OCPB minutes 030514 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/2/14 4 Michael Harvey: The staff was asked to provide a visual representation of the property that would meet the 161 appropriate setbacks as currently required. The Easterlins' are proposing this. We wanted to provide the Board with 162 what would comply and what exists. 163 164 Michael Brough: What we are making in the memorandum is that while that is an area that complies with the legal 165 requirements assuming the rest of the property was rezoned, there is a substantial portion of that property which 166 does not lend itself to the expansion of the exercise area. (Described map). There is an area they could build an 167 exercise area but that misses the point. From our perspective under the narrow circumstances this addresses, this 168 would be a very expensive proposition. What good does that achieve? It is multiple thousands of dollars. The point 169 of our request is it is a legislative matter when you weigh cost and benefits and the cost of this private business, 170 which serves a great purpose for the County and surrounding areas, is very high and the benefit is virtual non-171 existent in this case. There have not been any complaints by either of the surrounding property owners and they 172 were notified of this amendment. It gets down to this question; those objections are essentially theoretical in context. 173 These properties will not be developed until sewer gets there. When it does get developed, it is hard to imagine this 174 area being developed in any way not a substantially intensive use. You have situation where you have a problem we 175 are trying to solve. We have come up with a solution that works and is narrowly drawn and has no real negative 176 impacts on any but provides a legal and practical solution that we have been trying to solve for years. There is a 177 legitimate distinction between why we are limiting this to EDE-2 when it makes no sense to have 150-foot setback if 178 the adjoining property is not intensively zoned for development or residential development. Those circumstances 179 maybe 150 feet is all right but when you have a situation like this, it makes no sense to have 150-foot setback. 180 181 Michael Harvey: This property here is split zoned, this portion is EDE-1 so the 150 foot setback would apply, this 182 portion is zoned EDE-2. 183 184 Michael Brough: Years down the road if this property were developed, anybody who moved there would already 185 know what is there. 186 187 Paul Guthrie: Where is the current exercise yard? 188 189 Michael Brough: In the blue lines. 190 191 Paul Guthrie: Is this considered necessary, that space now being used as an exercise yard is clearly smaller than 192 the total area of proposed change so is it the configuration of the terrain of that limits its use or are there other 193 reasons. 194 195 Michael Brough: There are buildings there and topographic issues in the lower part of the site that slopes. There is 196 an area that is flat and open. Whether that is one third or one half of that site that could be developed but while you 197 could have some exercise area it is very expensive and you are giving up acres of your site in the northwest corner. 198 There are two elements the costs of pulling down the fence and putting up a new fence and the other element is that 199 the 150 foot setback requires them to give up a substantial amount of property it amounts to acres of lands. 200 201 Paul Guthrie: Is this an enlargement or maintaining the same level of animals that are cared for? Will you be 202 increasing or maintaining the same level of animal care? 203 204 Michael Brough: The long term plan would be that the property would be consolidated and then divided to segregate 205 out a lot around the existing tower and the rest would be submitted for a special use permit covering all the remaining 206 property and the particular uses at that time would be to have an expansion into the area that would be permissible. 207 208 Paul Guthrie: I understand the cost argument but is it necessary to tear down the old fence or will you recycle the old 209 fence? 210 211 Michael Brough: I can’t tell you. 212 213 Mrs. Easterlin: The cost I gave you was to use the existing fence. 214