Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 6/13/2011 <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 3/14/11 Page 43 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 />Gene Poveromo: It sounds like a condition under which a modification would be required would be a situation that <br />requires a different level of service. I don’t understand. <br />Michael Harvey: There are 10 criteria used to determine whether or not something is a modification or a minor <br />change. <br />Gene Poveromo: Michael is saying for the record that relocating of this facility would constitute a modification that <br />would require coming back to this board. That is what I would like to clarify. <br />Michael Harvey: I believe it would require the board to relocate it again because I think actually it is inconsistent <br />with several of the criteria listed herein. <br />Gene Poveromo: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak again. <br />Mark Micol: Who enforces the hours of operation, your office? <br />Michael Harvey: As it is part of the special use permit, yes sir, we would have to enforce that standard. <br />Frank Williams: What is the penalty for a violation? <br />Michael Harvey: The honest answer to that question is under the provisions of Article 8 violation of any provision <br />of the special use permit can lead to revocation of the permit. There is a process I have to go through but it can <br />lead to revocation. Which means Mr. West would have to cease operations until … <br />Frank Williams: It’s fixed. <br />Michael Harvey: I wouldn’t make the argument that he would have to come back before the board if this issue <br />gets revoked. I don’t have the power to re-establish an SUP. <br />Tom Brown: Mr. Herman, would you have a comment on, if the owner/operator resides on the property? <br />Nick Herman: They have no objection. <br />Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, to keep things equal, if that is the case that would be a potential condition number <br />14. <br />Tom Brown: We are on the cusp of closing the public testimony portion so if you have any further questions, <br />make them now. The public hearing portion of Case A-6-10, Class II Kennel, Canine Boarding Facility is now <br />closed. I would like to thank the staff, the applicant and the citizens for their substantial time and patience through <br />this process. We have heard testimony from staff and other concerned parties. The applicant has requested a <br />special use permit to operate a Class II Kennel, Canine Boarding Facility. The testimony and evidence has been <br />provided to this body. It is time at this point to discuss, comment or make our way towards our findings. I would <br />propose, we can discuss ahead of time but we can address the specific findings first which begin on page 136. <br />Once we go through the specific findings, when we get to page 140 on the method and adequacy of sewage <br />disposal, that particular finding, if it is a yes, we will need to add a condition. We will do the specific findings first, <br />then we will go to the general findings on page 145 and finally if we have gotten through all those and the votes <br />indicate we need to do so, we will then discuss the conditions and then have a motion of approval of the <br />conditions. Is there any discussion or you ready to proceed?