Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-11-2017 1 APPROVED 10/3/2017 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 7:00 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, September 11, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Mark Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. He asked if there could be a moment of silence in honor of the 16th anniversary of the September 11th attacks. 1. Quarterly Public Hearings No Quarterly Public Hearing Items 2. Agritourism Information Item a. County staff will present information on County authority and limitations regarding the regulation of agritourism activities. Representative Graig Meyer said the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has responsibility for land use planning in Orange County, and the State's agritourism law has put limitations on that which the County can do. Representative Graig Meyer said powerful interests in the State created agritourism, and it was done in order to use North Carolina's agricultural roots for tourism purposes. He said the original legislation was created to be as broad as possible, because the agricultural lobbyists wanted it to be for as many uses as possible. He said no one is seeking to withhold opportunities from these bona fide farms. Representative Graig Meyer said the rub has come from ex-urban communities, like in Orange County, who service people that come to rural areas for tourism activities such as weddings. He said there are other cities in the State that have the same issue. Representative Graig Meyer said the concerns being voiced in Orange County are not being heard in places like Duplin County, and he said those with the most powerful ties to agritourism do not govern communities that are having problems with policies. Representative Graig Meyer said there has been a mild narrowing of the qualification standards for who gets to be an agritourism facility, but this is not enough to prevent the intrusive activities such as those occurring in Orange County. He said an official study committee has been asked to look at agritourism to determine if the policy needs changing in next year's legislative session. 2 Representative Graig Meyer said this year's farm bill, Senate Bill 615, called for this issue to be taken up, and he has asked to be informed when this commission will be meeting, etc. Representative Graig Meyer said commissions typically come back with recommendations, and if the study committee votes to approve those recommendations, they will become part of some bill for the next year's legislative process. He said if this can happen, there is a good chance of finding a fix. Representative Graig Meyer said the challenge will be to write the appropriate statutory language to enable the narrowing of the definition of who is eligible for agritourism businesses, without infringing on those who have valid eligibility to use their property and livelihood in this way. Representative Graig Meyer said one other issue is the significant concerns expressed by the State's Fire Marshals with these agritourism places being accountable to the fire code. He said Fire Marshals want locations to be subject to the assembly occupancy code, which requires emergency exits, sprinklers, etc. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the study commission is made up of only legislators. Graig Meyer said no, it would be made up, in equal parts, of legislators and those nominated by the legislature, mostly working in farming and forestry. John Roberts made the following PowerPoint presentation: Orange County Government Agritourism Board of County Commissioners September 11, 2017 Introduction • Although not a traditional public hearing this meeting is presented as a forum for soliciting public input, improving communications, and developing some shared understanding about County policies and their limitations • There will be no presentation on any specific situation Agritourism Defined • Agritourism is defined as "any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, ranching, historic, cultural, harvest-your-own activities, or natural activities and attractions." Department of Agriculture • Barnyard Animals, Fiber Animals, Farm Riding Trails, Walking Trails • Camping, Bird Watching, Fishing, Hunting • Farm Bed & Breakfasts, Country Cabins, Retreats, Parties, Weddings, Honeymoons • Hay Rides, Mazes, Pumpkin Patches, Quilt Barns, Farm Craft Events • Historic Farms, Reunions, Museums, Holiday Farms, Christmas Trees • Pick Your Own Farms, Farm Roadside Stands, Nurseries, Flowers, Picnics • School Field Trips, Summer Camps, Farm Vacations • Slow Food, Dining, Vineyards, Wineries Legal Issues 3 • NC General Statute 153A-340 prohibits local governments from applying zoning regulations to bona fide farms and bona fide farm purposes including agriculture • NC Session Law 2017-108 clarified what constitutes a bona fide farm • General Statute 106-581.1 includes agritourism within the definition of agriculture • NC Session Law 2017-108—Bona fide farm status may be proved by the production of o A farm sales tax exemption certificate issued by the Department of Revenue. o A copy of the property tax listing showing that the property is eligible for participation in the present use value program pursuant to G.S. 105-277.3. o A copy of the farm owner's or operator's Schedule F from the owner's or operator's most recent federal income tax return. o A forest management plan. • By statute, production of any of these items is sufficient evidence to prove a property is used for farm purposes. However, a property owner may also produce evidence outside statutory requirements to demonstrate farm purposes. • LeByrd v Franklin County, 765 S.E.2d 805 (2014) "Zoning regulations are in derogation of common law rights and they cannot be construed to include or exclude by implication that which is not clearly [within] their express terms. It has been held that well-founded doubts as to the meaning of obscure provisions of a Zoning Ordinance should be resolved in favor of the free use of property." • Penalties for application of zoning ordinances against exempt property • Court Costs • Award of Attorneys fees. NCGS 6-21.7. (From the School of Government) o If a court finds that a city or county has acted outside the scope of its authority but did not abuse its discretion, the award of attorneys' fees and costs is up to the discretion of the trial judge. o A mandatory award is triggered only if the trial court makes a separate finding of abuse of discretion. o A finding of abuse of discretion appears to involve consideration of whether the city or county made a reasoned decision, factoring in how the decision was made and the circumstances surrounding it. But it cannot be based solely on the fact that the unlawful action was taken. • Damages- In addition to the potential responsibility for attorneys' fees and court costs there is the possibility of responsibility for other penalties such as money damages for lost income and business opportunities. Sovereign immunity may apply. Legal Issues Conclusion • For the past 5-6 years the legislature has repeatedly expanded the breadth of the agritourism exemption from local zoning authority • The Courts also view zoning authority to be subservient to the free use of property • There are serious penalties to local governments for exceeding the scope of their authority • Local governments must exercise great care in balancing the rights of property owners and the rights of neighboring property owners while acknowledging state law favors the free use of property Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is a specific process for the present use value program. John Roberts said there is a statutory list of the exact means of qualification. 4 Commissioner Price asked if John Roberts could identify from where the list of items on the Department of Agriculture slide came. John Roberts said those items are listed on the Department of Agriculture's website as agritourism activities. Commissioner Price asked if these uses are defined in the law. John Roberts said the law is very broad, and does not list any specific uses. He said the list from the website are examples of what that broad language can include. Craig Benedict, Planning Director, referred to a slide and said these items are not subject to zoning, and the majority of their topic tonight does not fall under zoning, though some events may. He said the definition has broadened as related to agritourism, and he said this is to allow more agritourism activities, but the line is still blurred. Craig Benedict said there are some items that are subject to zoning. Craig Benedict said rural special events with less than 20 people are an unregulated activity. He said there is no specific prohibition in the code for activities of less than 20 people, and therefore, it is an acceptable use. Craig Benedict said rural special events are for activities on bona fide farms with more than 20 and less than 150 people, with less than or equal to 12 events per year. He said changes in the law made pre-empt rural special events, but the County has had this in place for the last 20 years. Craig Benedict said residents submit applications for rural special events, and must meet the criteria for a bona fide farm, as stated by the State statutes. He said the County asks for a description of the event, the timing, attendance, parking, etc. He said events are allowed in different zoning districts: agricultural/residential; rural buffer; agricultural service areas. He said these events can go beyond these areas and beyond 150 people if one of the following is applied for: an agricultural service enterprise rezoning; or master plan development conditional zoning. He said these types of zoning go before the Planning Board and the BOCC. Craig Benedict said there are time frames that can be set during rural special events. He said if there are any building permit, fire marshal or food vending permits that are necessary, these will be noted in the existing zoning regulations. He said some rules from the last legislation state that the building and fire departments may have some of their powers withdrawn from these agritourism activities. He said the way these rules may affect County- zoning regulations is being investigated. Craig Benedict said 15-20 years ago, the farm code was available for farmers and farm hands, and when the public entered the site, it fell into the public realm and regulations that had to do with building code, fire marshal, etc. He said this has changed, and much of this is now exempt. Craig Benedict said when there are rural special events, staff does monitor them, and staff is also available to hear of any concerns from neighbors. He said there are processes in place to better define the blurred line between those subject to zoning and those not. Chair Dorosin clarified that the rural special event block on the chart only applies if the property in question is not in the top block on the slide. Craig Benedict said yes. He said many more items are falling into the top block than did just six months ago. Chair Dorosin said the BOCC is here to listen to the community this evening. He said the BOCC wants to gain a better understanding of how to create balance between economic opportunities for farmers, and protecting surrounding areas from the secondary impacts of these uses. He said the goal of this evening is to gather information from the staff and the public, refer questions to staff, and provide answers at a later date. He said all comments and concerns are welcomed and valuable. 