HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA minutes 061311Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 1 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JUNE 13, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Brown, Chair
David Blankfard, Alternate
Mark Micol, Alternate
Dr. James Carter, Full Member
Dr. Larry Wright, Full Member, Planning Board Liaison
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Dawn Brezina (Excused)
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Debra Graham, Board Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT: Sahana Ayer, Staff Attorney
1. CALL TO ORDER
Tom Brown: Let the record show we do have a quorum. Mr. Micol, as alternate, will be voting in place of Ms. Brezina. The
Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial administrative body governed by North Carolina General Statute and the Zoning
Ordinance of Orange County. Everyone who plans to speak during the proceedings tonight, including applicants and
interested citizens, will be called forward for swearing in. Swearing in is required for everyone speaking before the board.
2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
Tom Brown: Does anyone have any additions to the agenda. Hearing none, we will proceed.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. March 14, 2011
Tom Brown: On page 11, line 8 should read, “I originally got them”. On page 16, line 15 should read, “If you recall, we were
talking about Fire Marshal approval of any site altered access to the property”. On page 18, line 11 should read, “The
USEPAP I am referring to…”.
David Blankfard: On page 30, line 11 should be attributed to me. On page 31, line 16 should read, “The graphic here made it
look like…”. On page 30, line 18 should read, “The graphic you were referring…”. On page 41, line 30 should read, “I think
the finishes are the same; the roof type is the same construction”.
Tom Brown: On page 41, line 13 should read, “So that would include any site alterations?”
MOTION: Larry Wright moved to approve the March 14, 2011 minutes with the noted corrections. Seconded by Mark Micol.
VOTE: Unanimous
4. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct
themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of
the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until
that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time
that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and
computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 2 of 44
Individuals sworn in: 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Meredith Berry
David Pearsall
Mike Parker
Allison Nichols
Scott Oglesby
Sabrina Hanson
Mary Messinger
David Laudicina
Edmund Wise
Nancy Oglesby
Lynne Jaffe
Ross Poore
John Soehner
Bonnie Hauser
Marilee McTigue
Susan Walser
Bob Hartford
Lue Simopoulos
Susan Nichols
Deborah Pearson-Moyers
Tom Bush
David Rooks, Attorney for Maple View Farms, HOA
Jodi Bakst
Lori Kroothoep
Dolly Hunter
5. A-1-11 - Camp/Retreat Center - Modification of existing Special Use Permit submitted
by Maple View Agricultural Center LLC
In accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), Maple View Farms LLC has submitted a request to modify an existing Class B
Special Use Permit allowing for the operation of a Camp/Retreat center at the Maple View
Agricultural Center at 3111 Dairyland Road (PIN 9851-50-8691).
Specifically the applicant is seeking to modify the existing permit to allow for the following
additional uses permitted to operate from the property:
a. The renting out of the facility for meetings and/or conferences without an educational
farm component
b. The holding of special events and fundraisers on the property without an educational
farm component,
c. The rental of the facility for family reunions, wedding receptions, holiday parties, etc.
On April 14, 2008 the Orange County Board of Adjustment approved a Class B Special Use
Permit application allowing for the development of a Camp/Retreat Center on the property.
The permit allowed for the development of a facility providing educational seminars and
classes focusing on farming activities and practices. Through this submittal, Maple View
Farm LLC is seeking to expand the allowable uses permitted to operate on the property in
accordance with the provisions of the UDO and the definition of a Camp/Retreat Center.
Tom Brown: Mr. Harvey, does staff wish to provide input on the case at this time?
Michael Harvey: Very briefly since there are several people wishing to speak tonight and I don’t feel like rehashing the
eloquent job you have already done… I will ask the board to enter into the record, our abstract, which includes an Attachment
A, the original special use permit as approved by this body in 2008, Attachment B which is the applicant proposing the
modification which you are reviewing this evening, Attachment C which is the minutes from the April 14, 2008 Board of
Adjustment meeting, Attachment D which is the minutes from the October 11, 2010 Board of Adjustment meeting reviewing
their appeal concerning the Maple View Farm Agricultural Center, Attachment E is a map of adjacent properties , Attachment
F which is staff correspondence including the approved septic permit authorized and the operation of the Maple View Farm Ag
Center, Attachment G which is the Findings of Fact we will review later and the attached site plan.
Tom Brown: Please enter those into the record.
Michael Harvey: I would suggest the applicant come forward to present their case.
Mike Parker: Allison Nichols is here, who is the director of the center, has materials. I would like to be brief. Most of what we
would like to do is present these materials so they can be entered into the record. Let me begin with a couple of opinions we
have. The real estate appraiser, Scott Dorsett, a certified real estate appraiser here in Hillsborough... his opinion, to
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 3 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
summarize, is that the agricultural center will not detract from property values in the area. He cites a couple of sales as
evidence of that. Also, another opinion from Robert Hartford, who is present that has signed up in case you have questions
about that opinion… I would prefer that you address those questions to him rather than to me. I would also like to enter into
the record an operation log from the Ag Center from the time it opened until April 15, 2009.
Michael Harvey: This will be Exhibit 3.
Mike Parker: I realize I am bombarding you with a lot of information but I realize you have a long list of people. It is very
important, with this particular document going around now, that you carefully consider the history of the Ag Center, the uses it
has been put to. As you recall, I believe all of you were on the Board last fall, basically asking for clarification of the special
use permit. At the time, there were complaints about how the facility was used above and beyond the existing permit. This is
the history of the use of the center to date. We want you to validate those uses by changing the special use permit so we can
do what we have been doing. We feel like there was miscommunication between the planning staff and the center as far as
what we plan to use the center for. That led to a more restrictive special use permit that we felt like should have been issued.
We really didn’t realize that until the complaints ended up with us back in front of you last October. If you will look at these
sheets… these are the quote unquote non-educational uses of the Ag Center on the top sheet. If you look down to the
bottom, you will see the total number of rentals since the opening in 2009 of 28. In a period of 50 months, the center was
opened in April 2009 with approximately two uses per month of rental uses. The complaints of the music, there was one
rental with a band and three events. Basically we have a total of three events that have bands and we have some of those
folks to speak tonight about the type of music at those events. We felt those were misrepresented before. Following the top
page is basically a list of the groups that use the center from year to year and month to month over the past 50 months. We
also have a list of the birthday parties, public school events, the home school groups, the preschool groups… essentially
every use that has been made of this facility. We think there are a lot of people that will speak as to what an asset this facility
is. I think Allison has some pictures.
Allison Nichols: Yes.
Mike Parker: I have a series of photographs that we will pass around. They are simply the front of the facility, the side, and
the back view of the facility. If you look out from the facility across the pond at the adjoining landowner’s property, this is the
view you will see. Some pictures of the outside of the facility. These are essentially the same pictures with some of the
wildlife on the pond. They were made within the last few days. I will introduce all those. I feel like I do not have to tell this
Board what an asset to the community Bob and Chris Nutter have been over the years. Since we were here before, I will not
repeat the speech I gave in October, that I have been singing their praises. Bob Nutter is my father-in-law so I have a special
feeling toward him. I am also the attorney for the Orange County Board of Education and at one of the recent Board of
Education meetings they were recognized for their contribution for over $100,000.00 for books for the kids in the elementary
schools in Orange County. These are good citizens and we just want the facility to be used primarily for non-profit. The Ag
Center is organized as a non-profit center and we want to add to the community. One of the complaints I have heard or
anticipate to hear is there is other camping and retreat centers in the area. There are not a lot, but I have a feeling if you look
at the special use permits for those, you will find they have the same uses listed for them. They are for profit, they do it each
and every weekend and we only do it now and then. If possible, I would like to come back later to rebut some of these.
Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, before we continue, there is an item in the packet I want to call to your attention. It is under a
separate cover memo and not considered part of the abstract. It is actually information submitted to us by an adjacent
property owner with respect to this application. You will note it was submitted by, prepared by Maple View to the Homeowners
Association. Just so the board understands, we provided that documentation because when it was turned in to us, we felt it
was part of the public records and we felt you should see it. Staff is not commenting on it. It is not part of the public record
until it is made part of the public record. We did provide a copy to the applicant. I want to make sure that you are aware of it
and you understand that as it is not part of staff’s official abstract that it has not been included in the record.
Tom Brown: Mr. Parker, who will be speaking next on behalf of the applicant? Do you have a list or are you going to open it
up?
Mike Parker: You just follow your list.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 4 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Michael Harvey: The first person signed up on the list to speak is Ms. Meredith Barrett.
Meredith Barrett: I am not speaking on behalf of the applicant.
Michael Harvey: This is just who signed up on the sign in sheet. This is not in any particular order.
David Rooks: Mr. Chairman, I am David Rooks. I am representing the neighborhood homeowners association. We had
thought we would let the applicant put on its case, have its witnesses and then we have a presentation to follow that. We are
sort of organized around that.
Tom Brown: Mr. Harvey, I would like to get all the applicant testimony first.
Michael Harvey: Anyone here who wishes to provide testimony for the applicant, please come forward since I don’t have on
here who you wish to speak for.
Tom Brown: When you come forward, if you would state your name and if you have been sworn in.
Michael Harvey: Unfortunately, the door upstairs was locked and Ms. Hunter was not present at the mass swearing. She is
signed up to speak so we will need to swear her.
Tom Brown: Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
Dolly Hunter: I do. I am Dolly Hunter and I designed a required landscape buffer plan for the Maple View Agricultural facility
according to Orange County Zoning Ordinance 12.4.1. This type B landscape buffer plan was approved by Michael Harvey in
early February 2011. Under my supervision, the landscape material consisting of 14 large trees and 20 evergreen shrubs was
correctly installed on February 16, 2011. Therefore; the required landscape buffer plan has been approved, installed,
maintained and complete as required. Thank you.
Tom Brown: Thank you.
Dave Laudicina: My name is Dave Laudicina. I live directly behind the Nutter Farms. My wife and I live directly behind Maple
View Farms on Wood Duck Lane. In 1994 when we bought our property from the Nutters, we knew we would be living next to
a farm and see growth on this farm. Over the years, we have seen Maple View Farms grow into one of the most innovative
farms in North Carolina. We look at it this way, given situations in Orange County, we could be living next to a landfill or an
airport or maybe a future Maple View Mall or maybe even a bypass but we don’t and hopefully won’t in the future because of
how the Nutters manage their farm. I consider my family one of the luckiest families in Orange County to live next to this
beautiful farm with a wonderful community center that offers a place for the community to come together to educate our
children about agriculture and many more positive aspects. I want to thank the Nutters for what they have done on their farm
and what they have done for the Orange County community. Noise, traffic or any other issue has never concerned us as
neighbors. Thank you.
Susan Nichols: My name is Susan Nichols, I am Allison Nichols’ mother and I do work at Maple View Agricultural Center.
Tom Brown: You have been sworn in?
Susan Nichols: Yes. I have been a part of the community for my entire life and we raised our daughter up to look for what is
best for her community and the Nutters, I think they look for what is best for their community and we would not introduce
anything into the community that we think would harm the community in any way. I just have a big concern that in the time we
have been opened, there are 28 rentals and there were three bands and when I was here last time, it seemed like we booked
big name events every single weekend and that is just not the way it is and I just hope you will look at the record and see how
many rentals were there and how many did have an educational component and how much education there has been through
the whole program and hope that you will have leniency and let us continue to serve the community.
Deborah Pearson Moyers: My name is Deborah Pearson Moyers and my husband, Pete Moyers, the oldest residents of
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 5 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Pastor Road. We have been living in our house for 15 years before any of the folks from Greenwise were living there.
Michael Harvey: Would you state whether or not you have been sworn.
Deborah Pearson Moyers: Yes I stood up here. We felt really blessed to find our land. We looked for a couple of years.
Every time we came over the Diaryland, it felt like our chest would open when we see that beautiful farm and you could feel
the good energy that Bob and Chris Nutter created with their family farm. Our next door neighbor was Muffin who was there
daughter. We understood we were buying a lot because the farm is in transition. They built a bottling plant. They didn’t want
to be like other dairy farms that went out of business because they were selling bulk milk at the same price from 1970. That
had an idea so they built the bottling plant and from there on they built an ice cream store and now, thank goodness, the Ag
Center. Now we are adding education and even the possibility of a party. I have no problem of having this special use permit.
In fact, I would highly value it. I ride my horse with Bob’s permission, across his land, regularly to the Ag Center. I have never
heard noise there. I am not saying it is not true. I also consider Meredith and Nancy friends of mine so I am confused and
haven’t spoken before. I really wonder what is behind it but probably we will never know. When I am riding my horse,
although I haven’t heard any noise from the Ag Center, I have heard a lot of barking dogs and that is part of living in the
country. We all have animals that make noise. There are miniature donkeys, horses and dogs but as far as noise from the Ag
Center, I have no complaints. I have been to several events there. I have been to the open house, yoga classes, which were
marvelous and I have been to Muffin’s memorial service which was held there. I hope you will have wisdom and reason and
bless the Ag Center. Thank you for listening.
Bonnie Hauser: I am Bonnie Hauser, I have been sworn in. I am speaking for a community called Orange County Voices,
you may have heard of us. We advocate for issues on rural character and rural community including no airports, no waste
transfer stations and we love Maple View because Maple View has been a partner in helping us keep rural character in our
community and it is very important. I also am a member of the local community. I live off Orange Grove Road and I will start
by saying we are proud of the contribution that Maple View Farm has made to our community which most recently includes the
Ag Center. We also appreciate the concern among Greenwise neighbors about noise and nuisance but it is in that context
that we ask the board to expand the uses in Maple View’s special use permit so that Maple View can continue to develop the
center as a community resource. Maple View is and has always been a good neighbor. The facility is an educational
resource. I was surprised when I read it was a party center. Its leaders, Mrs. Nichols-Klapper and her associates are
educators and farmers. They are not party planners and throwing wild parties there. The facility has been designed with four
classrooms with a barnyard. It has a bigger room and outdoor exhibition gardens. It has a tiny little kitchen that no caterer
would want to work in so it doesn’t work as a party center and there is no evidence that we can see that Maple View intends to
convert it into one. With that said, we would love to see this resource evolve into a community resource. It worked well for
Town Hall and community events fundraisers, even social events like a film showing, a square dance or meeting that
enhances our connection to each other and to the farm. We believe that flexible and creative limits can be defined that are
reasonable. Maple View respects and has always complied with the County’s Noise and Nuisance Ordinances. Outdoor
music has been rare… maybe a couple of times since the facility has been opened. It makes sense to require things like
outdoor amplification be focused away from the neighbors and that maybe maximum decibel levels be prescribed assuming
that our ordinances are insufficient to control that. We see no need to restrict the activities in the center in any way. The
space is small, traffic impacts are naturally limited so please acknowledge the important evolving role that this center is
playing in our community and find a flexible way to assure the neighbors that the resources are enhancing and not threatening
their community. Thank you.
