BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 103 of 113 James Bryan: It may depending on how you guys go about it. The critical to think about is we’ve had so 1 much testimony, so much evidence, and it’s not advisory. It’s not about anything in the future, it’s not about 2 anything what should be done in hypothetically cases. It’s about what Michael should have done. Put 3 yourself in his shoes on May 18th, when he wrote that email, what should he have written? Put yourself in 4 his shoes and say, “Well by the UDO he’s supposed to this do” and you should be able to say where in the 5 UDO the current Planning Supervisor must do this. For instance, one thing is that if there is an appeal staff 6 has to present it to the Board . They cannot make a determination that this isn’t worthy of the Board of 7 Adjustment. They all get there. So if that gets appealed you would say, “yes, I could read in the UDO where 8 it says you give this to the Board of Adjustment. That’s what you should’ve’ done”. What should’ve Michael 9 done at what date? 10 11 Susan Halkiotis: I can’t start at that level. The level that I start at is that I believe that the farm is incidental 12 to the wedding venue, not the other way around. And I come to that feeling about it just based on my 13 question to Ms. Brewer at our last meeting, which was that if the farm was driving the whole thing then why 14 in January those questions weren’t answered differently than they were? Which I think in the January 15 application that the answer was that it was a special events building for the purpose of assembly 16 something. I might be getting those quotes wrong. And then when I asked why that was Ms. Brewer had 17 answered that she was advised to that by the Planning Department, which I didn’t quite understand. So 18 that’s where I start with this; that the whole, to me, is just an effort to get around the decision that was made 19 last November. That’s the way it feels from where I sit. Now I’ve got to reach and make a decision about 20 Mr. Harvey’s findings? Correct? 21 22 James Bryan: Yes. What’s on appeal is Mr. Harvey’s determination. 23 24 Matt Hughes: Well I approach it from a different perspective. Take me from where we were in November all 25 the way through today so I think we’ve clarified that because previously that was a SUP, we’re talking about 26 another process altogether, that they’re not the same issue. And my feeling from that meeting in November 27 is that the UDO is broadly written and we applied it regarding welfare or safety and some other things. I 28 cannot remember exactly the terminology that the UDO calls for. In this meeting and the last meeting we 29 talked about the business plan and how viable it was. My belief is I can see why that was discussed at 30 different points, especially what was predominantly driving this in some way. In the previous meeting Ms. 31 Brewer said that the way in which her farm plan summary is that the chestnuts and flowers, the order in 32 which those were presented in the plan is… The primary focus will be chestnuts and then flowers and then 33 honey and then event space. At least that’s how I interpreted her answer to my question. Now whether or 34 not that all works out, that’s free enterprise. The farm may fail, what have you. I don’t think that it really 35 matters. But what’s interesting to me is that the email from Mr. Ortoski in October of last year it does 36 mention to the official over at the agriculture department that this barn would be part of a bona fide farm 37 that would have some agricultural use to it. Now it doesn’t say which is primary; the barn event space or is 38 it the growing, at the time, of herbs and flowers in addition to the agricultural events. So I do believe that 39 that was part of the plan all along. From where I sit I do think it meets the criteria for a bona fide farm. It 40 may not be what I think of as a farm, it just doesn’t but there are a lot of farms that aren’t what I think of as 41 a farm. I do think that what’s obviously driving this is the agritourism part but from what I can tell it does 42 meet the criteria for that. Even though that’s not necessarily what we’re deciding. I will agree that it is 43 interesting that there’s all this extra capacity for things like the septic system and the space but I would also 44 assume that it would be like building a highway. At 2 o’clock in the morning the highway doesn’t have a lot 45 of cars on it. But you’re not building it for then. You’re building it for when you think you might need extra 46 capacity, whenever that might happen to be. I don’t know how much tourism there would be but I would 47 assume that there would be that need or that desire to be able to do it at some point. But I do believe that it 48 is, based on the question I asked in regards to the farm plan, that the tourism piece would be secondary to 49