5 b. Public Comment- The Board of Commissioners will seek public input on how, within the confines of its legislative authority, it may best achieve a balance between expanding economic opportunities for farmers and protecting surrounding areas from the secondary impacts of more commercialized land uses. PUBLIC COMMENT: Leslie Weidner is a realtor and resident in Orange County. She read the following comments: Chairman Dorosin and County Commissioners: I've prepared notes to provide brevity to my comments. If I fail to make myself clear, please interrupt me. I have tried to read and understand both GS 105-277.3 and Session Law 2017-108 but as a layman I did have difficulty. I used to think I knew what a farm was. At this point I'm not sure. But I do think I know what a farm is not. It is not a wedding venue dressed up as a far, I enthusiastically support what the State is attempting to do with Agritourism. Helping the farmers with additional income that will enable the farm to work economically is an honorable goal. However, I'm hopeful that the law and this committee might help protect us from the bad guys...those who only wish to circumvent zoning and other regulations under the auspices..."this is a farm...you must keep your hands off or we will sue." The Board's mission is to serve the residents of Orange County. As a resident, I'm asking for your help to insist that sgritourism is not used as the tool to disrupt my life, and the lifestyle I expected when I moved to Orange County, found my dream house in a peaceful and rural community away from commercial interests. A piece of property, not a producing farm, developed with the sole purpose as a wedding venue with parking, bands, and all else that goes on with 200 people partying is not a farm. A sales tax exemption or present use value program does not define a farm in my mind. A farm must produce something, or be the farm-home for someone before agritourism became the cart before the horse. A wedding venue is not a farm...it is a business, and should be subject to business rules, or to business or special use zoning. Thank you, Leslie Weidner Sandra Beeman said the rural special event permit is a tool for those to hold events that do not fall under the agritourism law, and she thinks the community needs clarification on the definition of a rural special event. She said there could be better communication between the Planning Department and the community about rural special events, the application process, etc. She said the community should be informed of upcoming events of 150 people or more. 6 She said there is some confusion about how many events can be held per year, and what type of events count towards the allotted 12 per year. She asked if the Planning Department monitor these events, and when boundaries are violated. Laura Streitfeld said she is here on behalf of Preserve Rural Orange (PRO), and thanked Representative Meyer for his efforts on this issue. She also thanked the Planning Department for its help on this issue. She said PRO strongly supports farmers and farms, but has serious concerns about this issue. She read the following requests being made by PRO: Preserve Rural Orange and Community Members' Request to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners Quarterly Public Hearing September 11, 2017 1. Arrange a meeting for rural residents with the Planning Director and staff to discuss specific concerns regarding permits, reported events and incidents, violations, investigations and enforcement. Community members have requested this meeting for four months. 2. Post public documents proactively on the Planning Department's Current Interest Projects web page, including permit-related documents and Board of Adjustment hearing documents, decisions, orders and findings of fact. 3. Clarify Rural Special Events in the UDO to exclude weddings, and: require specific advance notice of exact dates and times of rural special events; post permits and related documents on Planning web page; and notify neighbors within a two-mile radius of property. 4. Appoint an independent counsel to prevent dual roles by legal staff, and appoint independent staff to coordinate Board of Adjustment communications, to prevent dual roles. Rhett Macomson said he lives in southwest Orange County, and he said a true use of agritourism is Maple View Farms, or pumpkin patches and corn mazes. He said the community is facing a situation of people purchasing property that has a farm id number, and then claiming exemptions like legitimate agritourism, like Maple View Farms, but use the land to hold business events such as weddings, conferences, etc. He asked that the BOCC consider the intent of the State law, and he does not believe that the intent of the law is for people to come in and find loop holes to exploit the law. Bryna Rapp said she is an architect and has lived in rural Orange County for 27 years, about a mile from The Barn in Chapel Hill. She said, in an effort to assist farmers in supplementing their income, the County and State have relaxed building regulations and enforcements while creating attractive opportunities for developers to build and renovate large structures for use as lucrative wedding venues, without having to meet basic life safety standards. She said in the case of The Barn of Chapel Hill, the County allowed commercial development on an undeveloped piece of property without a special use permit. She said County officials exempted this facility from NC Building Codes for Assembly Occupancies by allowing it to be classified as a utility building. She said the original floor plans clearly indicated that the developer intends to use this barn primarily as a wedding venue for up to 250 guests, but is exempt from typical code requirements for such assembly occupancy, such as overhead sprinklers, emergency egress, etc. She said these codes being met keep people safe in the event of an emergency, and by bypassing these regulations, the County is putting guests at risk. She said she does not understand why the County