|
DRAFT
<br /> 46
<br />James Bryan: Long ago said, hey, we got an affidavit from this owner, that’s all we’re going to use. 1
<br />Then this Board at this last hearing said, no, no, Michael Harvey, you need to step in and 2
<br />determine whether a zoning compliance permit is necessary. So that’s what this hearing is, is 3
<br />whether the zoning compliance permit is necessary. Zoning compliance permits is from 2.4.1 of the 4
<br />UDO and it says before any structure is erected you need a zoning compliance permit. Now, 5
<br />there’s no debate about that, it’s uncontested. Now, if you look at, I believe it is, UDO 1.1.8, that 6
<br />says, hey, this whole UDO doesn’t apply to farm purposes except for non-farm purposes and it 7
<br />references the Statute. So that’s what kicks us back to the Statute and says ok the UDO wants to 8
<br />mirror the Statute, what does the Statute say? 9
<br /> 10
<br />Barry Katz: Ok. 11
<br /> 12
<br />Matt Hughes: So, under the UDO what would be a non-farm purpose? 13
<br /> 14
<br />James Bryan: Ok so, it’s very interesting; it does not define that any place. It has an earlier 15
<br />reference to as defined in the Statute. So you would look at the Statute. You’ve heard in arguments 16
<br />from Mr. Petesch that said that non-farm purposes are not defined, but farm purposes are defined 17
<br />so I believe what he was arguing was look at that list, if it’s anything other than that list it’s non-18
<br />farm. 19
<br /> 20
<br />Matt Hughes: Ok, so conceivably if we were to make a decision about farm uses versus non-farm 21
<br />use, conceivable someone could, in our position, say well they’re not proposing an oil refinery on 22
<br />this land therefore that might be a non-farm use, but something related to agro-tourism would be a 23
<br />farm use, possibly? 24
<br /> 25
<br />James Bryan: Right, yeah. So in the Statute lays out what is, I refer to it as bona fide farm 26
<br />purposes. That’s the four-word phrase that pops up every place. Bona fide farm purposes. And it 27
<br />says it in the 153a340, it says, bona fide farm purposes, and then it lists all the typical things you 28
<br />thinks of; crops, blah, blah, blah. And agriculture as defined in 106, so that kicks you over to 106. 29
<br />What’s 106? Oh, 106 says all these different things and then that’s the part where it says and agro-30
<br />tourism and then you heard an argument that, ah but it’s only agro-tourism if it’s incidental to the 31
<br />operation of a farm, and you heard a counter argument that no no it’s agro-tourism and then you 32
<br />also heard, I believe, another argument that or incidental to the farm. 33
<br /> 34
<br />Matt Hughes: So one of the things that in the appeal we’re being asked to consider is determining 35
<br />whether or not the property is being used for bona fide purposes and then whether or not the 36
<br />structure that has been proposed on the property is for bona fide farm purposes, so those seem 37
<br />like two different questions. To me it would seem as though because SPG is in the fall tested some 38
<br />flower crops have their, I’ll call it, research and development piece that the property, the land itself 39
<br />is being used for bona fide farming but there could be a contention among some of our Board 40
<br />members who would say the structure is not for bona fide farm purpose. Is that? 41
<br /> 42
<br />Barry Katz: You’re on to something I believe because I don’t think that anyone could doubt that 43
<br />they have a, that it’s a farm, essentially, but is this structure a non-farm use? Even though agro-44
<br />tourism include weddings. Is the, is the fact that there are weddings incidental to the farm? By 45
<br />claiming that people will pick a flower, that’s the justification for the fact, or you know, flowers would 46
<br />be used in the wedding, or someone might taste some honey, that this makes it a farm use? 47
|