Marilee McTigue: I am Marilee McTigue and I have lived in the Maple View area for over 20 years and I live on 10 secluded
acres in the woods on top of Pickard’s Mountain so I look down in that direction. I assure you that noise happens even in the
country. Dogs bark at midnight, house parties go into the wee hours. My neighbor’s son learned the trombone on the back
deck and I can assure you that was an interesting thing to sit there every day after school and listen to. I also live next to
Pickard’s Mountain Echo Institute. They do occasional fundraisers and have music out in the woods and honestly, I don’t
mind that in the least. It shows me that we are successful in what they have been doing. It is everybody’s job to be a good
neighbor and that means minimizing our personal impact on our neighbors but it is just as important to be tolerant and
accepting of the sounds of life that come with living next door to people. I ask the board to expand the uses of Maple View’s
special use permit so Maple View can continue to develop the Ag Center as a community resource. Maple View is and always
has been a good neighbor.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 6 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Sabrina Hanson: My name is Sabrina Hanson and I hope I am not stoned on the way out of here. I have lived in this
community for 14 years. I have been sworn in with the group of people. Long term residents and some of you may know me
from the school system. I’ve been very active in our Orange County School system, Grady Brown and AL Stanback. I am
also; in addition to that, this was my idea, as far as Fall Days and Ag Wag… the three events that is in question in this
hearing. In addition to my passion to children and education, my other passion is great Danes. I represent a rescue, the Mid
Atlantic Great Dane Rescue. I am not only an adopter, I am a foster and help them raise money wherever possible whether
that means standing in the 100 degree heat at Pet Smart or coming to Allison and saying, you know what, the beautiful facility
is built and nobody knows anything about this facility, can we hold a community event? It would benefit not only Maple View
as far as having the community come there but it would benefit the great danes. We do a couple of things with the great
danes and that would be one to educate people about great danes, about our needs for fosters. We have placed hundreds of
dogs this past year and we have been doing this for 31 plus years. We are in seven states and we do this all over. We are
self supporting. We pay for spay, neutering, heart worms. All these things for these huge animals and I have to say in times
like these, we are full, we can’t even take owners’ surrenders any more so in an effort to help our rescue, Allison say let’s think
about it and pick a day to do it. I enlisted many in the community, in Hillsborough that needed help. Everything from Wimpsy
to the Bison Farms, invited all the community. They paid a nominal fee to the rescue, not to Maple View. In fact, Maple View
incurred a huge expense. They paid for the electricity, air conditioning, all this stuff to help our animals because of their long
standing commitment to animals, to respect and to their community and all the people there were community members. The
music in question, this was in October, started at 12:00 and was done by 6:00. We had Steven Toll, who is a folk singer,
come out. It was one single guy with a guitar. We had a high school band play because they were out there jamming there
tunes. They played for an hour and wrapped up with Rootsy, who many of you know, is a folk singer. We are not talking loud
bands and noise. In fact, the second event, because of impending weather was not as successful as the first event and
ended at 4:30 in the afternoon so as far as the loud party and noise, it wasn’t that. This happened in the fall days in 2009
when we did an event in 2010, like eight months later, are the two events that are in question. Told you about the
entertainers. We also had clowns. Maple View also supplied the educational component. We did classes inside. We had
Sudie Raspin who came out... she did the book Savanah Blue. She was our author there signing books for the kids. This is
all about community. Keeping it local, we want to keep our dollars here, spending in Hillsborough. This is all that was about.
Keeping our local community. Having a day of fun, family, animals and all my friends from school brought their dogs and
everybody had a great time and it was wonderful. Both of these events were to aid animal rescue, to teach children about
animals, to help us find fosters for so many animals. We all watch the news on how many animals die every day and we go
out every weekend and try to prevent it. Of course, not at Maple View and pending your decision, maybe never again but they
did a really great thing for a non-profit organization that was very grateful. In fact the community was grateful to Maple View,
for not only their long standing support in education with Ms. Nichols and her family. I have known Allison since she was
scooping ice cream, but also the Nutters commitment to the reading foundation; they have a long standing commitment to
children, to animals and the respect of both of them in educating them. As a rescue and as a beneficiary of their kindness and
generosity, I am very grateful to have them in my background. One of the things I really wanted was for our community to
come see what a wonderful center they have… and having been there on several field trips because they are a great learning
center for the school systems. I can only say that on a personal level, I think it’s really sad in a litigious society and the things
that have been said and are not true. It is just really sad we are in this position. They tried to do a really great thing for a
really great cause and we are all here.
Lynne Jaffe: My name is Lynne Jaffe and I have been sworn in. I have been a resident of Orange County for over 25 years. I
have lived on the backside of Maple View Farms for sixteen and a half years. I am speaking on behalf of my husband, John
Hartley, who passed away 12 days ago. Two days ago, we had his memorial service. We would have had that service at the
Agricultural Center if it had not been too small for the number of people we knew would come so I want to speak on his behalf
because I know he would also be standing here and speaking his heart out about this. So I live in walking distance of the Ag
Center on the backside of this farm. Like they say, farm is not the quiet pastoral place people like to imagine. The Agricultural
Center I realize is something of an exception to what a normal farm has but I think it is a really good exception. I know I don’t
need to speak to the Nutters reputation here but what I really want to point out here is that when they could have sold off the
land for hundreds of thousands of dollars, they chose to protect and preserve it not for their benefit but for the farm and the
community the farm exists in. When they built the Maple View Agricultural Center, they used their own money. They spent
hundreds of thousands dollars to build this community rather than sell the land and make hundreds of thousands of dollars.
They are not going to live to see a lot of what could happen with this Agricultural Center but it is there now and it would be a
real shame for it to go to waste and for all their energy and intention they have put forward in this community all these years to
go to waste. The Nutters are what comes forward out of this is the legacy of the Nutters in this community. I only just this
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 7 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
evening got to the letter Nancy Oglesby sent out and I understand her concerns and I know the Nutters themselves have a
little regret about bringing in domestic use and they are desperately trying to find a way to change that. Sometimes you learn
when you are in process you don’t know ahead of time, what’s the normal ride. I really wish that the neighbor’s on Green Rise
have the experience we are having in the other two parts of the Maple View subdivision because we have really been creating
a neighbor and we are adapting. Things haven’t always gone smoothly and we learn to work it out and we have a beautiful
neighborhood. During this period, when John was dying, I had the support of the neighborhood. Most especially the Nutters
showed up without an invitation, they showed up and really supported us so these people who live on Green Rise Road spend
even half of the energy they have spent on pursuit of this compliant on gratitude and the great privilege of living on such a
place as the Maple View Farm. Whatever way it finds to sustain itself and express itself in the community, I am really sad
there seems to be such a lack of some attention on the grace of getting to live there in that beautiful place, looking over that
pond. There are some extenuating circumstances here. The Nutters quite innocently, did not intend or any prior knowledge
about what they needed to know and perhaps some failure of the Orange county staff to provide enough guidance and
clarification about what they were going to do with this place. They simply did not know what was going to be required. I think
they had a hope that they could do it all with education and then with the economic downturn, the schools were not able to
provide as much of what they thought was going to be in place to support them. Not their fault, nobody’s fault… just the
reality. I also want to point out that I periodically walk over to the ag center and I frequently hear the next door neighbor
playing the accordion or banjo and it is very loud. It is right next door but I don’t hear anybody complaining about the music
right next door in the evening at sunset. It is like why this focus on one thing that doesn’t seem to apply somewhere else. I
remember when we were here last time; there was a lot about the laws. It is really a hard place because what the law is and
what is fair just isn’t always quite the same and I don’t know what to do about that. I think we are here again looking for fair
and just. If the neighbors were to pursue a lawsuit in this case, that further demonstrates that this is not about the community
it is more about what of self-interest. If we are here about protecting the citizens of Orange County, then I really would like to
ask to please support the Nutters in continuing to provide the services they have been serving through their entire life than has
been about nothing but community. Nothing about the benefit of anybody but Orange County. Not about self-service but
community. I will say too that as a community organizer and event coordinator, there are very few places available to do
wedding services and things like that. I saw the list and some of them are no longer functioning or they are small and I know
they are almost all booked months in advance. We are desperately in need of places, camp retreat centers, to hold all kinds
of events for the benefit of the larger community so please allow the Nutters to sustain the continuation of their vision. The
vision they have been providing to Orange County for their entire life here that will last long beyond any of us into future
generations.
Susan Walser: I have been sworn in. I am here tonight with my husband, Bill Walser… we live on Western Park Lane which
is right off Dotson’s Crossroads. We have been part of the Maple View community for 15 years. I have known Mr. and Mrs.
Nutter for many, many years and I have known Allison Nichols for several years. We are amazed how the Nutters give to our
community and we think the ag center supports the community in many ways. I agree with Marilee McTigue that noise
happens and building happens. My husband and I built our house 15 years ago; we built next to 300 acres of vacant land.
We now live next to the Pickard Mount Eco Institute. In fact, our land borders next to their garden. I can stand in my kitchen
and see their place and many, many weekend nights, I can stand on my front porch or back deck and hear music from their
events. I can hear their drums. I feel blessed that I can be so close to those events and be so involved in that institute and
what they do for the community. I also feel blessed that I can be so close to the Nutters and what they do for the community
via Maple View Farms and the ag center. I hope you can see the benefit they provide the community and take that into
account in your decisions.
Ross Poore: I have worked on Robert Nutter’s farm, I worked in the milk plant for over 10 years and since Muffin died I have
been helping out with the ag center . For over 40 years, he has lived in this community and given himself to the community
more than anybody has ever done to my knowledge in this community except to help people and he has bent over backwards
for the people to try to appease them with concerns they have had and I just don’t understand it. Personally, I think it is much
to do about nothing. And there are a couple of other things. There are a couple of things about a couple of people that aren’t
here; Joan who designed and constructed the building at the ag center had basically the same vision as Bob’s daughter,
Muffin, to have something to benefit the children in this community and it is a wonderful vision you have. If you could see th e
letters of the children… parents and teachers have written to the ag center thanking Allison and Susan for the things they
have learned and the fun they had learning.
John Soehner: I have been sworn in. I farm at the agricultural center. It is a five acre plot in a pretty nice fence. I notice a
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 8 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
compliant about me using an irrigation pump. It is a five horsepower Honda. There isn’t a time when I turn that on, I try to
turn it on so it is not on at dinner. I try not to start at 6:00 AM. I try to put it on at the right time of day, it runs two hours. It
pumps up to field. It goes to a headline. It goes down drip irrigation and puts out about four and one half gallons a minute
every 1,000 foot a drip. It is a pretty efficient way to water. It is a place you can hear a lot. I was out there Sunday morning, I
work every day and a lot of people ask me if they can learn about farming and they come help me for free. I said to this girl
yesterday, Trish bikes down the road… don’t say a word for a minute cause you can hear everything they are saying when
they ride down the road. Sound really travels there. It is a big open field. I love it there. Everybody that works there is really
nice to me. It is an efficient farm. I grow about 70 different vegetables, flowers, we grow sugar snaps, sweet potatoes, about
nine varieties of potatoes, lettuce, radishes, turnips, I could name them forever... sunflowers, zinnias. The kids can see how
this stuff is grown. I think it is a great idea. Mr. Nutter has been so nice to me. He came to my house to ask me if I wanted to
farm there so the kids could see it. I could think of worse things than that place to live next to. Let’s keep it positive. I think it
is a great place and hope I can continue farming there. It has been a real pleasure being there.
Tom Brown: Is there anyone else to speak on behalf of the applicant? For those opposed, please come forward.
David Rooks: Mr. Chairman, I am David Rooks. I represent the Maple View2 HOA, the next door neighbor directly adjacent
to the center and we will have three witnesses who will summarize the neighborhood’s objection to parts of this application
and we will be clear that the neighbors do not object to the ag center, they do not object to the Nutters. There are very
specific things they object to and that is why they are here tonight. In order, we will have Meredith Berry, David Pearsall and
Scott Oglesby.
Meredith Berry: I have been sworn in. In a packet we prepared for you, you do have this map. I wanted to add a few things
about the neighborhood with a couple of markings we have and just talk a little bit about what makes what we feel makes our
situation here in our neighborhood. It starts down here on Dairy Land, comes all the way up here. What we feel like makes
this a little bit different than other party barns that have been talked about. I live right here and this is the ag center here and I
live approximately about 470 yards from the ag center. Our whole neighborhood, Green Rise neighborhood, is in a fairly
unique situation. We are on a hill and it slopes down. This is the crest here. Everything is sloping down to the pond and then
towards the farm and especially the ag center. When there have been outdoor parties with large speakers for amplifiers,
those are usually set up in the field. The amplifiers are set up and they conduct sound because we can hear them back here
and here. There is no one in our neighborhood that has not been able to hear them. It conducts a sound and it comes
straight up this way. I have literally been inside my house with doors closed and I can hear amplified bands. I am not talking
about the folk singers sitting out on the steps singing. I am talking about when there was a fundraiser or a larger party, there
was amplified music. So our problems are our proximity. The sound carries straight up this way. It comes across and it
comes up. That is a big huge part of our concern. We have no intention of wanting the ag center to shut down. We love the
farming. We supported it from the very get go. We never attended the first hearing for you to approve them to build the ag
center because we supported that then and we support it now for their original purpose. We just don’t support the party part
of it. I would say from the closest house here, the closest house in our neighborhood is only approximately 175 yards away.
