BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 109 of 113 James Bryan: Yeah. 1 2 Barry Katz: I mean, I’m doing this one at a time I haven’t had the chance to reconsider this but the fact is 3 that I indicated that the application for the SUP, essentially, is the same as the later applications that were 4 filed in there for developing it. So it’s clear that this is intended to be a wedding venue, based on the 5 materials that were presented to us last year and this year. She’s essentially say, like by 15, that the farm 6 event barn and the electrical costs, etcetera were identical to the SUP application that she made. It’s 7 consistent with that. All indicating that, in fact, the primary purpose of this is as an event center. Traffic 8 impact analysis, driveways, all of this was the same. 9 10 Karen Barrows: And Ms. Brewer stated it. 11 12 Barry Katz: Yes, that’s what she said. In 24 she’s just reiterating that, in fact, it’s the same property. Mr. 13 Harvey testified that the March 16th plans were essentially the same as the January 15th plan and the May 14 18th plan. The wastewater, guests, staff, all of these things were identical. So essentially you’re trying to 15 create an event space, which is really the primary purpose… Somebody else. 16 17 Karen Barrows: Well you might want to look at number 4. About square footage, and parking spaces, 18 emergency service personnel. 19 20 Barry Katz: Everything in it is related back to the event center. And I guess 35 as to Ms. Brewers’ 21 testimony, “Started looking up my business plan for this project 3 ½- 4 years ago doing some initial market 22 research into local wedding venues”, it goes on. She testified the barn could be the center of the property, 23 the fact that there were substantial trees I think is amazing. Again, it’s the appearance for a wedding venue. 24 It’s not agricultural… And the fact that she has connections with people that she might actually be able to 25 solicit more business with this. It was the focus of what all this is. 26 27 Susan Halkiotis: All of that is regurgitation but there’s one sentence that strikes me and it is that the barn is 28 only in operation during events. So to me that says that the barn’s only in operation during events. Not for 29 drying, or cleaning chestnuts, or flour distribution. 30 31 Barry Katz: That speaks to 46: Kara Brewer confirmed, on the website states, on your wedding day you will 32 enjoy exclusive use of the farm and all our facilities. I don’t know if that has any bearing on the agricultural 33 space, the 25 square foot space that was identified. The whole scale of effort seems so focused on this use 34 to make it look not simply incidental. There’s really no evidence taken into account about cost of farm labor 35 or anything in the plan, there’s no plan for all of that. Or the capacity of water. Whether there’s enough 36 water in there to actually irrigate this stuff. It’s so different than a farm that allows some activity like a 37 country band to come over once in a while so they can sell more apples. They’re not trying to sell more 38 apples, or more flowers by having a wedding there. That’s not what’s happening. They’re not offering 39 chestnut flower as an appeal for the wedding. 40 41 Karen Barrows: It seems to me that Ordinance to allow agritourism, inaudible to me, it means places like 42 Maple View and stuff like that. It gives them an opportunity to diversify it but this is not that. 43 44 Barry Katz: Then, near the end. The appellants. Fair use of their property. They also have a right to fair use 45 of their property and they basically testified that the use of their property is interfered with by the activities 46 that would happen related to the events. And their fair use is a valid point on this. 47 48 Susan Halkiotis: So is this a motion where you’re saying that all of these are findings of fact? 49