Browse
Search
BOA minutes 031317
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Minutes
>
2017
>
BOA minutes 031317
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:13:58 AM
Creation date
3/6/2018 4:48:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/13/2017
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
BOA agenda 031317
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Board of Adjustment\Agendas\2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
APPROVED 6/12/17 <br />1 LeAnn Brown: I object and ask that the Board not look at this, This is a copy of a news article and if <br />2 you are going to consider this I would like a recess to call David Owen's as a witness about what <br />3 this happens to say, <br />4 <br />5 Karen Barrows: will not consider it, <br />6 <br />7 Andy Petesch: I'm sorry, I'm, <br />8 <br />9 Karen Barrows: We can't consider it I don't think Andy. Thank you though, <br />10 Andy Petesch: So in closing, the Applicant's here to this appeal, they were a part of the Special <br />11 Use Permit hearing, The Opponents in that case to the Brewer's application took an all or none <br />12 approach at that time. This Board could have approved it with conditions that addressed the <br />13 number of guests, and a number of other issues that dealt with the intensity of the use, The Staff <br />14 report, Mr. Harvey's testimony at that hearing indicate that he had communicated with the <br />15 Opponents, that there was an option that the Special Use Permit wasn't the only way that they <br />16 could do, that the Brewers' could do, an event facility, That it could also be done as a bona fide <br />17 farm, They knew that, and yet they focused on having that Special Use Permit, which was their <br />18 opportunity to have conditions placed on this to minimize the affects that they are concerned are <br />19 going to impact them. This is not a case of the Brewers' trying to get a second bite at the apple <br />20 somehow. They were told early on that there were two paths for them. This is a case of the <br />21 neighbors wanting a second bite at the apple because they missed their opportunity to have to <br />22 affects addressed mitigated through this Board's conditions in a Special Use Permit. And because <br />23 Ms. Brewer veiled herself with that process there's an argument she would have been bound by <br />24 that and not at that point, not had that opportunity any longer to seek the bona fide farm exemption. <br />25 <br />26 Barry Katz: Could, may I ask you a question? <br />27 <br />28 Andy Petesch: Yes. <br />29 <br />30 Barry Katz: First, there were the Brewers' elected to go for a Special Use Permit, Right? Now, <br />31 they're claiming that it's a bona fide farm and they don't need a Special Use Permit, Am I, Am 1 <br />32 right about that? Is that what's being said? <br />33 <br />34 Andy Petesch: There, yes, they.., <br />35 <br />36 Barry Katz: Are suddenly not subject to zoning and you're telling us this is not a second bite of the <br />37 apple when in fact they had two options, they went through one option, and we made our <br />38 judgment, and now they're saying that's not really relevant because we're a bona fide farm. So <br />39 that's a second bite as far as I'm concerned, <br />40 <br />41 Andy Petesch: I appreciate you're your perspective on it, I would submit that they had two, a <br />42 second bite, meaning that they are trying, that they're getting something that they, another chance <br />43 when they already had their chance. There were two chances on different paths in this case and so <br />44 they're not trying to get another shot at something that they could've gotten, should've gotten <br />45 earlier, that's, I would argue what the adjacent property owners are seeking in this case because <br />46 they could've had those protections as part of the Special Use Permit if they had presented that to <br />47 the Board at that hearing. They did not suggest that certain conditions be placed on it so that they, <br />41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.