[00:00:01]
BRINGING THIS MEETING THIS[Board of Zoning Appeals on February 17, 2026.]
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17TH, 2026.CONNIE, CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? VICE CHAIRMAN SCHMIDT? HERE.
UH, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PREVIOUS MEETING'S.
CAN WE HAVE, WE HAVE, UH, CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? UH, MR. BROGAN? YES.
UM, FIRST OFF, UH, JUST BECAUSE IT'S, UH, BECAUSE OF THE EQUAL TIME RULES, YOU CAN'T REALLY HAVE THE APPEALS PEOPLE SITTING AT THE TABLE WITH THE BOARD.
OKAY? BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO PRESENT AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PRESENT AND WE CAN'T HAVE, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE MINUTES.
WAS THAT BOTH FOR BOTH SETS? THE REGULAR MEETING AND THE WORK SESSION MINUTES? YES.
UM, THIS IS TWO SEPARATE APPEALS, SO WE CAN APPROVE, DENY, MODIFY ON TWO SEPARATE ITEMS. UH, THEY'RE STACKED IN HERE, NUMBER ONE AND TWO.
UM, BUT NUMBER TWO IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST COMPONENT OF THE WHOLE THING, WHEREAS NUMBER ONE ACTUALLY COMES BECAUSE OF NUMBER TWO.
UM, SO I WOULD NEED A MOTION TO REORDER THE AGENDA SO THAT NUMBER TWO ACTUALLY COMES FIRST, AND NUMBER ONE ACTUALLY COMES SECOND.
SO CAN I GET A MOTION FOR THAT? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO BRING, UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO TO ITEM NUMBER ONE IN THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING TODAY.
UH, CAN WE HAVE A VOTE ON IT? VICE CHAIRMAN SCHMIDT? YES.
SO THAT'S ALL BEEN TAKEN CARE OF.
UM, THE TOWN AND THE APPEAL IS GOING TO GIVE THEIR THEIR SIDES.
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THE TOWN IS GOING TO GIVE ALL THEIR INFORMATION ON NUMBER TWO.
THEN THE APPELLATE'S GONNA GIVE ALL THEIR INFORMATION ON NUMBER TWO.
THEN WE WILL DISCUSS NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS NOW NUMBER ONE.
THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO THE TOWN FOR NUMBER ONE, AND THEN THE APPEAL E FOR NUMBER TWO.
AGAIN, BECAUSE IT'S TWO SEPARATE ITEMS, IT'S JUST THE SAME PERSON.
UM, SO IS THE TOWN READY TO YES.
PRESENT? SO FOR MY PORTION OF THE PRESENTATION, I'M JUST GOING TO GO OVER, UM, WHAT YOU'RE DOING TONIGHT.
CODY HAD ALREADY KIND OF SUMMARIZED IT.
I'M JUST GONNA GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF STATE STATUTES BEHIND IT.
AND THEN DANIEL, OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT PROPERTY MAINTENANCE OFFICIAL, WILL GET UP AND KIND OF GIVE YOU A BRIEF TIMELINE THAT LED US TO HIM SENDING OUT NOTICES OF VIOLATIONS.
AND THEN JOHN WILL, UM, PROVIDE THE REST OF THE INFORMATION AS TO WHAT THE TOWN CODE STATES.
SO TONIGHT, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF DECISIONS MADE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
SO I AM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL.
UM, MY STAFF ARE DANIEL AND JOHN.
THEY, UNDER THROUGH MY AUTHORITY, ARE ABLE TO SEND OUT VIOLATIONS AND INTERPRET THE CODE.
UM, AND THEN UNDER 15.2 2286, UM, THAT IS WHERE MY AUTHORITY COMES FROM THROUGH FROM STATE CODE.
AND THEN CERTAIN MATTERS WILL ORIGINATE WITH THE BCA.
THOSE ARE THINGS LIKE VARIANCES, UM, OR YOU KNOW, IN OTHER LOCALITIES THAT HERE, ESPECIALLY USE PERMITS.
THOSE ARE DECISIONS THAT YOU MAKE.
IN THIS INSTANCE, YOU ARE HEARING THE APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
SO THIS IS THE MECHANISM UPON WHICH THE APPELLANT CAN GET RELIEF FROM THE CODE IF IT IS FOUND THAT, UH, WE INTERPRETED THE CODE INCORRECTLY.
UM, SO FOR THIS ONE, IN APPEAL, YOU CAN HEAR THE MEANING OF A PARTICULAR REGULATION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, YOU CAN DECIDE HOW LAND SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AND WHETHER OR NOT THE USE IS PERMITTED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT.
[00:05:01]
UH, THAT IS KEY FOR, UH, I BELIEVE ITEM NUMBER ONE TONIGHT, EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS NUMBER TWO, UM, WHETHER PROPOSED STRUCTURED ADHERES TO BULK REGULATIONS, YOU'RE NOT HEARING THAT TONIGHT.UM, CONFORMING VERSUS NON-CONFORMING STATUS OF A USE OR STRUCTURE THAT'S NOT WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW TONIGHT.
AND THEN VEST RIGHTS AND THEN STANDING TO APPEAL.
DOES THE APPELLANT HAVE STANDING TO APPEAL? TO FILE THE APPEAL? SO ANY PERSON THAT IS AGGRIEVED BY ANY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT, BOARD, OR BUREAU OF THE LOCALITY AFFECTED BY ANY DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, BASICALLY IN THIS INSTANT, OUR OFFICE SENT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE APPELLANT, TO THEY ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL, THEY HAVE STANDING.
AND THEN THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS TONIGHT ARE ALSO LAID OUT IN STATE CODE.
SO EQUAL TIME, THE BZA HAS TO OFFER EQUAL AMOUNTS OF TIME AT THE HEARING TO THE APPELLANT AND TO STAFF.
SO THAT IS WHY STAFF'S GONNA GIVE THE REST OF THIS PRESENTATION.
THEN YOU SHOULD ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
THE APPLICANT WILL GET UP, PROVIDE HER REBUTTAL OR HER CASE, OR PRESENT THAT TO YOU ALL, AND THEN ASK QUESTIONS.
STAFF THEN HAS A CHANCE TO REFUTE ANYTHING THAT SHE STATES AS WELL.
ONE MORE TIME, ASK QUESTIONS AT THAT POINT.
AND THEN YOU'LL NEED TO GO INTO MAKING MOTIONS, DISCUSSIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, HER STATE CODE, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS.
SO AT THE BEGINNING, YOU ARE PRESUMING THAT STAFF AND THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IS CORRECT.
SO IT IS UPON THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPELLANT.
SO THEY HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE BY PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WAS INCORRECT IN THEIR FINDINGS OF THEIR DISCRIMINATION.
AND IN THIS INSTANCE, THE SENDING OUT OF THE NOTICE IS A VIOLATION, AND THEN YOU'RE MAKING A DECISION, AGAIN, THE JUDGMENT OF WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WAS CORRECT.
SO HERE YOU CAN EITHER REVERSE IT, AFFIRM IT, OR WHOLLY OR PARTLY MODIFY THE DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
UM, AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST DID STAFF INTERPRET THE ORDINANCE CORRECTLY? YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDINANCE ITSELF IS VALID.
YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS REGARDING THE WORDING OF THE ORDINANCE.
YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THE ORDINANCE.
YOU ARE SIMPLY DETERMINING, DID STAFF INTERPRET CORRECTLY? AND I'M GONNA HAND IT OVER TO DANIEL.
I'M THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL AND THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE OFFICIAL FOR THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL.
TWO DIFFERENT JOBS, UH, TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF CODES AND REGULATIONS.
SO CODE ENFORCEMENT IS THE CODE OF FRONT ROYAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE IS WITHIN THE BUILDING CODE OF THE STATE.
THOSE VIOLATIONS ARE HEARD BY THE L-B-B-C-A.
UM, SO JUST TO GIVE YOU A TIMELINE OF EVENTS.
THE 17TH OF SEPTEMBER, WE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION FROM ENERGY SERVICES.
THEY HAD RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE APPLICANT, UH, REGARDING, UH, THE PROPOSAL FOR A NEW STRUCTURE AND THREE FACE POWER.
SO THAT THREW UP A RED FLAG IMMEDIATELY TO THEM BECAUSE THREE FACE POWER IS TYPICALLY FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES.
THEY REACHED OUT TO US TO SEE IF WE HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE BUILDING OR THE STRUCTURE, ANY PERMITS, ET CETERA.
UH, DEPUTY ZONING, ADMINISTRATOR WARE, UH, CONTACTED THE APPELLANT OR THE APPLICANT, AND WE SET UP A TIME TO GO VISIT THE, THE SITE.
SO THE 19TH, WE WENT TO THE, TO THE SITE.
UH, WE MET WITH MS. THORNBURG.
I LOOKED AROUND AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE NEW STRUCTURE.
AND AT THAT POINT, OTHER THINGS WERE, UH, FAIRLY OBVIOUS.
THERE WERE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY, THERE WERE ANIMALS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THEY RAISED SOME CONCERNS WITH US.
UH, WE CAME BACK, DID OUR RESEARCH THROUGH OUR RECORDS FOR PERMITS, APPLICATIONS, ET CETERA.
UH, WE DID MEET IN THIS ROOM ON THE 21ST OF OCTOBER WITH MS. THORNBERG, UH, TO GO OVER SOME OF THE THINGS, UH, THAT WE SAW OUT THERE.
SO DECEMBER THE NINTH, WE SET THE NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS, UH, VIA USPS CERTIFIED MAIL WITH PROOF OF SERVICE.
AND THEN ON THE SECOND, WITHIN THE APPEAL TIMELINE, UH, SHE APPEALED IN WRITING TO ALL THREE NOTIFICATIONS.
UM, SO ON THE SITE VISIT, AS YOU SEE HERE, THERE WAS, UM, A BUILDING.
THERE'S SOME ANIMALS, LIVESTOCK, UH, GOATS IN PARTICULAR.
THERE'S CHICKENS THERE RUNNING AROUND.
UM, WE'VE GOT OTHER STRUCTURES HERE.
UM, THAT'S A SEPARATE STRUCTURE, THE CARPORT.
UM, AND THEN THIS ONE DOWN HERE IS, IS ANOTHER STR A SEPARATE STRUCTURE.
[00:10:01]
RESEARCH AND RECORDS AND ALL THAT, THE ONLY STRUCTURE WE HAD APPROVAL FOR WAS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.UH, WE HAD NO APPROVALS FOR THE BARN UP TOP, UH, THE RED STORAGE BUILDING, THE CARPORT OR THIS STRUCTURE RIGHT HERE.
UM, SO HERE IS THE GIS VIEW SATELLITE VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN RIGHT THERE IS GOOGLE MAPS FROM THIS SAME YEAR.
UH, SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE, THE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES LAID OUT ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEN THE SPRAWL FROM THE LIVESTOCK AND, AND THE STORAGE, UM, OF ALL THE, ALL THE DIFFERENT MATERIALS ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, SO FROM THERE WE IS, I ISSUED THREE NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS.
FIRST FOR UN PERMITTED STRUCTURES.
UH, 'CAUSE SHE HAS ONE PERMITTED STRUCTURE WHERE THERE SIT FOUR, FIVE, SORRY.
UM, SO THE FIRST ONE WAS FOR THE UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES.
THAT IS NOT PART OF THE APPEAL.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT KNOWN TO YOU ALL THAT THAT WAS A VIOLATION SENT, BUT IT'S NOT UNDER APPEAL.
UH, THEY HAVE SINCE APPLIED FOR THE, THE OTHER STRUCTURES AND BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE.
UH, THE SECOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS THE HOME OCCUPATION.
SO SHE WAS APPROVED FOR A HOME OCCUPATION, UM, WHICH IS A BUSINESS OPERATED WITHIN THE HOME THAT'S INCIDENTAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN THERE ARE MULTIPLE, UH, REQUIREMENTS OF HOME OCCUPATION.
AND THEN SHE SIGNED THE BOTTOM THAT SHE WOULD ABIDE BY ALL THAT.
JOHN WILL GET INTO MORE ABOUT THAT AND EXPAND LATER.
UH, AND THEN THIS THIRD NOTICE OF VIOLATION IS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS IN THE RS, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
UM, YOU CANNOT KEEP A RAISE LIVESTOCK WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND JOHN WILL GET INTO THAT MORE.
UM, HE'S THE DEPUTY ZONE ADMINISTRATOR.
UM, SO THAT MOVES US RIGHT INTO CASE TWO, WHICH WILL BE THE FIRST CASE YOU HEAR BECAUSE WE DID SWITCH THE ORDER OF THINGS BASED ON THE FLOW AND HOW THEY WOULD GO.
SO, UH, WE THINK CASE NUMBER ONE IS THE ONE YOU DIDN'T GET THE STAFF REPORT ON.
SO IT KIND OF JUST WORKED OUT WITH THIS LAYOUT HERE.
UH, THAT'S NOTICE OF VIOLATION RELATED TOWN CODE SECTION 1 75, 1 0 8 0.1.
UH, THREE ELEMENTS OF THAT SECTION, SECTIONS A C AND H OF THE HOME.
OCCUPATION STANDARDS AND LIMITATION.
UH, SO THIS IS A ZONING, UH, MAP OF THE PROPERTY, UH, HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN THIS GREEN AREA OUTLINED IN BLACK.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, LOTS TO THE EAST ARE ZONED.
R ONE, MINIMUM SIZE OF THOSE LOTS IS 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
THIS OTHER GREEN, UH, HERE, WHICH, UH, THE APPLICANT OWNS THIS PROPERTY HERE THAT IS ZONED RS MINIMUM LOT SIZE A HALF AN ACRE ACROSS THE STREET TO THE NORTHEAST IS ZONED RE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ONE ACRE INTO THE NORTHWEST.
THAT IS ZONED A ONE AGRICULTURAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE 10 ACRES.
SO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE THE LOT LAYS AT.
AND INITIALLY THE LOT WAS CONFIGURED IN 2006, ORIGINALLY AT 3.89 ACRES IN 2006.
SINCE THEN, SINCE IN 2021, THEY ACQUIRED MORE PROPERTY.
AND NOW THE COMBINED IS 7.7 ACRES.
UH, THE STATEMENT OF INTENT FOR THE RS, THAT'S RESIDENCE RS IS SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
IT'S COMPOSED OF QUIET, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS ON SUBURBANIZED, LOTS PLUS UNDEVELOPED AREAS WHERE SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION APPEARS LIKELY TO OCCUR.
UH, DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF IT, UH, IF YOU READ THAT, UH, UH, ALSO FOR EXPANSION OF TOWN FACILITIES AS PROVIDED AND TO PROHIBIT ALL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES.
DEVELOPMENT IS THEREFORE LIMITED TO SUBURBAN STYLE CONCENTRATION AND PERMITTED USES OR LIMITED TO SINGLE UNIT DWELLINGS.
PLUS, UH, SELECTED ADDITIONAL USES SUCH AS PUBLIC FACILITIES TO SERVE THE RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT.
MOBILE HOMES AND ROOMING HOUSES ARE PROHIBITED.