does not require codes and 7 inspections for a venue with hundreds of people. She said this leniency would never be allowed in the Town of Chapel Hill or Carrboro. Greg Rapp said the role of enforcement regarding the zoning regulations is baffling to him. He said The Barn has had numerous events with too many people, and concerns of the neighbors being brought to Orange County staff seems to have resulted in little to no change. Amanda Ekholm read the following comments to the BOCC: My family is one of the closest houses to The Barn of Chapel Hill. We are heavily impacted by sound from the late night events. We have reported noise disturbances multiple times to the Sheriff's office. Often, the police go to the event center first, ask them to turn down the music, and then come to our house and measure sound. Many times it is long after we have called. Last night, Sunday 9/10, the police were called as music blared across the street to our house. We heard every word to songs like "Friends in Low Places" by Garth Brooks and the YMCA as my children were being tucked into bed. When police arrived, there was no sound recording taken at all, even though the yelling continued past 9:00 p.m. Lights were still on and talking was heard until almost 10:00 p.m. What we are finding is a pattern of loud, disturbing noise blaring at our house during these events, but no plan for police to track this pattern. There are isolated reports filed, but no cumulative way that they are collecting information, so this pattern can be tracked and handled more efficiently. We are left with the task of calling, reporting, but nothing carries over to the next offense. There is no consistent way of measuring noise, and then connecting that disturbance to following disturbances. We would like to request that a procedure is put in place to handle this noise impact in a more consistent and helpful way. When we call the police, we would like them to bring a modern sound recording device to measure sound before asking them to turn down the music so real impact to our family and surrounding neighbors can be documented. We would like to request that the procedure allows police to collect and document a pattern of numerous disturbances so that further action can be taken. We would like to request that there is action taken against the party barn when families are negatively impacted in this way weekend after weekend. Right now it is poorly documented and without consequence to the party barn. The consequence is our families, our neighbors, and ours. We are up late, bothered at home with loud noise, and talking to police weekend after weekend. We feel this can be handled more fairly and effectively. Tom Schopler said he is a resident of southwestern Orange County, and said the Board needs to look at commercial entities coming in and using the agritourism loophole to further their business. He said he would like to know how the permits are regulated and monitored. He said the Board of County Commissioners should remove weddings from the definition of rural special events, which may address a lot of the issues concerning the community. Richard Lawrence thanked the BOCC for listening, and asked the BOCC to consider how other counties handle these issues. He reviewed the following information: Subject: Ongoing Party Farm Problem 8 Dear County Commissioners and Others, This letter is a follow-up to one sent in September of 2016. The subject of these letters is 1870 Farm, a party "farm" located in a residential neighborhood and adjacent to our property at 1212 Old Lystra Road, Chapel Hill (partially located in the Chapel Hill ETJ). 1870 Farm offers revenue-producing activities to the public at the expense of its neighbors and, according to a local realtor, to the detriment of neighbor's property values and sell-ability of homes. The 1870 Farm owner has made no attempt to farm his land but does continue to aggressively promote and produce income by hosting parties of all sorts plus children's camps, a daycare business, "school's out" childcare, "farm" tours, gem mining (!), and more. Party tents and a party barn are located approximately 150 yards from our living room where the sounds of partying crowds, amplified music, and fireworks/cannon explosions disturb our peaceful lifestyle. The noise of party set-up, disc jockey voices, booming bass, and screaming partygoers cannot be escaped from our home. On any given day, we have no choice but to listen to gleeful screaming produced by the different groups that are hosted at the "farm". When sitting on our deck it sounds much like we are living in the middle of a public park. And, it is not unusual for visitors to drive or walk onto our property during parties and other gatherings. Unfortunately, the Orange County Noise Ordinance is not meant to regulate the type of ongoing and erratic noises that we endure even though we have tried to get some help by that route. We are quiet folks who are committed to being courteous neighbors. My husband and I implore our County Commissioners and Planning/Zoning staff to support us, and others whose lifestyles and investments are threatened by Party Barns, by enforcing zoning and environmental ordinances for non-farm property uses. Farm numbers were meant to help real farmers not businesses such as 1870 "Farm" which operate in neighborhoods where peace, quiet, and property values are being compromised. We request that you respond and let us know what options are available to our neighbors and to us. It is our hope that County Officials will view the problem of Party Barns impacting the lives of unsuspecting citizens as one that must be resolved in favor of the neighbors. This problem is not going away since farm numbers can be acquired outside of the County governance but, so far, are honored by the County to support fake farms. Please consider inspections of Orange County agri-tourism