BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 97 of 113 Brewer testified about her plans it goes on for a full page, single-spaced, about the fact that this is a 1 wedding venue. It is designed as a wedding venue for 250 people. “And what kind of events do you expect 2 to be hosting?” her lawyer asked. And she responded, “Primarily weddings and wedding rehearsals on 3 Friday and Saturday nights. I’m wanting to give back to the community as much as possible so I do want to 4 do a lot of fundraisers and charity events. I have a lot of connections from work with UNC to both non-5 profits and charity organizations. Additionally, because the use is so low and it will be empty most of the 6 time, 80%-90% of the time, if there’s a community group, a youth group, a school group that needs a space 7 during the day I’m more than happy to donate this space to them as well.” She goes on to say later, “During 8 the off-season there will be weeks where there’s nothing going on. The barn is only in operation during 9 events”, she testified. It’s not a situation where there’s no competent material and substantial evidence that 10 the building, as designed and proposed, met this County’s definition of an event center in its UDO and 11 consequently was required to have a SUP in order to be built because this County has determined 12 legislatively that a use of that magnitude needs special consideration by this Board to determine whether 13 the special findings can be met. It is akin to the very example in the brochure that Mr. Petesch wanted to 14 read to you that Orange County had prepared. Examples of uses and activities that may be regulated or 15 restricted include commercial activities unrelated and adding no value to the bona fide farm activity. There 16 is no evidence before you that the use of this facility 3 days a week during the season to provide weddings 17 to brides who have full run of the farm in any way increases the sale of the honey or the chestnut flower or 18 the 1,000 bulbs that have been planted on this farm. It is a commercial use. It’s the very thing that the 19 statute is designed to carve out. You have not been asked to make an advisory opinion. You have been 20 asked to take absolute facts and determine, on those facts and on sworn testimony you received over 21 several hearing, that this is a wedding venue and the use of this property as a wedding venue is neither 22 related to nor incidental to 3 beehives, 1,000 flowers, and some chestnuts. We had some discussion in Mr. 23 Petesch’s argument about the case I cited for this. The Estoppel argument. And he said that there had 24 been no judicial body that had considered anything in this case. I’m looking at you. You held a quasi-judicial 25 hearing. You were the judicial body that made the decision that the SUP should not be granted. An appeal 26 of you decision to Superior Court is an appeal on your record as the finders of fact. There’s a difference 27 between this case and the case that I cited to you because he went far longer but the underlying premise 28 remains the same. He went for a permit, he used the property more than he was supposed to, he got his 29 permit revoked, and then he came in and said, “Oh, I didn’t need it in the first place”. It’s the same facts. It 30 really is the same facts. And you do have the authority to determine that. Orange County has delegated to 31 you certain special use permit reviews, under 160a-388. In your UDO the fact that it refers to the 32 Commissioners means you in the case of something that has been delegated to you to make the initial 33 findings of fact. That ordinance provision applies to you. The County applies it to you all the time and I 34 suspect you’ve seen that over the years. Mr. Petesch said that none of the cases I cited to you dealt with 35 agritourism. That’s true. North Carolina has not yet had a published appellate decision that strikes the 36 balance that you have drawn the short straw to get to deal with today. But I believe that the cases that 37 North Carolina has looked at are instructive because all of those cases involve a great deal of farming. And 38 still the courts determining from time to time that those uses are not farm related activities. Mr. Petesch, in 39 his own argument, told you it would be 20 years before this is a productive farm. I do not read either 40 chapter 153a or chapter 106 to mean that you engage in agritourism activity not related to or incidental but 41 primary for 20 years while you’re trying to decide if you’re going to be able to make a farm go. You get the 42 farm first. I was at the orchards at Alta Pass this weekend, there’s 108-year-old orchard there. Apples 43 everywhere. Selling bag upon bags of apples. They also sell some jellies and they had a band play. That’s 44 agritourism. It’s agritourism because it was agriculture for 108 years and the extra little tourism piece gives 45 it an extra push to keep that orchard there. If they had put up a venue to play music and decided to plant an 46 apple tree that would not be an agritourism use. We talked earlier about Professor Owens and I did include, 47 in your notebook that I gave you, a blog that Professor Owens wrote that’s on the issue before you. The 48 case law is clear. The case law under rule 704 is clear. That a trier of fact cannot receive testimony from an 49