THAT'S A STATEMENT OF INTENT FOR THE RS.
SO WITH THE RS UNDER 1 75, 10 22, UH, IT'S SUBJECT TO STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THIS CHAPTER.
WITHIN THE RS DISTRICT, THE FOLLOWING USES OF LAND AND BUILDINGS ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT ONLY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED STRUCTURES.
IN THE RESIDENTIAL, NO COMMERCIAL, NO INDUSTRIAL, NO ORGANIZATIONAL.
[00:15:02]
ACCESSORY USES, STRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS.HOME OCCUPATION, WHICH IS A BUSINESS THAT IS, CAN BE OUT OF THE HOME, OUT OF THE DWELLING, PLUS A FEW OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PUBLIC PARKS AND SO FORTH.
SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY USES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN THE RS DISTRICT.
IN 2006 AND FEBRUARY, THE UH, PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
NEW HOUSE OBTAINED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR WARREN COUNTY, ESTABLISHED IN THE PRIMARY USE AS RESIDENTIAL.
SO THE HOUSE, UH, THEY GOT THE BUILDING PERMIT TO DO, TO PUT THE HOUSE ESTABLISHED THE PERMITTED PRIMARY USE AS RESIDENTIAL IN 2018.
UH, THE APPELLANT, THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME SUBMITTED A BUSINESS LICENSE FOR HOME OCCUPATION TO MAKE AND MANUFACTURE GOAT MILK BASED CHEESE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
THAT WAS THEIR HOME OCCUPATION.
THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS.
THEY GOT APPROVAL FOR A BUSINESS LICENSE CLEARANCE FOR A HOME OCCUPATION.
AND THE PROPOSED USE IS ONLY ALLOWED AS A HOME OCCUPATION.
NOW, ON THE BACK OF THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT READ THESE ELEMENTS OF THE HOME OCCUPATION, PRINTED THEIR NAME AND SIGNED THE APPLICATION.
THE DEFINITION OF THE HOME OCCUPATION, 1 75, 3 OUT OF TOWN CODE.
AN OCCUPATION CONDUCTED ENTIRELY WITHIN ENCLOSED DWELLING AND CLEARLY INCIDENTAL AND SECONDARY TO THE RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY THEREOF CARRIED ON BY MEMBERS, MEMBER OR MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY RESIDING ON THE PREMISES.
ALL HOME OCCUPATIONS SHALL MEET THE STANDARDS.
AT THE BOTTOM IT SAYS, I READ AND AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE HOME OCCUPATION RESTRICTIONS AS STATED IN THE TOWN FRONT ROW ZONING ORDINANCE.
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT VIOLATIONS OF THESE PROVISIONS IS A MISDEMEANOR AND MAY RESULT IN THE REVOCATION OF A BUSINESS LICENSE AND POSSIBLE FINES UP TO $1,000 PER DAY OF VIOLATION.
UH, THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A HEARING TO ALL ELEMENTS OUTLINED HERE, A THROUGH L OF THE HOME OCCUPATION, 1 7 5 1 0 8 1 A, THIS IS ONE OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
THE USE SHALL BE CLEARLY INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMARY USE.
THE PRIMARY USE IS RESIDENTIAL, CLEARLY INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMARY USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, AND SHALL NOT CHANGE THE EXTERIOR APPEARANCE OF THE DWELLING UNIT OR CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE WORD INCIDENTAL INCORPORATES THE CONCEPT OF A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRIMARY USE.
IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT USED TO BE A SUBORDINATE, BUT IT ALSO MUST BE ATTENDANT OR CONANT TO IT, MEANING IT'S IT'S IN ACCESSORY.
WITH THAT TO NOR THIS LATTER ASPECT OF INCIDENTAL WOULD BE TO PERMIT ANY USE, WHICH IS NOT PRIMARY, NO MATTER HOW UNRELATED IT IS TO THE PRIMARY USE THAT IS OUT OF YOUR TRAINING MANUAL.
THE AVAMAR COUNTY LAND USE HANDBOOK CHAPTER 17.
THE SECOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION FROM THE HOME OCCUPATION IS THAT A C NO OUTDOOR DISPLAY SALES OR STORAGE OF GOODS, MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED, EXCEPT THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY AUTHORIZE TWO BUSINESS VEHICLES, INCLUDING A VEHICLE USED BY A NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYEE.
INDOOR STORAGE IS PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF THIS SECTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE CHANGE IN APPEARANCES, DWELLING AND CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR INCREASING TRAFFIC.
UH, THERE'S THE AERIAL VIEW FROM 2021.
UH, THIS IS RELEVANT BECAUSE IN JUNE OF, UH, 2021, THEY WERE APPROVED FOR AN ADDITIONAL LAND TO THEIR AREA.
THAT WAS THE FIRST MAP WE SEEN ON THE ZONING, WHICH INCREASED THE AREA TO 7.7 ACRES.
YOU CAN SEE BY THIS AERIAL IMAGERY STORED ROUND BAS OF HAY ON THE OUTSIDE, ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES.
[00:20:01]
SHOWS UP ON THE AERIAL IN 2025, THE AERIAL VIEW.ANOTHER BUILDING A CARPORT WAS ADDED.
UNPERMITTED PLUS ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS HERE, UNPERMITTED, UH, PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THAT HAY IS NOW STORED UNDER THE CARPORT WITH FARM EQUIPMENT.
ANOTHER BUILDING, UNPERMITTED 1 75, 1 0 8 1 H, NO HUM.
HOME OCCUPATION SHALL CREATE NOISE, DUST, VIBRATIONS, SMELLS, SMOKE GLARE, ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE, FIRE HAZARD, OR ANY OTHER HAZARD OR NUISANCE TO ANY GREATER OR MORE FREQUENT EXTENT THAN THAT IS USUALLY EXPERIENCED IN THE DISTRICT ON RESLEY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOTS WHERE NO HOME OCCUPATION EXISTS.
SO, UH, BASICALLY YOU SHOULD NOT BE AWARE THAT SOMEONE IS RUNNING A HOME OCCUPATION OUT OF THEIR HOME.
IF YOU HAVE TWO SIDE-BY-SIDE HOMES, THE HOME THAT HAS A HOME OCCUPATION SHALL NOT CREATE ANYTHING MORE FREQUENT THAN IS EXPERIENCED BY SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE A HOME.
OCCUPATION NEXT DOOR, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS PROVIDED, UH, BEFOREHAND.
ANOTHER, UH, UH, UNPERMITTED BARN LIVESTOCK IN THIS CASE, GOATS ON THE PREMISES, UH, PENS THERE.
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF LIVESTOCK.
I THINK AT THE TIME WE COUNTED, UH, UPWARDS TO 45, UH, GOATS ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE HOME OCCUPATION, UH, APPROVAL TO MANUFACTURE GOAT CHEESE HAS NOW EXPANDED, UH, TREMENDOUSLY.
UH, AS STATED IN THEIR LETTER DATED THE 20, UH, THIRD OF 2025, AND CONSIDER CONSIDERABLE ABOUT AMOUNT OF MONEY, EFFORT, AND TIME HAS BEEN INVESTED IN CREATING THE STATE PERMITTED FACILITY.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, THOUSANDS OF HOURS, SLEEPLESS NIGHTS RETIREMENT SAVINGS HAVE BEEN SACRIFICED AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN LOANS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED TO FURTHER THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE FARM.
UM, SO THOSE ARE THE THREE VIOLATIONS WE SENT REGARDING THE HOME OCCUPATION.
UM, WHAT YOU HAVE BASICALLY HERE IS A HOME OCCUPATION THAT WAS GRANTED NOW HAS EXPANDED BEYOND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED FOR THE HOME OCCUPATION, AS STATED IN THE HOME OCCUPATION, WAS TO MANUFACTURE A PRODUCT IN THE GOAT CHEESE.
AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS, IT'S A GOOD THING THAT THEIR BUSINESS EXPANDED TO THIS POINT.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT IN THE CORRECT ZONING FOR THIS.
AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT ON THE SECOND SEGMENT.
I MEAN, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, UH, MYSELF.
I'M A SIXTH GENERATION CATTLE FARMER.
I'M ONE OF 1600 CENTURY FARMS HERE IN THE STATE.
THAT MEANS I'VE BEEN IN THE FAMILY FOR OVER A CENTURY, CONTINUED FARMING AND DOES A BUSINESS.
HOWEVER, FOR ME PERSONALLY, MY FARM IS ZONED CORRECTLY FOR AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS.
WE HAVE A HOME OCCUPATION BUSINESS LICENSE THAT EXPANDED IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
AND THOSE ARE THE THREE VIOLATIONS ACCORDING TO THE HOME OCCUPATION AS DEFINED BY TOWN CODE.
UH, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS PART OF THE PRESENTATION? I HAVE ONE, JOHN.
JUST, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I, IT THERE'S A LOT, I'VE OBVIOUSLY, I'VE GONE THROUGH THIS, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF LEGAL, SO I JUST WANNA, IT'S FAR AS SIMPLE.
YOU SAID IT EXPANDED BEYOND THE INITIAL, I DIDN'T SEE ANYWHERE THAT IT'S EXPANDED BEYOND MAKING GOAT CHEESE.
UH, IS THERE, CAN, CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THAT? THAT THAT'LL BE, UH, ON THE SECOND PART OF THE APPEAL.
UH, THE OTHER APPEAL PROCESS, THE OTHER PART OF THAT THAT EXPANDS IT WHERE, UH, AND I'LL ELABORATE THAT MORE, BUT FOR THIS ONE, 'CAUSE WE DO HAVE TO RULE ON THEM SEPARATELY.
RIGHT? BUT THIS PARTICULAR ONE, UM, HAS IT EXPANDED? THAT IS PART OF THE SECOND PART WHERE AS DEFINITION, THIS IS CONSIDERED BY OUR JUDGMENT AN AGRICULTURAL PURSUIT, WHICH IS ONLY PERMITTED IN THE
[00:25:01]
A ONE DISTRICT.BUT IT, IT IS JUST THE ORIGINAL PERMIT WAS FOR MAKING GOAT CHEESE.
AND YOU SAID IT EXPANDED, BUT I'M, I'M NOT SURE HOW IT'S EXPANDED BEYOND MAKING GOAT CHEESE.
IT EXPANDED INTO A FARM OPERATION WHERE THEY ARE SUPPLYING THE MILK FROM THE GOATS TO PROCESS THAT IN THE CHEESE.
SO CLAIRE, YOU'RE, THAT IS THE SECOND PART OF THE APPLICATION WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
ARE THEY IN VIOLATION OF A C AND H FOR THIS PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION? OKAY.
CAN THIS LAW BE REZONED? UM, CURRENTLY IT'S RS YOU'RE SAYING IT DOESN'T MEET, YOU'RE SAYING CAN IT BE REZONED? UM, FOR AGRICULTURAL, UH, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE NEEDS TO BE 10 ACRES.
FOR DEFINITION, THEY CAN SUBMIT, IN THEORY, THE APPLICANT COULD SUBMIT AN APPLICATION.
STAFF WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWN COUNCIL THAT IT, YOU MOVED TO ANY KIND OF APPROVAL BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CODE.
AND IT ALSO DOES NOT FOLLOW OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND YOU COULD ESSENTIALLY MAKE AN ARGUMENT TOO THAT IT WOULD BE SPOT ZONE.
THERE'S NO AGRICULTURAL LAND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO IT, PER DEFINITION.
I THOUGHT THERE WAS A FARM ADJOINING IT.
IS THAT, AM I WRONG ON THAT? UM, LEMME GO BACK.
THAT WAS THE REASON I PURCHASED MY UNDERSTANDING.
NO, I THINK THAT IT'S ACROSS THE STREET.
I MEAN, ALL OF IT USED TO BE ONE, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE PROPERTIES IS THIS PIECE OVER HERE.
RE TO THE NORTH, RS TO THE SOUTHEAST AND R ONE HERE.
THEN MORE RS, UH, ZONED FOR TOWN CODE FOR CONTEXT STAFF DID TRACE THE ZONING BACK TO THE 1970S.
AND AS FAR AS OUR RECORDS GO, THE SLOT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ZONED RESIDENTIAL OR ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL PRIOR TO IT BEING DEVELOPED AND THEN INTO TODAY.
UH, THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF HERE.
YOU DISPLAYED THAT THERE WAS, IN 2018, THERE WAS A PERMIT FOR A LICENSE FOR THE BUSINESS.
UM, WHAT ALL DID THEY SUBMIT WITH IT? BECAUSE WHEN I WAS LOOKING THAT IT SAYS SEE ATTACHED, UM, THAT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
BUT THERE'S A LOT IN HERE AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE OF THESE PARTICULARLY WERE ATTACHED.
LIKE WAS THIS THE ATTACHED, BECAUSE THESE ARE LIKE MILK PARLOR DRAWINGS, LIKE THEY'RE NOT, THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION.
SO EVERYTHING THAT'S ATTACHED TO THAT APPLICATION IS INCLUDED WITH THAT THERE, THAT THEY SUBMITTED.
SO THIS, THIS WAS ALL FOR THAT ONE PERMITTED STRUCTURE THAT YOU, THAT DID HAVE PAR THE ORIGINAL, UH, THAT WHICH THEY ARE NOT APPEALING.
THEY WERE APPROVED FOR A CHEESE SHED AND A CHEESE SHED ONLY, ONLY FOR THE CHEESE SHED IS WHAT THEY WERE APPROVED OF.
THAT IS NOT PART OF THIS APPEAL.
BUT THEY WERE PERMITTED, THEY WERE APPROVED FOR A CHEESE SHED AND ONLY ONE BUILDING HAS THE CHEESE SHED.
SO IN 2018 THEY SUBMITTED THIS AND THEY ASKED FOR A CHEESE ROOM AND A MILK PARLOR.
BUT THEY WERE ONLY APPROVED, APPROVED FOR THE CHEESE SHED.
THEY WERE ONLY APPROVED FOR THE MILK HOUSE FOR THE CHEESE SHED.
AND THAT WAS THE APPLICATION WE FOUND DURING OUR RESEARCH OF THE PROJECT.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO THIS AS TO WHY ONE CHEESE SHED WAS APPROVED BUT THE MILK PARLOR WASN'T, OR IT IS JUST LONG ENOUGH? YOU HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED? UH, WITH, WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
WE INCLUDED EVERYTHING WITH THAT FOR THAT APPLICATION.
UH, THERE'S NO MORE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE'RE AWARE OF.
WE DID DO SOME RESEARCH WITH OUR ID IT DEPARTMENT FOR EMAILS.
UH, THEY DID NOT FIND ANY EMAIL EXCHANGES BETWEEN, UH, UH, STAFF AT THAT TIME NOR THE APPLICANT.
[00:30:01]
EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE ON RECORD IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.AND THAT'S UNDER THE APPEAL PROCESS.
THIS PLAN DETAILED REPORT IS THE APPROVAL OF THAT 2018, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T, THAT IS FOR THE HOME OCCUPATION.
