BOA minutes 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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