BOA agenda 121216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

assume that there would be that need or that desire to be able to do it at some point. But I do believe that it 1 is, based on the question I asked in regards to the farm plan, that the tourism piece would be secondary to 2 the farming operation. Especially with the information that we received today; that a farm can be in multiple 3 locations. But I’m certainly sympathetic to what the neighbors are saying about the disruption that this 4 would really cause everyone. So I do feel conflicted. I think the key piece here is that there is an 5 enforcement mechanism and if it comes to find out that the farming activities is not the primary of the land 6 then someone might be out of business. 7 8 Barry Katz: It’s hard to view the agriculture as a primary use. You take 150 year old barn from upstate New 9 York and bring it down here, putting in 2 roads, parking for 250 people, septic field for the capacity of 10 running events, which was all presented to us as an event center, and you’re using 25 square feet to cook 11 some chestnuts and etcetera. It was like back filling the agriculture use after the SUP was rejected. And 12 trying to reposition themselves as a farm merely to get this event center approved, as a farm. That’s what 13 we heard. With people who really don’t have any experience in this but, they’re allowed to enter into this 14 thing and fail but as result of this submitted documentation… Perhaps he had inadequate documentation 15 for what we’re considering now and for the testimony we’ve heard to be able to make a determination. You 16 know? 17 18 Matt Hughes: That’s very possible. 19 20 Barry Katz: And that, in fact, this was destined to end up here because of that. 21 22 Karen Barrows: And I think to your point of letting them go ahead and then afterwards Michael might have 23 to say, “Now it’s not being used as a farm speaks to what Susan was talking about. You’ve already built the 24 building and said it was going to be a daycare and now it’s not”. Inaudible 25 26 Barry Katz: With the way I read that email I read Mr. Harvey basically telling them future zoning 27 enforcement is a hammer that you really have to face and do you want to face that hammer under these 28 circumstances? But it’s plain as day that this is a wedding venue. That’s what it is. It has some agricultural 29 curlicues on the outside but they’re not relevant to the wedding venue, particularly. And the wedding venue 30 is not particular relevant to what they purport in their agriculture. It’s a separate use. It’s a use that would be 31 appropriate for zoning. As it was when it was introduced without the fig leaf of the agricultural suggestion of 32 chestnuts, bees, and flowers. But we’re not asked to determine that, are we? You have to tell me, are we 33 asked to determine this? 34 35 James Bryan: The only thing for the Board to consider tonight is to affirm, reverse, or modify Michael’s 36 determination. If there was a determination made. 37 38 Susan Halkiotis: What would a modification look like? What does that mean? 39 40 James Bryan: That’s straight from the UDO. I don’t have anything in mind, I don’t recall either party offering 41 any modification but the Board has that prerogative. If they think that Michael’s determination could be 42 affirmed if it was modified in some way we could do that. 43 44 Susan Halkiotis: I want to reconcile one thing, and that is the question presented and on page 82 of our 45 packet, which was the prayer for relief… So the point that they intersect is reverse and vacate the May 16th 46 decision? 47 48 108