SO BASICALLY I'M LOOKING FOR THE DOCUMENT THAT SAYS THIS IS THEIR, THIS IS THEIR DOCUMENT SAYING, I ASKED FOR X I'M LOOKING FOR THE DOCUMENT FROM THE TOWN THAT SAYS WE APPROVED X.
THAT IS THAT APPLICATION RIGHT THERE TO OBTAIN A BUSINESS LICENSE.
THEY APPROVED TO OBTAIN THE BUSINESS LICENSE.
FINANCE WOULD ACTUALLY ISSUE THE BUSINESS LICENSE.
THEY JUST REACHED, UH, GET APPROVAL FROM ZONING IF THE USE IS APPROPRIATE TO OBTAIN A LICENSE FOR THAT.
WHICH MEANS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A BUILDING PERMIT THAT'S BEEN APPROVED FOR THE CHIEF SHED.
SHE SHED AND SHE SHED ONLY, SHE, SHE, DO WE HAVE THE BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPROVED BILLING PERMIT? OR DO YOU, 'CAUSE I DIDN'T SEE AN APPEAL.
I DIDN'T, IT IT IS NOT PART OF THE APPEAL PROCESS.
SHE DIDN'T APPEAL ANY OF THE NOTICE.
THE STRUCTURES WERE NOT APPEALED.
SHE WAS PERMITTED FOR A CHIEF SHED.
AND ONLY THE CHEESE SHED, SO YOU EXACTLY.
AND THAT'S WHY I WANT THE, BUT THAT'S WHY I WANT THE PERMIT FOR THE CHEESE SHED THAT SAYS WE SAY YOU CAN HAVE A CHEESE SHED.
'CAUSE IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT THE APPELLATE MAY SAY, I GOT APPROVAL FOR CHEESE SHED MILK PERMIT.
AND I'M GONNA SAY, HOW DO I KNOW? HOW DO I KNOW WHERE, WHERE'S, WHERE'S MY, THERE'S A PERMIT FOR THIS.
THE TOWN SHOULD HAVE, HERE'S THE THING.
THE CHIEF SHED IS NOT A PART OF THIS APPEAL PROCESS, BUT IT MATTERS.
IF THAT'S PART OF YOUR DISCUSSION LATER, IF YOU WANT TO, HOWEVER POSTPONED I HAVE MORE INFORMATION, YOU CAN DO THAT PROBLEM.
ANYBODY ELSE? I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT JUST CURIOUS, LIKE, DID THE PREVIOUS DIRECTOR APPROVE THE HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT OUTSIDE OF PRIMARY? THEY APPROVED THE CHEESE SHED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOME OCCUPATION, TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS, ONE FOR THE HOME OCCUPATION AND ONE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH WAS ONLY THE CHEESE SHED WAS PERMITTED.
SO THE ADDITIONAL ONE WAS DENIED.
NO OTHER BUILDINGS, NO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, NO OTHER BUILDINGS.
WE COULD FIND A RECORD THAT WAS PERMITTED, APPROVED, AND PERMITTED ONLY THE ONE WHICH WAS THE CHIEF SHED.
SO WAS IT DENIED? UH, SHE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION FOR A COUPLE BUILDINGS ONLY THAT SHE SHED WAS APPROVED.
THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION THOUGH.
UH, WAS, WAS THIS OTHER ONE, WAS THE OTHER BUILDING DENIED? THEY WEREN'T DENIED.
SO THE COMMENT FROM THE PREVIOUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WAS THAT BECAUSE SHE DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT LOCATION INFORMATION SO THAT WE COULD VERIFY THAT THEY WERE WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE SETBACKS, HE COULD NOT APPROVE THEM AT THAT TIME.
SO SHE WAS TO COME BACK ONCE SHE HAD A SET LOCATION FOR THOSE STRUCTURES TO GET THE APPROVAL FOR THEM.
BUT WE DON'T LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
SO THOSE STRUCTURES WEREN'T DENIED, BUT THEY WEREN'T APPROVED.
WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION.
SO THOSE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES WEREN'T THE INITIAL APPLICATION.
THEY WERE JUST A STRUCTURE WAS A PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, BUT AFTER THE FACT ADDITIONAL, UH, DETAILS WERE, AND, AND THAT'S WHAT JOHN IS SAYING, WHERE ALL THE, THE NON PERMITTED STRUCTURES, THEY'RE NOT APPEALING THAT THEY'LL HANDLE THAT WITH NEW PERMITS AND STUFF.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DETAILS OF JUST THIS PARTICULAR APPROVAL.
BASICALLY THEY SAID YOU CAN DO SOMETHING AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT ENCOMPASSES SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN TOLD THEY CAN DO AND MAKE SURE THAT, BECAUSE HE'S SAYING THEY STRAIGHT UP, I'M JUST HEARING THE ADDITIONAL PICTURES AND JUST YEAH.
LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE AS TO APPROVAL OF A, BUT ALSO THERE WAS A B AND C SITTING THERE AND THEY WERE NOT A PART OF.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S A VIOLATION.
I'M NOT SURE IF THIS PERTAINS TO ONE OR TWO.
UM, BUT MY WORDS HERE, UM, THIS WAS ALWAYS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND THERE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ANY BUSINESS GOING OUT OF THERE.
[00:35:01]
LICENSE WAS APPROVED TO MAKE GOAT CHEESE AT THAT POINT.DID THEY NOT REALIZE THAT THERE WERE LIVESTOCK ON THE PROPERTY? I GUESS I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION, YES.
THAT'S SORT OF WHAT I WAS GETTING AT WITH THE QUESTION ABOUT THIS MILK STRUCTURE WAS THAT THAT WAS NOT FLAGGED.
IT WAS, IT WAS NOT DENIED BECAUSE, OR NOT APPROVED OR WHATEVER, BECAUSE OF, OH, WELL THIS ISN'T ZONED PROPERLY.
AND YOU KNOW, IT WAS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WERE SAYING IT WAS, OH, WE NEED MORE INFORMATION, NOT ABOUT, NOT ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS, BUT ABOUT THE STEPBACK.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO IF THE TOWN'S GOOD, GOOD TO GO? UH, IT'S UP TO YOU.
I AM GOING TO ATTEMPT TO GO IN REVERSE TO KIND OF HIT THE QUESTIONS YOU WERE ASKING AND, UM, FINISH WITH THE DEFINITION IN THE TIME CODE.
UM, COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? I'M MELANIE THORNBERG, 1205 HAPPY CREEK ROAD.
I'M THE OWNER OF HAPPY CREEK CHEESES, WHICH IS OUR LLC, WHICH IS INDEPENDENT OF OUR FARM, THORNY RIDGE FARM.
UM, DID THEY KNOW? YES, THEY DID.
RESUBMITTED A THREE PAGE REPORT, AND IT SHOULD BE IN YOUR PACKET, OUTLINING EVERYTHING WE INTENDED TO DO, INCLUDING THE FACILITIES FOR MILKING STORAGE OF THE CHEESE AND MANUFACTURING OF THE CHEESE.
UM, THERE WAS ALSO EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MYSELF, MS. CONNIE AND JEREMY OR MR. JEREMY CAMP, UH, AND HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO US WHERE THAT LIVESTOCK IS ALLOWED.
THE ONLY THING WE COULD NOT HAVE, EVEN WITH THE ZONING DESIGNATION THAT WE HAD, WE CANNOT HAVE POULTRY, OR I'M SORRY, POWL, UM, WATERFOWL OR PIGS.
HE SAID WE COULD HAVE WHATEVER ELSE WE WANTED TO HAVE.
AND WE, I'LL, I'LL TOUCH ON THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER.
UM, THE APPROVAL, THE SHE SHED WAS APPROVED, BUT THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER, OR ONE OR TWO OTHER BUILDINGS, I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP THAT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE SAME TIME.
IT WAS NEVER A QUESTION OF IF WE COULD HAVE THE BUILDINGS JUST WHERE WE NEEDED TO PUT IT.
AND IN YOUR PACKET, THERE'S ALSO A DIAGRAM OF WHERE WE INTENDED, BUT WE WEREN'T EXACTLY SURE BECAUSE THE A VDA OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEEDED TO VERIFY THAT WE HAD PROPER DRAINAGE FOR THE BUILDING AND WE COULDN'T PUT THE DRAINAGE TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO WE WERE JUST MESSING AROUND WITH WHERE EXACTLY WE WANTED TO PUT THE FACILITIES.
AT THAT TIME, MY HUSBAND HAD TORN HIS BICEP TENDON, AND SO EVERYTHING WAS PUT ON PAUSE UNTIL HE HEALED AND THEN COVID HIT.
AND SO WE KIND OF JUST FORGOT ABOUT PUTTING THE PERMITS IN, UM, FOR THOSE STRUCTURES.
WE WEREN'T AWARE THAT WE NEEDED TO DO, OR WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT PORTABLE SHEDS, BECAUSE A COUPLE OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE JUST THE ONES THEY JUST DROPPED, THEY DROP OFF.
WE DIDN'T KNOW THEY NEEDED PERMITS.
WE HAVE SINCE APPLIED FOR THOSE PERMITS.
WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS A A, A STRUCTURE, WE JUST THOUGHT IT WAS JUST A CARPORT.
WE HAVE SINCE APPLIED FOR THAT.
UM, ALL THE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION YOU WERE ASKING FOR, WE HAVE, WE SUBMITTED SO MUCH DOCUMENTATION, DRAWINGS, COLORS, WHERE THE ANIMALS WERE GONNA BE HOUSED, WHERE WE WERE GONNA MILK THE ANIMALS, WHAT WE WERE GONNA DO WITH THE ANIMALS.
V DS REQUIRES US TO HAVE ALL THIS IN PLACE AND TOWN APPROVAL TO EVEN GET OUR, UH, VDA CERTIFICATION OR PERMIT.
SO WE COULDN'T EVEN GET THE OKAY FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA WITHOUT THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL ALLOWING US TO DO THIS.
I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE LUMPING THE HOME OCCUPATION IN WITH OUR FARM.
OUR CHEESE BUSINESS IS AN LLC.
WE ARE ALLOWED TO OWN THE ANIMALS.
WE'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE POULTRY, WE'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE GOATS.
WE'RE ALLOWED, WE WERE TOLD WE CAN EVEN HAVE CATTLE ON OUR 3.7 ACRES OR 3.4 ACRES AT THE TIME.
UM, AS FAR AS THE EXPANSION GOES, THE COSTS INVOLVED WITH SANITARY GRADE A EQUIPMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS CANNING EQUIPMENT.
ONE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT WAS $40,000.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE BUILDING ALL THESE THINGS AND DOING ALL THESE THINGS OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW.
WE MAKE GOAT MILK PRODUCTS, WE MAKE CHEESE, WE MAKE GELATO, WE MAKE GOAT MILK IN THE CONFINES OF A LITTLE TINY SHED.
WHEN I SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION, WE JUST WANTED TO BUILD A BIGGER BARN FOR THE GOATS TO BE MORE COMFORTABLE IN AND TO HAVE MORE SPACE TO MAKE THE CHEESE THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY MAKING.
UM, RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN A, I THINK IT'S 12 BY 16 SHED, AND THAT'S VERY SMALL FOR WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE DOING.
I DIDN'T REALIZE AT THE TIME WHEN I PURCHASED THE, THE SHED THAT I WAS GONNA GROW SO FAST.
[00:40:01]
I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD THING.UM, AS FAR AS THE, UH, LET'S SEE, LET'S GO BACKWARDS.
THE NUISANCE, THEY TOUCHED ON BEING NUISANCE.
WE HAVE BEEN AT OUR PROPERTY FOR 11 YEARS.
THE TOWN SINCE THEY CAME ON BOARD, THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WE WERE THERE.
THE TOWN ADMINISTRATOR, OR I THINK THE TOWN ADMINISTRATOR HAS EVEN EATEN OUR CHEESES.
A LOT OF THE STAFF HERE HAS EATEN.
OUR CHEESES ARE ADDRESSES PRINTED CLEARLY ON OUR LABELS AND ON OUR BUSINESS CARDS.
AND IT'S ON THE VA WEBSITE AS AN APPROVED FACILITY.
WE'RE A WE'RE A LICENSED INSURED FACILITY.
AND SO WHAT I WANTED TO DO WHEN I REQUESTED FOR THE THREE PHASE, UM, SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT, THE ICE CREAM MACHINE, THE DRY ICE MACHINE REQUIRES HIGHER CAPACITY.
WHEN THEY CAME TO VISIT ME, THEY THOUGHT WE WERE PUTTING IN A CREMATORIUM.
THEY SAID, THIS IS AN ODD PLACE FOR A CREMATORIUM.
SO THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT SOMEHOW WE WERE PUTTING IN A PLACE TO BURN BODIES.
BUT, AND WE SPECIFIED, NO, WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR 11 YEARS.
OUR BUSINESS HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE 2020 WITHOUT BREAK.
AND IT WAS APPROVED THROUGH THE TOWN.
IT WAS APPROVED THROUGH THE COUNTY.
WE FILE A SCHEDULE F THE STATE, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING IS IN ORDER.
WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO.
UM, AGAIN, WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FARM.
THE HOME OCCUPATION IS THE MAKING AND MANUFACTURER OF THE CHIEFS.
AND THAT IS RESTRICTED TO THE LITTLE SHED.
THAT IS NOT OUR PERSONAL PROPERTY.
AND IT IS NOT ANYTHING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THOSE.
THE HAY BILLS BELONG TO THE FARM.
AND WE DID THAT SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE FOR TAX PURPOSES AND FOR LEGAL PURPOSES, WE DID NOT WANT TO TIE THE TWO TOGETHER BECAUSE DAIRY IS A VOLATILE PRODUCT AND THERE'S A LOT THAT CAN GO WRONG.
AND SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE PROVIDED THE CLEANEST PRODUCT AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR, THE BUSINESS WAS SEPARATE FROM OUR FARM.
UM, AND AGAIN, WHEN WE MOVED IN THE LOT OVER HERE WHERE IT SAYS JANUARY WAS A HORSE FARM, WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PLACE, THERE WAS A HORSE FARM.
THERE'S CATTLE AND HAY FIELDS ALL ACROSS THE STREET.
THERE IS A HUGE, WHAT DOESN'T SHOW HERE IS THIS BLACK LINE.
THEY WERE THRILLED ABOUT HAVING THE LIVESTOCK THERE WITH US.
OUR NEIGHBOR EVEN COMES UP AND INTER INTERACTS WITH THE BABY GOATS.
SO THERE'S NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE WITH IT.
IN THE 11 YEARS WE'VE BEEN THERE SIX YEARS OF OPERATION.
WE'VE HAD ONE COMPLAINT THAT IS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, AND THAT WAS FROM DOG BARKING.
BECAUSE WE HAVE LIVESTOCK GUARDIANS BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS DOGS.
AND THE DOGS COME IN AND KILL OUR GOATS.
SO WE KEEP THE LIVESTOCK GUARDIANS TO PROTECT OUR GOATS, TO PROTECT THE LIVESTOCK AND OUR PROPERTY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANNA HAVE TO TAKE OTHER MEASURES.
