BOA agenda 061217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 43 James Bryan: Yes sir. 1 2 Karen Barrows: If there are no questions for Michael or lawyers, is there a motion to close the 3 public hearing? 4 5 Motion made by Barry Katz to close the public hearing. Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. 6 VOTE: Unanimous 7 8 Karen Barrows: So. Where are we? What are we thinking? 9 10 Barry Katz: So Mr. Harvey’s decision was based on Statute, on the State’s Statutes as he saw 11 them, and that this was considered a use that was that was viable and acceptable for a farm. Is, 12 sums up. Seems to me. That was as far as it went. What we’re hearing, and of course so all the 13 time that we spent reviewing all of this in two hearings was not considered, it’s not relevant, it’s not 14 germane because the State laws are the determining factor in this case and that’s as far as it goes. 15 I suppose we could have known this if that were the case, before we went through those two 16 hearings. 17 18 Barry Katz: It might have been good if that were the, true. So really, all along the real question is is 19 this event center, this wedding venue a non-farm use or a farm use in and of itself. It’s the scale of 20 the thing, it’s the history of it; does it bear any evidence that this is not a farm use? If it’s a farm use 21 then there’s nothing need to be said. It would be, it would’ve been done. And we have considered 22 this in a Special Use Permit, and then we considered it again through two more hearings when the 23 argument was made that it was a use incidental to farming. In both cases we basically decided that 24 the scale of this, the, it was not in proportion to what, where ordinarily expect a wedding venue and 25 a farm to be. It’s, what is it, 150-year old farm, that barn that was transported at great expense to a 26 location in part of Orange County, 125 parking spaces, it’s a full blown event center is what it is. 27 And is this, again, according to, what is it? 153a340b1? Again, as the unmentioned use of farm 28 property for non-farm purposes. To me, that’s what we have to consider. Are there other things we 29 need to consider? 30 31 Karen Barrows: Well I was thinking about this in seeing how often incidental came up. And it’s 32 and/or incidental and it appears and it appears. So I looked up incidental in Webster’s dictionary: of 33 a minor, casual, or subordinate nature, a minor occurrence or circumstance, event item or 34 expense. We’ve heard evidence that the cost of the barn was almost $735,000 just electricity was 35 $74,615; is that a minor expense? And then Mr. Brewer was asked how much was invested in the 36 chestnut operation at Morrow Mill site: he said five to seven thousand dollars. Cost of processing 37 was asked: five to eight thousand dollars. When you compare those figures, it doesn’t sound to me 38 like it’s incidental. And to your point, wastewater and well permits for 250 guests; is this a minor 39 circumstance? I don’t think so. It doesn’t feel like it to me. And the parking lot, 150. So. 40 41 Susan Halkiotis: I think that my processing of all the evidence that’s been presented is following the 42 same train that you just mentioned Karen. I’ve listened very carefully at all of these hearings, all 43 three. And at this one particularly. And I’m not convinced that this is either related or incidental. I 44 think it’s the other way around. I think that the planting is what’s incidental. I believe that it’s farm 45 property being used for non-farm purposes primarily. And as Karen pointed out, the majority of the 46 investment in the property is in the wedding venue. And I don’t think that that barn and the wedding 47