Agenda - 05-20-2014 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

100 • Planning website posting on January 24 County Attorney's Office Comments Perdita Holtz reviewed the land use map and said this amendment applies to all of the areas outside of the rural buffer and outside of the municipalities, which includes: Bingham Township, Cheeks Township, Eno Township, Hillsborough Township, Cedar Grove Township and Little River Township. Referring to the slide titled, "Permitted Outright vs. SUP or Conditional Zoning ", she said "permitted outright" means that approvals are done by staff. Referring to the slide titled "Conditional Zoning District (ASE -CZ) ", Perdita Holtz said projects can be considered on a case by case site specific basis. She said this is still a legislative process, which includes a public hearing; however it does allow Commissioners to have more discretion on whether projects are approved or not. Perdita Holtz said the proposed change in the groundwater usage standard language is a result of comments made at the public information meeting held last week. She said the new wording attempts to clarify that groundwater usage is being looked at on an annual basis, and to account for the fact that some areas of the County do not allow a density of one unit per acre. She said there is a "for example" included in the language in an attempt to be as clear as possible. She said the change from "will" to "are expected to" comes from conversations with the consultants who would be doing the groundwater studies. She said, in response to input requested by the Board regarding possible removal of the more intensive uses, the agricultural preservation board felt that there are places in the County where the more intensive uses might be acceptable, and that the conditional zoning or special use process would allow for any issues to be addressed. James Bryan, County Attorney, said he has advised staff, and he would like to advise the Board that the attorney's office has found that this is legally insufficient, and parts of it would be unenforceable. He said if the Board adopts it and there is litigation, there is a high likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. Chair Jacobs asked how this got all the way to a public hearing before this was discovered by the attorney's office. James Bryan said there was agreement to disagree. Perdita Holtz said there was a meeting back in August regarding his concerns about some of the definitions of non- farm use of farm equipment. She said staff asked if James Bryan would provide some legally sufficient language, but the attorney's office did not want to interject into policy. She said she and Michael Harvey have discussed this and both feel that proper discretion goes a long way in enforcing what is an obvious business use, versus a farmer who grades one road a year. She said this is where the County's attorney had concerns. She said there is some discretion allowed in enforcing this. Chair Jacobs said it is insufficient to have this come up at a public hearing, and this needs to be fixed. Commissioner Gordon asked for the specific areas James Bryan is referring to. James Bryan said it is not that he does not want to inject policy. He said this is purely a legal issue and his legal advice is to pull these definitions. He said there are three definitions related to permitted -by- right, and these are: non - farming use of farm equipment, meat processing and the farm stand. He said all of these definitions say it has to be on a bona -fide farm. He said the state statutes about bona fide farms are very lenient. He said there is no line at all in this, and it is not statutorily correct.