Orange County NC Website
Approved 11/8/2010 <br /> <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 10/11/2010 Page 24 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: That is a correct statement, as the additional uses are to be incorporated into the existing Special Use <br />Permit and how the additional uses comply with the various standards as articulated in Article 8 of the Ordinance. <br /> <br />Dawn Brezina: So, again when we come finding of fact in the decision making process here, we can add amendments? <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: It is my estimation, and I’ll let Sahana, the attorney break in because I think also she may want to <br />answer part of this question. The Board has several options, you can affirm my decision as modified, as I have testified <br />to this evening, finding that there has a modification inconsistent with Article 8, Section 8.7, and that the applicant has <br />two options, cease and desist all activities inconsistent with the original approval or apply for a modified Special Use <br />Permit. You can find that I have erred in my interpretation and that the expanded uses do not constitute a modification <br />as defined by subsection a, b, and c of Section 8.7.1 and that the additional uses do not change a condition imposed <br />during the approved Special Use Permit. That it does not represent an enlargement of the existing use and it is not an <br />increase in the level of intensity of uses on the property. The Board can technically find that staff has not been in error <br />but they want more and additional information on the potential impacts, I think some one used the term this evening, <br />mediation. You can make a recommendation that technically the applicant engage in a mediation process to address <br />both staff and the adjacent neighbors concerns, if they are so inclined to do, to provide additional information to either <br />help you make a decision to affirm or refute staff’s contention. Essentially that’s how I see it and I am not going to <br />speak for the applicant on that last item that is their decision. <br /> <br />Tom Brown: In that case you’re simply deferring decision until subsequent meeting.. <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: You’re deferring decision, you’re adjourning the public hearing to a date/time specific in the future <br />where you hear additional arguments and information submitted by both the applicant and the staff to address any of <br />the concerns that have identified here this evening consistent with this courtesy notice. We have heard discussion this <br />evening about issues that in my opinion are not germane to the courtesy notice that are not germane to this hearing. <br />While the ag center staff may want to address those, your concern is with I have identified in here because that’s what <br />they have been cited for at this time. <br /> <br />Tom Brown: Thank you. <br /> <br />David Blankfard: Mr. Harvey, the original Special Use Permit, was it granted for doing agricultural education only? Or <br />was it for education in general? <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: To answer that question sir, I will refer you both to attachment H and attachment A, which is their <br />application. Attachment H is the Special Use Permit begins on page 121, if you’ll note, this is a point that Mr. Parker <br />had brought up, 122 through 123 the provision of educational programs designed to provide a hands on experience for <br />learning about the natural world and concepts of seasonal farm activities which is a statement taken from their <br />application. On page 123 you will see that the terms of condition of the Special Use Permits are based on the <br />provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations, applicable state, federal, and local <br />regulations. The Mapleview Educational Facility Class B Special Use Permit application including any and all project <br />narrative, site plans, reports, renderings, architectural and/or engineering design renderings, comments, commitments <br />and supporting documentation contained therein, and the approved Mapleview Educational Facility Class B Special Use <br />Permit application project file for the aforementioned project. <br /> <br />Now, if I can refer you back, to the application which we have included in your packet, you will note, it begins on page <br />59, the narrative which begins technically on page 61talks about, as I have already testified and Ms. Nichols has <br />testified, a hands on educational operation where it would not only be focused on fieldtrips, day trips for students but <br />seminars, educational opportunities teaching people about farming. There are proposals in their application. On page <br />68, for example, where individuals will be taught about pickle and salsa making, canning and preserving, backyard <br />composting, hands on instruction spinning, weaving, observing a beehive, sorting beans there are a myriad of different <br />activities associated with what is considered for the purpose of this application an educational opportunity. <br />Unfortunately, where the applicant and I do differ in our opinion is where that line ends.