poveromo: You mentioned a copy of a letter from January, is that part of the record? <br />