BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 106 of 113 James Bryan: Perhaps but not necessarily… Because what you could say is that, “I heard a lot of testimony 1 if this is a farm or not and we have to rely of competent, substantial, and material evidence. But that was 2 immaterial. It’s immaterial about whether it is a farm or not because regardless if it’s a farm Michael always 3 has to tell the building inspector what it is. So I’m not going to decide that, that’s for Michael to decide”. 4 That’s one way the Board could find. 5 6 Barry Katz: Obviously, I’ve pretty well made it clear that I think the intent of the farm is to have a wedding 7 event. Clear and simple, the wedding is the foremost element in all of this. How does that relate to the 8 purported agricultural activities? Does this sort of supplement the agricultural activities, or do the wedding 9 activities supplement the wedding event? I mean are these questions we have to deal with or just say bring 10 it back to the plan director for reconsideration? What are we supposed to say? How do we vote on this? 11 12 Matt Hughes: I certainly hear what you’re saying. I’m not sure of all the mechanics that’s involved but I think 13 we’re approaching the issue from different points of view and we may come to different votes on the issue. I 14 guess to some extent I’m a little confused as to where Mr. Harvey weighed in, if at all, that there was a 15 permit that was submitted because there was an affidavit attached to it that it wasn’t required to have a 16 weigh in from our staff. I could be wrong on that but that’s how I read the email. I agree with you. It’s 17 ambiguously worded. But I could also see why if that were the case why no zoning approval was required. 18 19 Susan Halkiotis: So can I restate Barry’s question one more time? It says here under 2a that the current 20 County Planning supervisor that no zoning approval was required… that decision was reversed… Orange 21 County Planning director or their designee reviewed the application and make a determination as to where 22 the structure identified will be used for bona fide farm purpose and whether the use as a wedding and 23 event center is related to or incidental to such a purpose. So is this an option? This is written here, is this 24 one of our options? 25 26 James Bryan: Ok so there’s 3 options. 1; to affirm. That’s Andy. Andy is saying just affirm what he’s said. 2; 27 reverse. That’s what LeAnne is saying. LeAnne is saying, “Hey. Michael said something. Reverse him”. 28 Now, she’s praying for 2 things; to reverse him and then you tell him how to correct it. You tell him how to 29 correct, he has to look at it and he has to make a determination one way or the other. No more kicking the 30 can. You have to tell me whether this is a farm or not. And then you tell the building inspector that. And the 31 second part to that is until you tell that building inspector what it is the building permit is stayed. 32 33 Susan Halkiotis: Well it’s not just whether it’s a farm or not. It’s whether or not the use is related to or 34 incidental, right? 35 36 James Bryan: Yes. Ok so… 37 38 Susan Halkiotis: So is one of our options to send it back for reconsideration? With our finding that, with our 39 opinion, it’s not incidental or related. That it’s the other way around. 40 41 James Bryan: So you can’t give it to Michael and tell him what to do. You can cut him out the picture and 42 you can say, “This is something” or you can kick it back to Michael and say, “You make the call”. But you 43 can’t kick it back to him and say, “do this” because that’s just you making that call right now. 44 45 Barry Katz: How hard is it to give it back to him so he can reconsider this. Whether or not this requires any 46 kinds of permits. That’s what option 2 is, we say reconsider whether this needs zoning approval. Is that 47 clear? 48 49