Orange County Approved Signed BOA Minutes 21 07 12

Browse Search

Approved 8/9/2021 1 Leon Meyers: Restarted the meeting asking the board if they would like to extend the meeting beyond 10pm or 2 reconvene to another date.Asked if Mr. Hornik had a preference. 3 4 Robert Hornik: Asked when the next meeting and stated that he had already waited long enough 5 6 Leon Meyers: Stated that the board would have to consider a special meeting 7 8 Michael Harvey: Reminded the board that the rules have changed and notifications are different for appeals. A date 9 would need to be identified by all parties. 10 11 Andrew Petesch: Stated that they differ to the pleasure of the board in this matter. 12 13 Leon Meyers: Asked the board for input. 14 15 Beth Bronson: Stated to either extend the meeting by 30 minutes and then at that point determine to reconvene 16 meeting. 17 18 Leon Meyers: Stated the board would need to agree to extend tonights meeting to 10:30pm and at that point we would 19 either extend the meeting or reconvene to another date. 20 21 Nathan Robinson: Agreed to go to 10:30pm and see how far we get. 22 23 Leon Meyers: Asked for a motion to extend the meeting to 10:30pm 24 25 MOTION made by Nathan Robinson to extend to 10:20pm 26 SECONDED by Beth Bronson 27 VOTE: Unanimous 28 29 Leon Meyers: Asked for Mr. Hornik to present 30 31 Robert Hornik: Stated that he would be brief. Mr. Harvey hit the nail on the head with his decision obviously and ask the 32 board to uphold or affirm his decision. Stated the first rule of construction of a statute or an ordinance is to give plain 33 meaning or try to give the effect of the body that adopted the ordinance. Identified section 6.8.6 of the UDO referencing 34 paragraph A is a statement of purpose. How much more clear could the Board of Commissioners been with their 35 statement of purpose. Land use buffers are used to screen and buffer lower intensity and density uses from 36 incompatible higher density land uses. Here we have rural residential on the Arter property as opposed to 12 lot rural 37 residential subdivision. Stated there is not incompatible land uses, they are compatible. The buffers are intended to 38 separate incompatible land uses, there are no incompatible land uses here. Applicability this is where section 1.1.2 39 comes in and how you interpret headings verses text verses drawings and tables. Referred back to the UDO section 40 1.1.2 and read directly from document. Stated what does the text say and refers to section 6.8.6 b the applicability of 41 land use buffers. Continued to read directly from the UDO regarding the requirements for a land use buffer based on 42 the zoning district of proposed use and the zoning district of adjacent uses. Reiterated that both properties are R-1. 43 Referred back to the table 6.8.6 d, when there is an R-1 adjacent to an R-1 there is no buffer required. Referred back to 44 the applicants referring to their property as an agricultural property with active farming, but based on their testimony it is 45 not. Stated the applicant has not boarded any other horses since 2017, there was no testimony on what kind of 46 agricultural use, she has no employees Stated that applicant went to conditional sales tax certificate in October or 47 November of 2020 but that was after Mr. Petesch had spoken with Mr. Harvey and found out that the plan for the Array 48 subdivision was going on and someone got the idea that maybe to apply for farm status in order to try to take 49 advantage of this active farm provision in the table of 6.8.6d. There appears to be ambiguity in the ordinance between 50 the plain text in section 6.8.6.b and the heading that is part of the table in section 6.8.6d.The ordinance tells us when 14