Orange County NC Website
Approved 11/8/2010 <br /> <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 10/11/2010 Page 22 of 35 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />Michael Harvey: First I think that what I would like to do is remind the Board that we have a parcel of property that is <br />only allowed to be utilized in accordance with an issued Special Use Permit. That Special Use Permit spells out exactly <br />what can and cannot occur on this property. It makes reference to an application, to testimony, and site plan that was <br />offered into evidence by the applicant at a previous public hearing. We have a courtesy notice that has been issued by <br />me expressing concerns over what we perceived to modifications of the uses allowed on that property in direct <br />contradiction to that existing Special Use Permit. This notice was issued on the 22nd of June of this year. We identified <br />seven concerns. <br /> <br />In the months preceding this meeting, I have met on numerous occasions with Mr. Parker and I met with Mr. Nutter and <br />Ms. Nichols who have been working with me to address my concerns. As I have testified already, they have addressed <br />the majority of them with several exceptions. This courtesy notice gave Mr. Nutter and Ms. Nichols, the ag center <br />manager, several options in terms of how to address this problem. The first was that they come back before the Orange <br />County Board of Adjustment to modify their existing Special Use Permit to include an expanded list of uses, what I <br />consider to be inconsistent with the original purpose and intent of the facility as articulated within their approved Special <br />Use Permit. The second was to cease all disputed activities and the third was to appeal. They chose to appeal which is <br />their right guaranteed by the North Carolina General Statute and this Ordinance to do. In fact, they appealed based on <br />my recommendation to appeal since they felt so strongly that they could argue that I was incorrect. <br /> <br />We are here this evening to exercise their right to appeal this decision and ask you as the appointed body as <br />established by North Carolina General Statute and this ordinance to determine whether or not I have exceeded my <br />duties in the interpretation of enforcement of this Ordinance. <br /> <br />In order to determine whether or not there has been an expansion of uses inconsistent with the Special Use Permit, staff <br />utilized, and I am referring now to beginning on page 89 through 91 of your packet which is a copy of my courtesy notice <br />that was sent to Mapleview Ag LLC. Section 8.7 of the Ordinance deals with minor changes to approved by Zoning <br />Officer modifications require action by the approving board. The Zoning Ordinance allows me in my capacity or any <br />member of the planning staff in their capacity as an enforcement officer of this Ordinance to allow for minor <br />modifications to an existing Special Use Permit so long as staff can make an affirmative finding of a necessary finding to <br />all the standards detailed within Section 8.7.1. If we cannot by definition it becomes a modification, which can only be <br />approved by the board that issued the permit. In the case of the Class B Special Use Permit that is this body. In the <br />case of a Class A Special Use Permit that would be the Orange County Board of Commissioners. <br /> <br />As I articulated on page 89 of the packet, the first condition, is there any in the condition imposed during the approval of <br />a Special Use Permit shall constitute a modification. It is my contention the expansion of operational characteristics by <br />allowing for additional uses beyond what is detailed within the approved application constitutes by definition a <br />modification. I offer into evidence Mr. Parker’s exhibit which details the activities that have occurred, some of which by <br />at least my estimation, in the applicant’s admission did not have an agricultural component. <br /> <br />B. Any change in use or enlargement of existing use shall constitute a modification. The uses allowed to occur on the <br />property, in my determination, have increased the scope of what was detailed within the approved application. <br /> <br />C. Any increase in intensity of use shall constitute a modification. An increase in intensity of use shall be considered to <br />be an increase in usable floor area, an increase in the number of dwelling or lodging units. It is my determination that <br />the site, including all support facilities such as parking, septic, and well capacity, was designed around the <br />class/seminar concept as referenced within the application which I’ll refer you back to attachment A of this document. I <br />have a concern of whether or not the site can properly support the additional uses that have been added as its never <br />been assessed. In my determination that constitutes a modification, it has to be re-reviewed by this Board and other <br />entities of the county responsible for the review and approval of Special Use Permits. <br /> <br />To save us time, subsection d through j, I think found no alteration that in my opinion would constitute a modification. <br />There have not been any alterations to the structure, there have not been any changes to signs, and I don’t believe <br />there’s been any other alterations on the property.