BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 108 of 113 Barry Katz: Well I listened to the attorneys talk about whether or not this was a bona fide farm and is 1 intended for agritourism in general as the approved use for agriculture. And considering that this property 2 that’s being developed with a huge investment in roads, and septic, and parking capacity. They’re moving 3 150 year old barn, which was designed, from our testimony last year, to be “An old barn that would 4 attractive for having weddings”, not for agriculture as such. You could do agriculture in an old barn like that 5 but the investment is intended to appeal as a wedding venue. That’s the impression I get from what I heard 6 last year and what I heard today. They’re proposing to enact some agricultural activities and I understand 7 but I don’t see how those activities are that germane to the wedding venue. They’re justifying the fact that 8 it’s a farm and that this would be incidental to the farm. But from what my impression is that is not incidental 9 to a farm and in fact the purpose of this is that you want to view or enjoy rural activities in agritourism but 10 people are going there to have a wedding. They’re not going there to pick flowers. They’re going to be 11 having 250 people there having a wedding in a property that marginally is a farm. That’s the impression I 12 get from all that I’ve heard, 2 weeks ago and tonight. And can other people add to what I’ve said about 13 this? 14 15 Susan Halkiotis: Well I agree with Barry. 16 17 Matt Hughes: I have a question .so what happens… Let’s say two of us vote against a motion, what 18 happens then? 19 20 James Bryan: We really hope that it doesn’t get to that… So there’s a difference between motions and the 21 actual ruling. Let’s focus on the ruling. The ruling requires 3 votes and that’s the easiest way to explain it. 22 23 Matt Hughes: And if there are not 3 votes? 24 25 James Bryan: Then you all do not reverse Michael’s decision and it is de facto affirmed. 26 27 Matt Hughes: So basically we’re the Supreme Court? 28 29 Karen Barrows: So the fact that this is a 5 person Board and 1 person’s not here doesn’t mean that 30 inaudible 31 32 James Bryan: It’s majority. 33 34 Karen Barrows: inaudible 35 36 Barry Katz: Have we discussed this enough? Do you have a cautionary tale for us? 37 38 James Bryan: I do have a cautionary tale for you. However you guys decide it the findings of fact are going 39 to be very important. If there are undisputed facts I don’t think that you guys need to regurgitate that. But 40 there should be some indication for the reviewing court if this were to get reviewed. About what, 41 particularly, did you hear? Now if you were to reverse the decision that would be what LeAnne was arguing. 42 LeAnne has provided you guys with substantial findings of fact and you could read through all of them. If 43 there were any that strike you that Andy objected to or on your own volition not substantial, immaterial, or 44 incompetent then you could exclude those. 45 46 Barry Katz: Alright, so my comments that I made in support of number 2 relate to these findings of fact? Do 47 I need to identify? I will if that’s what you want? 48 49