farms to confirm that the agri-tourism portion is a supplement to actual farming. Then, follow up by shutting down such businesses that do not fit that definition. Hopefully, Dianne and Richard Lawrence Commissioner McKee said he heard two repeated questions: define what an event is, and what events count toward the allowable 12 events per year for the rural special event designation. Commissioner McKee said he would like to know how the number of people at these events is monitored, and how to make sure that an event is following its application. Chair Dorosin listed the questions to which he would like further information: • Rural special event: what qualifies; what notification is given to neighbors and when; how events are monitored events; the 12 events, and can events be spaced out. 9 • Enforcement and violation consequences • What parameters can they put on the # of people, and what kind of authority do they have to put parameters around events and times. • Noise ordinance-work session on this and get information from Sheriff about this and how they monitored and measured; and practice when complaint is received and cumulative reporting. • Fire Safety- get more information from Fire Marshal Commissioner Jacobs asked John Roberts if the Sheriff can require a deputy to attend events of a certain size. John Roberts said he does not know of any authority the Sheriff would have to require a deputy to be present, but he would follow up on this question. Commissioner Jacobs said there was a cluster of questions raised about how Orange County government communicates, and the County needs to address these. He suggested that staff does not have enough time, and perhaps this should be addressed during the budget process. He said documents could be put up in a timely manner; have more people monitor events; improve this process to their constituents. Commissioner Jacobs said the question of how the Board of Adjustment is legally represented should be discussed before the winter break. Commissioner Marcoplos said with the issue of communication, the landowner should be required to communicate to the neighborhoods rather than relying solely on the County. He said he doubts the County can remove weddings from the list of permissible events, but would like to learn more about who makes such determinations. He said he would like to know what other states around the country have done successfully regarding this type of legislation. Commissioner Price said she thinks the exclusion of weddings would go against the legislation, but she would like to know what parameters the County may be able to enforce. Commissioner Rich said get examples of how other counties handle these types of venues and issues. Chair Dorosin said there is State component to this, and the community needs to take concerns to Raleigh as well. 3. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adjourn the meeting at 8:21 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Mark Dorosin, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board INTRODUCTION AND MEETING PURPOSE The Board of Commissioners directed staff to conduct this meeting to listen to residents, to learn about concerns, and share some basic information about agritourism, the Orange County 10 Unified Development Ordinance, the statutory limitations on the County's authority, and the Board's polices on agritourism. This meeting is not a hearing on any particular situation, a forum for offering comment and/or updates on pending litigation, nor is this a question and answer session. Rather this meeting is an opportunity to improve communications and develop some shared understandings about County policies and the limitations of those policies. AGRITOURISM LEGAL SUMMARY Agritourism is a state and nationally recognized means of providing farmers the opportunity to generate streams of income outside the traditional production of crops or livestock. Many states have laws that authorize agritourism activities in conjunction with or related to traditional farming activities. Some states, including North Carolina, authorize agritourism activities without requiring traditional farming activities so long as same are conducted on a parcel or parcels that qualify as a bona fide farm. Some of the many activities recognized by the State of North Carolina as agritourism include but are not limited to: • Barnyard Animals, Fiber Animals, Farm Riding Trails, Walking Trails • Camping, Bird Watching, Fishing, Hunting • Farm Bed & Breakfasts, Country Cabins, Retreats, Parties, Weddings, Honeymoons • Hay Rides, Mazes, Pumpkin Patches, Quilt Barns, Farm Craft Events • Historic Farms, Reunions, Museums, Holiday Farms, Christmas Trees • Pick Your Own Farms, Farm Roadside Stands, Nurseries, Flowers , Picnics • School Field Trips, Summer Camps, Farm Vacations • Slow Food, Dining, Vineyards, Wineries Due to the broad authority for bona fide farms to host agritourism activities it has become increasingly difficult for local governments to distinguish, and thus prohibit, non-agricultural commercial activities from agritourism activities. In fact, local governments are specifically prohibited by Article 18, Chapter 153A of the North Carolina General Statutes from enforcing zoning regulations on properties that qualify as bona fide farms. LEGISLATIVE PREEMPTION AND LOCAL RESTRICTIONS Since approximately 2011 the North Carolina legislature has consistently expanded the authority of bona fide farm properties and agricultural operations to engage in activities that, while beneficial to the farm, have either been traditionally located in more urban or suburban environments or typically require a heightened/public review and approval process. The State legislature has even decided to punish local governments that attempt to enforce zoning and development ordinances against uses or activities occurring on bona fide farms by giving courts