The farthest house in our Green Rise neighborhood is right here and that is 530 yards. They can hear, they can hear it, we
can hear it, we can all hear it. Part of the problem is, for example, the great dane fundraiser sounds wonderful. I happen to
be an animal lover and rescuer. I give much money to animal foundations. Love animals as much as anybody in this room
but the issue with an event like that is that those event organizers are there for one day, one afternoon. We are here all the
time, every weekend so if we have fundraiser A this weekend and fundraiser B next weekend and fundraiser C and party D
next weekend. We are there every weekend. We don’t go away… those are our homes and we bought our homes out on the
countryside with no other businesses except for the farm. We love the farm. We are not complaining about the farm. We are
complaining about and concerned about this agricultural educational building being turning into a party center that could
feasibly be used every weekend for outdoor parties. I believe in the applications, weddings, family reunions, corporate events,
holiday parties, that sounds like a lot to me and I think it would sound like to a lot to any of us who live here who would be very
much affected.
Scott Oglesby: I am the president of the Maple View2 HOA and I have been sworn in. I live with my wife and three children.
As Meredith explained, the meek geography of this area because it rises above and the affect of the ponds where sound
reflects off the pond through that particular area, puts us in a very unique position. We don’t have any objection to farm noise.
That is part of the reason we moved out here. The smell of manure in the morning, the sound of traffic in the distance. We
accept that and some of us did grow up on farms so we were not totally naive to it. It is a matter of degree. I think that is part
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 9 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
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
handout you have, in appendix 3, we have put together a timeline of the major events that can be documented on both sides
going forward starting with divisional SUP permit in 2008. What I want to emphasize is that what the homeowners association
first brought to us is that this is a great idea. An agricultural educational place, it looked like a beautiful building. We have
supported it all the way based on what was in the original SUP which was for educational related purposes. That hasn’t
changed and we still support it. Since early 2009, when events started going on there, we strived to communicate with the
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
just as example was, when we had several meeting verbally, and we didn’t seem to be reaching them, we put it down on
paper and had everyone look at it so we thought we wrote a pretty neighborly letter to the Nutters explaining our concerns and
some of the impact of the activities that was going on outside…
Michael Harvey: Mr. Oglesby I am sorry to interrupt but board members, he is referring to his letter contained on page 14 of
his document.
Scott Oglesby: Appendix 5. Again, we have no problem with the educational events and there was only a few non-
educational especially with the noise issue. Again, we don’t have a problem with the occasional event which is one thing but
to have an open license, if you are averaging two events per month and you are not making enough money and you get to
expand it where there will be noise, traffic, safety issues, that are going on as a more frequent basis so you can make it
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
non-profit business, they are going to have to increase the frequency of things and having carte blanche to do any kind of
event outside of an educational event is really our concern again because of noise, traffic, the light now, the nighttime events,
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
appendix 2 on page 7, a number of educational related events that we believed that would be of interest in the community to
support and would be very consistent with their educational events. These included shared space with a preschool, start an
interschool care program, start a community supported agricultural program, expand the yoga program, partner with 4H for
programs that require space indoor and outdoor. Offer the space to agricultural and animal rescue groups that need meeting
space, not necessarily event space but again, depending on the events, it is about how far over the threshold noise things go.
We tried to be constructive and show our support and throw out ideas that we believe that would be potentially viable. We
also suggested in exhibit 6, page 17, a letter from our lawyer where we suggested professional arbitration with the Carrboro
Dispute Center as a way to put our differences and try to have a dialogue with professionals there to guide some
compromises. That was suggested in a letter in November 24, 2010. Then we met with the Nutters as well after that and
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
next to each other, let’s figure this out. Then our understanding, we were notified of the request to modify the SUP to allow
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
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
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
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
the Orange County Ordinances, Article 8, Special Uses, and there are three points in there and I would like to address those,
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,
safety and general welfare.” We believe with the increased number of events that are non-educational purpose, there will be
increased autos, traffic and people of course. I would like to point out, an example, for one of the events held previously, if
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
where the gravel parking lot wasn’t sufficient, but more importantly, the second picture; there is a gentleman who has parked
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
of safety. Not only for that gentleman but for those who try to avoid him. Relative point, are the ordinances, they are now
proposing events during non-school hours and would not be educational events and would be night events. There would be
increased noise. We talked about due to those events, my understanding is they are proposing to have alcohol at events,
which as we all know, with alcohol comes increased noise, there is also liability issues because we do share the pond. This
pond here, the properly line between Maple View HOA and the ag center down here and the Nutters Farm. One side is
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
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
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
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
going to have potential events with alcohol involved so we believe that the quest for an expanded or amended SUP does not
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 10 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
promote the public health, safety and general welfare. On the second point, Article 8.2.1b.2 “The use will maintain or enhance
the value of contiguous property”. Trying to accurately set property values is extremely difficult. Anyone can go out and find
examples to support either case. I think as one of the people speaking later will speak to is part of the issue, if there is a party
barn, whatever impact on value around there, it is not a party barn so I don’t think there would be an accurate reflection of
property values, but if it were to be granted, the revised SUP, the property is not so much the property values, but real estate
agents would have to disclose the material fact, there is a party barn, contiguous in proximity to the Maple View neighborhood
and that would probably impact the pool of potential buyers that would want to live on a rural five acre piece of land with a
party barn down the road. I think, from a personal perspective, we have had the music there so loud, we can hear it when the
doors and windows are closed and that is just way above the threshold of what is reasonable. I think if we had to buy a house
out there today and this SUP went through, we wouldn’t want property like that next to a party barn. The final point on the
Orange County Ordinances, “the location and character of the use will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located.”
Again, we have said numerous times, the educational component is totally in harmony, it is a great idea. It is something that
is now out there and we think it is an important part of the community and we appreciate the Nutters for having this farm. But I
think to turn it into something that would be a party barn is not in character with the area. Right now there are only farms and
residential areas and the country store around there. The Triangle Land Conservatory has properties adjacent to some of that
land. Again, cars coming in and out at night with headlights, noise, people drinking, the carrying of the sound as they are
adjacent to the ag center and there has already been, with the increased public presence, there has been a couple of
incidences of vandalism, which I don’t think ever happened before. From that perspective, we don’t believe that turning it into
a party barn is going to be in harmony with the area in which it will be located. I would also like to show, as the last point,
appendix 7, starting on page 20. These are Google earth maps, same scale, of the various other party houses and just to
emphasize again, for us it is a proximity issue. If you look on page 20, that is the ag center with the thumb tack on it and you
can see the pond, our property is right across. If you look at the next one, the Rock Quarry Farm. They have a working
quarry right across the road, that is not too residential and it is surrounded by acres and acres of wooded land. If you look at
the barn at Valhalla, again, that is surrounded by acres and acres of land and the only property there is Duffy’s property.
There is also the Rigmore House. You can look there and see it is well of the road and there is no other properties adjacent
but acres and acres of wooded land surrounding it. Then the Snipes Farm Retreat which is probably closest to our situation
but even if you look at the distance it is significantly further away from the closest residential area. We believe that the current
existing SUP is a great thing for the community and an asset to the community and we appreciate the Nutters moving with
that. We believe that the amendment they are asking for will not be consistent with the Orange County Ordinances that I have
previously discussed.
David Pearsall: I have been sworn in. I live at 6515 Green Wise Road. I have lived there since 2005. I am the furthest of the
neighbors from the ag center. I want to start by saying that I am really torn even to be up here because I really think highly of
the Nutters. I know Bob and Chris personally. Bob has brought me vegetables to my house. My kid, my oldest, is five years
old and just graduated from Grady Brown, has been to the ag center, loves it, loves the events, and loves the presentation put
on by Allison. I don’t have anything against an ag center but I am raising three young children. I am out in the country and
what I have to do is be neighbors to everybody and these are my closest neighbors and the numbers two, three, four and five,
are the ones closest to pond. If I can hear the music in six, they can hear the music a lot louder up on those other houses on
the same street. We share a common pond; the line goes through the middle. I happen to be in the business of insurance
and liability issues obviously come up when you speak of alcohol and parties. I have no problems with the ag center, again, I
love it. The hayrides are wonderful. That is why I moved to the country to be close to the farm. I think the farm is awesome
but I didn’t move to a party center and I am asking you how you would feel if people were having parties unannounced, if you
didn’t know, in your backyard. That is what I was thinking about when I thought about our neighbors that are closest to that
and also if someone were to go into that pond, the liability issues that could arise because we do share the pond and we have
had conversations with Bob and Chris on that regard and they have been positive and we have worked around that. If this
was a hearing just on the Nutters, I think that would be wonderful, I mean, I would speak on their behalf and I could easily be
sitting on the other side of this equation but I have looked at the neighbors and where they are as far as on the pond and the
noise that would be at the party center. They should have the right to do what they want on their land until it affects others
and if it is affecting others and it is in your back yard, then I think you need to pay attention to that.
David Rooks: That is the official presentation from the Homeowner’s Association. I would move the introduction of the map
and the introduction of the information package that has already been distributed. I think those would be exhibits 1 and 2. I
believe there are other folks who would like to speak in opposition.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 11 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Lue Simopoulos: I have not been sworn in.
Tom Brown: Swore in.
Lue Simopoulos: This is my house, I am number two. This is the ag center here. I am closer than anybody here. I am
hundreds of yards closer that most of the people who have spoken on behalf of Mr. Nutter. I do want to say that Mr. and Mrs.
Nutter, when they called us in to do the ag center, I was very supportive. Being right next door, I thought it was a great idea,
my daughter and I walk over to see the animals almost daily. We love the ag center and the farm. What we were led to
understand was that it was going to be an educational program and we were absolutely for it and supported it all the way. Mr.
Nutter was so kind, when the first winter came and all the leaves fell I woke up and I looked out and there was this big red
barn that I had not seen before because when the trees are up I couldn’t see it and suddenly it was very, very close. They
were responsive to me immediately to put a buffer in. So I have been pleased with their response. The place in where I am
joining my neighbors is in this issue of changing this use to where there could be parties so often. We agreed with the idea of
having occasional parties, we have occasional parties. They can have occasional parties too. Changing the use, as my
neighbors have said, that all of the sudden we may have parties all weekend, every weekend and that is not why we live here
and why we moved next to this farm so that is the main thing I wanted to say. I do want to say and I wanted everybody to
understand that I am the one who is most impacted, I am right next door so it is hard to listen to people talk about how we
should be grateful and all these other things when they live so much farther away. I hear everything that goes on next door.
When the leaves are down, I see everything. When the leaves are up, I just hear it and that has all been fine as long as it is
not excessive and that is where I agree with my neighbors. That is all we have asked for contrary from what my further away
neighbors seem to believe that we have been the horrible neighbors out to get the Nutters. It is not.
Mary Messinger: I am a part of Maple View I. We bought our land in 1994. I have been sworn in. We moved into our house
in 1996. I am in agreement with my neighbors of Maple View I in that I love the fact that the Nutters have been so good in our
community and love the idea of the ag center and it goes far beyond our community. As far as Raleigh, Greensboro and even
farther than that. My concern is the same here with my neighbors in Maple View 1, that I can hear the noise from my house. I
don’t know if my property is even on there. I live here and it is a good distance away. Through the pond, up the hill, over the
woods and I can hear it. I actually thought it was my neighbor from Maple View 1 who has two teenage boys, dad was gone,
they had a big party. The next day, and they had a big party. I could hear them. They were taking advantage of dad being
gone. Then I found out when there was another event at the ag center and I put two and two together that it was actually the
parties going on here that I could hear the music from my house. I don’t disagree with fundraisers and special events and
occasional parties. We all have those too it is just the weekend after weekend and the excessive noise.
Nancy Oglesby: I apologize I wasn’t here but the door was locked upstairs so I went up to let them in.
Tom Brown: What is your name please?
Nancy Oglesby: Sworn in. I am a member of Maple View 2 and I live over here and like everybody here, we have enjoyed
being near Maple View and we have had very good experiences with the Nutters at times and appreciate the goodness of
their hearts and how much they have done for the community and I agree with all the legalese that was said from my
neighborhood but at this point, in addition to giving them my support, I want to speak personally. I understand that they
haven’t had tons of parties so far and they seem to think we are complaining too much about what is being done but I think we
need to focus on the fact that this hearing is to decide whether or not parties can be unlimited. That is my issue. We have
several times tried to negotiate with them about the number of parties and we have offered and said we wouldn’t put any
opposition to a few parties and could we come to an agreement and go to the dispute settlement center. Let’s go to
arbitration. Let’s compromise and come up with a number of parties we can both live with and then put that in the SUP. So if
they really want to only have a couple of events outside every year, why isn’t that in the SUP or the application? I would not
have even come if the application I had gotten in the mail said the ag center wants to have two outdoor parties a year. I would
have said hallelujah I am not going to go because this is very stressful to have to come speak like this. That is not what it is; it
is to have it every night. I have talked to friends who live near party barns and it is a really miserable experience. There are
times they don’t get to sleep and they don’t get notified. They don’t know when it is going to happen and it is not fine. That is
what I don’t want. I don’t understand if there is all these people talking about being neighborly and compromising, then how
come when we offered to compromise, nobody wanted to compromise. How come this application does not represent a
compromise? We are here, we want to compromise, please compromise with us. We are not rigid or saying we don’t want
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 12 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
any parties, we just want to know when they are going to be and how many there will be and we want to keep it limited to
something we can live with. I don’t really know what the rules are. I don’t know how this thing works but if you could finish
tonight and say go to arbitration, come back to us in a couple of months when you have come up with an agreement. That is
what I would like to see. I want to get along with my neighbors. I want to be able to live with them. I want them to understand
how loud their music is, how I can hear it inside my house with all my doors and windows closed. I am not getting that at all. I
appreciate everybody who has come because I think we should all feel welcome and comfortable speaking our minds whether
it is for or against a certain idea and I appreciate the respect that people have shown for us tonight.
