BOA agenda 061217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 34 impacts that a wedding venue would have on this neighborhood that you could not make the 1 requisite four findings that would have allowed you to grant a Special Use Permit and nobody 2 appealed your decision. So that decision stands today. This property does not meet the four 3 findings of a Special Use Permit and therefore could not be used for a wedding venue. So, as I 4 say, Mr. Harvey was right about it when he made that particular decision. He goes through his 5 analysis here about whether it’s going back to this current analysis, it’s a bona fide farm, but he 6 doesn’t really talk about the sentence that really matters here, the sentence that he relied on 7 before. That the subdivision does not limit. The sub. This subsection. This. This statute. This 8 language in this statute is not intended to limit regulation by the County under the zoning law with 9 respect to the use of the farm for a non-farm purpose. I want to point that out to you because I think 10 it’s helpful to us as we go through the next analysis. Mr. Harvey then goes through the analysis of 11 whether this dirt would have a farm, have the ability to be looked at for a farm exemption and he 12 determines that it does and he goes through a great deal there to talk about why it does. And he 13 concludes not that the property is bona fide farm, which is the first conclusion you need to reach: is 14 it a bona fide farm or not? If it’s not a bona fide farm we’re not even going to talk about the rest of 15 the statute. He then goes on and he blends, this is his first error, he blends the question of whether 16 it’s a bona fide farm under the test that are put forth in the statute with whether it’s actually being 17 used for farming purposes or whether whether the use proposed is for a non-farm purpose. And 18 that is error one. He ignores the non-farm purpose process there. Even if you have a farm number, 19 and even if you have a bona fide farm under the under the statute Orange County is obligated for 20 the sake of the other neighbors to look at the use proposed to see if that use is for a farm purpose 21 or a non-farm purpose. And Mr. Harvey did not do that in this particular analysis. He actually then 22 concludes not that it’s a bona fide farm, which is step one, but that the use is is is bona fide 23 farming. So that’s his first error. And it would be appropriate for this Board, instead of making that 24 mistake, to say yes it has the bona fide it has the it has the farm number, it has the things that will 25 make it a bona fide farm, now let’s go on and ask the follow up questions. And the follow up 26 questions are, is it a farm use or not? If you go on and look, Mr. Harvey then gives you an advisory 27 opinion. I’m not sure why we have advisory opinions in his order. It’s unusual, I think, to include an 28 advisory opinion but this particular advisory opinion I find troublesome because what Mr. Harvey 29 stated here, I guess an explanation as to why he didn’t consider your findings of fact, is that there’s 30 no authority to interpret or eject the viability of a property owners claim of use. You’ll recall that I 31 asked Mr. Harvey a line of questions, and the question I asked him was, did he consider anything 32 that this Board had done? In listening to all this evidence about this use did he consider any of 33 that? And he said no, because he’s he’s stuck with looking at this affidavit. Let’s think about that a 34 minute. I’m I’m not aware of any statutory authority or case law that says he can’t look. I am aware 35 of a few cases under the farm use where the court talks about what the evidence shows about the 36 use so I think that’s an indicia to me that you can look. I think you must look. If you go back to your 37 findings of fact, what you found is that if you look at Ms. Brewer’s first application for the SUP, her 38 second application that Mr. Harvey rejected, and her third application the Mr. Harvey now feels 39 constrained to just take her word for everything that’s there what you will see is that that the the 40 actual scope the building, the actual size of things, the actual layout of things never changes 41 through that process. And so what Mr. Harvey’s advisory opinion means is that the County has no 42 authority to look behind what a citizen tells them in an application to see if the facts are different. 43 Really? Really? Let’s think about that. Orange County and any other county, and municipal 44 government that is looking at applications has the ability to look at whether the information in the 45 application comports with reality. They have the right to ask questions, they have the right to know 46 what’s going on, they have the right to go out and look at property, they have the right to see how 47