BOA minutes 101110 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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