Tom Brown: Is there additional testimony in opposition?
Jody Bakst: Sworn in. I am a realtor and I am here in my capacity as a realtor and I actually did sell Scott and Nancy their
property. All I am here to say is that as a realtor either representing a buyer or seller, we need to disclose the facts. We need
to disclose things that are proposed, not even happening. When you are listing a property even agents representing buyers
ask questions all the time because they want to provide their clients with all the information so people can make informed
decisions so if things change and it becomes a party barn then the only point is that it will be disclosed and you need to let
your buyers and potential buyers know so they can make an informed decision and it is entirely possible that more people
won’t want to live near a party barn if there is that kind of noise.
Lori Kroothoep: Sworn in. I live here. I am the second closest house to the ag center. I am new to the neighborhood. I don’t
own the home. I don’t belong to the homeowner’s association because I don’t own the home but I am a resident there. I have
four small children ages 10, 8, 4 and 3 and I am not opposed to farming, the Nutters, the ag center, or the education activities
that go on there. My concern is the extended permit that would allow the parties. It will sound redundant to most of the other
neighbors. I have a concern about the noise. My home is not blocked by many trees because I am right across from the
pond. The view is beautiful. I can see cows, the geese, and the llama. It is nice. Having the tractors roll by is a little….I can
accept that. I think the biggest concern for me is the noise and the safety and having people who are staying up late, making
a lot of noise, drinking, possibly wandering or trespassing into our yard with my small children who I can freely let out the door
to play at almost any time at reasonable hours. It is having someone come up and disturb that peace and safety. That is my
biggest concern. I am not opposed to occasional parties but I would be opposed to unlimited use and I think it would affect
the quality of our life living there. So I hope you will consider that.
Tom Brown: Is there additional testimony.
David Rooks: I would like to speak briefly if I could.
Tom Brown: Not yet. Is there any further testimony in opposition? Mr. Rooks, we have heard most of the testimony that is
explaining that noise is a major issue. Have there been any measurements taken to determine if the Orange County Noise
Ordinance has been violated at any point during the activities.
David Rooks: I am not aware that has happened.
Tom Brown: So you have no evidence to present.
David Rooks: There were several episodes, there were complaints made and ultimately the staff acted and the activity
stopped so to my knowledge, I do not know of anybody taking noise readings.
Meredith Berry: I would assume you would need some type of particular equipment to do that and we have never been
notified ahead of time there would be a party so we have never purchased or rented or asked anyone to come out.
Tom Brown: That wouldn’t be necessary, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department is responsible for enforcing the noise
ordinance and they would take the measurements. It has to be qualified personnel to do so. My question was has that been
done.
Meredith Berry: We called the sheriff but we don’t know if they did any readings.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 13 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Tom Brown: Does any board members have any questions for the opposition before we go into rebuttal?
James Carter: I look at the Maple View Agricultural Center and they are referring to the party barn, are they the same place or
different places.
David Rooks: The agricultural center is what exists and is permitted right now but it is our understanding that the permit as
modified would allow the Nutters to operate the rental of the facility for family reunions, wedding receptions, holiday parties,
etc. so when we use the term party barn, we are talking about what the agricultural center could become if the modification to
the permit is allowed. Right now, the ag center cannot operate family reunions, wedding receptions and holiday parties.
James Carter: So party barn is your terminology. I noticed a lot of times you have talked about potentials, potentials for
parties, alcohol, has anybody been arrested out there or coming from there?
David Rooks: The ag barn was permitted as an agricultural use. When they first observed activities that were inconsistent of
the permit is when they brought those activities to the attention of the planning department. The planning department
ultimately issued a cease and desist order. So I do not know if any alcohol was consumed.
Allison Nichols: Not at the two events I coordinated. No alcohol was served.
James Carter: Mr. Scott Oglesby mentioned the same thing also about the traffic, noise, alcohol. Again, I keep hearing this
but …
David Rooks: If you are adding a wedding reception, in most cases, there is alcohol. A year ago, this past weekend, my wife
and I conducted a wedding reception for our daughter, there was alcohol.
James Carter: I also heard concerns about sloping, sounds and also the proximity where she lives. I am getting the
impression that there is a party going on every day and every weekend. Is this what I am to understand?
David Rooks: Our point is, right now, there is not but if it is modified, there could be. That is the point. If the permit
modification is allowed, there could be a party every night they could book it. You have heard witnesses for the applicant say
there is a shortage of party facilities. Here is another party facility. You have heard another witness for the applicant tell you
that sounds carry really well out there. That is the same the opponent said.
James Carter: If this is the case, what kind of compromise are you looking for from the Nutters?
David Rooks: I think the witnesses have said they would not object to the occasional function and some agreed upon
numbers or limits. What they don’t want is a carte blanche where there can be a party every weekend if the Nutters could
book it.
Mark Micol: Mr. Oglesby, can you rank your concerns in order? Is it noise number 1?
Scott Oglesby: Yes.
David Rooks: I think noise is probably the number one concern. Again, to get to your point, I know it is confusing. The
events that took place outside the SUP that was issued were the type of events we believe they want to have under the
revised SUP and even more so we are saying here we have an example….actually there was another event where they had
an outside band, the most recent beforehand that was on the other side of the party barn and it didn’t disturb us at all, we
could hear something playing in the background but that is fine. I think we had at least two examples of what could happen if
this revised SUP is approved. If we talk, they put the band on the other side, face the speakers away, do we have alcohol, no
alcohol, that kind of thing. We have had discussions with the Nutters in meetings where we have proposed specifically those
kinds of things, but the actions were the next thing we know after we have that conversation was there is a revised SUP
saying that we want to be able to do everything anytime we want to.
Larry Wright: Noise is just the only thing?
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 14 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
David Rooks: No. I would say noise, safety and traffic.
James Carter: This idea about if it is revised, you are saying you will have more traffic, more noise and possibly excessive
use of alcohol if it is revised?
David Rooks: Yes.
James Carter: This is what you anticipate?
David Rooks: Based on the fact, not the alcohol, but the noise and traffic, we have seen it when they have had events that
were in violation of the original SUP so we are just taking that as examples. That is all we have to go on. We are saying we
don’t like the examples and if you increase the frequency so they can have more than an average of two events per month
which presumably is part of the issue in terms of wanting to be more profitable as a non-profit in terms of paying for what it
cost to put that there.
James Carter: You have potential and you are saying profit and also non-profit. You say you increase your potential for
having activities you are going to try to make a profit. You mentioned earlier it was a non-profit organization. If they increase
their activities because of the cost incurred, what are you anticipating?
David Rooks: They built a very nice ag center, it costs money, they are paying the mortgages. That is a question for the
Nutters but the point is they have bills to pay like we all do and their idea was that and I remember when we talked at the very
beginning, I think you all had gone out and researched and said can we make what we invested at a minimum and they went
to a lot of the schools and it was right before the downward trend in the economy. It was an unfortunate act. Again, that is
why we suggested a lot of alternatives that are so educationally oriented that don’t need to go where they are going to have
weddings and holiday parties and that sort of thing.
Mark Micol: She mentioned that the Orange County Sheriff was called, what did they say?
Allison Nichols: I spoke with them and actually if you look at the note from last time, it was brought up and I made a statement
regarding that and that was the last time she acknowledged that she called the police. So you want to refer back to that?
Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Micol, with all due respect, the information she is referring to is on page 118 in your
packet, in the minutes for the October 2010 regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment during the appeal. Comments begin
on line 4 with Ms. Oglesby and go down to approximately line 19 where there are direct conversations related to the Sheriff’s
Department and the investigation of noise complaints.
Mark Micol: It says they were not in violation because of the time of day, not because of the original question, you talked
about the noise ordinance and breaking the noise ordinance and using a device to monitor. When they came out, they just
referenced because it was time of day, 12:00 to 6:00 so there was no device used when they were called out.
Michael Harvey: All I can testify to is that there are noise limits established for specific hours of the day per the Orange
County Noise Ordinance. There is decibel limits established, 65 decibels between the hours of 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM. What
was testified to and all I am commenting on is there was no violation detected in my mind so as the Sheriff’s Department
concluded after taking decibel readings there was no violation of the noise ordinance.
Mike Parker: Isn’t it true that those decibel limits would apply whether there is a special use permit or not?
Michael Harvey: Correct.
Tom Brown: It is actually 60 db during the day and 50 db in the evening.
Mark Micol: But if we approve the revised SUP, we are creating an environment where more and more traffic and more and
more noise could be created.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 15 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Michael Harvey: That is what is being alleged and I will respond to that in staff comments.
Tom Brown: Any further questions from the board?
Larry Wright: This is questions to whom?
Tom Brown: For the opposition right now, we are about to go into rebuttal.
Mike Parker: Let me point out since last October we have essentially operated because of the appeal of the decision without
any limits and this is the quote unquote party barn. This is what happened with the party barn since last October. We are
responsible, the Nutters live next to the ag center. Those decibel limits apply whether there is a special use permit that allows
you to have parties or not so I think that point is moot. Mr. Hartford said he had a point that he would like to make so I would
like to call him up.
Michael Harvey: Mr. Hartford did sign in but he was not sworn.
Robert Hartford: Sworn in. I will be brief. A number of you know me. I developed Maple View 1, I developed Maple View 2. I
was a contractor for the ice cream company. I was participated in the pasteurization plant. I sold a lot of you the pieces of
land you are living on in Maple View. To be brief, when I met Robert Nutter, he was dairy farmer. The farm operated in a
completely different fashion. He wasn’t as happy a farmer as he is now. He approached me because he was thinking about
not farming. I just like to take a chance to remind all of you that the reason you like to live where you are is that when you
drive onto Dairyland Road, you see that rolling green; you see the land open up. You look at those tracks of land and said, I
want to live there. I want a piece of that. My history with the Nutters is that the cows couldn’t preserve that. There had to be
other activities in order to maintain what you see and love so much. And over time, those activities have been different things.
One of those activities was creating the tracts you live on. Another was the Maple View Ice Cream Company. Things change.
You all bought that property and said I got my little piece I don’t want a thing to change. There is only one way to keep it there
and that is to let the Nutters preserve it. The cows aren’t enough to do it. It takes a wide variety of activity. The ag center is
one of those activities, right or wrong, who knows, but things have changed a lot. The Nutters have chosen to keep Dairyland
Road out there. I can tell you first hand you could be riding over that hill and see a subdivision or a bunch of cul-de-sacs and
it would be just like living in the place you moved out of to get there.
Mike Parker: I am glad to hear them say they have no problems with the farm. One of the complaints we had before was
about the pump the gentleman mentioned earlier and I would point out that Mr. Nutter basically offered the homeowner’s
association the opportunity to construct a pump house over that pump which they never did. I get the impression that we have
been unwilling to cooperate with them. The Board of Adjustment is the appropriate authority on what we can and cannot do
on that site and that is why we are here. We just want to clarify that what we have been doing is what we would like to
continue to do on the property. The Nutters have lived in Orange County since 1963. They have been a real blessing and it
was a very fortunate day when Allison’s father and Charles Snipes’ grandfather, Charles and his brother happen to run into
the Nutters at a farm sale in South Hill Virginia and tell them about a dairy that was for sale in Orange County because
otherwise they would not have come to Orange County and they have been a great blessing to this county since they moved
here and it is unfortunate since then that almost all the dairy farms have disappeared from Orange County. Most of the
farmers couldn’t afford to milk cows and make a living. What they ended up doing was selling land to support the milking habit
and eventually that didn’t work anymore so they stopped milking all together. Farmland is disappearing left and right. I was
fortunate enough to grow up on a farm in Northern Orange County and I wake up every morning and wonder why I still own
that farmland because it does not pay its own taxes anymore unless you farm it yourself. There are people who love it
enough to want it to look at. One of the great things about riding out Dairyland Road, if you go back to 1969 the first time I
went to court Bob Nutter’s daughter, it looks pretty much like it did then. There are not many places you can say that. We are
just asking to let us use that ag center for a few extra bucks. It is not going to be a party barn and has not been a party barn.
We are still subject to ordinances for noise so just give us the special use permit.
Larry Wright: Going over this list and looking at Maple View Agricultural Center Log 2009 to present. You said that this has
been used like you will be using it in the future, right?
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 16 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Mike Parker: That is our plan.
Larry Wright: I have been looking at this list and on page 3; it says room rentals, Orange County Schools office staff… was
there alcohol there?
Mike Parker: No sir.
Larry Wright: Wedding rehearsal dinner, alcohol there?
Allison Nichols: No sir.
Larry Wright: Going down, Duke University, alcohol there?
Allison Nichols: No sir.
Larry Wright: Do you have an alcohol license?
Allison Nichols: No sir.
Larry Wright: Was there alcohol at any of these events in this packet?
Allison Nichols: Not that we allowed.
Larry Wright: What does that mean?
Allison Nichols: When people would call us about it, we don’t advertise that you can come there and drink alcohol. We don’t
advertise come here and get drunk?
Larry Wright: I think I should be asking the applicant’s attorney this or this will open it up to free discussion. One of the major
concerns is drinking, can you address the drinking?
Mike Parker: All I can say is that we have not had any alcohol events there. None whatsoever. The only people who
mentioned alcohol are the people that are opposing our position.
Larry Wright: The overflow parking, I have had events at my house where there has been overflow parking, I want to ask in
this packet how many events had overflow parking?
Mike Parker: I think this is actually a picture of the parking lot and this is a picture of the agricultural center itself. The picture
shown on the road is this lady’s ….
Larry Wright: I am asking the attorney, I don’t want a free for all.
Mike Parker: He was actually tying balloons to the bumper of the car he parked outside the road. I don’t think there was any
overflow parking that day.