WE HAVE FENCING, WE HAVE ELECTRIC FENCING, AND WE HAVE THE DOGS TO PROTECT OUR INVESTMENT.
WE HAVE A PERMIT TO DO THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES.
THE, THE TOWN CODE STATES THAT IT'S PROHIBITED UNLESS YOU HAVE A PERMIT.
AND IN THE DEFINITION AND IN THE CODE, WE GOT THE PERMIT, THEY SAID IT WAS OKAY, EVERYBODY WAS EXCITED.
SO FOR THEM TO SAY THAT IT WASN'T, IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE YOU CAN EVEN SEE IN YOUR PACKET, WE HAVE THE APPROVAL.
WE'VE HAD THE APPROVAL, AND WE'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WE WERE THERE.
SO WE CLEARLY FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF DON'T BE A NUISANCE, BECAUSE NOBODY KNEW WE WERE THERE.
AND IT, AND IN THE PACKET ALSO, I PUT A COPY OF OUR, WHAT OUR PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE FROM THE PUBLIC ACCESS.
YOU CAN ONLY SEE THE VERY TOP OF OUR HOUSE.
WE'RE 900 FEET BACK FROM THE MAIN ROAD.
WE'RE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC.
SO WE'RE NOT A NUISANCE FOR NOISE OR FOR FOR THE MESS.
OUR HOME OCCUPATION, EVEN IF THERE WAS A MESS OR NUISANCE, WHICH THERE ISN'T BECAUSE THERE'S NEVER BEEN A COMPLAINT.
AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE THAT THEY SHOWED YOU IN THE PICTURES, HAY BALES, TRACTORS, THE CALF HUTCHES OR PORTABLE PLASTIC CALF, HUTCHES, YOU KNOW, MOVABLE FEATURES OUTSIDE OF THE BARN, WHICH WAS UNDER 256 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WE THOUGHT WE DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT FOR BECAUSE IT FELL UNDER THAT.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE STATEMENT OF INTENT AGAIN.
YES, THERE'S A STATEMENT OF INTENT IN YOUR PACKET.
IT'S A TWO OR THREE PAGE PACKET WHERE I OUTLINED EVERYTHING.
I PUT A MAP OF OUR PROPERTY WHERE WE INTEND TO PUT IT WITH THE FACTS.
AND WE DID EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY ASKED US TO DO.
UM, THE ZONING LOTS, AGAIN, THAT HAS ALL BEEN BUILT UP SINCE WE MOVED THERE.
THIS PORTION HERE WAS NOT HERE WHEN WE MOVED IN, IT WAS JUST THIS PORTION HERE.
[00:45:01]
NEW.AND THEN AGAIN, THERE'S HORSES ON THIS LOT, CATTLE AND HAY ON THAT LOT.
AND THIS PROPERTY HERE HAD HORSES AS WELL.
SO WE WERE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDINGS THAT LIVESTOCK WAS FINE.
AND THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES IN TOWN LIMITS THAT HAVE LIVESTOCK.
UM, I'LL TOUCH AGAIN WITH THE STRUCTURES, THE CARPORT, WE DIDN'T REALIZE IT NEEDED A, WE, IT WAS A CARPORT.
SO WE APPLIED FOR THE STRUCTURE PERMIT AGAIN WITH THE UNDER 256 SQUARE FEET SET OF PERMITS, NOT NEEDED.
IT WAS COUNTY THAT DIDN'T NEED IT, NOT TOWN.
SO I FOLLOWED ALL THE SETBACKS.
I MADE SURE THAT I FOLLOWED ALL THE SETBACKS AND ALL THE RULES EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T NEED TO HAVE IT.
WE MADE SURE WE FOLLOWED ALL THE EVERYTHING, ALL THE RULES, UM, THAT I REALIZED I NEEDED TO.
AND THEN I WANNA DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DEFINITION PAGE OF WARREN COUNTY CODE 1 75.
I'M SORRY, THE ONE OR THE TWO? UM, THEY'RE BOTH, THEY BOTH APPLY.
SO EITHER ONE WOULD BE FINE PAGE.
SO, AND THE REASON THEY APPROVED US IS BECAUSE UNDER THE TOWN CODE 1 75, IT SAYS, FOR RS ACCESSORY USE IS A BUY RIGHT USE.
AND UNDER THE TOWN CODE'S OWN DEFINITION, IT SAYS URBAN AGRICULTURE IS CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY USE WHEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF 1 75, 1 10 0.5 ARE COMPLIED WITH.
WE'RE ALREADY ALLOWED TO HAVE THE LIVESTOCK BECAUSE THEY SAY IN THEIR OWN CODE, URBAN AGRICULTURE IS ALLOWED.
IT ALSO GOES ON TO DEFINE WHAT URBAN AGRICULTURE IS, WHICH IS THE KEEPING AND RAISING OF LIVESTOCK AND FOUL AND UH, AS WELL AS PERMACULTURE BEEKEEPING AND SO FORTH.
AND THE TOWN CODE IS VAGUE, BUT IT IS SUPPORTIVE OF HAVING ANIMALS AS AN URBAN AGRICULTURAL PURSUIT.
IT DOESN'T SAY IT'S RESTRICTED TO OR AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS.
IT ACTUALLY SAYS THE OPPOSITE.
IT HAS UNDER EVERY SINGLE TOWN.
CODE DEFINITION, ACCESSORY USE IS AN APPROVED BY RIGHT USE, NOT A SPECIAL PERMIT.
AND SO THEREFORE, MR. CAMP READ THAT AND TRANSLATED THAT AS, HEY, IT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE URBAN AGRICULTURE.
THE ONLY THING YOU CAN'T HAVE PIGS, WATERFOWL AND POWL.
HE SAID, WE CAN HAVE CATTLE, WE CAN HAVE GOATS, WE CAN EVEN HAVE A ZEBRA AND 3 1 2.
THOSE WERE HIS WORDS, WHICH I'M ALMOST DID, BUT THEN AGAIN IT TALK, THEY TALK ABOUT AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS.
THE CODE ALSO STATES, LET ME GET TO THE RESTRICT.
THIS RESTRICTION SHALL NOT INCLUDE INCIDENT.
THE SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES RELATED TO AGRICULTURE.
URBAN AGRICULTURE IS NOT AUTHORIZED EXCEPT FOR SUCH SALE.
SALE OR SERVICES IS ALLOWED AS A PRINCIPAL USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS RESTRICTION SHALL NOT INCLUDE INCIDENTAL SELLING OR TREATING OF NEIGHBORS, FRIENDS OR FAMILY.
NOR SHALL IT INCLUDE EXCLUDE SELLING PRODUCT OFFSITE AT FARMER'S MARKETS OR VENUES.
WE DO NOT HAVE CUSTOMERS COME ANYWHERE OTHER THAN TO PICK UP ORDERS THAT THEY PLACED OFFSITE, WHICH IS ALLOWED UNDER HOME OCCUPATION.
SO THE FARM FALLS UNDER URBAN AGRICULTURE, ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY'VE TOLD US, THERE IS NO ACREAGE RE ACTUALLY THE ONLY RESTRICTIONS THAT THIS CODE SETS IS FOR UNDER ONE ACRE, WHICH WE FAR EXCEED IS NOT RESTRICTED.
OTHERWISE WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO HAVE IT ACCORDING TO WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE CODE CURRENTLY.
AND WHEN WE STARTED THE BUSINESS AND AS FAR AS SELLING HOME OCCUPATIONS ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE CUSTOMERS COME TO THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S A HOME OCCUPATION.
AND BECAUSE VD IS SO INCREDIBLY STRICT, WE, WE COULD NOT DO IT UNDER OUR OWN ROOF LINE.
IT HAD TO BE A SEPARATE FACILITY WHERE WE HAD TO HAVE SEPARATE WATER, UM, AND SEPARATE, UM, DRAINAGE.
UM, AGAIN, YOU'LL SEE A PACKET IN YOUR, OR SOME PAPERS IN YOUR PACKET.
THE TITLE IS THORNY RIDGE FARM, UM, WITH A HAPPY CREEK CHEESES UNDERNEATH OUR FARM IS THORNING RIDGE FARM.
WE KEEP THE GOATS, WE TAKE CARE OF THE GOATS AND WE MILK THE GOATS.
AND WE HAPPY CREEK USES HAPPY CREEK CHEESES, USES THE MILK TO MAKE AND MANUFACTURE GOAT MILK PRODUCTS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND NOW ANIMAL CONSUMPTION.
BUT, AND THEN AS FAR AS EVERYTHING ELSE, THEY SAID, UM, WE HAVE COMPLIED.
[00:50:01]
EVERYTHING WE WERE ASKED TO DO.WE WERE TOLD WE WERE ALLOWED TO DO IT.
AND WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE EXPANSION, THE MONEY IS NOT THE MONEY SPENT.
WE'VE TAKEN OUT PROBABLY $150,000 IN LOANS AND, UM, ADVANCES TO BE ABLE TO PUT IN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE EQUIPMENT AND THE GOATS THEMSELVES, THEY'RE $700 A PIECE.
SO IT'S, WE DON'T GET, YOU KNOW, THE CHEAP GOATS COSTS EAT THE SAME AMOUNT AS THE EXPENSIVE GOATS.
SO WE GET THE EXPENSIVE ONES THAT HAVE GOOD QUALITY PRODUCTS, GOOD GENETICS.
SO IT'S NOT ABOUT, AND WHEN WE STARTED, WE HAD 50 GOATS, SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE LESS GOATS THAN WE DID WHEN WE STARTED.
SO WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE WERE ALREADY APPROVED TO DO.
THE TOWN SPECIFICALLY SAYS WE'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE THESE EVEN IN TOWN LIMITS.
AND IT EVEN APPEARS TO ME THAT THEY'RE ENCOURAGING IT BECAUSE THEY MADE A SPECIAL SUBSECTION STATING THAT URBAN AGRICULTURE IS ALLOWED AS FAR AS THE CITATION FOR THE STRUCTURE AND THE FIRST HOME OCCUPATION.
THEY DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE THERE.
HOW CAN WE BE A NUISANCE? THEY DIDN'T TELL US EVEN WHAT PART IS THE NUISANCE.
THEY DIDN'T SAY WE'RE MAKING SMELLS.
THEY DIDN'T SAY WE HAVE TRASH EVERYWHERE.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN ASK US WHICH WAS TRASH AND WHICH IS THIS.
THE ONLY THING WE HAVE OUTSIDE FOR THE HOME OCCUPATION ARE COOLERS.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS FARM AND PERSONAL.
WE HAVE OUR SIDE, SOME OF OUR STUFF, BUT WE HAVE SEVEN AND A HALF ACRES AND YOU CAN'T SEE ANY OF IT FROM THE ROAD.
SO THAT WAS WHERE OUR CONFUSION LIED WITH THE WORDING OF THEIR CITATION.
AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR THE FIRST SLASH SECOND.
ANY QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE? YES.
I ONLY HAVE ONE COPY, I BELIEVE.
CAN YOU BRING, DID YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING? NO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WHILE I'M DIGGING THROUGH THIS? UM, WELL WHEN YOU GOT, I HAVE ANOTHER ONE.
THE, YOU GUYS TALKED IN OCTOBER.
CAN YOU SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT DISCUSSION? SO I PRETTY MUCH TOLD THEM THE SAME THING THAT WE HAD PERMISSION FROM THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.
WE, BEFORE WE EVEN BOUGHT THE HOUSE, WE SAT DOWN WITH THEM AND ASKED THEM IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO.
AND WE WERE TOLD YES, THE WHOLE REASON WE BOUGHT THE PLACE WAS SO THAT WE COULD HAVE A FARM.
WE'VE MOVED FROM HIGH KNOB AND WE, THIS IS WHAT WE WANTED TO DO.
I SPECIFICALLY ASKED JEREMY ABOUT THIS, THIS IS A DREAM OF HERS TO HAVE A GOAT FARM AND THIS SORT OF THING.
HE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TOTALLY WITHIN OUR RIGHT TO HAVE GOATS ON THIS PROPERTY.
LIKE SHE SAID BEFORE, YOU KNOW, HORSES NEXT DOOR, COWS ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, AND I HAD TO EVEN TOUCH, TOUCH BASE WITH HIM ABOUT REZONING THE PROPERTY.
AND HE SAID, YOU DON'T NEED TO REZONE THE PROPERTY.
WHY? WHY DO YOU NEED TO REZONE THE PROPERTY? CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? SURE.
MY NAME IS DAVID THORNBERG OF 1205.
SO, YOU KNOW, HIS STANCE WAS YOU DON'T NEED TO REZONE, YOU DON'T NEED TO BE AGRICULTURAL TO HAVE CODES BECAUSE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE THEM WITH THE CURRENT ZONING CODE.
I JUST HAVE LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE.
UH, YOU'VE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS A FARM LLC AND THEN THERE'S YOUR DAIRY OPERATION.
WHAT OPERATION OWNS THIS PARCEL? UM, THAT IS THE FARM, WELL, PRIVATE RESIDENCE.
SO THE FARM, THE FARM DOESN'T ACTUALLY OWN ANY PROPERTY, CORRECT? TECH, WELL THE ANIMALS AND SOME OF THE MILKING EQUIPMENT.
BUT AS FAR AS THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY, IT DOESN'T OWN, CORRECT? YES.
SORRY, THIS, THAT IS IN THERE.
AND YOU'LL SEE THEY KNEW ABOUT THE OTHER BUILDING THAT WE WERE INTENDING TO PUT UP.
WE JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHERE WE WANTED TO PUT THEM YET.
THE TWO BUILDINGS ARE NOT YEAH, THAT'S NOT IN YOUR PACKET.
[00:55:04]
IS THERE A REASON THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET? OKAY.THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR.
THEN I ALSO HAVE A EMAIL FROM MR. CAMP, UM, JUST KIND OF SOLIDIFYING THAT HE KNEW WHAT WE WERE DOING AND THAT IT WAS JUST ABOUT PROCEDURAL.
THAT WE JUST NEEDED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IT WAS GOING AND NOT SO MUCH IF WE WERE ALLOWED TO, WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE DEQ, WE HAD TO GO THROUGH MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS THOROUGHLY UP TO SNUFF WITH WATER DISPOSAL, WASTE DISPOSAL, HANDLING OF ALL MATERIALS.
AND WHEN WE ENTERED INTO THIS ENDEAVOR, IT WAS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL THIS WAS ALLOWED AND WE HAD EXPLICIT PERMISSION THAT WE WERE ALLOWED TO DO THIS.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE DID IS WE FORGOT TO SUBMIT THE PERMITS ON WHERE THE BUILDINGS WOULD GO.
AND DO YOU HAVE, DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE FROM HIM ON THE, OF YOUR
CAN YOU MAKE SURE WE GET A COPY OF THESE EMAILS? YEAH, WE DON'T.
YOU, YOU SENT THAT TO ME IN THE EMAIL THAT WAS SENT TO ME.
AND I HAD SUBMITTED IT TWICE TO YOU GUYS ALREADY.
