|
Approved 11/14/2011
<br />
<br />OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 9 of 44
<br />
<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 />53
<br />54
<br />of what this is about. From the get go, we have supported the ag center concept when it was first proposed to us. In the
<br />handout you have, in appendix 3, we have put together a timeline of the major events that can be documented on both sides
<br />going forward starting with divisional SUP permit in 2008. What I want to emphasize is that what the homeowners association
<br />first brought to us is that this is a great idea. An agricultural educational place, it looked like a beautiful building. We have
<br />supported it all the way based on what was in the original SUP which was for educational related purposes. That hasn’t
<br />changed and we still support it. Since early 2009, when events started going on there, we strived to communicate with the
<br />Nutters in a neighborly fashion and a lot of us have known Chris and Bob for many years and there is a, in the attachments
<br />just as example was, when we had several meeting verbally, and we didn’t seem to be reaching them, we put it down on
<br />paper and had everyone look at it so we thought we wrote a pretty neighborly letter to the Nutters explaining our concerns and
<br />some of the impact of the activities that was going on outside…
<br />
<br />Michael Harvey: Mr. Oglesby I am sorry to interrupt but board members, he is referring to his letter contained on page 14 of
<br />his document.
<br />
<br />Scott Oglesby: Appendix 5. Again, we have no problem with the educational events and there was only a few non-
<br />educational especially with the noise issue. Again, we don’t have a problem with the occasional event which is one thing but
<br />to have an open license, if you are averaging two events per month and you are not making enough money and you get to
<br />expand it where there will be noise, traffic, safety issues, that are going on as a more frequent basis so you can make it
<br />financially viable it is really just doing the math from our perspective and our concern is that in order for them to succeed as a
<br />non-profit business, they are going to have to increase the frequency of things and having carte blanche to do any kind of
<br />event outside of an educational event is really our concern again because of noise, traffic, the light now, the nighttime events,
<br />there will be alcohol involved so we did try to brainstorm with the Nutters and we did suggest and it is part of the timeline in
<br />appendix 2 on page 7, a number of educational related events that we believed that would be of interest in the community to
<br />support and would be very consistent with their educational events. These included shared space with a preschool, start an
<br />interschool care program, start a community supported agricultural program, expand the yoga program, partner with 4H for
<br />programs that require space indoor and outdoor. Offer the space to agricultural and animal rescue groups that need meeting
<br />space, not necessarily event space but again, depending on the events, it is about how far over the threshold noise things go.
<br />We tried to be constructive and show our support and throw out ideas that we believe that would be potentially viable. We
<br />also suggested in exhibit 6, page 17, a letter from our lawyer where we suggested professional arbitration with the Carrboro
<br />Dispute Center as a way to put our differences and try to have a dialogue with professionals there to guide some
<br />compromises. That was suggested in a letter in November 24, 2010. Then we met with the Nutters as well after that and
<br />again, Bob did a very good job of listening and we expressed our concerns in a neighborly fashion to try again to say we live
<br />next to each other, let’s figure this out. Then our understanding, we were notified of the request to modify the SUP to allow
<br />carte blanche in terms of the types of events that could be there. There have been a number of years we have tried to work in
<br />a neighborly fashion and try to figure out if there was some resolution that was a win-win. Personally I didn’t buy a house out
<br />there, we have lived there six years, to be next to a party barn with the traffic, noise, light concerns that are going to go on
<br />there or have the potential to go on there because they can. I would like to direct the board to our perspective on this and cite
<br />the Orange County Ordinances, Article 8, Special Uses, and there are three points in there and I would like to address those,
<br />each one, in terms of what our perspective is. The first one is 8.2.1.b.1 “The use will maintain or promote the public health,
<br />safety and general welfare.” We believe with the increased number of events that are non-educational purpose, there will be
<br />increased autos, traffic and people of course. I would like to point out, an example, for one of the events held previously, if
<br />you look at appendix 4, page 11 and 12 of the handout. There is a picture of the overflow parking during one of the events
<br />where the gravel parking lot wasn’t sufficient, but more importantly, the second picture; there is a gentleman who has parked
<br />his SUV and it directing traffic with balloons in his hand. Again, on a rural road, that, in our estimation, it speaks to the issue
<br />of safety. Not only for that gentleman but for those who try to avoid him. Relative point, are the ordinances, they are now
<br />proposing events during non-school hours and would not be educational events and would be night events. There would be
<br />increased noise. We talked about due to those events, my understanding is they are proposing to have alcohol at events,
<br />which as we all know, with alcohol comes increased noise, there is also liability issues because we do share the pond. This
<br />pond here, the properly line between Maple View HOA and the ag center down here and the Nutters Farm. One side is
<br />owned by the HOA and one side is owned by the ag center. There was a lot that was done to clear up the view from their side
<br />of the pond; we now look across at a very different view. Some people may like it and some may not. I think that is a
<br />personal thing. I think we get a lot of bicycles out there not only people riding, that is a very popular loop, if you have ever
<br />been out there, but our own families ride their bikes there and it is a safety issue if there is increased traffic and if you are
<br />going to have potential events with alcohol involved so we believe that the quest for an expanded or amended SUP does not
|