Orange County Approved Signed BOA Minutes 21 07 12

Browse Search

Approved 8/9/2021 1 between 2 provisions. It is an advisory opinion with respect to whether the road is a structure that was done in January 2 22nd not the April determination which was final. He stated he asked for a final determination with respect to active farm 3 also applicability of the buffer and the only final determination that he had received was that Ms. Arter's property was 4 bonafide farm and exempt from zoning. That is why a follow up and an additional request was made for a final 5 determination was given with respect to the applicability of the buffer but not active farm, and that isn't an issue before 6 the board in this case. Reiterated that the Board is the decision maker. Referenced the table in 6.8.6D and if it applied 7 to active farm/agriculture. Breaking down further, there is a lot within that. There is significance to final written 8 determinations of staff. An interpretation of an ordinance that applies into the future. That every decision from now on 9 related to this has to be decided the exact same way. Which is critical in the decision and what it means and whether it 10 was done properly and the conclusion was correct. Mr. Petesch enters Applicants Exhibit 8 and reads the document to 11 the Board. Stated it should provide an outline for examining the question that is before the board. Stated again there is 12 conflict between provisions within the UDO. Proceeds to go into detail within the UDO elements and the exhibit entered 13 into the record. The exhibit is again referenced to outline how and ordinance is interpreted. The highlighted portion on 14 exhibit is read and previous exhibit 2 is referenced. Referenced a previous case in Mecklenburg County. Reads of 15 exhibit (page 183, first paragraph, first column) the text controls if the language is clear and unambiguous. Refers back 16 to page 186 for intent and reads off exhibit. Stated that the first thing that needs to be examined is that if the language 17 is clear, plain and unambiguous. Referenced the 2 conflicting provisions within the UDO. Mr Petesch enters Applicant 18 Exhibit 9 into the record. 19 20 Leon Meyers: Stated that the Boards Rule of Procedure ends the meeting at 10pm and it would be up to the board to 21 extend the meeting beyond that time or continuing it to another hearing. 22 23 Andrew Petesch: Reads off Applicant Exhibit 9. Given those definitions in this exhibit and the nature of this language 24 reading this it is heading and illustrations. It is meant for convenience of reference. Stated that there is a significant 25 difference in some of these. A heading is way different than a table and illustration. An illustration is an example and a 26 heading just tells you where you are. The tables in the UDO give you substance information, what is in that table is part 27 of the law. That is where you get hard objective analysis not here is an example of what could be but you don't have to 28 do that. That makes sense that if you have a conflict there you cant go, this picture says I can do it. That is not what 29 that means. You look at the table that is what the number is. That is the key difference. Mr. Petesch referred back to the 30 definition of meaning and implication and reads part of the UDO buffer language. Mr. Petesch enters into the record 31 Applicant Exhibit 10 as packet and begins to refer and go into detail in exhibit of UDO amendments. Stated that the 32 applicability section is the exact same regarding land use buffers. Refers to the amendments to 6.8.6 that have been 33 done. Noted an amendment that was done in 2012. Identified the pages of the text amendment, staff analysis, 34 summary of report and the actual changes. Referenced specific footnotes within the document of the UDO of the buffer 35 table on page 90. Continues to read the foot notes on the other amendments included in Exhibit (Ordinance 2012-004). 36 Noted there have been many changes over the years but active farm, agriculture have never been pulled out of that 37 column from the buffer. Stated that is something to consider. Referred to 6.8.6A page 69 current UDO. Mr. Petesch 38 continues to read specifics of the UDO and the negative effects referenced by Ms. Arter and Dr. Daniel. Applicant 39 Exhibit 11 is entered into the record. Reviewed Exhibit 11 specifics of 1.1.4 purpose and intent of the UDO. Referred to 40 D on the document that is the ordinance was further designed to provide for residential and industrial growth with 41 districts and uses. Read the section 1.1.8 of UDO regulations of farming and farming activities that the county has no 42 authority over those properties. Stated that there is a hole identified within UDO to protect something very valuable 43 agricultural land within this county. Stated the need to protect from more intense development. But if your saying you 44 don't have jurisdiction over it, it isn't a zoning district and it can't be because you don't have jurisdiction over it. Article 3 45 is referenced for zoning districts and read to the board. The Comprehensive plan is referenced and the board is 46 reminded that both properties are both zoned R-1 district. Chapter 5 Land Use Goals is referenced specifically goal 47 number 2. Reiterated the hazards that were referenced earlier in the hearing on merits. Objective 2.2 is read 48 referencing to continue to protect valuable resources productive agricultural areas, natural areas. Read objective 4, 49 recognizing the right to farm and its specifics. Continued to read the agricultural section which supports the right to farm 50 and minimize negative impacts such as roads. Referenced the chart on page 70 of the record which is the land use 12