BOA minutes 031411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 6/13/2011 OC Board of Adjustment – 3/14/11 Page 41 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 category, this is consistent with those various goals and definitions. Dr. Wright, we have also indicated with respect to compliance of Section 5.6 Land Use Overreaching goal, that the proposed use is located on a parcel of property of sufficient size to be self sustaining from a service provision perspective and is in an area where other non-residential developments are located. The proposed development preserves extensive natural foliage through encouraging more restrictive buffer that normally would not be part of the ordinance will not involve the mass grading of the property to support the proposed project. Mr. Chairman, if there is nothing for staff, I know Mr. Herman has already asked, but as we always do at the closing of our presentation, we formally ask the board to recognize that the abstract be included verbatim in the minutes as staff attachment. We also ask that you accept and include with the Director, a copy of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance as it currently exists to take the date of the application and submit it into the record. Tom Brown: One thing, Mr. Harvey, when you were talking about conditions, did you mention the Fire Marshall approval of any site altered access to the property? Michael Harvey: That is condition number 3 that the Orange County Fire Marshal’s office inspect the road modifications and certify that they are consistent with the approved site plan and emergency vehicle access will be possible prior to use. Tom Brown: So that would include any site alterations? Michael Harvey: Correct. Consistent with the approved site plan, the site plan contains the note dealing with the relocation of the road to address. David Blankfard: I have a question for Mr. Knight. You stated that your report was based on 16 dogs and that the report might change based on it now being 30 dogs. What kind of change are we talking about? The reason I am asking is that Article 8.2.1 Section 2, one of the main things we had to base that part on was your report so I have concerns about whether we can hang our hat on the report to say based on the number of animals that are inside the kennel. Vic Knight: First of all, I wouldn’t know what it could or wouldn’t change it. Based on the report, the site plan I was given to begin with, I believe there is a discussion specific about the number of animals but more about the building and its use as far as my analysis. In theory, there is not much reason to change because of that but I haven’t sat down to look at it from a standpoint to say that from a factual that it would change. I have only looked at what I have looked at. David Blankfard: The building materials are the same between what is proposed here and what is in your report at the time you were given it? Vic Knight: Everything I have heard this evening was the step up in acoustical redesigns and incorporation of those concepts. David Blankfard: I think the finishes are the same; the roof type is the same construction. Tom Brown: Any other comments or questions? Gene Poveromo: I would like to talk a little about and explain the justification. On number 2, we were interested in limiting the hours of operation so we would have some anticipation of when traffic might occur. What I have seen looking at other kennels is they open from 8 AM until 11 AM and then open up again from 5 PM to 6 PM. Some kennels are not open all day long. Some kennels are closed on specific days, (Tuesdays and Sundays). That was the intent of that one. That is why it says 30 hours during the week to try to get a very specific window of when vehicles would be arriving and leaving so we would have some expectation that we are not going to see any traffic during a certain time period. The construction, number 3, giving us all an understanding of what the