BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 5 of 113 Michael Harvey: That is a definition of agritourism as it appears within General North Carolina Statute 99E, 1 which is the agritourism activity liabilities provisions of the General Statute. 2 3 Barry Katz: So we’re going to rely on that definition? 4 5 Michael Harvey: Yes, sir. 6 7 Barry Katz: Ok. 8 9 Karen Barrows: I have a question, Michael. I was looking through those huge books you gave us and in the 10 UDO 1.1.8 I came across the regulation of farming and bona fide farm activities. “The provisions of this 11 ordinance which are adopted under chapter 153a article 18 part 3 do not apply to property used for bona 12 fide farm purposes as defined within North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) excepts as follows: a) any 13 non-use of farm property.” 14 15 Michael Harvey: Any non-farm use of farm property. 16 17 Karen Barrows: Well, what non-farm use can you use? 18 19 Michael Harvey: Technically, we have required permits for single-family residences to be built on the farm. I 20 have required permits for farmers who wish to erect garages to house antique cars that do not serve an 21 agricultural function. We have required permits for swimming pools. To give you a couple of examples. 22 Structure activity that has no agricultural connection is when a zoning compliance permit would be required. 23 24 Karen Barrows: Ok. Any other questions for Michael? If not, at this time we could hear from Ms. Brown. 25 26 LeAnne Brown: Thank you, Ms. Barrows. I appreciate all of you being here this evening for this appeal. My 27 name is LeAnne Brown, and I represent the owners of 2 contiguous properties and a property directly 28 across the street from the property owned by SPG. My clients are Gleta Carswell and Rene Quadt, Thomas 29 Ray and Doris Ray, and Margaret Wilkman and Alice Wilkman. The decision that we have appealed is the 30 Planning Supervisor’s determination that no zoning approval was required for the application for 31 construction of the structure and impertinent roads, septic, and other equipment on the property owned by 32 SPG. We contend that based upon, and I’m going to talk at length, Mr. Katz, about how I think these 33 statutes work to try to help work through the legal issue before you. We believe that the County erred in not 34 requiring a Special Use Permit as a condition of obtaining a building permit. I imagine that you recall that 35 the SUP regarding this property was before you at an earlier hearing and you determined that the use as 36 proposed did not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, did not promote the public health 37 safety, and welfare, and did not comply with the general plans for physical development of the County, and 38 that it was not in harmony with the area where located. And we contend that that decision was correct and 39 that permit is required in order for this project to proceed on this particular piece of property. What I need to 40 do this evening is to begin, because my clients are not the owners of the property for which the permit was 41 issued, I need to put before you today evidence of why my clients have standing to proceed with this 42 appeal. Standing to proceed with an appeal means that the individuals who are proceeding with the appeal 43 suffer special damages different from the rest of the community. And if you will indulge me I would like to go 44 through the process of putting that evidence on before you and then move from that evidence into the case 45 in chief. 46 47