Orange County NC Website
Approved 11/8/2010 <br /> <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 10/11/2010 Page 23 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 /> <br />What we have here is an agreement at this juncture to disagree on several components of this operation. Your decision <br />tonight will not shut down the ag center. Your decision tonight will either be to affirm my determination as documented <br />within this courtesy notice, will be to modify that determination based on the testimony heard this evening, or to refute it <br />and accept the position of the applicant. <br /> <br />In any case the applicant has a valid and viable Special Use Permit that allows him and her to continue operations <br />consistent with that approval. So no matter what your decision tonight, the SUP is not voided or invalid. The operation <br />will continue. The debate tonight and the disagreement tonight focuses on whether or not all the uses that are currently <br />operating on the facility are consistent with the original approval. Unfortunately, this is an adversarial process where <br />staff takes a position and the applicant takes a counter position. I’d like to think that Mr. Parker, Mr. Nutter, Ms. Nichols, <br />and I have worked diligently to try to address the majority of my concerns and I applaud them for addressing the <br />majority of them. Unfortunately, they have not addressed all of them and that’s why we’re here. I’ll answer any <br />questions you have at this time. <br /> <br />Tom Brown: Mr. Harvey, would you agree that based on what you have testified thus far, on page 88, that at a <br />minimum we would have to modify before any offer of determination to eliminate item number 3, 4, 6, and 7 from your <br />list of items? <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: I would testify for the record, as I already have, that the applicant has addressed my concerns and any <br />action by the Board tonight if it is to affirm the decision as referenced in this letter would exclude the numbers you’ve <br />just listed. <br /> <br />Tom Brown: So an affirmation would automatically exclude those items that you have specified? <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: If that is your recommendation, it should be part of your recommendation but I am testifying that those <br />have been addressed to my satisfaction. <br /> <br />Tom Brown: Thank you. <br /> <br />James Carter: You’ve mentioned several times about modification, what needs to be done for the modification to meet <br />your satisfaction? <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: Dr. Carter, with all due respect, it’s actually spelled out in the Ordinance, it’s not to my satisfaction, it’s <br />to the Board’s satisfaction. Obviously I am going to defend the Nutter’s, and Ms. Nichols, and Mr. Parker in this <br />instance, they obviously chose an option they felt best prepared for in terms of cost because essentially what this boils <br />down to is a whole new Special Use Permit application. Which means, as this Board is fully aware, a new public <br />hearing, submission of a revised application, submission of a revised site plan, submission of a revised narrative the <br />provision of supporting documentation proving compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance with respect to <br />compliance to Section 8.2.1 which is the three mandatory requirements that have to be found. That the use promotes <br />the public health, safety, and general welfare, that the use enhances or maintains the value of adjacent property and <br />that the use is consistent with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />They will also have to re-file separate applications with various county departments, most notably the Orange County <br />Health Department, in order to determine whether or not the existing septic system can support any expanded uses that <br />they purpose to offer. Do I have a concern that is the case? No, I don’t however, they would still have to go through that <br />process. You are essentially talking as if this would be almost a virgin application. In the several meetings I had with Mr. <br />Parker to discuss this we both determined that it would probably be their best course of action initially to seek your <br />guidance in terms of an appeal just because the potential cost of re-filing an SUP application. <br /> <br />Tom Brown: Mr. Harvey, on a new SUP you would only be dealing with the additional uses, correct? Not be retrying… <br />