AND I ALSO WANTED TO, UM, MAKE A POINT THAT, THAT THEY ALSO TOLD US THAT THEY WERE, THEY WERE NOT GONNA RENEW OUR PERMIT IN MARCH UNTIL I SUBMITTED STATE CODE SAYING THAT THEY WERE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO RESCIND OUR PERMIT BECAUSE STATE CODE PROHIBITS LOCALITIES FROM RESCINDING PERMITS JUST BECAUSE THEY NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED.
SO THEY HAD 60 DAYS TO RESCIND IT.
WE HAVE, IT HAD IT LEGALLY FOR SIX YEARS AND THEY BY STATE LAW CANNOT RESCIND IT.
AND IF THEY DON'T, AND THE GOATS ARE AN INTEGRAL PORTION OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE THE GOAT CHEESE COURSE.
JEREMY, YOUR PREVIOUS SONY ADMINISTRATOR THAT UP
ANY MORE QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE SEEN? ANY ADDITIONAL, OKAY.
I ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY, I HAVE ONE, ONE MORE LAST QUESTION.
YOU SAID, DID YOU SAY THAT THERE ARE CURRENTLY HORSES AND CATTLE ON ADJOINING PROPERTY? YES, ACROSS THE STREET THERE'S CATTLE AND THEN TO THE RIGHT OF THAT PROPERTY, THERE ARE HORSES.
THE MAN NEXT TO US, HE RETIRED AND THEN HE GOT RID OF HIS HORSES AT THE TIME.
BUT THAT WAS BEFORE COVID, UM, AROUND, THEY WERE STILL THERE WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, BUT WE, THEY'RE NOT THERE NO LONGER.
BUT HE MAKES HAY ON HIS FIELD.
SO THE QUESTION YOU SAY ACROSS THE STREET, IS THAT THE A ONE, THE RE OKAY.
BECAUSE AGAIN, YEAH, SO THIS IS US HERE, OUR HOUSE IS HERE AND IT JUST NOT, IT DOESN'T LIKE ME.
AND ARE THERE ANY OTHER HORSE, ARE THERE ANY HORSES OR CATTLE ON IT? ANY OF THE RS? UH, YES, THE MR. SAYERS HAS, UM, HORSES HE IS ON, OH, I'M SORRY, ON THE RS LOT.
SO OVER HERE THERE'S AN RE AND THEY HAVE FORCES.
BUT AGAIN, ACCORDING TO CODE, THEIR LIVESTOCK IS ALLOWED ACCORDING TO WHAT THE TOWN'S OWN CODE IS.
AND ALL THESE ACRE, ALL THESE PROPERTIES ARE UNDER ONE ACRE.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE PROPER PERMITTING, EVEN AS THE CODE IS WRITTEN, TECHNICALLY THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE IT TOO.
IF YOU GO STRICTLY OFF OF THE DEFINITION OF THE CODE.
AND THEN AGAIN, THIS WAS ALL WOODED AREA, IT'S OH, WELL, YEAH, THEY'RE CLEARING IT.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S RELEVANT JUST BECAUSE IT, IT, IT'S LIKE IT'S BASED ON WHAT IT'S ZONED NOT, YOU KNOW, BUT, BUT YEAH, I MEAN YEAH.
[01:00:01]
UNDERSTOOD.WELL, AS IT GOES TO THE NUISANCE.
SO WE'RE GOOD WITH THE APPELLATE QUESTION.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE TOWN AFTER HEARING ALL OF THEIR INFORMATION? YES.
YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
SO WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE WITH QUESTIONS FOR TOWN STAFF AFTER HEARING THEM.
SO LET THEM, YOU CAN SEND WHOEVER UP TO REBUTTAL AND ASK QUESTIONS.
THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THERE.
DO YOU WANNA LOOK HIM UP? THE QUESTION FIRST? A LOT OF INFORMATION THERE.
SO THE FIRST APPEAL AGAIN IS ON HOME OCCUPATION, THREE VIOLATIONS OF THE HOME OCCUPATION.
A LOT OF INFORMATION BASED ON THE AGRICULTURAL PART THAT IS ON THE SECOND APPEAL.
SO I JUST WANTED TO KEEP YOU, UH, THE FIRST APPEAL IS FOR THE HOME OCCUPATION.
UM, WE FOUND NO CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND, UH, TOWN EMPLOYEES ABOUT ZEBRAS AND OTHER CATTLE AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
WE FOUND NO CORRESPONDENCE FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THAT, UH, THE URBAN AG THAT WAS MENTIONED.
THAT IS PART OF THE SECOND APPEAL.
SO, AND THE INFORMATION ABOUT LIVESTOCK ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES, THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO YOUR CASE HERE.
YOU ARE ONLY LOOKING FOR THIS ONE, FOR THIS CASE.
HERE IS THE VIOLATIONS OF THE HOME OCCUPATION.
UH, SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND WITH THAT.
SO KEEP IN MIND WE'LL JUST REF, UH, GO BACK TO THOSE HOME OCCUPATIONS.
THEY HAVE TO BE COM SHOULD BE CLEARLY INCIDENTAL, A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRIMARY USE.
THEY WERE ONLY PERMITTED TO MANUFACTURE GOAT CHEESE DISPLAY OF THAT.
THEY HAVE HAY, HAY BALES THERE.
THEY HAVE FARMING EQUIPMENT, OTHER BUILDINGS, UH, THAT WERE NOT PERMITTED.
THERE'S AN ASSOCIATION WITH THAT.
THE NUISANCE IS YOU, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A HOME OCCUPATION, BASICALLY SIDE BY SIDE HOMES, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE WHICH HOME HAS A BUSINESS OUT OF IT AND WHICH ONE DOESN'T.
YOU SHOULD NOT CREATE ANY NUISANCE, ANY NOISE, DUST, SMELLS THAT ARE ANY MORE FREQUENT THAN IS EXPERIENCED BY A HOME THAT DOES NOT HAVE A HOME OCCUPATION.
SO THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE PARTS FOR THIS APPEAL.
THE AGRICULTURAL, AGRICULTURAL PURSUIT IS ON THE SECOND APPEAL.
I JUST WANNA REITERATE AND FOCUS.
YOU, YOU'RE ONLY DEALING WITH THE HOME OCCUPATION HERE.
SO, AND ALSO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO RECEIVE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE NUISANCE IN ORDER TO ISSUE A CITATION.
SO WHEN STAFF WAS ON SITE AND THEY SAW SOMETHING THAT THEY BELIEVED WAS OUTSIDE OF NORMAL REALM AS FAR AS NUISANCE GOES, THEY ARE PERMITTED AND SHOULD ISSUE CITATIONS OR NOTICE AS A VIOLATION.
AND ONLY THE CHIEF SHED WAS PERMITTED.
SHE SAID PERMITTED ONLY HOME OCCUPATION TO MANUFACTURE GOAT CHEESE.
THAT'S THAT'S NOT REALLY PART OF THIS.
THAT'S ANOTHER NOTICE THAT HAS NOTHING.
WE SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERING THAT FOR THIS WHAT? THE CHEESE SHED? NO, THE WELL, THE, THE OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE UN PERMITTED.
THAT IS NOT PART, SHE DID NOT APPEAL.
NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT YOU JUST REFERENCED IT.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU THERE, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S SOME INFORMATION WE SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERING AS PART OF THIS, BUT, BUT THEN YOU'RE MENTIONING INFORMATION THAT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING AS PART OF THIS EITHER.
RIGHT? WE'RE SAYING THAT THE HOME OCCUPATION WAS APPROVED.
BUT THE OTHER BUILDINGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
OR NOT AM I MISINTERPRETING IT? RIGHT.
SO I'M JUST SAYING LET'S BE CONSISTENT ABOUT THE THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING AS PART OF THIS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO REITERATE, THE CHEESE SHED WAS APPROVED RIGHT? TO MANUFACTURE THE CHEESE PER THE HOME OCCUPATION TAKING PLACE.
THAT WAS THE ONLY TWO PERMITS THAT WERE PERMITTED.
YEAH, IT PERTAINS TO IT BECAUSE SHE WAS PERMITTED TO DO IT OUT OF THE CHEESE SHED AS OPPOSED TO THE HOME, WHICH IS THE TYPICAL
[01:05:02]
APPROVAL OF A HOME OCCUPATION IS FROM THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE.SHE WAS APPROVED TO DO IT FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
THAT'S WHY THE CHEESE SHED IS, HAS SOME BEARING HERE TO THE HOME OCCUPATION BECAUSE THAT IS NOT TYPICAL.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND MAYBE IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT WAS APPROVED.
SO I, THAT'S WHERE I'M STILL, I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH WHERE SHE, IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT SHE'S CURRENTLY DOING IS RUNNING THE OPERATION OUT OF THE SHE, SHE, CORRECT.
SHE'S MANUFACTURING CHEESE OUT OF THE APPROVED SHE CHEESE.
AM I, AM I MISSING SOMETHING? THAT, THAT IS CORRECT.
BUT THE HOME OCCUPATION WITH THE OTHER, WITH THAT THEY CAN, WITH THE EFFECTS OF THE OTHER PART, THAT SHALL NOT CREATE ANY OF THESE OTHERS.
AND THE OUTSIDE STORAGE AND THE OUTSIDE STORAGE OF FARMING EQUIPMENT, PAY BALES AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS NOT PERMITTED AS PER THE ZONING OF THAT PARTICULAR, AS PER THE HOME.
SO LET'S TAKE AWAY THE MANUFACTURING THE CHEESE.
LET'S JUST PRETEND THE CHEESE THING GOES AWAY FOR A SECOND.
WOULD YOU GUYS HAVE ISSUED A CITATION? YEAH, I MEAN YOU WOULD'VE FOR THE NON PERMITTED BUILDINGS, WHICH APPARENTLY THEY CAN RECTIFY BY GETTING PERMITS FOR THEM.
WHAT, WHAT'S THE QUESTION NOW? WELL, SO THE HOME OCCUPATION VIOLATION IS, IT IS AROUND THE, THE CHEESE SHED AND, AND YOU AS FAR AS EXPANDING, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS LET'S SAY SHE JUST CLOSED UP SHOP TOMORROW.
WE'RE JUST HAVING GOATS AND HAVING A, A FARM ESSENTIALLY, I GUESS.
IS THERE A VIOLATION? THOSE VIOLATIONS IS ON YOUR, THE NEXT APPEAL? YEAH.
SO SHE'S STILL BEING VIOLATION, BUT OF NOT OF THE HOME OCCUPATION, BUT ON PERMITTED USE.
NOT THAT VIOLATION THAT I, I YEAH, NO, I'M, I'M CLEAR.
I THINK WHAT SHE'S, WHEN YOU MENTION STORAGE OF THINGS OUTSIDE CHEESE'S MAKING OPERATION IS THE HOME OCCUPANCY.
BUT SHE'S NOT STORING CHEESE MAKING OPERATION EQUIPMENT OUTSIDE.
SHE'S STORING GOAT MILKING GOAT FARMING STUFF OUTSIDE, WHICH IS PART OF THE SECOND VIOLATION, NOT THE HOME OCCUPANCY VIOLATION.
SO THE STORAGE OUTSIDE DOESN'T VIOLATE THE HOME OCCUPATION BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE HOME OCCUPATION THAT'S STORING THINGS OUTSIDE WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING.
UNLESS THERE IS CHEESE MAKING EQUIPMENT OUTSIDE AS WELL, WHICH I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE BECAUSE SO IS, SO WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU SHOWED THE SLIDE OF THE, UH, LIKE HAY BALES, CAR PORT, THAT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE.
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOME OCCUPATION THING.
IT'S JUST, JUST YOU JUST NOTING WHAT'S THERE PHYSICALLY ON THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S ALSO THE SECOND VIOLATION.
SO HAY, BAS, OUTSIDE GO ALL THAT STUFF THAT WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THEIR SECOND VIOLATION.
NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, JUST THAT'S PART OF THE SECOND.
SO THERE CONNECTED WITH DISCONNECT.
UH, ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DON'T THINK SO.
UM, SINCE THESE THINGS ARE SO TIED TOGETHER, DOES EVERYBODY WANT TO HEAR THE SECOND VIOLATION BEFORE WE DECIDE TO VOTE ON ANYTHING? WE SHOULD.
BUT I THOUGHT WE SAID WE DID THE HOME OCCUPATION FIRST BECAUSE WE KIND OF SAID THAT THE SECOND ONE WAS THAT KIND OF MOOT, RIGHT? IF, IS THAT RIGHT OR NO? NO, NO, NO.
IT'S JUST THAT ONE'S NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE OTHER.
IT'S JUST THAT THE HOME OCCUPATION IS THE BUSINESS.
THAT IS THE THING THAT THEY NEED GOATS FOR THE WHOLE, THE BUSINESS WASN'T THERE.
IF SHE WASN'T MANUFACTURING GOAT CHEESE, SHE WOULDN'T NEED THE GOATS.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF INTERMIXING OF THE VIOLATIONS.
SO IN ORDER TO CLARIFY, WE CAN JUST HAVE THEM DO THEIR SECOND PRESENTATION AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE ALL OF THE FACTS AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT AND, OKAY.
DO YOU GUYS WANT, DO YOUR YEAH.
YOUR PART FOR THE SECOND ONE? YEP.
YOUR SECOND PART OF THE APPEAL IS A NOTICE VIOLATION RELATED TO TOWN CODE SECTION 1 75, 10 22.
THE RAISING AND BREEDING OF LIVESTOCK, SPECIFICALLY GOATS WITHIN THE RS ZONING DISTRICT.
[01:10:01]
UH, AGAIN, THERE IS THE MAP SHOWING THE RS, UH, TO THE, UH, EAST IS R ONE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT, LOTS TO THE SOUTH, OTHER ADDITIONAL RS LOTS AND TO THE NORTH.UH, THE RE ONE MINUTE, UH, MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF ONE ACRES INTO THE NORTHWEST, THE A ONE 10 ACRE LOTS.
THAT'S THE ZONING AGAIN, THE STATEMENT FOR THE RS, UH, AND OUR LIMITED SINGLE UNIT DWELLINGS.
UM, FOR THAT STATEMENT OF INTENT, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND SUBURBAN SIZED LOTS USES THAT ARE, UH, APPROVED OR PERMITTED.
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, DETACHED, MISCELLANEOUS, NO COMMERCIAL, NO INDUSTRIAL, NO ORGANIZATIONAL ONLY UNDER MISCELLANEOUS ACCESSORY USES STRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS IN A HOME OCCUPATION.
THAT IS THE ONLY USES THAT ARE PERMITTED.
HOWEVER, IN THE A ONE, THE A ONE IS A ONE DISTRICT COMPOSED OF LARGE CONTINUOUS PARCELS OF AT LEAST 10 ACRES IN SIZE, USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS AND OTHER USES INVOLVING THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACES, INCLUDING PARKS AND FORESTED AREAS.
PER THE DEFINITION, THE STANDARDS FORTH IN THIS DISTRICT ARE DESIGNED TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT OPEN SPACES, AGRICULTURAL ENFORCED AREAS.
DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE DISCOURAGED AND ONLY STRUCTURES PERMITTED SHALL BE THOSE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE.