Larry Wright: How many events required overflow parking?
Mike Parker: None.
Larry Wright: This was not overflow parking?
Mike Parker: The two ag events had some overflow parking. When Bob Nutter’s daughter died, we had it on a Sunday
afternoon and there were cars parked down the road from that.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 17 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Larry Wright: What was the nature of what was brought to us as overflow parking? Please tell me the nature of this event.
Sabrina Hanson: There were two events, same organization that was on Maple View property, just off the parking lot, not in
the street.
Michael Harvey: Could we have the very nice lady identify herself for the record?
Sabrina Hanson
Larry Wright: To summarize, how many events required overflow parking?
Mike Parker: Three.
Larry Wright: In the span of what time?
Mike Parker: When you say overflow parking, are you talking about parking along Diaryland Road?
Larry Wright: It is my opinion that what I heard was that the existing parking was not adequate and so there was overflow
parking.
Mike Parker: An example, I went to a dedication at the Maple View Agricultural Center for the solar panels for Duke Power.
There was parking that day that extended beyond the parking lot that is at the ag center. You can consider that overflow
parking but as I recall almost all if not all of that occurred on the farm pasture property that is adjacent to the ag center. None
of it was on Dairyland Road. You have to realize this is on a large farm and when you say overflow parking, I think ….
Larry Wright: We are talking about three events in a span of what time interval?
Mike Parker: One was in the fall of 2009, one in the spring of 2010 and Muffin’s funeral was in October 2010, last fall.
Larry Wright: Ok. I live in Northern Orange County and I live in a rural area and I get noise and Mr. Harvey has been at my
house delivering packets. He delivered this one. I am in the middle of nowhere. How far does Mr. Nutter live from the “party
barn”?
Mike Parker: Mr. Nutter, how far is your house from the ag center? Here is his house.
Larry Wright: It is about as far as some of those neighbors, right?
Mike Parker: Right. There are no buffers between his house and here.
Larry Wright: I understand. Thank you.
Mark Micol: Mr. Parker, in your response to Mr. Harvey’s office on the revised SUP, there is a comment that states we are still
bound by a total seating and building capacity limit as established and enforced by the Orange County Inspections
Department and the Fire Marshall’s office as well as a limit on the total number of events. Can you give me a number as far
as the building capacity limit and a total number of events?
Mike Parker: Muffin’s funeral. People were standing inside and out.
Mark Micol: The total number of events, do we know how many, the capacity is for that? That is the fire marshal.
Michael Harvey: Mr. Micol, if you can turn to page 149, I provided you a copy of the septic permit as issued by the Orange
County Health Department. They indicated there is only two times a day this facility can be utilized at maximum. The
interpretation has been that Maple View Ag Center has had on numerous days, multiple events but they have never gotten to
their maximum.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 18 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Tom Brown: Mr. Parker, do you have a rebuttal at this time?
Mike Parker: No sir.
Tom Brown: Mr. Rooks do you have any follow up at this time?
David Rooks: I believe the board understands the issues.
Tom Brown: Ms. Oglesby, I will allow you to follow up shortly and then we will go to staff.
Nancy Oglesby: The reason we are concerned about things being different in the future than they were in the past is because
it was our impression that things were just getting going when they were stopped and it is part of our negotiations and talking
about how many events do you want and how many events do we want. We have said we don’t want more than two loud
outdoor events a year. You know how many events do you want? At one point, you said as many as I can book. I remember
that. Yes. I would like to know what the limit would be if we are going to talk about limits. If they are going to say we wouldn’t
have very many but the permit says you can have as many you want. What are our rights, we don’t have any basically. In the
beginning when this permit was put out, it was supposed to be for quiet, educational events during the school day and then all
this other stuff happens and the response was, we didn’t know we had to have a permit for it. If we give them an unlimited
permit but they say they are just going to do a few events a year then we don’t have any recourse or any way to negotiate. I
just really wish we could sit down with a mediator and negotiate and come up with something everyone can live with.
Although there haven’t been that many, at the beginning of the ag center there were none, then there were a few and then
there were a bunch over a half year period so saying there were 28 over a 52 month period, I don’t think that is really fair and
if there is going to be a commitment to having just that number or fewer, I just feel like we need to have it in writing.
Tom Brown: Staff, would you like to proceed at this point?
Michael Harvey: I am going to make a couple of comments and answer any questions you may have. I think it is important to
understand we have a complete application submittal in front of you. This application submittal contains several different
pieces of information that is necessary for you to make your decision. First, we have the original Special Use Permit,
Attachment A, the application, Attachment B; the application contains a narrative demonstrating from the applicant’s
standpoint their perceived compliance with the provisions of the code. They have also submitted additional documentation
specifically in Exhibits 1 and 2 which you have been handed which is an analysis of adjacent property values. We have
minutes from various meetings where this item has been discussed including the recent appeal. We have a map of the
adjacent property; we have staff correspondence, which I have already articulated includes the existing septic permit that is
governing the operation of this facility and the findings of fact, which I will go over in a moment. Essentially what you have
before you, the board is being asked, as articulated in my abstract, to determine two things. First, are the uses and activities
being proposed by the application as delineated within their application consistent with the existing county definition of camp
retreat center? It is staff’s finding that those activities are consistent with the definition. Second, will the addition of these
uses a) invalidate the existing approval or b) can you approve it based on the information you have heard this evening?
Obviously staff cannot answer that question because you will be making it based on the sworn testimony this evening. What I
can offer is whether this project complies with the various provisions of code which is the findings of fact sheet which I will go
over in a minute. There have been several comments made this evening that I feel somewhat obligated to respond to. The
first comment is concerning potential consumption of alcohol at this facility. While the application has made several
references to the fact that no alcohol has been provided or they don’t advertise that alcohol can be consumed, may I remind
the board that in order for the Maple View Ag Center to have alcohol allowed to be consumed, sold or anyway on this property
they must obtain an ABC permit. That permit has to be signed off by the Orange County Planning Department (i.e. my office),
the inspections department and the Orange County Fire Marshal ascertaining this use is in compliance with the current
provisions of county code. Is there a reason I foresee that I could not sign such a permit, none at all. Has a permit been
applied for? No. If it is not applied for then no alcohol can be consumed on this property. That is the answer to that question.
With respect to concerns about the apparent carte blanche with no applicable regulation to the property, as currently
articulated with Attachment A, the existing special use permit, and as I have testified to you all in previous hearings, the
granting of a special use permit does not exempt the operator from compliance with various county regulations; whether it be
zoning, noise, solid waste management, if there is a violation of these codes or provisions, the applicant is obligated to correct
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 19 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
the identified violations. If they do not then they are subject to having the special use permit revoked by my office. That is
articulated not only within the ordinance but it is always articulated in the special use permit document that you take action on.
I understand the confusion created with terminology. This is going to be a camp retreat center as defined by the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance. The term “party barn” has no definiti on and has no place in our ordinance, however, it becomes a
synonymous term and you need to understand that what is being applied for is a camp retreat center and that issue, at least
from my read of the testimony offered here this evening, is a concern there will be activities occurring at the Maple View Ag
Center that are more characteristic of a party or celebration event rather than an educational component and that is what you
are determining whether or not is reasonable or viable now. What I will stipulate to is that the activities that the applicant is
asking to be allowed at this facility are consistent with the definition contained within the ordinance and are consistent with the
interpretation that has been made with several other similar applications during my tenure with the county and predating my
tenure with the county. If the board doesn’t have any questions of me, I would like to move onto Attachment G.
Larry Wright: Could you please explain that last statement you made?
Michael Harvey: With respect to the characteristics of this operation?
Larry Wright: Yes. It wasn’t quite clear.
Michael Harvey: We have a definition for camp and retreat. The interpretation of said definitions not only during my
employment and tenure with the county but previous interpretations by zoning officers has been that this allowed for
recreational social activities to occur, whether it is a wedding or fundraiser. Those types of activities have been considered
synonymous with the county’s definition of camp retreat. The only point I am making is that while I understand the concern in
opposition, the only comment I will make is that the proposed, the requested use, is consistent with the definition and previous
interpretations of what is acceptable at a camp retreat center.
Larry Wright: That definition was not changed with the UDO?
Michael Harvey: That is a correct statement. Actually, Mr. Chairman, before I go on, with respect to defense Exhibit 2, which
is the item in your packet, Mr. Oglesby had testified to the information packet prepared by Maple View II homeowner’s
associations which we did include in your packet and they did enter it into the record. There are a couple of points I want to
make with respect to Appendix 7, the map of the party barn, and that map begins on page 20 of this document. Obviously, we
know what the first property is. The second property is a bed and breakfast that was legally permitted by the Orange County
Planning Department for three or less bedrooms and of course with provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, they
are allowed to have weddings and special events as a permitted accessory use of this application. The individual who
operates this particular bed and breakfast is Camille Andrews, who is in the process of applying for a Class B Special Use
Permit to expand the nature and use of this property. Unfortunately, she has not completed her submittal. The next picture is
the Barn of Valhalla. That is Duffy Gilligan, as you all know, that received a Class B Special Use Permit from this board after
three public hearings. To the north of this are several single family residences ranging in acreage from two to five acres. The
next picture is the Rigmore House, which was approved in 2006 as a camp retreat. It is primarily utilized for weddings and
other similar receptions. The Snipes Farm, unfortunately, I don’t have a file on Snipes Farm, so it my duty to investigate the
validity and viability of that particular use and if it is determined they are not operating with the appropriate permits, they will
have to come before the board as the current applicants have been forced to. I would like to go over Attachment G. First, this
is the typical finding of fact you are familiar with from previous meetings as the board is already aware but I will share for the
benefit of those present. The county planning staff does not make a formal recommendation with respect to approval or
denial of a project. That is not our requirement or purview as defined in the zoning ordinance. We will however provide you
direction in terms of our perceived compliance with the provisions of code that we are obligated to respond to. I am going to
go through this sheet, providing you some directions, answers and then sum up and you can ask questions. Please
remember that once you close the public hearing, you cannot ask questions of me, the applicant or anyone else in the
audience that includes Mr. Rooks, or the individuals he is representing.
Michael Harvey read the following:
Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant
complies with the specific standards as outlined within the UDO with respect to the physical development of the property.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 20 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Further, staff has determined that the proposed additional uses are consistent with the operational characteristics of a
Camp/Retreat Center as currently defined and permitted within the County.
Staff cannot comment on the projects compliance with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the
Unified Development Ordinance, specifically:
a. The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and 7
developed and operated according to the plan as submitted.
b. The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which 9
case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property).
c. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the
area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the
County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
These items are acted upon by the Board based on the testimony and evidence entered into the public record during the
hearing.
If the Board of Adjustment finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards, the Board could make a positive
finding on this application. In the event that the Board of Adjustment makes the determination that the permit can be issued,
Planning Staff would suggest the Board consider the attachment of the following conditions to the revised Special Use
Permit:
1. That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County Health Department
requesting a change of use for the Camp/Retreat center. Specifically, the applicant shall request that the
Health Department re-issue the operations permit authorizing the use of the property as a Camp/Retreat
center incorporating the new uses as approved by the Board of Adjustment. The application, including all
applicable fees, shall be submitted within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of the Special
Use Permit. Any and all required modifications to the existing system required to accommodate the new
uses shall be completed in accordance with Orange County Health Department policy.
2. That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County Inspections
Department requesting a change of use for the Camp/Retreat center. Specifically the applicant shall
request that the Building Inspections division of Orange County re-issue a Certificate of Occupancy (CO)
for the Agricultural Center incorporating the additional land uses as approved by the Board of Adjustment.
The application, including all applicable fees, shall be submitted within one hundred eighty (180) days
from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
3. That the applicant shall cause the existing Special Use Permit to be modified incorporating the new land
uses, as approved by the Board of Adjustment, and that all existing conditions, as denoted on the original
permit shall remain in full force and effect. The revised Special Use Permit shall be recorded in the
Orange County Registrar of Deeds within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of the Special
Use Permit.
David Blankfard: If we grant this special use permit, is there anything that would prohibit the applicant from having an outdo or
event that would exceed the sewer provided that there was outdoor port-o-potties?
Michael Harvey: No sir. The reason why is this special use permit obligates this applicant to comply with the provisions of the
issued permit of the health department. They would actually have to amend that permit.
David Blankfard: So they couldn’t have it.
Michael Harvey: That is going to be my answer because the existing permit as contained in the abstract mandates what has
to happen with respect to occupancy loads for the septic system. If you are asking me can they amend that application, the
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 21 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
answer is yes.
David Blankfard: There wouldn’t be anything that would stop them, or anything special…
Michael Harvey: I can’t testify that would occur. They will have to go through the appropriate process. I will say the system
has been sized to accommodate the uses described. Based on my conversation with the health department, I don’t see any
problem with them continuing operation with the amended uses, however; this system has been designed and sized
appropriately. Any modifications will have to go through that process.
Tom Brown: Does the board have any more questions for Mr. Harvey. Is there anything in the zoning ordinance that would
constrain the hours of operation at the camp retreat center?
Michael Harvey: You also need to keep in mind that there are existing regulations that would limit the types of activities after
certain hours. The noise ordinance for example would establish reasonable restrictions in terms of what outdoor noise or what
noise could be generated or heard off site but as far as the hours of operation, there is nothing in the zoning ordinance giving
me the authority to go out there at 10:00 PM and kick them all out.
Sahana Ayer: You can impose reasonable conditions on additional uses that you are permitting at this point.
Tom Brown: Mr. Parker, as you have heard in the testimony this evening, noise is one of the big issues. It is possible that
outdoor music in the future would have the potential of exceeding the county noise ordinance. The county noise ordinance as
of today, stipulates that during the hours of daytime, Sunday through Thursday, 8:00 AM through 9:00 PM, Friday and
Saturday from 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM and at 60 db. During the evening hours, Sunday through Thursday, 9:00 PM to 8:00 AM
Friday and Saturday from 11:00 PM to 8:00 AM is 50 db. How would you respond to that and how would you intend to deal
with future noise issues?
