BOA agenda 061217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 35 property’s being used, and so the suggestion that your detailed findings of fact, including finding of 1 fact number nine that all these applications are really same, is something that Michael Harvey was 2 required to take into consideration. And his concern that he could not consider that leads him to 3 error number two. Because if he only looks at what Ms. Brewer wrote after re-doing her application 4 three or four times, after re-doing her legal documents with the secretary of state, after re-doing 5 everything to try to cram it into the farm exemption to get her permit, then what this Board found 6 and what this Board instructed is those applications are really the same, and you have to really 7 look at it and say, is it farming out there? Is it a farm use? It may be a bona fide farm piece of dirt, 8 but is there farming going on on it? Is it a farm use? And so the second mistake Mr. Harvey made 9 is that he failed to take that into consideration and felt constrained not to consider the facts and the 10 reality of what this Board had looked at. He then went on to determine that the structure was being 11 used for a bona fide farm purpose and he concludes that, again, based solely on her application. 12 Not on the evidence, or facts that you found. He so states in his finding, he didn’t hide it from you, 13 he said, based on what she what she signed on her affidavit it it the structure is for a farm use. He 14 then goes on to say, if it’s for farm use we’re still not through asking the questions. You know, is it a 15 farm? Ok well look at the statute. Is it a non-farm use? We’re through. Even if it may be a farm use, 16 even if there’s some tangible relationship, a person who is engaged in activities on a farm such as 17 this has to be able to show that the particular use is incidental to their farming. My ice cream store 18 is incidental to my milking cows and making ice cream. My tomato stand is incidental to my 19 tomatoes growing behind me. My Walmart is not incidental to whether I have tomatoes growing. I 20 used that argument before but I think that’s exactly right. We have to determine whether the use is 21 incidental to the farming or whether farming is incidental to the use. And what we have here is a 22 situation where we have a wedding venue and we’re going to grow a few flowers, some of which 23 may be able to be used, augment by flowers other people grow on their farms to create bouquets. 24 Weddings and music venues are going to actually be the cases where our courts finally give us 25 detail guidance on the farm exception because it’s very difficult to tie getting married back to any 26 kind of farm activity. Weddings can be agro-tourism. I mean that that’s that’s not incorrect, I could 27 have somebody come out and get married in my barn and it’d be incidental to everything that goes 28 on but when I’m running a full time business with weddings, trying to have a wedding every single 29 solid weekend, that is the business. That is the business. It’s not a, it’s not incidental to any farming 30 that’s taking place. And the statute intends. The statute intends that what is agro-tourism and 31 incidental to agriculture. If the statute intended that tourism could be done on farms they would talk 32 about agro-tourism, they’d just talk about tourism and say, well you know you do anything you want 33 on a farm in North Carolina. That’s not what our statute says. And so the next mistake that Mr. 34 Harvey made was that he determined that this structure as wedding and event center is related to 35 or incidental to the property being used for bona fide purposes. He doesn’t really tell us how it’s 36 incidental but he does go in and begin to look at definitions of agricultural and farming and various 37 incendiary statutes. He quotes from NCGS section 106-581.1, now first of all I want you to 38 understand that that particular statute is part of the agricultural development act, and it relates to a 39 statute that’s designed to get federal funding for agricultural purposes and to give counties some 40 power to do that so while the definition is interesting the definition is not a definition that the general 41 assembly gave you to help you define what those terms mean under the zoning power, in 153a. 42 Chapter 106 is not the same. And so from that point of view that definition, while interesting, is not 43 totally controlling. What is interesting about it, however, that it is it is referenced in the zoning 44 statute as a statute to look back at and what is interesting about it is if you look at the actual 45 definition in NCGS 106-581.1 what you will see there is that it carries forward this concept of being 46 incidental to. I think you have it before you and if you look at 106581.1 paragraph 6 it says when 47