USES, USES PERMITTED IN THE A ONE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, PROVIDED THAT ONLY ONE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING PER PARCEL.
AND UNDER MISCELLANEOUS AGRICULTURE IS A PERMITTED USE IN THE A ONE.
AS YOU NOTICE, AGRICULTURE IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE RS AGRICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PURSUIT AS DEFINED.
THE TILLING OF SOIL, THE RAISING OF CROPS, HORTICULTURE, AQUACULTURE, HYDROPONICS, FORESTRY, GARDENING, AQUACULTURE, LIVESTOCK AND FILE KEEPING AND BREEDING FARM WINERIES, ROADSIDE STANDS, TENANT HOUSES WERE THE NECESSARY OPERATION OF THE FARM AND THE PRODUCTION OF NATURAL PRODUCTS WITH RESOURCES PRIMARILY DERIVED FROM THE LAND UPON WHICH IT IS PRODUCED.
1 75 3 DEFINES AGRICULTURE ONLY PERMITTED IN THE A ONE NOT PERMITTED IN THE RS ACCESSORY USE.
THOSE ARE PERMITTED IN BOTH DISTRICTS.
HOWEVER, ACCESSORY USE IS A USE OF A BUILDING LOT OR PORTION THEREOF, WHICH IS CUSTOMARILY, INCIDENTAL AND SUBORDINATE TO THE PERMITTED OR THE PARENTAL PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USE OF THE MAIN BUILDING DOWN AT THE BOTTOM.
URBAN AG IS CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY USE WHEN REQUIREMENTS OF ONE SEVEN FIVE ONE TEN FIVE ARE COMPLIED WITH ONLY AS A ACCESSORY USE.
SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN GENERAL? A USE THAT IS CUSTOMARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMARY USE IMPLIES THAT THE ACCESSORY USE FLOWS FROM NATURALLY DERIVES OR FOLLOWS A LOGICAL SEQUENCE OF OR IS NORMAL AND EXPECTED OFFSHOOT OF THE PRIMARY USE.
THE PRIMARY USE IS RESIDENTIAL IN THE RS CUSTOMARY INCIDENTAL USE IS ONE THAT IS COMMONLY HABITUALLY AND LONG PRACTICE BEEN ESTABLISHED AS REASONABLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRIMARY USE.
THE TERM SUBORDINATE IS DEFINED BY WEBSTER DICTIONARY IS TO MEAN PLACED IN OR OCCUPYING A LOWER CLASS OR RANK OR INFERIOR.
A SUBORDINATE USE INCORPORATES THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ACCESSORY USE BE MINOR IN RELATIONSHIP TO PERMITTED PRIMARY USE.
UH, YOUR THING TO LOOK AT, YOU NEED TO GIVE, GIVE THE LAW IT'S PLAIN AND NATURAL.
MEANING THE FIRST STEP IS INTERPRETING LAW IS TO EMPLOY THE PLAIN AND NATURAL MEANING OF THE WORDS USE.
IT'S OUT OF THE ADMIRAL COUNTY LAND USE HANDBOOK WITH CASE LAW STATED.
WHEN ASCERTAINING THE PLAIN MEETING OF THE LAW, EACH WORDS MEANING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT, THE ENTIRE PHRASE FROM WHICH IT IS TAKEN.
THEN IT TELLS YOU UNDEFIED TERM MUST BE GIVEN ITS ORDINARY MEETING,
[01:15:01]
GIVEN IN THE CONTEXT WHICH IT IS USED, AND WE CAN RESORT TO USING, UH, WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY.THAT'S WHY WE USE SOME OF THOSE WORDS BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE WORDS IS NOT IN TOWN CODE FOR DEFINE.
THAT'S WHY WE REFERENCED THE HANDBOOK THAT, UH, YOU RECEIVED FOR YOUR CERTIFICATION.
AS STATED EARLIER, YOU SEEN THIS.
THEY, UH, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY CONSIDER THEY HAVE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY, EFFORT, AND TIME INVESTED IN CREATING A STATE PERMITTED FACILITY.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, THOUSANDS OF HOURS, SLEEPLESS NIGHTS RETIREMENT SAVINGS HAVE BEEN SACRIFICED AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN LOANS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED FOR THE FURTHER ADVANCEMENT OF THE FARM AS OUTLINED IN THE RS.
AGRICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE RS, ONLY IN THE A ONE ZONING DISTRICTS.
URBAN AG IS AND ACCESSORY USE, BUT ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF 1 75, 1 10 0.5.
AS YOU REMEMBER, BACK FROM THE DEFINITE OF AGRICULTURE, RAISING AND FEEDING OF LIVESTOCK IS ONLY PERMITTED IN THE A ONE.
THERE IS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, BUT ONLY AS AN ACCESSORY USE CLEARLY INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMARY.
SO THOSE UNDER ONE ACRE REQUIRE AN URBAN BAG PERMIT FOR KEEPING, UH, A MAXIMUM OF SIX CHICKENS, LIVESTOCK OF SIX RABBITS OR SIX BEEHIVES.
IF YOU HAVE OVER ONE ACRE IN ZONED RESIDENTIAL, YOU DO NOT NEED AN URBAN AG PERMIT FOR RABBITS, LIVESTOCK BEES OR CHICKENS.
UH, SO THEY GO IN THERE, YOU KNOW, ROOSTERS ARE NOT ALLOWED.
AND AS WE GO DOWN, URBAN AGRICULTURE IS NOT PERMITTED AS A PRINCIPAL USE OF THE PROPERTY, EXCEPT THAT THIS RESTRICTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO OUTDOOR GARDENS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON STAFF ON THE ZONING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RS? WHAT IS PERMITTED IN THE RS AND WHAT IS PERMITTED IN THE A ONE? AGRICULTURE? AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS IS ONLY PERMITTED IN THE A ONE DISTRICT.
AND URBAN AGRICULTURE CANNOT BE A PRINCIPAL USE OF A PROPERTY.
IT HAS TO BE INSUBORDINATE AND INCIDENTAL AS DEFINED IN THE CODE.
SO UNDER AGRI URBAN AGRICULTURE MM-HMM
IT SAYS USE THAT MAY INCLUDE RAISING YOUR CROPS, HORTICULTURE, AQUACULTURE, HYDROPONICS, FORESTRY, GARDENING, AQUACULTURE, AND BOTH LIVESTOCK AND FOUL KEEPING SUBJECT COMPLIANCE WITH 1 7, 5, 0 10.
SO URBAN AGRICULTURE ALLOWS LIVESTOCK RABBITS.
DO YOU HAVE A DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCK FOR THE TOWN? YOU SAY REV, I ACCEPT, BUT DO YOU HAVE A DEFINITION WHERE ANYBODY ELSE READING THIS WOULD GET REVS? SO, UH, TO KEEP, ALSO, KEEP IN MIND THE DUPLEXES, YOU ONLY RIDE TO KEEP SIX FEMALE CHICKENS.
ROOSTERS ARE NOT PERMITTED ON THOSE LOTS 'CAUSE THEY CROWING, UH, AND ONLY LIVESTOCK, YOU KNOW, SO THOSE ARE NOT PERMITTED.
SO YOU GAVE THE SLIDE PREVIOUS TO AGRICUL OR URBAN AGRICULTURE, YOU GAVE AGRICULTURE OR AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS UNDER AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS, IT GAVE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME LIST.
HYDROPONICS, FORESTRY, GARDENING, AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK AND FOUL KEEPING AND BREEDING.
[01:20:01]
SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT UNDER THE A ONE YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO HAVE RABBITS BECAUSE THEY CAN ONLY HAVE LIVESTOCK? NO.YOU'RE, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT BECAUSE IT EXCLUDES IT FROM, IN THE URBAN AG.
IN THE URBAN AG IT DEFINES, IT HAS RABBITS LISTED WITH THE LIVESTOCK.
SO THEY NEED A PERMIT IF YOU'RE UNDER ONE ACRE FOR URBAN AG, YES.
THEY'RE NOT UNDER ONE ACRE, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
THEY DON'T NEED TO HAVE AN URBAN AG PERMIT THAT'S APPROVED BY THE EXTENSION AGENT FOR RABBITS, BEES, OR CHICKENS.
SO THIS IS BREEDING BY THIS DEFINITION, LIVESTOCK AND FO KEEPING AND BREEDING, AND ALSO THE PRODUCTION OF NATURAL PRODUCTS WITH RESOURCES PRIMARILY DERIVED FROM THE LAND UPON WHICH IT IS PRODUCED.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UH, SECTION B WHERE IT SAYS SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH IS A SINGLE FAMILY, UH, SHALL BE PERMITTED TO KEEP UP TO THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS.
THAT'S NOT IN ALL, UH, RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS OR HOUSES.
SO IT'S CLEAR ON HERE OTHER TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL USE SUCH AS TOWN HOMES, CONDOS, AND MULTIFAMILY.
THEY'RE PROHIBIT PROHIBITED AT ALL.
SO UNDER SINGLE FAMILY, IT LISTS WHAT URBAN AGRICULTURE ALLOWS, WHICH IS RABBITS,
BUT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT WITH THIS ONE IS STAFF HAS MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL PURSUIT.
THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL USE, THEIR FARM THAT THEY'VE DESCRIBED, IT'S AGRICULTURE.
WHEREAS WE'RE STATING YOU ARE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, THE PRIMARY USE OF YOUR PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE RESIDENTIAL, NOT AGRICULTURAL.
UM, I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION BECAUSE THE, I'M JUST THE HORSES THING.
LIKE HOW DO YOU, HOW DO YOU INTERPRET HORSES IN RESIDENTIAL? WELL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THAT, THAT, THAT'S NOT RELEVANT FOR PENDING VIOLATIONS OR NON-CONFORMING USES FOR THIS CASE.
YES, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THERE'S NON-CONFORMING USES.
NO, NO, I, I'M ASKING THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WHAT I'M ASKING IS DO YOU CONSIDER HORSES TO BE LIVESTOCK? YES.
SO HORSES ARE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
WHAT THAT IS ACCURATE WITH THE STATEMENT.
THERE ARE SOME NON-CONFORMING USES IN TOWN.
THERE ARE SOME, SOME INCIDENCES WHERE THE PROPERTIES WERE ZONED AGRICULTURAL, THEY HAD HORSES WHICH WAS PERMITTED.
AND THEN AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THE TOWN LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING, I GUESS I SHOULD STATE THAT.
THEY ALREADY HAD 'EM, SO THEY CAN KEEP 'EM AT
SO THOSE ARE LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING USES THIS PROPERTY DIDN'T HAVE THOSE.
I, I UNDERSTAND THIS PROPERTY HAS NEVER BEEN IN AN AGRICULTURAL USE, AT LEAST AS FAR BACK AS THE S IT WAS NEVER ZONED AGRICULTURAL AS FAR AS WE CAN FIND, WHEREAS SOME OF THE OTHER ONES WERE.
AND THERE'S, UH, THAT LEHE MANSION THERE.
HORSES, CIVIL WAR, IT'S ALWAYS HAD HORSES.
IT'S NEVER STOPPED HAVING HORSES.
NO, I I, I'M CLEAR ON WHAT GRANDFATHERED IN SAYING, BUT AGAIN, THE HORSES ARE NOT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
BUT THE REASON I'M BRINGING IT UP IS BECAUSE HE IS MENTIONED THE DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCK.
SO I'M SAYING IF THE DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCK IS RABBITS, WHICH I STILL THINK IS VAGUE THERE, I'M ASKING ABOUT HORSES.
IT'S THE TOWN'S POSITION THAT CURRENTLY TODAY IN TOWN, I CAN'T GO BUY A HORSE AND PUT IT IN MY BACKYARD IN A RESIDENTIAL.
SO I THINK IT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE OF THE VAGUENESS OF THE LIVESTOCK DEFINITION.
UM, I WANTED TO TOUCH ON WHAT THEY HAD MENTIONED IN THE FIRST PORTION OF THIS WHERE WE, IF THE TOWN DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE THE DEFINITION, WE GO OFF OF THE LEGAL OR WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY OR WHAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN.
AND LIVESTOCK IS NOT JUST RABBITS, LIVESTOCK, I JUST DID A QUICK SEARCH.
HORSES, CATTLE, SHEEP AND OTHER USEFUL ANIMALS KEPT A RAISE ON A FARM OR RANCH.
SO IT'S NOT ONLY FOR, AND THE TOWN CODE DOES NOT ONLY SAY YOU CAN ONLY HAVE RABBITS NO MATTER THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY.
WHAT IT DOES IS IT LIMITS THE AMOUNT ON SMALL PARCELS SO THAT PEOPLE ON SMALL PARCELS DON'T GET LARGE
[01:25:01]
ANIMALS, OR THEY NEED PERMITS TO KEEP ANIMALS THAT FIT ON THEIRS.WE HAVE SEVEN AND A HALF ACRES.
LIVESTOCK ON OURS WOULD INCLUDE GOATS, SHEEP, HORSES, OR WHATEVER IS DEEMED ALLOWABLE UNDER THE TERM LIVESTOCK.
UM, THERE'S NO MENTION THAT RABBITS ARE THE ONLY LIVESTOCK ALLOWED.
AND BECAUSE IT'S AN EXCLUSIONARY AND THE TERM LIVESTOCK, AND AGAIN, BECAUSE THE TOWN DIDN'T DEFINE IT, WE HAVE TO GO OFF OF THE COMMON TERM.
AND COMMON TERM IS NOT LIVESTOCK IS ONLY RABBITS.
IF YOU GO TO A LIVESTOCK AUCTION, YOU'RE NOT ONLY BUYING RABBITS, YOU'RE BUYING CATTLE, YOU'RE BUYING HORSES, YOU'RE BUYING SHEEP, ALL TYPES OF FARM ANIMALS.
SO THAT IS ALL INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCK, AND THAT IS THE MOST REASONABLE DEFINITION.
AND I THINK THAT, UM, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR ON THOSE.
THE PRIMARY USE OF OUR RESIDENCE, AND AGAIN, I'M GOING BACKWARDS.
UM, IT'S OUR HOME WE LIVED IN.
THE SECONDARY USE OR THE INCIDENTAL USE.
WE HAVE A SMALL HOBBY FARM THAT WE LOVE.
AND THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE IT ON THE SIZE PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE.
UM, 1 75 DASH ONE 10.5 HAS 15 SPECIFICATIONS ON WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO UNDER URBAN AGRICULTURE.
OF THOSE 15, 11 THEM, 11 OF THEM ONLY PERTAIN TO RABBITS, BEES, AND POULTRY OF THE REST.
ONLY ONE OF THEM PERTAINS TO HOME OCCUPATION, MEANING NO INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.
THE OTHERS DO NOT RESTRICT OVER ANY PROPERTY OVER 1.1 ACRES.
IT JUST ONLY PUTS RESTRICTIONS ON SMALLER LOTS.
NONE OF THOSE IS WHAT WE'RE EVEN HERE FIGHTING.
WE'RE FIGHTING FOR THE CHANCE TO KEEP OUR ANIMALS, OUR GOATS.
