BOA agenda 061217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 38 Karen Barrows: Since it has been ten minutes I think we’ll go ahead and reconvene. And Andy I 1 think you’re up. 2 3 Andy Petesch: Thank you. So beginning with Mr. Harvey’s decision, the process that he went 4 through, the conclusions that he reached. Again, those were made in consultation with the planning 5 director or Orange County, and the County attorney’s office. And that applies to the first decision 6 that was made for which the appeal was taken and then we’re here in October and then again in 7 this case. Ms. Brown without citing any authority says that Mr. Harvey’s required to look at as much 8 information as he can possibly, I don’t know what the limits are by what he’s required to go behind 9 and test what the applicant’s submitted. But it was the County that prepared an affidavit form and 10 submitted to my client, Kara Brewer, and she filled that out and they said this is what we need to 11 determine whether your use is a bona fide farm use or not. And so to go back to that to that exact 12 point here is that when you talk about the three-part test that she characterized as a three-part test, 13 never been identified of that, but roughly there are those steps that you go through. The first is it’s 14 a bona fide farm. That’s incontrovertible. Those. There’s… meet three of the five criteria under the 15 statute. The second question is whether it’s a bona fide farm use or a non-farm use. There is no 16 definition of non-farm use to determine whether something is a bona fide farm use you have to 17 follow the definitions that are in the statute. Mr. Harvey did that. That’s the exact process that he 18 went through. That’s what his decision indicates. And when it comes to comparing the concerns 19 over this Board’s order and the timing of this order and whether he reviewed this order or went 20 ahead with the decision, if you look, I’m looking at exactly what the order says, and it says that the 21 Orange County planning director or their designee shall review the March 16th, 2016 building 22 permit application and make a determination. So it doesn’t say review all findings of fact, review 23 these other documents. There’s no direction there. It says specifically, “review the application and 24 make these determinations”, which he did. And he follows that and you can see that exact 25 instruction that he utilizes in that exact language in his decision. His original assessment of what 26 was being proposed; that was based on at the initial time when they had first purchased the 27 property, nothing had been done at that point, it was just a raw piece of undeveloped property, at 28 that point he indicated orally that if you want to do a retreat or event use, which would include 29 weddings as a use and other events, gatherings that they would need to proceed with a Special 30 Use Permit. But the record is absolutely clear from Mr. Ortoski’s email that was that was admitted 31 and that’s under tab 21 of the notebook that is part of the October hearings, that where he’s on 32 October 19th 2015 ahead of the Special Use Permit hearing that he’s introducing Kara Brewer to 33 Annie Bagget, who is with agro-tourism with the Department of Agriculture. And so clearly that was 34 the interest in pursuing a bona fide farm option was available, she was interested in pursuing 35 agriculture at the time. It was not purely a event space, wedding space project. That is again 36 underscored by the Patrick Mallett email that was introduced tonight. That was, took place even 37 prior to that. And Ms. Brewer filing for a farm ID number and that being awarded in May of 2015 by 38 the USDA. And Mr. Harvey’s own testimony that there were clear discussions about the two paths 39 of proceeding and that they were interested in doing those agriculture products. The farm, the farm 40 was a key part of it. And then Ms. Brewer was instructed not to address the farm aspect of it in the 41 Special Use Permit. And so then Ms. Brown focuses on her testimony as a Special Use Permit 42 here that’s only addressing the event aspect of what her project is. See you look at the timing of of 43 this, the history of this, and it’s, I understand, it is difficult for this Board to have gone through that 44 Special Use Permit hearing of different standards and high standards, but also very discretionary 45 standards that this Board is able to review in terms of the impact on the community, adjacent 46 property owners, etcetera. That is not outside of the standing question, which you’ve already 47