BOA agenda 121216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

reviewing court following the rules of statutory interpretation, instruction. In this case when agritourism is 1 not defined in the other 2 sections that address it. The applicant’s addressed 2 other cases that I would 2 also like to point to as well. That being Balkums’ nursery company and versus Mecklenburg County and 3 Steadman versus Rijdes and what I think is significant about these 2 cases is that the courts specifically get 4 into the state policy with respect to agriculture. In Balkum’s Nursery, and this is under tab 9 of the 5 applicant’s authorities notebook, this starts in the second to last paragraph of the first page, “It is a public 6 policy of North Carolina to encourage farming, farmers, and farmland. The General Assembly has stated as 7 policy in various ways. It’s declared to be the interest of public welfare that North Carolina farmers who are 8 producers of field crops and other agricultural products including vegetables, bulbs, flowers, other 9 agricultural products shall be permitted and encouraged and promoted, stimulating increased production, 10 use, and sale”. The next 5-6 paragraphs continue to outline this policy in promoting North Carolina 11 agriculture. The last one, which addresses 106-583 is interesting here where it states, “This section 12 sanctions the development of new and improved methods of production, marketing, distribution, 13 processing, utilization of plant commodities, all stages from the original to producer through to the ultimate 14 consumer and the methods of conservation development and use of land.” So it’s encouraging farmers to 15 take chances, to develop new methodologies, new markets for agriculture in this state, and that’s exactly 16 what the Brewers’ are doing. When you talk about the Iredale case when it had to do with biodiesel and 17 whether they had asked for a re-zoning or identified their uses as industrial versus agricultural. They were 18 completely different than the related activity of agritourism that’s going on here, which is why I think it’s an 19 important distinction. But in that case they were producing 500,000 gallons of biodiesel and they only 20 claimed that they would nee 100,000 gallons on their farm and the courts said that’s too much of a 21 disconnect. Now the disconnect that the applicants have tried to compare here and make a comparison is 22 the size of their barn related to what the uses are. I think it’s very hard to pin down the Brewers at this time 23 as to what the capacity and how that barn is going to be used for agricultural purposes when they’re maybe 24 a year or less in and we’re looking at a 20-year timeline for a farm to develop and 1,300 chestnut trees to 25 be processed and expansions of flowerbeds. There will be an acre and a half or more. And honey 26 operations. The ability once you set up that infrastructure, which Mr. Katz so brightly pointed out, can be 27 expensive. Once you buy the equipment to replace the labor this can become a processing facility for other 28 chestnuts as they develop that market within the state. And that was part of the testimony was that 29 chestnuts are not being grown right now. And it’s a growth opportunity that is highly beneficial to Orange 30 County. But the point that I was making there with respect to the use in terms of the square footage of the 31 barn and why that’s misplaced is that it completely ignores the fact that the revenue from an economic 32 impact and how the agricultural activities and the production of this is going to be substantial. Planned to be 33 substantial. And is not the cart behind the agritourism horse but the other way around. But it’s very 34 important in the interim for a new farm to be able to take advantage of these agritourism opportunities to be 35 able to bridge that gap and create these new markets. And again, North Carolina public policy is to 36 encourage this innovation and agriculture. And so not only do they fit within the definition they fit within the 37 state policy. And that’s, again, consistent with the testimony of Mr. White. In terms of a couple of small legal 38 issues that I would be remiss not to mention… Mr. White has demonstrated through his experience, 39 education, and training that he does hold a special knowledge different from the ley community with respect 40 to food systems. He’s discussed his methodology, and its reliability. And he’s provided his opinion. He 41 should be admitted as an expert on this question of consistency with plans and whether this is a viable 42 farm operation that benefits and is consistent with the plans and policies of the state and Orange County. In 43 addition, Ms. Brown objected with respect to Mr. White’s ability to testify on the question of agritourism, the 44 definition of bona fide farm purpose, but rule 704 explicitly allows testimony as to the ultimate questions if it 45 will assist the trier of fact in reaching their determinations. And then, finally, with respect to the extent that it 46 becomes applicable we would ask this Board not to issue a stay. It is North Carolina law that a property 47 owner that proceeds during an appeal is proceeding at their own risk. Mr. Bryan mentioned that at the last 48 99