UM, WE NOT CHICKENS, NOT BEES, NOT ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE HAVEN'T DEVIATED FROM OUR PERMIT.
THE PERMIT SAYS WE ARE GOING TO MAKE AND MANUFACTURE CHEESE.
SO IN THE CONFINES OF THE BUILDING THAT WE HAVE, OR THE BUILDING, WE HAVE BEEN PERMITTED.
AGAIN, I DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE, THE, THE SUBMITTING OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS WAS AN OVERSIGHT ON OUR PART, WHICH WE QUICKLY REMEDIED WHEN WE, WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.
BUT FOR THE REST OF IT, WE DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S APPLICABLE.
WE DON'T REQUIRE A PERMIT TO KEEP OUR ANIMALS.
AND UNDER THE CODE THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS URBAN AGRICULTURE IS ALLOWED, AS LONG AS THE PROVISIONS, THOSE 15 PROVISIONS ARE MET AND WE MEET ALL 15 PROVISIONS.
AND FOR THE ONE THAT INVOLVES IN, UH, UH, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL, WE HAVE A PERMIT FOR THAT UNDER THE HOME OCCUPATION.
SO WE'VE CHECKED ALL THE BOXES, WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THEY'VE TOLD US TO DO.
THE RELATIONSHIP FROM THE PRIMARY USE TO THE RE THE, THE INCIDENTAL USE, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR A PERSON TO HAVE A FARM ON THEIR HOME.
IT'S NOT A BIG AGRICULTURAL FACILITY WHERE WE HAVE BIG GIANT SILOS AND ALL THIS MACHINERY WHERE NOBODY LIVES THERE.
WE HAVE GOATS IN OUR BACKYARD THAT WE MILK AND MAKE CHEESE.
IT'S NOT OUTSIDE OF THE CUSTOMARY USE OF A PROPERTY OF OUR SIZE.
NOW, BECAUSE IT IS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WE WENT OFF OF THE CODE.
AND AGAIN, I WILL REFER YOU BACK TO THE DEFINITION AND TO THE CODE WHERE IT SAYS ACCESSORY USE AND UNDER ACCESSORY USE FOUR RS.
THEY EVEN SHOWED YOU URBAN AGRICULTURE IS AN ACCESSORY USE.
KEEPING RAISING OF LIVESTOCK IS URBAN AGRICULTURE.
WHAT I DO WITH THE MILK, ONCE I HAVE THOSE, THE GOATS HAVE THEIR BABIES.
WE USE THAT FOR OUR BUSINESS, OUR HOME OCCUPATION, WHICH ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
SO TO, TO REITERATE, THE REASONABLE DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCK IS NOT JUST RATS.
IF ANYBODY'S EVER HAD A HORSE, ANYBODY'S EVER HAD ANYTHING, THERE ARE MANY ANIMALS CONSIDERED LIVESTOCK, LLAMAS, EMU OSTRICHES CAN EVEN BE CONSIDERED LIVESTOCK IF YOU'RE HARVESTING THEM AS SUCH.
THE PRINCIPAL PRIMARY USE IS OUR RESIDENT.
WE HAVE OUR GOATS IN OUR BACKYARD.
UM, THE PER THE PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE URBAN AGRICULTURE, AS THEY EVEN SAID THEMSELVES.
IT ALLOWS FOR IT IN THEIR OWN DEFINITION.
IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN ONLY HAVE RABBITS.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT YOU'RE RESTRICTED TO AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS.
IT SAYS URBAN AGRICULTURE IS A BUYRIGHT USE UNDER ACCESSORY USE IN EVERY SINGLE ZONING DISTRICT.
IF YOU LOOK UP ON THE ZONING PAGE UNDER EACH ONE, IT STATES ACCESSORY
[01:30:01]
USE.WE FOLLOWED THE CODE THAT WAS WRITTEN AND WE DID WHAT WE WERE TOLD AND WE DID EXACTLY WHAT THE PREVIOUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR INTERPRETED THE LAW AS.
AND UM, AGAIN, 1 75, 1 10 DASH FIVE, THOSE 15 LINE ITEMS, ONLY ONE OF THEM APPLY TO US.
AND WE'RE ABLE TO, WE HAVE THE PERMIT, EVERYTHING ELSE.
WELL, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT BEES, CHICKENS, AND RABBITS.
WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE GOATS AND THE ABILITY TO KEEP OUR, OUR LIVESTOCK ON OUR PROPERTY AS WE HAVE FOR THE LAST 11 YEARS.
ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? NO.
I WANT TO LOOK, I'M NOT SURE THE QUESTION FOR HER, BUT I DO WANT LOOK AT THE, UM, THE AGRICULTURAL.
IS THAT IN THE PACKET? I DIDN'T SEE THAT SPECIFICALLY.
THE DEFINITION OF URBAN AGRICULTURE.
YOU I HAVE THE I STAFF REPORT.
I, I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE IS WHETHER IT'S CLEAR THAT THE, THAT THEY'RE DEFINING LIVESTOCK IN THAT I DON'T THE LIST OF 11, YOU WANT THE THE 15TH? YEAH, I HAVE THAT HERE.
I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT IT'S IN THERE WITH ME.
THIS IS THE ACTUAL TOWN CODE I HAVE, I HAVE THE WHOLE TOWN CODE.
SO THERE'S A, UH, A PACKET IN THERE.
THEY'RE LABELED PAGES ONE THROUGH SIX OR PAGE, UM, ONE, TWO AND THREE OF THREE.
AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE ACCESSORY USES.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO PAGE THREE OF SIX AND I'M SURE THEY CAN BRING IT BACK UP OR I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN BRING IT BACK UP OR NOT, BUT I HAVE A COPY OF IT HERE IF YOU WANTED TO READ OVER IT.
I THINK ANYBODY ELSE WANNA SEE THESE? YEAH.
IS IT
THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS.
IT IS ALSO ON THE PERMIT, UM, FOR THE, I BELIEVE URBAN.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ON THE SECOND PERMIT OR NOT.
BUT THEN WHY WOULD YOU SAY IT HERE? READ IT.
THEY, FOUR OF SIX ON THE PAGE BEFORE THIS ONE MAYBE HERE.
SECTION E DOES TALK ABOUT LIVESTOCK AND THEN IT TESTIFIES THAT RABBITS ARE NOT INCLUDED UNDER THE TERM OR IT, THEY'RE NOT REFERRING TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN RABBITS.
BUT THEY DIDN'T SAY THE ONLY THING THAT ARE ALLOWED ARE RABBITS STANDARD.
THAT MEANS EVERYTHING FOLLOW, HE GIVES ACCURATE STATEMENT.
THAT MEANS I BUT COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
THAT MEANS TED, THESE THAT BECAUSE ORDINANCE IS WORK IT SAVED, YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO
[01:35:01]
HAVE THAT THAT HAVE, RIGHT.THAT I PICK THE RESTRICTED AND THEN IT SAYS, WELL, BASICALLY IT'S RUNNING THROUGH ALL THESE THINGS SAYING THERE'S ALL THESE DIFFERENT, IT'S, YOU NEED TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION.
WE CORRECT IN SAYING THAT SHE'S AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS WHERE SHE CORRECT.
I TAKE ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT THEY LIVESTOCK.
IF THEY DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS, THIS LIVESTOCK DOES DOWN THAT.
THIS IS SO IF YOU'RE DONE SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT,
UM, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR COUNTY STAFF ON THIS ONE? OR DOES COUNTY STAFF HAVE ITS OWN REBUTTAL? SEEMS LIKE, UH, JUST A REMINDER TO KEEP FOCUS ON THE DEFINITIONS.
WHAT WAS, WHAT IS ALLOWED IN EACH DISTRICT? ALSO, A LOT OF INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO YOU VERBALLY.
IT SHOULD BE OUTLINED THAT, YOU KNOW, YOUR, THE DECISION MUST BE BASED ON EXISTING FACTS.
RATHER THAN RECITATION OF NONEXISTING FACTS, HYPOTHETICALS PROPOSAL IDEAS OR CONCEPTS OR WHAT IFS.
IT'S BASED ON THE FACTS AND BASED ON THE TOWN'S DEFINITIONS, THE APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
WHAT WAS PROVIDED FROM THEM FROM THE PREVIOUS ZONING ADMINISTRATION OR STAFF IN YOUR PACKET IS THE COMPLETE PACKET OF INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE.
THAT GOES TO THESE TWO APPEALS.
SO JUST TO REITERATE ON THIS SECOND PART, AS DEFINED IN THE CODE PER THE DEFINITION, LIVESTOCK FOUL KEEPING AND BREEDING AND THE PRODUCTION OF NATURAL PRODUCTS WITH RESOURCES PRIMARILY DERIVED FROM THE LAND UPON WHICH IT IS PRODUCED.
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE ONLY PERMITTED IN THE A ONE DISTRICT AND IN THE A ONE DISTRICT ONLY.
THOSE IN THE URBAN AG, THAT OPERATION HAS TO BE CLEARLY INCIDENTAL.
THEY INVESTED THOUSANDS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND DOLLARS TO OPERATE A FARM, WHICH NOW BASED ON THEIR INFORMATION THAT THEY DIVULGE IS PROBABLY THE PR IS THE PRINCIPAL USE OF THE PROPERTY, NOT THE ACCESSORY USE OF IT.
ACCESSORY USE HAS TO BE CLEARLY INCIDENTAL IN LINE WITH THE PERMITTED USE OF RESIDENTIAL PER THE DEFINITIONS.
A LOT OF OTHER INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO YOU.
YOU HAD TO REMAIN FOCUSED ON WHAT IS DEFINED BY THE TOWN CODE AND IN, AND YOU HAD TO MAKE DECISION IF WE INTERPRETED THE TOWN CODE PER THE DEFINITIONS CORRECTLY, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR TOWN.
SO JUST TO LET US KNOW AND WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS.
SO NOT THAT YOU WILL, BUT THAT MEANS THERE'S NO MORE COMMENTING FROM OUTSIDE.
SO YES, IT MAY SOUND LIKE IT'S GOING FOR OR AGAINST, BUT WE JUST UP HERE.
[01:40:02]
BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE FIRST ONE WE SAW HOME, HOME OCCUPATION.AS THEY POINTED OUT, WE CAN AFFIRM THEIR DECISION.
WE NO RETURN THEIR DECISION OR WE CAN MODIFY THEIR DECISION.
SO BASICALLY ALL THE POWERS THAT THEY HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION NOW COME TO US ON FIELD.
UM, DOES, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON OR DISCUSSION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE AROUND THAT ISSUE AS FAR AS THE, UM, THE HOME OCCUPATION? NOT THE HOME OCCUPATION.
SO THAT'S NOT PAY BALES, THAT'S NOT STORAGE OUTSIDE THAT, THAT'S THE CHEESE.
MAKING SOME CHEESE AND CHIP ICE.
HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? SO CURRENTLY THE TOWN IS SAYING THAT THEIR HOME OCCUPATION HAS EXCEEDED BEING A HOME OCCUPATION.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO, THEY HAVE A VIOLATION ON IT.
THEY'RE BASICALLY GONNA CLOSE THE TAPE BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT THE HOME O OCCUPATION AND THE CODES AND EVERYTHING ARE ALL ONE CON CONGLOMERATE.
THEY, THEY KNOW THAT THERE'S TWO BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE TWO DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS.
UM, THEY JUST THINK THAT THE HOME OCCUPATION THAT THEY APPROVED OF MAKING THE CHEESE IN THE SHED HAS GROWN BEYOND WHAT THEY APPROVED.
SO I KNOW WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, IT BECOMING THE PRINCIPLE FACTOR OF THE USE OF PROPERTY VERSUS THE SUBORDINATE.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE, IT'S PART OF WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK, I THINK THAT THIS IS THE HOME OCCUPATION ONE.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS THE, THE FARM VIEW.
SO I THINK TO ME THOSE ARE THERE, THERE WILL BE TWO SEPARATE.
SO NO, I KNOW, BUT I'M, SO TO ME THE, THE HOME OCCUPATION ONE IS, IS KIND OF CLEAR THAT THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO, UM, BASED ON WHAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED.
BUT THAT, I MEAN, THAT DOESN'T MEAN LIKE, LET, LET'S SAY I, I KNOW THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL.
LET'S SAY YOU TAKE AWAY THE GOATS.
LET'S SAY THEY SAY, WE SAY HYPOTHETICALLY, YOU SAY NO TO THE OTHER.
THEY SAY WE ARE UPHOLDING THE ADMINISTRATOR.
YOU CAN'T HAVE LIVESTOCK ON OUR ONE OR RS.
THEY, THEY COULD CONTINUE OPERATING, THEY COULD MOVE ALL THE GOATS AND EVERYTHING OFF AND STILL CONTINUE WITH THEIR HOME OCCUPATION WITH MAKING CHEESE, NOT WITHOUT GOATS.
WELL, NO, NO, BUT I MEAN, DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? LIKE THERE'S TWO, I'M SAYING THEY HAVE NOT EXPANDED BEYOND MAKING CHEESE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY'RE STILL DOING WHAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO, BUT, BUT THE TOWN THINKS THEY HAVE EXPANDED BEYOND THAT.
SO THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO DO.
BUT I, I MEAN THE, I THINK THEY'VE PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THEY'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING BEYOND, THAT'S NOT, I MEAN THAT'S NOT
SO I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON IT.
2018, THEY ASKED FOR A PERMIT.
IN THEIR PERMIT THEY DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OR NATURE OF THEIR BUSINESS.
IT SAYS TO MAKE AND MANUFACTURE GOAT MILK BASED CHEESES FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
IT SAYS THE ATTACHED TO A COUPLE ATTACHMENTS.
SHE GAVE US ANOTHER ONE FOR 2019.
IT WAS JUST SLIGHTLY LATER THAT HAD A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON IT.
THE TOWN APPROVED THAT THE TOWN SAYS THEY APPROVED ONE CHEESE SHED, THAT THEY DIDN'T APPROVE THE MILKING PARLOR BECAUSE OF LOCATION DECIDING BECAUSE IT WAS UNDECIDED.
BUT THE APPLICATION THAT CAME TO THE TOWN BASED ON THE SECOND DOCUMENT THAT THEY HAVE THAT THEY DIDN'T APPROVE YET, STATED SQUARELY THAT THEY WERE JUST WAITING FOR A PLACEMENT.
NOT THEY, THEY DIDN'T CARE IF THEY WERE MILKING.
THEY JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHERE IT WAS GONNA BE AND MAKE SURE IT WAS IN THE RIGHT SPOT.
SO THAT MEANS THAT THIS PERMIT, THEY NOTIFIED THE TOWN THAT THEY WANTED TO MAKE GOAT CHEESE BY HAVING A CHEESE SHED AND THEY NOTIFIED THEM THAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE A MILKING PARLOR.
YOU CAN'T MILK THINGS UNLESS YOU HAVE THINGS TO MILK.
THAT'S WHERE I THINK THEY HAD TO KNOW.
SO THEY, THEY, AND THEY APPROVED THAT AT THE TIME.
NOW THERE ARE, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF SCALE.