Mike Parker: I am reasonably confident that we have not exceeded any of those at any time based upon the music these
folks have described, I can’t imagine they have. We absolutely intend to comply with the county’s noise ordinance.
Tom Brown: Have you conducted any noise measurements?
Mike Parker: I have not. I have played a lot of guitars in my life but none compared to what I have heard here today.
Tom Brown: Do you have standard hours of operation for the camp retreat center at this point?
Mike Parker: We really do not. It is basically event by event. Allison would address that much better. I asked her the
question what is the latest event she had. She said probably 10:00 PM and folks have been there until 11:00 PM cleaning up
after the event. It is not like the Seven Eleven that stays open from 10:00 to 2:00.
Tom Brown: We may have a discussion and curtail those hours. I am looking for input because after I close it the input will be
here.
Mike Parker: I understand that. I would say 11:00 PM at the latest. She has to lock it up after it is over.
Tom Brown: What time would be the earliest to start?
Mike Parker: We have kids there at 9:00 AM for field trips.
Tom Brown: Between 9:00 AM and 11:00 PM would be the normal hours of operation of the camping retreat center?
Mike Parker: Yes.
Tom Brown: Do you have any stated policy in writing concerning alcohol use?
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 22 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Mike Parker: No, we do not. We do not have an alcohol permit so we don’t need one.
Tom Brown: Do the Board members have any questions? Keep in mind when we close the hearing, we will go into the
specific and general standards. The specifics are fairly straight forward but the general standards we need to make sure all
questions are fielded now before we get into fact finding.
Mark Micol: We can ask counsel during the deliberations?
Tom Brown: Up to a point but you cannot have a detailed discussion.
Larry Wright: (Directed to Mr. Harvey) You were talking in respect to accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and were you
citing the Land Use Elements in Chapter 5? I was looking and I did a lot of studying on this and I was pretty much in the
natural and the agricultural chapter 6, you were referring to chapter 5?
Michael Harvey: Actually I am referring the Comprehensive Plan as a focusing document. The comment I made is that the
applicant in Attachment B has provided you several sections of the Comprehensive Plan as an entity that they believe
demonstrate their compliance with respect to this development. Staff doesn’t offer comment on that because the general
nature of this finding and what our limitations are from a staff’s standpoint in the ordinance. I did want to remind the board that
the applicant had provided that detail.
Larry Wright: I misunderstood your comment partially. Thank you for clarifying.
Mark Micol: Is there any way we can make the approval contingent on one of the events being tested. I do have a concern
that we are setting the stage for them to increase the sound and there is no way to limit that?
Michael Harvey: My only comment is that regardless of the action you take tonight whether to approve or deny the applicant’s
request, they are still obligated to comply with the noise ordinance. If the Sheriff’s department goes out and determines there
is a violation, standard procedure is that Maple View be afforded two opportunities, reduce it to take another reading and keep
it reduced to meet the decibels before they can cease and desist or risk being cited.
Mark Micol: I guess the only example we have that you referred to where there was no testing done when they did exactly
what you stated. They called the Orange County Sheriff’s department, they didn’t test.
Michael Harvey: The testimony as articulated in the October hearing where I referenced the minutes, the Sheriff’s Department
did go out and conduct an investigation and determined there was no violation. That was the testimony from the October
hearing.
Mark Micol: I would feel a lot better if they would have said 45 decibels were read.
Michael Harvey: That is a true statement, however, what is in the record is that the Sheriff’s department completed their
investigation and determined there was no violation.
Mark Micol: The way I read that statement was that if the time had been after 6:00 PM they would have been in violation
based on what we just read. If the time had been after 6:00 PM then they would have been in violation. It was between 50
and 60 decibels so if they had a decibel reading of 57 and it was between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM during the daylight hours,
they would not be in violation.
Michael Harvey: I can only answer the question the way I talked to the Sheriff’s office, not the way it was entered into the
record. I did not and was not asked to go out and verify findings. Our planning department is not responsible to enforce the
ordinance so I did not go out and take any readings. All I will stipulate to is no matter what you do, any activity at the Maple
View Ag Center will have to be compliant with the noise ordinance and if not, then they have two options; they can either
voluntarily reduce the noise or cease and desist or they may get cited.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 23 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Tom Brown: Mr. Parker, on these activities that take place at the ag center, if you could reiterate how many had outdoor
music?
Mike Parker: Three.
Tom Brown: At all three of those events, did they have external amplification?
Mike Parker: Two had bands, like high school bands. And those are, I suspect, are what they are complaining of. And they
played for about an hour each time.
Tom Brown: And was that music aimed towards the residences, to the north?
Mike Parker: I don’t know but I assure you, in the future, will not be.
Mark Micol: It’s really a moot point too because if they agree to only having three or four, you are still in perpetuity, the SUP
goes with the land? Others could come in and they could have 40 events with music. That discussion is moot.
Michael Harvey: You are correct, the SUP goes with the land and that any provision, condition or regulation goes both ways.
Sahana Ayer buys the Maple View Ag Center and in 10 years turns it into Sahana’s place. It has to operate in compliance
with the application, testimony and regulations that exist at the time. Does that mean, they could have X number of events?
Sure it does as long as it is compliant, consistent with all the regulations that regulate the use of this property. You still have a
septic tank permit application, for example, that limits the number of attendees and the number of events on a daily basis.
You still have occupancy loads enforced by the fire marshal’s office and building inspection’s office. You have parking that
limits from a zoning standpoint, the number of attendees for any event. There are still all these limitations that go in place. I
am not telling you this to make you feel better or it’s not a problem but I think in context you have to understand there is
always room for certain activities to occur but it has to occur within the envelope of the regulations that are enforced by the
county to address these issues.
Mark Micol: And we could further limit the amplification?
Michael Harvey: Without putting thoughts in your head or words in your mouth, if you wish to discuss with the applicant the
option of requiring future outdoor music activities not involve amplified music or be situated where they occur away from the
western property line in order to address noise for the adjacent owners, those are the kinds of things you can discuss with the
applicant and if you feel appropriate, you oppose said conditions but that is a conversation you need to be having with them
and not me.
Sahana Ayer: One of the factors you have to consider while approving these additions is whether these additional uses are in
harmony with the existing character of the neighborhood and if you determine that the additional uses are inconsistent with the
harmony of the neighborhood then you can add any conditions you think that would bring it into compliance but those
conditions can’t invalidate the existing special use permit. That is one thing you have to keep in mind but if you think, at this
point, you need to add conditions about time, amplification, there are existing ordinances they have to comply with but you can
add other conditions you think are reasonable.
Tom Brown: Those specific instances you mentioned would not invalidate the current SUP, would that be correct, limiting
amplified music or hours of operation, that would not have an impact on the current SUP or a modified SUP, is that correct?
Sahana Ayer: It depends on the conditions you are thinking of adding.
Tom Brown: Those specific conditions.
Sahana Ayer: Yes.
Tom Brown: Mr. Parker, what is your comment, what would your feeling be from the applicant’s prospective on limiting
amplified music or redirecting to ensure the noise issue is mitigated?
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 24 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Mike Parker: We have no problem with redirecting that to focus the sound that will turn away from the western property
boundary to the east.
Tom Brown: Do you feel you need amplified music or would you be willing to say that you would not provide a venue for
outdoor amplified music?
Mike Parker: To me it sounds like if we have a noise ordinance we have a level we cannot exceed whether it is amplified or
straight music or bongo drums. Drums are not amplified and most of the time drums are the loudest instrument in a band. I
play with a band at church and we have a very difficult time getting our level below that of the drums so we can match the
drums and not blow everybody out of the room. Again, amplified doesn’t necessarily solve their concerns is what I am trying
to say.
Tom Brown: So you would be willing to go along with a constraint to direct the music away from all residences on the western
side.
Mike Parker: Absolutely. That would be our intent anyway. We would like to get along with others.
Tom Brown: Any other questions from the board members.
Larry Wright: If you have a high school band, that is generally louder and probably has good quality music as you might have
as a professional band but you still want to…I mean this is still an educational place and a high school band can be pretty
noisy and you want to keep them from performing. It is a complex situation.
Tom Brown: As you can see we have competing interests here and in trying to make the best decision, you are going to have
to be sensitive to issues and do whatever you can to mitigate those noise issues. The residences will need to understand and
at least be assured they are not going to be abused by living in the outdoors and having music directed towards their back
yards and porches. We do need to try to come together about that and not have us as the Board of Adjustment try to
abrogate the laws or the ordinances in place or try to create something new because that is not something we should be
doing.
Mike Parker: I agree and if you will look at the list, you will see there have been no amplified events in the last year.
Larry Wright: My concern is that we are talking in good faith now, but this permit, actually this application, if approved, and we
are discussing directing the music away from the western boundary. In 50 years, when a new owner comes in, how is this
going to be handled?
David Blankfard: You could put it as a stipulation that you have to face all amplified music towards the east.
Mark Micol: Whatever music is played on that stage is going to affect these people. I think limiting the number of outdoor
musical events would be a better route than talking about decibels.
Mike Parker: We do not have a stage.
Mark Micol: It is irrelevant whether or not you have a stage. We understand that in good faith you may do one thing but their
concern that five or ten years from now someone else may do something different. Our decision needs to be based on that,
what could happen in the future.
Tom Brown: We also have precedent… because we have other camp retreat centers and if we started to try to limit the
number of events that opens up a whole…..
Larry Wright: Can we ask the attorney about limiting the number? What is your opinion on that?
Sahana Ayer: I can’t advise you about what conditions you can actually impose but I can generally say that you could
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 25 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
consider the number of events or time of day, the time the music is played. Those are two conditions you could impose.
Michael Harvey: What I am hearing this board say is that it is not the indoor activities that cause you consternation. It is the
potential for the outdoor activities. I have heard you say, can you establish a limit on the outdoor activities. The only caveat I
would like to give you is that if you establish a limit on the outdoor activities, it needs to be crafted in the conditions of the
special use permit that only talks about fundraisers or special events and that such a condition shall not impact the
educational component of this facility which does happen outdoors. This is an active farm, the groups that come here
obviously go out, get crops, play with the animals, harvest the eggs and are taken by the staff to the various holding pens
where there are animals. I want to make sure we are clear that the condition, the issue we are dealing with is the holding of
the special event that have an outdoor component whether it be music is what I am hearing.
Tom Brown: Loud outdoor activities.
Michael Harvey: Right. Now, I have ask the question of both the petitioner and Mr. Rooks about a limit, is it potential,
obviously I am not going to speak for Mr. Parker who said he hasn’t broached it technically with his applicant so I will let you
ponder that question with him and asking Mr. Rooks the same question, he says that his clients would be happy with a limit of
two per year. Whether that is realistic or not, I am just saying this is the question I have to ask these two gentlemen and I’ll let
them respond to it but any condition you come up with needs to be crafted in such a manner that is specifically geared
towards special outdoor events without an educational component because we don’t want to inadvertently restrict activities
that everyone seems to agree are reasonable. Obviously, I haven’t heard anything about indoor activities; music played
indoors will be regulated by the noise ordinance. What I am hearing is the outdoor. Orientation of the bands and are there
reasonable hours of operation.
Tom Brown: I think that is where we are. It’s the special events with loud outdoor music that is really the crux of the issue
here. How do we get together to where we have some compromise? If you are not having music it is not an issue. If you
have a fundraiser, it is not an issue. What we are discussing here is music and amplified sound that carries across a large
expanse of distance and actually be heard inside someone’s house.
Mike Parker: I am having a really difficult time understanding why the Orange County Noise Ordinance doesn’t solve that
problem. That is a standard whether we have loud music, whether we have loud animals, whether we have a motorcycle rally
that sets a standard we all can live with. We have to live with it and I am not sure why there needs to be another way of
saying you can’t have anything that is even close to that any other time of the year.
Tom Brown: Unfortunately, we have no measurements at all from the applicant or the opposition to give us any idea of what
kind of noise has been generated on the property.
Mike Parker: The only time I know it happened, the Orange County Sheriff’s office said it is not a violation of the noise
ordinance. I will tell the Board of Adjustment this, one of the problems probably we have had in the past is the we have
allowed the use of the facility without being hands on in control in the use of the facility which will not happen in the future, I
will assure you of that. We have tried to be an excellent neighbor and not charge people to use the facility, give them the
opportunity to go there and that will not happen in the future. We will control those events.
Tom Brown: At a minimum, a condition that would be added is active supervision of all activities by the agricultural center
would be required.
Mike Parker: You understand that is not required in your existing ordinance for camp and retreat centers. They rent facilities,
they let folks go in and have them catered by outside parties and they basically put the money in the bank and don’t show up
until it is time to lock the doors.
Tom Brown: I understand but this is a unique camp and retreat center with unique functions. Therefore, we are discussing
here what kind of conditions would be imposed that would make sense and serve you as well as the opposition.
Mike Parker: I think the appropriate standard is to say we must comply with that noise ordinance at all times.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 26 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
David Rooks: Mr. Chairman, the fact that this is a special use permit means that you have the authority to impose conditions
beyond the noise ordinance. The noise ordinance is a minimum standard that applies to everybody, a use of right or special
use permit. A special use permit has conditions. You have the power to impose conditions and those conditions can be in
excess of the minimum standards of the noise ordinance.
Mike Parker: I don’t disagree, that is true. But I have a feeling that you have been misrepresented here by this group over
here as to what types of events we have had. We have had three events with music and at those three events there was only
two that had amplified music and they were, as Allison said, they were supposed to play for an hour and half but they kept
taking smoke breaks, so they played much less than that. We are talking about a period of three hours over a period of
several years and it makes it sound like every weekend there was a band out there with an amplifier going. That is just not
represented properly.
David Rooks: Mr. Chairman, our problem is that if a permit is granted as applied for and the Nutters leave town tomorrow and
someone else takes over, we could have a wedding every weekend with a band out back.
Tom Brown: I understand and that is what we are trying to get to a resolution on and that is the difficulty here.
