BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 31 of 113 Andy Petesch: So what determination di you make with respect to this building permit application at this 1 point? 2 3 Michael Harvey: That as revised by Ms. Brewer in March of this year, based on the affidavit and based on 4 the general purpose and intent and project description, we were not required to issue a zoning compliance 5 permit as the applicant had indicated it was from farm use. 6 7 Andy Petesch: So your determination was that they were exempt? 8 9 Michael Harvey: This building (permit application) was exempt from our zoning review, correct. 10 11 Andy Petesch: Alright. Thank you very much. 12 13 Karen Barrows: If there are no further questions for Mr. Harvey. 14 15 Barry Katz: When you first stated that you based the determination that you approved because it was an 16 agricultural use you left open a determination about what the actual use is. Did you make a statement 17 regarding that? That we accept the face value that this affidavit says that this is for agricultural purposes 18 but if it’s determined later on that it’s not agriculture purposes you may reconsider the UDO rules apply or 19 not? 20 21 Michael Harvey: Let me read what I wrote again to the email to Ms. Brown on page 76 of your packet. “As 22 an update to the barn project of Morrow Mill Road I would like to offer you the following: As you may 23 already be aware the applicant filed a building permit application proposing the construction of an 24 agricultural structure i.e.) a barn. Along with an affidavit indicating the structure will be used for agricultural 25 purposes exempt from zoning. As a result from the submitted documentation that zoning approval for the 26 project was required for a building permit further zoning enforcement will be dependent upon actual use of 27 the property and whether it is consistent with the County UDO or state statutory exemptions”. 28 29 Barry Katz: So future zoning enforcement will be determined based on the actual use? 30 31 Michael Harvey: Correct. 32 33 Barry Katz: Ok. I thought I heard something like that. 34 35 Michael Harvey: You heard correctly but it’s important to understand the manner in which it was stated. 36 37 Susan Halkiotis: So to follow up on that, let’s just use a scenario. What would have to happen for future 38 zoning enforcement to take place and I’m just curious what future zoning enforcement might look like. 39 40 Michael Harvey: If it was determined that there was an activity inconsistent either with the zoning ordinance 41 or inconsistent with the use of the property for agricultural purposes we would initiate a zoning enforcement 42 action per the UDO requiring the applicant either cease and desist (the activity) or bring the property into 43 compliance with the applicable law. They would, by our ordinance and by State law, have the ability to 44 appeal that determination to this Board within 30 days of the decision being rendered. If they did not appeal 45 or failed to abate or address the issue we would move into a final notice of violation, which could incur civil 46 penalties. We also have other actions afforded to us within the UDO to seek an injunction through 47 Superior Court or deny other permits until the issue is abated. But that would depend on a case by case 48 basis with what the activity is. 49