Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />Michael Harvey <br />From:Tony Blake <tonyblake@nc.rr.com> <br />Sent:Monday, December 03, 2012 5:57 PM <br />To:'Wright Larry'; Tina Love; Michael Harvey <br />Cc:'dawn brezina'; bstuckey@nc.rr.com; max_02@msn.com; rachel.hawkins@pemc.org; <br />pete@eflandfd.org; alan@jalancampbelllaw.com; andrea.rohrbacher@duke.edu; <br />Hartley_2004@yahoo.com; jrandall@unc.edu; 'Herman Staats'; Perdita Holtz; Debra <br />Graham <br />Subject:RE: December Planning Board Agenda <br />Michael, Larry & Pete, based on my conversations with Bingham residents; I have the following comments for the record  <br />on the proposed Kennel Ordinance changes:  <br />  <br /> Most of the proposed changes seem to be an effort to limit nuisance to neighbors. I think that concerns like that  <br />would be better addressed through an enhanced nuisance ordinance rather than a new burden on those  <br />businesses that are interested in compliance.  <br /> Aligning county requirements with the state regulations/inspections might also be advisable to avoid duplication  <br />of effort and confusion.  <br /> I do not know what impact we have on the fee structure, but one person in the business I spoke to said that the  <br />fees probably do not cover the county’s costs and that that a fee increase might do as much to dissuade casual  <br />and non‐conforming kennels as the proposed ordinance changes would. That said, folks that are not interested  <br />in compliance would not be affected by either effort because enforcement either has no teeth or is not a  <br />priority.   <br />  <br />  <br />From: Wright Larry [mailto:wright7020@gmail.com] <br />Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:34 AM <br />To: Tina Love <br />Cc: dawn brezina; bstuckey@nc.rr.com; max_02@msn.com; rachel.hawkins@pemc.org; pete@eflandfd.org; <br />alan@jalancampbelllaw.com; tonyblake; andrea.rohrbacher@duke.edu; Hartley_2004@yahoo.com; <br />jrandall@unc.edu; Herman Staats; Perdita Holtz; Debra Graham <br />Subject: Re: December Planning Board Agenda <br /> <br />Good morning Tina (With Ccs to others) <br /> <br />I respectfully submit proposed changes to the draft of the minutes as distributed electronically on 11/28. <br /> <br />In Chair's remarks, several sentences are missing here. It should go something like this..... <br /> <br />Page 6 (of the packet), after line 38, please insert: "For some time now, this Board has worked through ordinances in Phase I <br />and others in Phase II. Continuing to work within Phase II and The Implementation Bridge into the future, we strive to <br />prioritize the list. It's important to keep copies the Implementation Bridge as we move forward. Again, please contact Tina if <br />you cannot locate your copy of the Implementation Bridge. Our Vice Chair is leading prioritization of ordinances for action. " <br /> <br />Page 8, line 138. Strike: "your" Should read: "acres per lot" <br /> <br />Page 10, Line 244 strike: "does have a" Should read: "When this comes up for discussion...." <br /> <br />Page 11, Line 310 should read: "...and they have an outdoor area where they walk dogs..." <br /> <br />Page 11, Line 312 should read: "If we want to have Economic Development Districts with diversity the commercial aspect, we <br />should should consider these these of structures as we develop...." <br /> <br />20