BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 90 of 113 that the use is a non-farm purpose on this property. And I do believe that that is a decision that’s 1 appropriately before you this evening. Mr. Harvey did state in the email that he wrote to me that has been 2 read to you that the County would look if the use looked like it wasn’t that kind of use. That creates an 3 interesting dilemma. What I suppose that means is that each time there’s a wedding that someone should 4 call zoning compliance to you that there a wedding out here and I don’t think it’s incidental to anything 5 going on out here right now. “ That’s not a good way to approach this problem. I think what the statute 6 intends is for the County to look to see if there’s a non-farm use and I think that’s what we missed here. So 7 I would ask you to let Mr. Harvey know that he was right twice. And we’ll go back to his first two decisions. 8 Thank you. 9 10 Karen Barrows: Thank you. Why don’t we hear Andy and then inaudible. 11 12 Andy Petesch: Before I begin, would it be possible for us to have a short break? 13 14 Karen Barrows: Certainly. We’ll adjourn for 10 minutes please… Andy? 15 16 Andy Petesch: Thank you very much. I think that Ms. Brown covered a lot of ground in her arguments. It 17 still leaves a bit of a question in terms of what is this case about? It’s not about a building. First of all. It’s 18 not about judging the validity of a business plan where flaws maybe in it. No business plan at this stage at 19 its stage of its life is perfect. It’s not about trying, for this Board, to gauge the validity of any of the approvals 20 given by different agencies or government organizations with respect to qualifying as a bona fide farm. It’s 21 not about the ownership structure. Those are all out of the jurisdiction of this Board , and it doesn’t get at 22 what the real issue is here. Which is the use. Specifically, bona fide farm purposes. Now the Brewers’ have 23 started operating a farm. A bona fide farm. That’s indisputable given the 3 different pieces of evidence that 24 they have with respect to satisfying the 5 options under 153a-340. The Brewers’ made clear on their 25 building permit application, in March, which is the once that has been approved that they intended this for a 26 barn for farm and agritourism. Agriculture and agritourism related purposes. The key question, as I said, is 27 this a bona fide farm purpose? If so, the project is exempt and Mr. Harvey’s decision must be affirmed. So 28 what is the difference between a bona fide farm purpose and a non-farm purpose? There is no definition of 29 a non-farm purpose. To understand that you’ve got to look at what is a bona fide farm purpose. Looking at 30 the plain language of the statute. Looking at rules of interpretation, state policy, county policy and plans, the 31 NCGS, case law, secondary authorities such as the American Farmland Trust report and Mr. Whites’ 32 testimony and report. So turning to the specific legal arguments. First of all, with respect to some of the 33 jurisdictional issues in whether this is a final determination I think that that’s one of the aspects that this 34 Board has to look at because they have no jurisdiction over rendering advisory opinions. And looking at Mr. 35 Harvey’s email, which is the basis of this appeal, that’s on page 76 of the agenda. He states that as a result 36 of the affidavit being filed indicating the structure will be for agricultural purposes along with the building 37 permit application they have determined that no zoning approval would be required and in the future zoning 38 enforcement would be dependent on the actual use. So here we’re looking at 2 different issues: What is the 39 decision to be made right now? And what’s the decision to be made in the future as events start actually 40 happening, as the agritourism actually starts coming online and other uses that may occur on that 41 property? So I would ask the Board to look, first, at that question: What is the decision being made here, 42 right now, given the evidence that the staff has provided? Is their decision that they’re exempt from zoning 43 valid? And I would submit that it is. At this point it is absolutely valid. For you to look into the future as to 44 what activities may happen on that site would be rendering n advisory opinion as to the activities that they 45 plan to do and whether that is going to be valid in the future or not. And I would refer the Board to Supreme 46 Court’s decision. This is over 60 years of good law in North Carolina, this is Mitchell V Garfield. It’s a 47 Supreme Court case, 1950. It says here at the bottom of the first page it is to be noted that municipal 48 authorities and the General Statutes generally make applications of similar provisions applicable to 49