Mike Parker: If the Nutters leave town tomorrow it would be because they were put into a box and we do not want that to
happen.
David Blankfard: Two non-agricultural events per year seems restrictive. Is there a number beside two per year?
Mike Parker: I don’t know if there is a magic number. We are trying to be of service to the community. The events that we
have used the barn for, the largest part, or the ones of service to the community and we intend to do that with not for profit
agencies, we intend to stay that way. If you want to restrict the service we do to the community, I guess you have the
authority to do that.
Larry Wright: I think we have a problem with the social. What would happen, you already have had a great dane rescue and
so what would happen if they had a shelties rescue and whatever rescue, then there is two a year and so I think we need to
stop and think about this.
David Blankfard: As the developer said, things change and are constantly changing so I don’t want to personally restrict the
use of the Nutters property to maintain what they have got but if things did change, would the homeowners association be
stuck. I would say if there are only going to be outdoor events during the warmer times of the year; they are not going to have
it in the middle of December when they have no foliage on the trees.
Larry Wright: I am from upstate New York; I would take issue with that.
David Blankfard: I think it is within our purview to limit the number of non-agricultural outdoor events with amplified sounds.
There isn’t going to be a number that no one is going to be happy with. Two is too small, unlimited is too much.
Sahana Ayer: Let me attempt to help you out. There are two conditions that you could consider the number of events. For
instance, you could say no more than six outdoor events with amplified music and the events we are talking about are outdoor
events; they will not impact indoor events or any other educational events; people petting animals, that sort of thing. The
second thing is the time when the music is played. You can have conditions like no music before noon or after 9:00 PM
Sunday through Thursday or after 10:00 PM Friday through Saturday so those are potential conditions you could consider
imposing on the special use permit. Of course, they will at all times have to comply with the noise ordinance.
Tom Brown: Any other comments, ideas or questions?
Sahana Ayer: One additional condition you could consider is to notice the neighbors as to when these events are happening;
some kind of schedule.
Tom Brown: Would it be possible to have notification of events to the neighbors?
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 27 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Mike Parker: Absolutely.
Tom Brown: We are only speaking about outdoor events with amplified music or sound that could potentially affect the
residences.
Mike Parker: That is not a problem.
Tom Brown: If they wish to have a complete schedule and you could provide it that would be great as well. The public portion
of case A-1-11 is now closed. I would like to thank staff and the applicant and those that spoke in opposition for your
thoughtful testimony and your time tonight. We will now begin deliberations of the board and come to some kind of decision.
On page 155 through page 162 of your packet are the specific standards. I believe we can go through with motions and deal
with that portion first before we get to the general findings.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 28 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
CASE NUMBER: SUP-B-1-11
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF
PERTAINING TO REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
MAPLE VIEW AGRICULTURAL CENTER LLC
REQUESTING A REVIOSION TO AN EXISTING CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A CAMP/RETREAT CENTER
AT THEIR EXISTING FACILITY LOCATED AT
3111 DAIRYLAND ROAD (PIN 9851-50-8691)
Special Uses must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section 5.3 and 5.8.4 of the Orange County
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following:
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed
and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted;
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in
which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property); and
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony
with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical
development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion
thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners;
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following specific standards:
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined within Section(s) 2.2
and 2.7 of the UDO,
(2) Specific regulations governing the development of individual Special Uses as set forth in Section 5.8.4 of
the UDO.
(3) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application in question. The findings
have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of Adjustment in its deliberations.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 29 of 44
1
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates 2
Non-compliance) 3
4
PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
BOARD
FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
2.2
The application for a Class B
Special Use Permit shall be on
forms provided by the Planning
Department.
X__Yes ____No A complete application on
appropriate forms has been
submitted.
_X_Yes ____No
2.2.4 (D)
Applications must be
accompanied by the fee amount
that has been established by
Board of County
Commissioners. Application
fees are nonrefundable.
X__Yes ____No An application fee was
submitted in accordance with
the adopted Fee Schedule
_X_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (1)
A full and accurate description
of the proposed use, including
its location, appearance, and
operational characteristics.
X__Yes ____No The applicant has provided a
narrative detailing the nature
of the proposed modification to
the existing, previously issued,
Class B Special Use Permit.
_X_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (2)
The names and addresses of
the owners of the property.
X__Yes ____No The applicant has provided a
narrative detailing the
name/address of the owner of
the property as required.
_X_Yes ____No
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 30 of 44
1
PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
BOARD
FINDINGS
2.7.3 (B) (3)
Relevant information needed to
show compliance with the
general and specific standards
governing the Special Use
X__Yes ____No The applicant has provided
various documents, including a
site plan, containing the
necessary information they
purport to document
compliance with the provisions
of the Ordinance.
_X_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (4)
Ten (10) copies of the site plan
prepared by a registered N.C.
land surveyor, architect, or
engineer. (Class B applications)
X__Yes ____No Ten (10) copies of the site
plan, prepared by Jim Holland
have been submitted.
_X_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (5)
If the application involves a
Preliminary Subdivision Plat, 26
copies of the Plat prepared in
accordance with Section 7.15
shall be provided.
Not Applicable X The project does not involve a
preliminary subdivision plat.
Therefore this condition is not
applicable.
Not Applicable _X_
2.7.3 (B) (6)
A list of all parcels located
within 500 feet of the subject
parcel and the name and
address of each property owner,
as currently listed in the Orange
County tax records.
X__Yes ____No The application contains the
required list of adjacent
property owners
_X_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (7)
Elevations of all structures
proposed to be used in the
development.
X__Yes ____No The application contains
photographs of the existing
structure
_X_Yes ____No
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 31 of 44
1
PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
PLANNING BOARD
FINDINGS
2.7.3 (B) (8)
26 copies of an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement as required
by Section 6.16 of the UDO
Not Applicable X The project does not require
the completion of these
documents as detailed within
Section 6.16 of the UDO
Not Applicable _X_
2.7.3 (B) (9)
Method of disposal of trees,
limbs, stumps and construction
debris associated with the
permitted activity, which shall be
by some method other than
open burning.
X__Yes ____No The site plan contains a note
indicating that any construction
or land clearing debris
generated on-site will be
disposed of in accordance with
the County’s Solid Waste
Management Ordinance
_X_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (10)
Statement from the applicant
indicating the anticipated
development schedule for the
build-out of the project.
X__Yes ____No The narrative indicates that the
proposed new uses will
continue to commence once
the permit is authorized.
_X_Yes ____No
2.7.3 (B) (11)
Statement from the applicant in
justification of any request for
vesting for a period of more
than two years (five years
maximum)
Not Applicable X The applicant is not requesting
vesting of the project
Not Applicable _X_
2
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 32 of 44
ARTICLE 5.7.4 – CAMP/RETREAT CENTER (CLASS B SPECIAL USE) 1
SPECIFIC STANDARDS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
3
PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
PLANNING
BOARD
FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
5.7.4 (A) (1) (a).
A site plan prepared in
accordance with Section 2.7
also showing the following
(existing or proposed):
i. buildings
ii. campsites
iii. storage areas
iv. fencing and gates
v. outdoor recreation
areas
vi. access road(s) to the
site, as well as on site
roads, with an
indication of type of
proposed surface.
X__Yes ____No The site plan contains the
required information.
The applicant has provided
pictures of the building in order
to meet the building elevation
submittal requirement
_X_Yes ____No
5.7.4 (A) (1) (b)
A description of the type of
facility planned, the size,
capacity, and use of proposed
buildings; a signed statement
from the owners or operators
that there shall be no activity
allowed that will have adverse
effects on adjacent property.
The statement shall also include
a complete list of all recreational
activities that will take place on
the site.
X__Yes ____No The application package
contains a narrative providing
the necessary and required
information.
_X_Yes ____No
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 33 of 44
1
PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
BOARD
FINDINGS
5.7.4 (A) (1) (c)
A phasing plan, when
necessary, indicating the area
to be developed in each phase
with time periods for
construction of each phase.
This may be indicated on the
site plan.
Not Applicable X_ The applicant is not proposing
a phasing plan as part of this
application
Not Applicable _X_
5.7.4 (A) (2) (a)
Unless public sewer is proposed
to be extended, the adequacy
for the method of sewage
disposal will be determined by
the lot size and soil suitability.
Appropriate letters from the
Orange County Environmental
Health Department, local
jurisdictions and/or the State
Division of Environmental
Management shall be submitted
to indicate preliminary approval.
X__Yes ____No Please refer to the information
contained within Attachment F
of the packet.
_X_Yes ____No
5.7.4 (A) (2) (b)
The site plan shall show the
distances to the nearest
residential structures.
X__Yes ____No The site plan shows that the
nearest residential structure to
the property is approximately
200 feet.
_X_Yes ____No
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 34 of 44
1
PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
BOARD
FINDINGS
5.7.4 (A) (2) (c)
The landscape plan shall show
how the facilities will be
screened from the adjacent
properties. A minimum 30 foot
Type B buffer, as indicated in
Section 6.8 shall be observed
around the perimeter of the
property.
X__Yes ____No The site plan contains the
required information.
Staff has testified that the
applicant has recently made
modifications to the front yard
buffer along Dairyland Road in
order to bring the property into
compliance with Section 6.8
_X_Yes ____No
5.7.4 (A) (2) (d)
If private recreational facilities
are proposed, the
improvements must meet the
site improvement requirements
in Section 7.11 of this
Ordinance.
The site plan for recreational
facilities shall be reviewed by
the Orange County Recreation
and Parks Director.
Not Applicable X The applicant is not proposing
private, regulated, recreational
amenities requiring
consistency with Section 7.11
of the Ordinance
Not Applicable _X_
5.7.4 (A) (2) (e)
Off street parking requirements
shall be provided in accordance
with Section 6.9 of this
Ordinance.
.
Yes _X__ No___ The site plan demonstrates
compliance with the provisions
of Section 6.9 of the
Ordinance
_X_Yes No___
2
3
4
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 35 of 44
ARTICLE 5.3.2 (B) – Compliance with Specific Standards (CLASS B SPECIAL USE) 1
SPECIFIC STANDARDS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 2
3
PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
PLANNING BOARD
FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (B)
Section 5.3.2 (B) (1)
Method and adequacy of
provision for sewage disposal
facilities, solid waste and water
service.
X__Yes ____No Sewage disposal shall be
handled through an existing,
privately maintained, septic
system on the property. Water
service shall be provided
through an existing well on the
property.
The Health Department has
requested additional
information on the actual
number of attendees for the
revised uses prior to the
issuance of a modified
operations permit.
This will need to be a condition
of approval.
_X_Yes ____No
Section 5.3.2 (B) (2)
Method and adequacy of police,
fire and rescue squad
protection.
X__Yes ____No Fire protection will be provided
by the Orange Grove
Volunteer Fire Department,
rescue service by the Orange
County Emergency
Management, and police
protection by the Orange
County Sheriff’s Department.
_X_Yes ____No
Section 5.3.2 (B) (3)
Method and adequacy of
vehicle access to the site and
traffic conditions around the
site.
_X_Yes ___No The submitted site plan shows
the required access points.
_X_Yes ____No
4
5
6
7
8
Motion made by Larry Wright to approve sections listed on page 156, Section 2.2, 2.2.4(D), Section 2.7.3 (B) (1), Section
2.7.3 (B) (2), on page 157, Section 2.7.3 (B) (3), Section 2.7.3. (B) (4), on page 157, Section 2.7.3. (B) (5) through Section
5.3.2 (B) (3) on page 162. Seconded David Blankfard.
Vote: Unanimous
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 36 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Tom Brown: The specific standards have been approved. Next, we go to the general findings. Before we get into the general
findings, I think what is going to impact us with facts to uphold these findings are the conditions. We would have to see what
kind of conditions we would add with staff conditions on the back. We feel that would allow us, if you wish, to vote in favor of
the general conditions. Those conditions that we feel would be appropriate. Are there discussions or conditions that you think
we need to deal with right now. I think we had recommendations of no more than six outdoor events with amplified music or
sound not to include normal educational or agricultural activities.
Mark Micol: If we say limit the number of amplified outdoor events to six, that should cover it… whether it is educational or
not. If we just say outdoor music and/or amplified events.
Larry Wright: Music could be anything…
Tom Brown: We talked about a high school band. That would come under the not amplified but it would still come under the
purview of the Orange County noise ordinance no matter what type of music. What we would be saying in that case, we are
only concerned about amplified music or sound at a specific event and limiting those. They are always subject to the noise
ordinance.
James Carter: I have a problem with limiting educational events. You are going to set a limit on the amount of educational
events?
Tom Brown: No.
David Blankfard: What we are saying is that we are going to limit the number of outdoor events whether they are educational
or not.
Mark Micol: The whole reason we are putting this in is to help the neighborhood limit the number of loud, musical or amplified
events whatever it is.
Tom Brown: All the educational or agricultural events should not be a factor. We are only talking about limiting the loud noise
generation outside the facility.
Mark Micol: If they are running a tractor around with kids on it. That is a farm issue.
Tom Brown: That is what we need to make sure we do not include that.
Mark Micol: That is why I think we should keep it simple.
Tom Brown: An amplified event of music would not include tractors, educational or farm component. That is not amplified
anyway.
Larry Wright: Procedural question. Does this pertain to conditions on page 164?
Tom Brown: Page 164 would assist you in being able to vote. In order words if you want the location to be in harmony with
the area but in order to keep in harmony with the area, limit the loud noise that is generated so that is why we are discussing
this now before the general standards.
Larry Wright: I think in terms of what we were advised by Mr. Harvey, I think we really need to separate the social from the
educational.
Mark Micol: Who is to decide whether it is educational or social?
Tom Brown: We are only talking about amplified music.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 37 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Mark Micol: I think Mr. Wright was saying we should separate it out and say you can only have five socials and ….
Larry Wright: No. I am not there yet.