the authority to require the local governments to pay all the costs and the property owner's attorneys' fees resulting from the enforcement action. This could result in local governments facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in unbudgeted costs for enforcement actions that aren't clearly and specifically supported by law. In recent years North Carolina Courts have followed a similar path that restricts local government authority particularly with regard to property rights. A prime example of this is the case of Byrd v Franklin County, 765 S.E.2d 805 (2014) in which the Court held "Zoning regulations are in derogation of common law rights and they cannot be construed to include or exclude by implication that which is not clearly [within] their express terms. It has been held that well-founded doubts as to the meaning of obscure provisions of a Zoning Ordinance should be resolved in favor of the free use of property." 11 Session Law 2017-108 changed the law related to agritourism and also local authority by adding new language to the laws related to agriculture and amending the definition of agritourism. On a positive note, the law removed language that was most easily subject to abuse, that being that a property with a Federal Farm Identification Number as issued by the US Department of Agriculture automatically qualifies as a bona fide farm. The new law exempts from local regulation farm buildings used for agritourism purposes if the operation is on a property that "(i) is owned by a person who holds a qualifying farmer sales tax exemption certificate from the Department of Revenue pursuant to G.S. 105-164.13E(a) or(ii) is enrolled in the present-use value program pursuant to G.S. 105-277.3." This language has the effect of exempting from local regulation large buildings if they are situated on a farm and the owner meets either of these two qualifications. The new law broadly defines agritourism as follows: "For purposes of this section, "agritourism" means any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, ranching, historic, cultural, harvest-your-own activities, or natural activities and attractions." It goes on to define a building used for agritourism activities as "any building or structure used for public or private events, including, but not limited to, weddings, receptions, meetings, demonstrations of farm activities, meals, and other events that are taking place on the farm because of its farm or rural setting." UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE RELATED TO AGRITOURISM As noted above the State of North Carolina has determined that local governments may not regulate agricultural activities. In addition to the production of crops and/or the raising livestock, North Carolina law includes many activities within the definition of agriculture, as contained in G.S. 106-581.1, that are considered agriculture or farming. Among them, G.S. 106-581.1(6) provides that agritourism, when conducted on the farm, is agriculture. This means that agritourism activities are agriculture as a matter of law and if the agritourism venture occurs on the farm, no other agricultural activity is required to be active or ongoing. Pursuant to this statute if an agritourism activity occurs on a property that qualifies as a bona fide farm, a local government may not regulate that activity. Orange County's land use enforcement staff members recognize the State restrictions on local government authority and thus the corresponding limitations on their enforcement authority. It is for this reason that some activities that may look commercial in nature can occur on a property that qualifies as a bona fide farm and County staff are unable to take action to regulate or restrict the activity. In acknowledgement of state law various provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), most notably Section 1.1.8, excludes agricultural activities from the UDO's development regulations. The UDO also specifically allows what may be considered nonfarm activities to occur on a farm. For several years the Board of Commissioners sought ways to expand the financial opportunities available to farmers in Orange County. This culminated in, among other things, the adoption of various text amendments into the UDO including creation of the Agricultural Support Enterprises (ASE) Conditional Zoning District that benefits farmers by allowing them to conduct farm activities on non-farm properties as well as various land uses permitted by right (i.e. staff review and approval only) to operate on a property designated as a bona fide farm. This includes the Rural Special Events land use. 12 The Rural Special Events provision of the UDO allows the owners and/or operators of properties that qualify as bona fide farms to engage in activities that may traditionally have been considered commercial or more urban in nature consistent with the overall intent of the County elected officials. More specifically, it allows meetings and other activities that may not necessarily qualify as agritourism activities to be conducted on a farm. Such events involve more than 20 guests and are permitted by right under the terms of the UDO. Permitting staff have minimal discretion in any use or activity that is permitted by right. As with any law or authorization, ASE and Rural Special Events permits are capable of being abused within the confines of the law, but overall these UDO authorizations provide needed benefits to farmers in a time when farms are increasingly being eroded by development. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS POLICY AND GOALS The Board of Commissioners is seeking public input on how, within the confines of its legislative authority, it may best achieve a balance between expanding economic opportunities for farmers and protecting surrounding areas from the secondary impacts of more commercialized land uses.