Orange County Approved Signed BOA Minutes 21 07 12

Browse Search

Approved 8/9/2021 1 buffer table. Referenced statement from Professor Owens in previously entered Applicant Exhibit. Mr. Petesch stated 2 that if this decision stands then every developer that comes to Orange County can say they do not need to put in a 3 buffer along any street. Stated this would be industrial and manufacturing all of it and that in my opinion goes against 4 the intent of this ordinance of this section and it results in something bizarre and absurd. It would also violate another 5 statutory interpretation of the language. It had a purpose for being in there. If you don't, you have rendered it to be what 6 is called mere surplusage and that is not what this is. This means something to the community and Ms. Arter. Offered to 7 go into detail what an active verses nonactive farm. Referenced Ms. Arter could not offer her property as a proper 8 facility knowing the development was coming to supplement her income. Reiterated how the property was originally 9 marketed as a horse property and detailed the location of the road to the parcel and a potential 13 parcel location. 10 11 Robert Hornik: Objects stating there is no evidence to that effect. 12 13 Beth Bronson:Asked if both parcels were owned by the Burts and both were resurveyed on November 13, 2020. 14 15 Robert Hornik: Stated that at some point they were. 16 17 Andrew Petesch:Asked if his objection is to the recombination. 18 19 Robert Hornik: Stated the characterization 20 21 Andrew Petesch: Stated he wanted to make it clear it was recombined and clarify for the record. If the board would like 1 22 would address what constitutes active verses nonactive farm. Reiterating the seriousness of completely obliterating 23 buffers for agricultural properties. Entered into the record Applicant Exhibit 11 Biomass industry in Europe and reviewed 24 detailed this as an example of not having a buffer. Stated the language is not plain unambiguous, there is ambiguity all 25 over the place even in determining of what meaning is and in determining intent of the ordinance. Analysis that Mr. 26 Harvey did does not stand up to the law and must reverse his decision and that buffer does apply to Ms. Arter's 27 property. 28 29 Leon Meyers: Asked if there were any question from the board. 30 31 Nathan Robinson: Asked for clarity that he said if any developer comes in he can do away with buffers, That is a pretty 32 big conclusion. 33 34 Andrew Petesch: Stated the final determination of the zoning administrator as to how to interpret something that is not 35 clear and the fact that it is needed to have a final determination, says by nature its not clear. He interpreted it and you 36 will only do that one time. It isn't the next person that comes in and says interpret this and come out with a different 37 result for me. That is against the law, that is a violation of due process and gives administers discretionary authority and 38 that is what you have. Not in that case, but in a special use permit or a variance you get to judge a variety of things and 39 these things are case specific. That is not what happens in an interpretation of an ordinance. Everybody gets the exact 40 same treatment for the future and that is why I say in my experience planning staff really dislike doing final 41 determinations because they are boxed in going forward. That is how it has to be done so this analysis says if you are 42 not a zoning district that we recognize then you don't get a buffer. And that included arterial and collective streets and 43 that is for industrial and manufacturing they are right up on the road. 44 45 Leon Meyers: Asked the board if there were any additional questions. Stated the time as 9:48pm 46 47 Robert Hornik: Requested a little extra time due to late member arriving. 48 49 Leon Meyers: Requested a break for the board to reconvene at 9:55pm 50 13