|
APPROVED 6/12/17
<br />1 James Bryan: Long ago said, hey, we got an affidavit from this owner, that's all we're going to use.
<br />2 Then this Board at this last hearing said, no, no, Michael Harvey, you need to step in and
<br />3 determine whether a zoning compliance permit is necessary. So that's what this hearing is, is
<br />4 whether the zoning compliance permit is necessary. Zoning compliance permits is from 2.4.1 of the
<br />5 UDO and it says before any structure is erected you need a zoning compliance permit. Now,
<br />6 there's no debate about that, it's uncontested. Now, if you look at, I believe it is, UD0 1.1.8, that
<br />7 says, hey, this whole UDO doesn't apply to farm purposes except for non -farm purposes and it
<br />8 references the Statute. So that's what kicks us back to the Statute and says ok the LIDO wants to
<br />9 mirror the Statute, what does the Statute say?
<br />10
<br />11 Barry Katz: Ok.
<br />12
<br />13 Matt Hughes: So, under the UDO what would be a non -farm purpose?
<br />14
<br />15 James Bryan: Ok so, it's very interesting; it does not define that any place. It has an earlier
<br />16 reference to as defined in the Statute. So you would look at the Statute. You've heard in arguments
<br />17 from Mr. Petesch that said that non -farm purposes are not defined, but farm purposes are defined
<br />18 so I believe what he was arguing was look at that list, if it's anything other than that list it's non -
<br />19 farm.
<br />20
<br />21 Matt Hughes: Ok, so conceivably if we were to make a decision about farm uses versus non -farm
<br />22 use, conceivable someone could, in our position, say well they're not proposing an oil refinery on
<br />23 this land therefore that might be a non -farm use, but something related to agro- tourism would be a
<br />24 farm use, possibly?
<br />25
<br />26 James Bryan: Right, yeah. So in the Statute lays out what is, I refer to it as bona fide farm
<br />27 purposes. That's the four -word phrase that pops up every place. Bona fide farm purposes. And it
<br />28 says it in the 153a340, it says, bona fide farm purposes, and then it lists all the typical things you
<br />29 thinks of; crops, blah, blah, blah. And agriculture as defined in 106, so that kicks you over to 106.
<br />30 What's 106? Oh, 106 says all these different things and then that's the part where it says and agro-
<br />31 tourism and then you heard an argument that, ah but it's only agro- tourism if it's incidental to the
<br />32 operation of a farm, and you heard a counter argument that no no it's agro- tourism and then you
<br />33 also heard, I believe, another argument that or incidental to the farm.
<br />34
<br />35 Matt Hughes: So one of the things that in the appeal we're being asked to consider is determining
<br />36 whether or not the property is being used for bona fide purposes and then whether or not the
<br />37 structure that has been proposed on the property is for bona fide farm purposes, so those seem
<br />38 like two different questions. To me it would seem as though because SPG is in the fall tested some
<br />39 flower crops have their, I'll call it, research and development piece that the property, the land itself
<br />40 is being used for bona fide farming but there could be a contention among some of our Board
<br />41 members who would say the structure is not for bona fide farm purpose. Is that?
<br />42
<br />43 Barry Katz: You're on to something I believe because I don't think that anyone could doubt that
<br />44 they have a, that it's a farm, essentially, but is this structure a non -farm use? Even though agro-
<br />45 tourism include weddings. Is the, is the fact that there are weddings incidental to the farm? By
<br />46 claiming that people will pick a flower, that's the justification for the fact, or you know, flowers would
<br />47 be used in the wedding, or someone might taste some honey, that this makes it a farm use?
<br />we
<br />
|