BOA minutes 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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