Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br />STAFF COMMENT: Staff and the Easterlin’s attorney, Mr. Michael Brough of the <br />Brough law firm, indicated it was their professional opinion applying for a variance was <br />not a viable option as there would be difficulty for the applicant to prove this was not a <br />self-induced hardship or that somehow they were experiencing a unique hardship from <br />other kennel operations throughout the County. <br />These are some of the required findings allowing for the issuance of a variance as <br />outlined within Section 2.10 of the UDO. <br />2. A BOCC member expressed concern over different accounts from staff and the applicant <br />over when there was disclosure of the 150 foot setback requirement. <br />STAFF COMMENT: Staff stands by its statement(s) indicating the Easterlin’s were <br />aware of the 150 foot required setback for kennel operations as currently detailed in <br />Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) of the UDO and has verified this account with both their surveyor, <br />Mr. Steve Yuhasz, and their former attorney Mr. Michael Parker. <br />From staff’s standpoint the issue is moot. The Easterlin’s have been investigating <br />methods and opportunities for addressing compliance issues with the kennel with <br />Planning staff for some time and have finally determined, based on their current <br />attorney’s advice, this is the most viable course of action available to them. <br />3. A BOCC member asked how many acres of the Eno Township are currently zoned EDE- <br />2 and how much of that is already developed. <br />STAFF COMMENT: There are approximately 430 acres of property zoned EDE-2 with <br />approximately 180 acres ‘developed’ including underdeveloped acreage and required <br />yard (i.e. setback) areas. <br />4. A BOCC member asked if it was possible to amend the terms of the existing SUP to <br />reduce the setback. <br />STAFF COMMENT: It is possible to amend the terms of the existing SUP but the <br />ordinance amendment would have to be approved first. Otherwise the 150 foot setback <br />will still have to be observed. <br />SUPs cannot change or modify established development standards required by the UDO <br />unless there is specific language, within the standards section, allowing the reviewing <br />body (i.e. BOCC or Board and/or Adjustment) to impose different standards as <br />determined through the SUP review process. <br />5. A Planning Board member asked if there had been any complaints from adjacent <br />property owners related to noise or order associated with the kennel operation. <br />STAFF COMMENT: No complaints had been received. The issue here is a unpermitted <br />expansion of the kennel in contradiction to the existing SUP. <br />6. A couple of BOCC members indicated they believed the request was justified given this <br />amendment would only impact the development of Class II Kennels in the EDE-2 high <br />intensity general use zoning district. <br />7. A Planning Board member asked if it were possible to provide a more detailed map <br />detailing the location of the kennel operation on the property. <br />STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 1. <br /> <br />Agenda materials from the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing can be viewed at: <br />http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/140224.pdf <br />88