12.11.24 BOA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan. We 1 found that this was reflected in their submitted site plan, their submitted conditions, and then further 2 gone into in our staff report and analysis, and the review comments included the back and forth with 3 the Development Advisory Committee. Any concerns that were brought up were addressed by the 4 applicant, and no concerns have since been communicated to either us or the applicant. I think it's 5 worth noting that even from the neighborhood information meeting, staff has not received any local 6 correspondence from neighbors voicing question or concern. Based on the materials provided, staff 7 finds no potential injury to the value of contiguous property. I do think that you'll receive more detail 8 on this one from the applicant. From here, if you have any questions for me, happy to answer them 9 now. Otherwise, I will turn it over to the applicant. 10 11 Leon Meyers: Please. 12 13 Kevin Hornik: Good evening. We will try not to take up too much of your time this fine evening. I think, like I 14 mentioned earlier, county staff have already done quite a bit of heavy lifting here, so we'll just try to 15 cross some Ts and dot some Is here for you. Let me see. Do we have the presentation queued up? 16 17 Taylor Perschau: Yes. Does that look familiar? 18 19 Kevin Hornik: Thank you. Like I mentioned earlier, my name is Kevin Hornik. I'm an attorney with the Brough Law 20 Firm in Chapel Hill. I'm here this evening on behalf of the applicants, James and Michael Tilson, 21 who are both here this evening. We've already talked a little bit about the location of the subject 22 property. You're already familiar with this, so I won't belabor the point. Again, we've talked a little 23 bit about the proposed use. This is a Class 2 kennel use. You've got the UDO's definition of that 24 use here on the slide for you. Again, I think we've already kind of covered this material, but these 25 are the various sections of the Orange County UDO that establish the review criteria that the 26 applicant is responsible for meeting in order to be entitled to the approval of the special-use permit. 27 So, we already talked a little bit about this. County staff have already determined that the various 28 approval criteria found in Section 5.6.8 of the UDO have been met. That's established in the agenda 29 package on Page 24. That's one of, and we'll cross this bridge a little bit later, but that's one of the 30 required findings that this board will make. Let's see, so we'll get into the substantive standards, and 31 I think you've already heard some testimony from staff about the first one, and these are the three 32 classic special-use permit standards, and they're found in Section 5.3.2(a) of the UDO, the first being 33 that the use will maintain and promote public health, safety, and general welfare if it's located where 34 proposed and developed and operated in accordance with the plans as submitted. I think I'll turn the 35 floor over to James here to talk a little bit about what they've done in terms of designing the site plan 36 and kind of defining the use and their operation thereof in order to promote and maintain the public 37 health, safety, and welfare. 38 39 James Tilson: Well, first of all, I have conducted market analysis of services like this in the area, and from what I've 40 seen, it is a much-needed service, especially this is kind of a unique version of this service. I'd like 41 to be able to help people and the dogs in the area. And, also, in terms of safety, first of all, dogs will 42 remain on leash at all times outside of physically fenced areas, and as I have always done in this 43 business, I'll carefully screen the temperament of each dog that applies to work with us. And as my 44 attorney mentioned, we have designed the site plan and proposed conditions that we hope will allow 45 us to run this proposed business in such a way that it's in harmony with the county, neighbors, and 46 the land itself. 47 48 Kevin Hornik: I think we've already heard testimony from county staff, but I'd just like to ask you to confirm this. Is 49 it true that your proposed use will not be closer than 150 feet from any property line? 50 6