|
Michael Harvey: Very briefly as we articulated in our abstracts. First of all … Michael Harvey with the 1
<br />Current Planning Division. A building permit application, specifically CB16-00020, was filed for an 2
<br />approximately 20-acre parcel of property on Morrow Mill Road, the parcel identification number of 9729-50-3
<br />7168. This application proposed to construct a barn into what was listed in January (listed on the January 4
<br />application submittal) as a farm event center. In March the property owner, Southeast Property Group LLC 5
<br />care of Ms. Kara Brewer, filed a revised building permit application proposing the development of the 6
<br />property for “a barn for agriculture use including but not necessarily limited to the storage and processing of 7
<br />agricultural products and equipment, agritourism such as educational workshops, school field trips, 8
<br />weddings, retreats and farm dinners, and support for all other activities related and incidental to the 9
<br />operation of a farm”. The applicant also submitted, which is in your packet, an affidavit. A bona fide farm 10
<br />exemption affidavit indicating that the parcel of property was a bona fide farm as detailed within 153a-340 11
<br />(b) (2) of the North Carolina General Statutes. Further this affidavit indicated the property was governed by 12
<br />a forest management plan and was operating under a farm identification number issued by the U.S. 13
<br />Department of Agriculture, a farm service agency. Within this affidavit the applicant indicated that the use of 14
<br />property would involve; the production and activities relating or incidental to the production of crops, grains, 15
<br />fruits, vegetables, ornamental and flowering plants, dairy, livestock, and poultry, that the use of property 16
<br />would involve the cultivation of soil, the planting and production of trees and timber, the dairying and the 17
<br />raising, management, care, and training of livestock, including horses, bees, poultry and other animals, the 18
<br />operation, management, conservation, improvement, and maintenance of a farm and the structures and 19
<br />buildings on that farm, and the marketing and selling of agricultural products, agritourism, the storage and 20
<br />use of materials for agricultural purposes, packing, treating, processing, storing, of farm related activities 21
<br />and other such activities incidental to the farm’s operation. Based on the information as it was submitted by 22
<br />Ms. Brewer and in consultation with the County Attorney’s Office, and the review of the documentation 23
<br />submitted demonstrating the property met the definition of a farm as defined within 153a-340 (b) (2) of the 24
<br />General Statute, staff found we are prohibited from requiring zoning review and approval on the project. We 25
<br />sent an e-mail to Ms. LeAnne Brown, an attorney who identified herself as serving the interest of several 26
<br />adjacent property owners, informing her that based on the information supplied by the applicant, the 27
<br />insinuations made that the property was a farm, the documentation that had been submitted justifying or 28
<br />proving same, and the reading of (State) statute we were not allowed to review or issue a zoning permit. 29
<br />Ms. Brown then obviously chose to appeal her application as attached in your packet. That is the synopsis 30
<br />of why we’re here this evening. 31
<br /> 32
<br />Karen Barrows: Any questions for Michael? 33
<br /> 34
<br />Barry Katz: I’m sorry. My understanding of what you just said is that they justified the fact that this was a 35
<br />farm operation, agricultural operation, and then you had no basis to either approve or disapprove? You had 36
<br />no standing or relevance to what they might have? 37
<br /> 38
<br />Michael Harvey: You are correct, sir. The applicant has argued that they’re a farm. They’re arguing that the 39
<br />activities being conducted on the property are farm-related and consistent with the practice of farming as 40
<br />defined by the (State) statute. We under the provision of the General Statute and the grant of power in 41
<br />153a-340 (b) (2) (the planning department) has no authority to take action on farm activities. Therefore we 42
<br />are prohibited by state law from reviewing, issuing, or requiring a zoning permit to be issued. Based on 43
<br />what the applicant has alleged at this point in time. 44
<br /> 45
<br />Barry Katz: So there is no zoning permit. There was a permit to go ahead with their project, the permits? 46
<br /> 47
<br />5
|