Tom Brown: I don’t think limiting that would be what we really want but by limiting the loud amplified music outdoor events,
you have at least ensured that the loud event is limited. All of those are under the purview of the noise ordinance of Orange
County. We are saying that in addition, on top of that, you can only have six amplified music events. Those events would still
be subject to the noise ordinance.
Larry Wright: I think it should be amplified sound, not just amplified music.
Tom Brown: One condition, as a proposal, is that one of the conditions we would enact would be that there would be no more
than six events with amplified sounds conducted at the agricultural center.
Larry Wright: If they have a cow show, that is amplified sound. They could show Holsteins.
Tom Brown: That is not the purpose of the agricultural center. Livestock shows and such…
Larry Wright: They could bring them by.
Tom Brown: It would be outside the purview of the SUP.
Larry Wright: I don’t think so. If you have a bunch of school kids there and you’re bringing in Holsteins and telling them this is
bossy and somebody else... that is educational and amplified sound.
Tom Brown: My personal opinion is I don’t think that would be an issue going forward. Is there consensus, music, sound?
Mark Micol: I thought music or amplified events were solid.
David Blankfard: What if their teacher is teaching square dancing?
Mark Micol: We are not talking about a little speaker or microphone, we are talking about a marching band or wind ensemble.
That is what will get over 50 decibels.
Larry Wright: Can we go through the noise ordinance again?
Tom Brown: The maximum decibel levels during the following hours of the day; Sunday through Thursday 8:00 AM through
9:00 PM, Friday and Saturday from 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM is 60 db. For the maximum decibels in the evening; Sunday through
Thursday 9:00 PM through 8:00 AM in the morning, Sunday through Thursday, Friday and Saturday from 11:00 PM until 8:00
AM is 50 db.
Larry Wright: What is 50 db? A motorcycle?
Tom Brown: That would not be a question for us. 50 db is not a loud noise at all. We have had previous testimony with
kennels where the barking dogs at the perimeter in the last kennel case would not have reached the edge of the property and
be over 60 db. That is what it states and what applies to everyone.
James Carter: Are we debating the number or noise issue? Or both.
Mark Micol: I am trying to take the burden off the property owners to police. Not the Nutters but anyone coming after the
Nutters. I think in good faith, the business they are running is not what we are talking about. We are talking about what the
SUP is giving the owners of the property the right to do. I want to take the burden off the owners to have to call the Sheriff’s
department. The only way we can do that is limit the number of events because if we take the testimony that has been given
where they call the Sheriff’s department, we don’t have a record they tested anything.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 38 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Tom Brown: Should we put a condition on the limit of amplified events?
James Carter: Are you saying limit the events or the sound?
Tom Brown: Amplified sound.
James Carter: Regardless of the number of events you have.
Mark Micol: Events that incorporate loud music or amplified.
David Blankfard: You can have six music events this year outside. We are trying to limit the amount of outdoor music events.
James Carter: Or you can have as many events as you can without music?
Tom Brown: Yes. No restriction at all without loud music or educational or agricultural.
James Carter: Kids needs to be exposed.
Mark Micol: I think the loud, outdoor music events...
Tom Brown: So no more than six amplified, outdoor music events.
Mark Micol: Is six a sufficient number.
Tom Brown: It will be sufficient for some and not for others.
David Blankfard: I was thinking 12. During six months of the year, you could have one every other weekend.
Larry Wright: I was thinking 10 to 12.
James Carter: But if you are saying 12, you would use it once a month.
Mark Micol: Are we saying once per month or 12.
James Carter: You could have 12 and use it any way you want.
Tom Brown: Odds are you are not going to be doing that in the middle of winter. That means if you did use the maximum of
12 that means you are doubling up in some months during the good weather.
David Blankfard: I am now considering 12 is too many. Maybe 8.
Tom Brown: Is there a consensus?
James Carter: I still say 12… use it any way you want.
Tom Brown: Your recommendation would be there would be no more than 12 outdoor events with amplified music.
James Carter: Yes. Once per month or you can double.
Tom Brown: No more than 12 in the year.
Mark Micol: Would that include Friday and Saturday? If you did Friday one weekend and Saturday the next day, that is two.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 39 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Larry Wright: That really would, if for example, 25 years, someone wanted to take that whole place and turn it into, a music
festival, they couldn’t do it with 12. They couldn’t make a living with 12.
James Carter: Tom, what are we voting on?
Tom Brown: I am trying to write a draft of a condition saying there would be no more than 12 days during the calendar year
using outdoor amplified music.
Mark Micol: For the rest of this year, they have six?
Tom Brown: We say no more than 12 for the calendar year.
Mark Micol: I would agree with that.
Tom Brown: A condition could be added that there would be no more than 12 days of outdoor amplified music during any
calendar year. Counsel, would that be adequate to ensure that the educational and other components are not affected, if we
say that, it would not affect any agricultural or educational components that currently take place there?
Sahana Ayer: I think that is right.
Tom Brown: How about hours? Should there be restricted hours of playing amplified music at those times?
James Carter: Doesn’t Orange County have an ordinance in terms of time frame?
Tom Brown: The noise ordinance gives times that will apply on every activity. Do you wish to further restrict the hours? Right
now, the hours are 9:00 PM Sunday through Thursday, 11:00 PM Friday and Saturday. You can get up to 60 db. That is
currently the Orange County Noise Ordinance.
Larry Wright: 60 db wasn’t very loud.
Tom Brown: That depends on where you are sitting at.
Mark Micol: Because these 12 events still have to adhere to the ordinance.
David Blankfard: Why don’t we stick to 12 events?
Tom Brown: What about supervision? Do we want to make any kind of comment to ensure the agricultural center will ensure
that all special events are supervised properly by staff?
Mark Micol: I agree with the applicant. We haven’t on other retreats.
Tom Brown: You don’t want put that in a condition?
James Carter: No, because it will go all the way across the board. As you said other, the applicants ….
David Blankfard: Do you have any thoughts on that?
Tom Brown: I am just throwing that out as a possibility. I am trying to get into a position where we can, in some fashion serve
both constituents, which is difficult enough as it is. With this one condition we are adding to the condition imposed by staff and
that is dealing with noise.
Mark Micol: What are the restrictions placed by Valhalla?
Tom Brown: They had hours of operation due to the noise and they had alcohol problems with people walking around to
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 40 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
different homes in the area. I think that their primary limitations was hours of operation.
Larry Wright: If they did apply for an ABC permit, they could get it if the county approves it?
Tom Brown: You would get into the same issue as Valhalla. As people are inebriated and they cross other people’s property,
we have a trespassing issue and then a sheriff’s department issue. We can’t limit those kinds of things. If you feel you have
enough to go forward on the general findings on page 163. The chair will entertain motions.
David Blankfard: Are we still happy with the hours?
Tom Brown: I think the applicant said he would be happy with the hours of 9:00 to 11:00.
Larry Wright: We would have to be specific.
Tom Brown: You would have to say that events at the agricultural center would be limited to operational hours of 9:00 AM to
11:00 PM.
Larry Wright: So the agricultural center does not include the farm?
Tom Brown: No, only the agricultural center.
Mark Micol: I was worried about future operators.
Tom Brown: You still have the noise ordinance in effect. If you get past 50 db at night….and it will be incumbent upon the
residents to ensure that the noise ordinance is complied with and up to the applicant to make sure they conform.
Larry Wright: No matter what restriction we apply, the burden would be on whoever felt offended by it.
Sahana Ayer: You could consider notice.
Mark Micol: I put in my motion that the applicant will give notice of the events to the surrounding homeowners association so
we can limit it to that homeowners association or within a radius.
Tom Brown: To the homeowners association or make it available to the other interested parties. You can put it on the
website… there are many ways you can announce it.
Mark Micol: For the burden, not to have to pass out 40 or 50 flyers, I think it is easier to give it to the homeowners association
to be responsible.
Tom Brown: They are the ones that have the primary opposition so that would be appropriate.
Mark Micol: Or have it available onsite in case anyone wanted to go by.
David Blankfard: I think to give notice, to make it available.
Tom Brown: To make the events scheduling available to the homeowners association, Maple View II HOA, a condition would
be to make an events schedule available to the Maple View II HOA.
Larry Wright: That could be website, email, etc.
David Blankfard: We are not going to get into timeframes.
Tom Brown: Both parties will have to work together and if they don’t they will both suffer. We will have that as a second
condition. You don’t have to put that in the motion.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 41 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
David Blankfard: In my motion, I would have an outdoor limit or not?
Tom Brown: If you are talking about 5.3.2, the first one?
David Blankfard: Yes, maintain and promote public health.
Tom Brown: Your facts are going to be how will this maintain and promote public health.
David Blankfard: Then I’ll make the conditions right after that?
Sahana Ayer: You can do the conditions at the end.
Tom Brown: Should you put it in the motion or at the very end?
Sahana Ayer: You can put it at the very end. But you would have to be specific with regard to these conditions.
PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
PLANNING BOARD
FINDINGS
In accordance with Section
5.3.2 (A) (2), the Board of
Adjustment shall also consider
the following general conditions
before the application for a
Special Use can be approved:
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a)
The use will maintain or
promote the public health,
safety and general welfare, if
located where proposed and
developed and operated
according to the plan as
submitted.
Will __Will Not Based on evidence presented
at the hearing.
X Will __Will Not
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Motion made by Mark Micol to approve Article 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety
and general welfare based on testimony that the ag center is a resource to educate the community on farming and also
address the need in the local community for a cultural meeting center for local residents to congregate for various activities.
Seconded Larry Wright.
Vote: Unanimous
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 42 of 44
1
2
PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
PLANNING BOARD
FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b)
The use will maintain or
enhance the value of
contiguous property (unless the
use is a public necessity, in
which case the use need not
maintain or enhance the value
of contiguous property).
Will
__Will Not
Based on evidence presented
at the hearing.
X Will
__Will Not
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Motion made by Larry Wright in the affirmative for Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) that this application will maintain and enhance the
value of property and the value of contiguous properties on submission of letters from Mr. Robert Hartford who is the broker
and Mr. Scott Dorsett who is a realtor, appraiser and consultant.
Seconded David Blankfard.
Vote: Unanimous
PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
PLANNING BOARD
FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c)
The location and character of
the use, if developed according
to the plan submitted, will be in
harmony with the area in which
it is to be located and the use is
in compliance with the plan for
the physical development of the
County as embodied in these
regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or portion
thereof, adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
Is
__Is Not
Based on evidence presented
at the hearing.
X Is
__ Is Not
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Motion made by Larry Wright in the affirmative for Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) that this complies with the physical development of
the county as embodied in regulations or specifically in the Comprehensive Plan and reference to Chapter 6, elements
6.4.1.2, paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. This deals with natural and cultural systems and also, the use
of agricultural property and the development of a holistic view of agricultural and the working of imaginative uses of
agricultural and ecotourism. They are trying to preserve farms. Testimony in this hearing touched on the viability of farms.
Seconded Mark Micol.
Vote: Unanimous
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 43 of 44
1
2
STAFF COMMENT(S):
Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant complies
with the specific standards as outlined within the UDO with respect to the physical development of the property. Further, staff
has determined that the proposed additional uses are consistent with the operational characteristics of a Camp/Retreat Center
as currently defined and permitted within the County.
Staff cannot comment on the projects compliance with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the Unified
Development Ordinance, specifically:
a. The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and
developed and operated according to the plan as submitted.
b. The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which
case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property).
c. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the
area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the
County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners.
These items are acted upon by the Board based on the testimony and evidence entered into the public record during the
hearing.
If the Board of Adjustment finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards, the Board could make a positive finding
on this application. In the event that the Board of Adjustment makes the determination that the permit can be issued, Planning
Staff would suggest the Board consider the attachment of the following conditions to the revised Special Use Permit:
1. That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County Health Department
requesting a change of use for the Camp/Retreat center. Specifically, the applicant shall request that the
Health Department re-issue the operations permit authorizing the use of the property as a Camp/Retreat
center incorporating the new uses as approved by the Board of Adjustment. The application, including all
applicable fees, shall be submitted within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of the Special
Use Permit. Any and all required modifications to the existing system required to accommodate the new
uses shall be completed in accordance with Orange County Health Department policy.
2. That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County Inspections Department
requesting a change of use for the Camp/Retreat center. Specifically the applicant shall request that the
Building Inspections division of Orange County re-issue a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the Agricultural
Center incorporating the additional land uses as approved by the Board of Adjustment. The application,
including all applicable fees, shall be submitted within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of
the Special Use Permit.
3. That the applicant shall cause the existing Special Use Permit to be modified incorporating the new land
uses, as approved by the Board of Adjustment, and that all existing conditions, as denoted on the original
permit shall remain in full force and effect. The revised Special Use Permit shall be recorded in the Orange
County Registrar of Deeds within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of the Special Use
Permit.
4. That no more than 12 days of outdoor amplified music can be conducted during any calendar year.
5. That the agricultural center will make the events schedule available to the Maple View II HOA.
Approved 11/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 6/13/2011 Page 44 of 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Tom Brown: On page 164, we have the three conditions provided by staff which are fairly straightforward. Then we have two
additional conditions, number four and five. Number four being that no more than 12 days of outdoor amplified music can be
conducted during any calendar year. Condition number five is that the agricultural center will make the events schedule
available to the Maple View II HOA.
Sahana Ayer: ABC permit… are you considering imposing a condition about them applying for an ABC permit?
Tom Brown: It was our understanding they would have to do that anyway so it would not be something we would impose but
a requirement levied upon them by the county.
Motion made by David Blankfard to approve the Class B Special Use Permit Modification request with the five conditions as
stipulated previously.
Seconded Mark Micol.
Vote: Unanimous
Tom Brown: Based on the testimony and decision of the Orange County Board of Adjustment, Case A-1-11 Camp Retreat
Center modification of existing special use permit submitted by the Maple View Agricultural Center LLC is hereby approved
with conditions as stipulated.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Motion made Larry Wright to adjourn. Seconded Mark Micol.
Vote: Unanimous
Meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:05 pm.
Tina Owen – Minutes Preparer