BOA minutes 031411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 6/13/2011 OC Board of Adjustment – 3/14/11 Page 40 of 59 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 based on the testimony you have heard this evening whether it be from staff, the applicant or those in the audience. Staff does not make recommendations on those. On page 148, if it is your decision to approve, I have got 8 (eight) conditions listed. Those conditions are that the applicant get a building permit and all the other permits as required by 8.8.11.3, that the Orange County Fire Marshal’s office review and approve the building plans as part of the normal building permit review process, that the Orange County Fire Marshal inspect the roadway modifications to determine if they are consistent with the approved site plan and provide approval, that the applicant submit the formal application in order to obtain the necessary septic permit, that the applicant shall supply to the planning department, Orange County Environmental Health with a permit approved from the state indicating the type of system approved for the site, for the applicant to supply the planning department, Environmental Health staff inspections report from the state indicating the system has been inspected and can be used for the proposed kennel prior to the commencement of operations. The applicant completes, submits and receive approval of a Class II kennel from the Orange County Animal Control Department, that the applicant submit a sign rendering, that the applicant submit the approved site plan for DOT for review in the event that it is determined that the applicant is required to apply for and receive a driveway permit, they will do so at that time. Those are the general conditions we are recommending. I would also recommend the board to consider the following additions to that list. These are in no particular. That a condition is imposed and the applicant has agreed that the site plan be modified, specifically number 1, to include the maximum number of dogs and cats that will be boarded or housed in this facility. I recommended this be done in the next 60 days. I will leave this with Dr. Wright. Dr. Wright brought up a concern about the landscaping. I believe that notes 8 and 9 address that concern. If Dr. Wright so inclined, staff will not be opposed to a condition being added that landscaping be installed consistent with the language contained and notating that on the site plan. Condition 11 that the acoustical analysis that has been provided but was not entered into evidence by this board be included as part of the site plan review and approval by staff and become part of the record of the site plan and building approval. I am hesitating to bring this one up. Hours of operation, the board needs to determine if they want to include a condition dealing the hours of operation. That suggested by the applicant from 7 AM to 7 PM with no arrivals prior to 7 AM and no pickups or arrivals after 7 PM in the evening. I would also suggest, the applicant has testified to this, and Mr. Herman can certainly respond in a moment that the special use permit indicates that the applicant accepts the responsibility of maintaining the road which is 20 foot wide width. As a requirement, the Fire Marshal, has agreed to. That is all I have. Tom Brown: Mr. Herman, if we get into the discussion of hours of operation, would it also be prudent to add the wording from 7 AM to 7 PM and also the outdoor runs would not be used except during those hours. Nick Herman: Yes. Tom Brown: It would be the same thing, hours of operation and hours of use of the runs. Nick Herman: It is helpful for you to know there is no objection at all so there is no down side to doing it. Tom Brown: I want to be clear because when I close the public hearing, we will not be able to talk. Larry Wright: Michael, on page 47, you said this conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, this is one of the elements we must consider in the approval process, can you make a little of testimony on that we can use. It is stated that it does, do you have some language for that? Michael Harvey: Without putting words in the board’s mouth, on page 47 of the abstract, what staff has done is offer its opinion on whether or not this particular proposal complies with the standards in the Comprehensive Plan. In our determination, with respect to the definition of Agricultural Residential Land Use category, we believe that this proposal is consistent with this definition and it is also consistent with Land Use Goal 3 and Objective LU 1.1, encouraging land uses that are consistent with rural lifestyles. We have indicated in here that we believe that this land use based on the surrounding land uses but in the overall encompassing goal of the Agricultural Land Use