CLEARLY THE TOWN DOES NOT INTEND
[01:45:01]
RS TO BECOME SOME MASSIVE COMMERCIAL FARMING OPERATION.BUT THEY DID SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOOD WITH, WE'RE GOOD WITH CHEESE AND WE'RE GOOD WITH MILKING.
IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE PERSON APPROVING.
THAT MEANS THE TOWN TO KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
SO WHEN THEY SAY I WANT TO MANUFACTURE GOAT MILK AND GOAT CHEESE AND THE TOWN SAYS, OKAY, THAT MEANS THAT THE TOWN HAS TO LOOK UP THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CODES.
ALL THEY HAVE TO KNOW ALL THAT BEFORE THEY SAY YES, THEY CAN'T SAY YES AND THEN GO, WE DIDN'T KNOW.
WE DIDN'T THAT IT WAS GONNA REQUIRE A SEPARATE GOAT.
THE OTHER THING IS THEY APPROVED CHEESE BARN CHEESE SHED CHEESE SHED.
SO THEY KEPT SAYING THAT HOME OCCUPATIONS ARE TWO B WITHIN THE HOME.
THEY'VE GOT, UH, SO THE USE SHOULD BE CLEARLY INCIDENTAL TO THE PRINCIPAL USE OF THE PROPERTY.
SO WE STILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT SHALL NOT CHANGE THE EXTERIOR APPEARANCE OF THE DWELLING UNIT OR CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT THEY APPROVED EXTERNAL BUILDINGS.
SO THEY BASICALLY SAID THAT EXTERIOR APPEARANCE CHANGING THINGS WERE GOOD.
SO THAT MEANS THIS COMPONENT OF IT, THEY'RE OKAY WITH CHANGING THE EXTERIOR APPEARANCE FOR WHAT THEY PERMIT THAT IS A CHEESE SHED.
SO THEY'VE ALREADY ALLOWED A CHANGE
I THINK WE'VE ALREADY REALLY GOTTEN INTO THE FACT THAT THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH SURROUNDED BY OPEN SPACE.
THERE'S COWS AND HORSES AROUND LIKE YES, THERE'S SOME NEIGHBORHOODS, YES, IT'S RS, BUT IT'S LIKE THE EDGE OF AG ZONE.
SO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, UH, THAT'S A OPINION.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GONNA GET INTO THAT.
UM, SO I THINK THE TOWN HAS APPROVED SOME FORM OF THE BUSINESS THEY'RE RUNNING.
NOW CLEARLY INCIDENTAL TO THE PRINCIPAL USE OF THE PROPERTY.
HOW DO WE DECIDE WHAT, I MEAN, CLEARLY THE PRIMARY USE IS THE RESIDENCE 'CAUSE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED.
BUT HOW DO WE DECIDE HOW BIG THIS OPERATION CAN GET BEFORE IT BECOMES THE PRIMARY USE VERSUS THE INCIDENT? INCIDENTAL USE.
YOU CAN'T JUST SAY ANY BECAUSE THEN YOU JUST CAN'T HAVE ANY AND YOU CAN'T SAY YOU CAN'T ALLOW ANYTHING TO HAPPEN.
SO THERE HAS TO BE SOME DETERMINATION IN THIS PROCEEDING.
THE TOWN'S OPINION IS ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT PER STATE VIOLENCE.
SO IF THEY ARE ISSUING THE VIOLATION, THAT MEANS WE ASSUME THAT THEY'RE CORRECT.
THAT THIS HAS EXCEEDED WHAT IT SHOULD BE.
SO THAT MEANS CLEARLY INCIDENTAL, THEY'RE SAYING IT'S NO LONGER INCIDENTAL.
WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT TO BE CORRECT.
BUT UNLESS WE'RE PRESENTED THOUGH WITH THE FACT THAT THEY APPROVED SOME COMPONENT OF THIS.
SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS.
WE CAN, I DON'T THINK WE CAN SIMPLY JUST GRANT THE APPEAL BECAUSE THEY'RE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT.
THEY'VE SAID IT'S MORE THAN INCIDENTAL, IT'S THE WAY IT'S GOTTA BE.
WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO OVERTURN AND MODIFY.
THE TOWN HAS APPROVED SOME FORM OF THIS BUSINESS.
SO IT WILL BE UP TO THE TOWN TO DECIDE WHERE THAT LIMIT IS.
HOW MANY GOATS OR HOW MANY SQUARE FOOT OF, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DETERMINE HOW MUCH.
UM, AND I THINK SOME OF THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF VA 15 2, 3 0 7 UNDER SECTION VIII FEEL THAT BECAUSE OF THEIR APPROVAL, THAT QUALIFIES AS A SIGNIFICANT AFFIRMATIVE GOVERNMENTAL ACT.
BASED ON THAT, THEY HAVE COMMITTED SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES TO THEIR BUSINESS THAT VESTS THEM SOMEWHAT IN THEIR BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN APPROVAL.
[01:50:01]
IT HAS, YOU KNOW, LIMITATIONS.BUT THOSE LIMITATIONS, LIKE INCIDENTAL, WE GOT A BUNCH OF, WE GOT A BUNCH OF, UM, WE GOT A BUNCH OF DEFINITIONS, BUT NONE OF THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE, SHALL NOT EXCEED 30% OF X.
LIKE THERE'S NO WAY TO MEASURE, THERE'S NO METRICS.
IT'S ALL WELL, IT SHOULDN'T BE THE PRIMARY USE.
WELL WHAT DOES PRIMARY USE? HOW DO YOU DECIDE PRIMARY USE? AND YOU CAN, MAYBE THAT'S LIKE WAY LIKE SUPER CASE LAW THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO.
BUT, SO INSTALLING THREE-PHASE POWER, THAT IS COMMERCIAL GRADE EQUIPMENT.
NO HOME USE ANYTHING USES THREE PHASE POWER.
SO I THINK THAT WHEN YOU UPGRADE TO THREE PHASE, YOU'RE AT COMMERCIAL LEVELS, YOU, YOU CLEARLY CROSS THE
OUT OF SEVEN AND A HALF ACRES.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BECOME THE PRIMARY USE VERSUS THE HOME, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE THE HOME IS PART, BUT THE WOODS ARE PART OF THE ENJOYMENT OF THE HOME.
SO I THINK BECAUSE OF THEM GRANTING SOME SORT OF PURSUIT AND THEM IT GOING ON FOR SUCH A LONG TIME AND THEM DOING THAT, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO WITH LIKE AN OPTION TWO TO MODIFY THEIR VIOLATION.
BASICALLY STATING THEY'RE STILL IN VIOLATION.
THEY'VE GROWN TOO BIG, BUT THE VI THE PENALTY OF THE VIOLATION CAN'T BE TO LOSE EVERYTHING.
IE SHUT DOWN THE WHOLE BUSINESS 'CAUSE THEY'VE APPROVED SOME OF IT.
SO THERE NEEDS TO BE A POINT AT WHICH THE TOWN SAYS, OKAY, OUR ORIGINAL INTENT WAS FOR YOU TO HAVE X AMOUNT.
YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT IF YOU SCALE BACK TO IT.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING HIM FOR THE PERMITS.
THEY CAN'T PROVIDE WHAT THEY ALLOWED.
BUT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY SUBMITTED SAYING THEY ALSO SUBMITTED A MILKING PARLOR.
SO THAT MEANS SOME OF THEM GOATS
AND YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT A MILKING PARLOR COMES WITH MILKING GOATS.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY TALKED TO THE TOWN ADMINISTRATOR.
WELL WITH THE MILKING PARLOR AND ALL THAT, THAT STUFF IN THERE, THAT MAKES ME THINK THAT, UH, MAYBE THEY DID TALK TO HIM AND HE SAID SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT THERE'S A LOT OF EVIDENCE HERE, PREP PONDERANCE.
SO THERE'S NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SHUT DOWN THEIR WHOLE BUSINESS.
SO I'M OPEN TO IDEAS ON HOW, HOW TO AMEND THEIR VIOLATION.
I MEAN, ANYBODY ELSE CAN APPROVE, DENY, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M FOLLOWING EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I'M IN AGREEMENT, UM, WITH IT BECAUSE YEAH, THE SAME SINCE YOU'D LIKE SOMEBODY APPROVED IT.
THAT WAS MY, LIKE YOU WROTE THE LETTER.
HE, WHERE DID THAT COME FROM AND WHERE DID THAT APPROVAL, WHERE DID THAT AUTHORITY COME FROM? MM-HMM
AND THAT WAS THE PREVIOUS PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR.
HE APPROVED SOME OF THIS BUSINESS RIGHT.
SO THEY, THEY CAN MAKE CHEESE, SO WHATEVER CHEESE BUILDING, AND I'M SURE THEY COULD, THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE ALLOWED TO ENLARGE THEIR CHEESE BUILDING OR WHATEVER BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW BIG IT WAS INITIALLY.
BUT IF THEY MADE IT 10 SQUARE FEET MORE, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE LIKE THE END OF THE WORLD.
SO THE VIOLATION, IT SAYS ISSUANCE HAVE BEEN NOTICE OF VIOLATION RELATED TO THE HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN TOWN.
CODE SECTION 1 75 DASH 1 0 8 1 SPECIFICALLY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOUND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CHANGED THE EXTERIOR APPEARANCE OF THE DWELLING UNIT OR CHANGED THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAS OUTDOOR STORAGE OF GOODS, MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITH THE
SO WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT THESE TOWNS, UM, AGREE THAT THEY COULD CHANGE THE LOOK FOR THEIR PROPERTY BY ADDING THE OTHER BUILDING.
SO THEY, THEY, THEY'VE ALLOWED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
SO THEY BASICALLY SAID THE FACT THAT IT HAS TO OCCUR UNDER A DWELLING, UNDER THE SAME DWELLING NO LONGER APPLIES.
AND THEY, THEY MADE THAT POINT WHEN THEY WERE DOING THEIR TALK, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WE, THAT THIS WAS AN EXCEPTION.
UM, BUT I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WHAT, WHEN YOU'RE SAYING, I GUESS I'M, MY QUESTION IS LIKE WHEN YOU SAY MODIFY, WHAT, WHICH
[01:55:01]
PART ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE MODIFY? BECAUSE THAT'S THE, I DUNNO, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION IS THE LIVESTOCK AND THE READING.THAT THAT THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY THE TOWN OF CODE IN THAT MATTER.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY TOWN CODE NOT MODIFYING THE CODE.
WE'RE MODIFYING THE VIOLATION.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
A MUST BE BASED ON JUDGMENT WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WAS CORRECT.
SO WE HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY OR CORRECT OR NOT.
AND THEN, UM, THE ZA MAY REVERSE AFFIRM WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY OR MAY MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
SO BASICALLY WHATEVER THEY'VE DONE, WHEN THE APPEAL COMES TO US, WE NOW BASICALLY BUILD THEIR POWERS, BUT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT.
SO THE USE SHALL BE CLEARLY INCIDENTAL, WHICH I THINK WE'RE MAYBE NOT IN AGREEMENT ON.
AND THEN NO OUTDOOR DISPLAY SALES OR STORAGE ACCEPT THAT, THAT THEY MAY AUTHORIZE UP TO TWO BUSINESS VEHICLES, INCLUDING ANY VEHICLE USED BY A NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYEE.
INDOOR STORAGE IS PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE OTHER RESTRICTION OF THIS SECTION.
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHANGES NEIGHBORHOOD OR INCREASING TRAFFIC.
IF TO ME THAT THERE'S NO NOTHING WITH THE C, THE C IS ALL THE FARM STUFF.
SO THAT HAY BALES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THAT'S A DIFFERENT VIOLATION.
OH NO, BUT THEY CITED THOSE THREE.
THEY, BUT THIS IS ALL UNDER HOME OCCUPATION.
THEY CITED THESE THREE THINGS IN THE VIOLATION.
SO, AND THEN H IS NO HOME OCCUPATION SHALL CREATE NOISE, DUST, VIBRATION, SMELL.
I MEAN I KNOW YOU'VE HEARD ALL THAT, BUT THOSE ARE THE THREE THINGS.
SO I GUESS WHEN YOU'RE SAYING MODIFY AND LIKE, WHICH WOULD YOU NOT, CAN I ADD ONE MORE WRINKLE? YEAH.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE, THEIR, WHAT THEY'VE CITED, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATES IN THEIR DETERMINATION B Z'S ROLE IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DECISION WAS CORRECT AND MUST APPLY THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EVEN IF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DID NOT CITE THEM.
SO THEY HAVE PUT THIS HERE AS THEIR DECISION, BUT IF THERE ARE COMPONENTS TO THE CODE THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO BRING UP, WE STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW ISSUE.
THAT'S THE, SO YES, THESE ARE THE THINGS THEY PUT IN THEIR PRESENTATION, BUT IF THERE'S MORE THEN THAT'S RIGHT.
SO I DON'T THINK C IS AN ISSUE FOR THE HOME OCCUPATION UNLESS THERE'S CHEESE OUTSIDE OR SHE'S MAKING STUFF OUTSIDE.
AND THEY COULD PROBABLY SOLVE THAT BY SIMPLY GETTING ANOTHER PERMITTED STRUCTURE TO STORE THAT STUFF IN.
AND THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF IT WAS AN ISSUE.
UM, BUT I, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THEY WERE, HE, HE MENTIONED HAY BALES AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO I, I DON'T THINK FOR THE HOME OCCUPANCY THAT'S AN ISSUE.
AND THEN HE MENTIONED H, WHICH IS SHALL CREATE NOISE, DUST VIBRATION, SMOKE SMELL.
UM, THERE'S BEEN NO COMPLAINTS THERE.
BUT I DON'T THINK THERE HAS TO BE COMPLAINTS.
THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, BASICALLY THEY CAN'T DO THESE THINGS.
LIKE IF THEY CAME AND THOUGHT, I APOLOGIZE.
UM, THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS IN, IN REGARDS TO US, MEL, WHICH, UM, WITH THE GOAT AND CREAM MARINES THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, THAT WOULD ALERT ME TO SOME ISSUES AND THINGS.
BUT THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR OUT, YOU KNOW, QUITE A FEW YEARS AND NOT NOW.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN FIVE YEARS.
AND IF THIS CREAMER GETS THAT BIG, UH, WILL IT THEN START? THEY THEY WOULD THEN ISSUE A VIOLATION TO SOLVE.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO CONCERN OURSELVES WITH THE HYPOTHETICAL OF GROWTH.
WE JUST HAVE TO BE AS IT'S NOW IT, UH, JOHN'S PRESENTATION STATED THAT BASICALLY TWO HOMES NEXT TO EACH OTHER, YOU, YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT ONE'S RUNNING A BUSINESS AND ONE ISN'T THAT THEY APPROVED A CHEESE SHED OUTSIDE.
SO THEY BASICALLY SAID, WE ARE OKAY WITH YOU PUTTING YOUR CHEESE MAKING OPERATION OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, WHICH MEANS TWO HOMES NEXT TO EACH OTHER, ONE'S GOT A CHEESE SHED, ONE DOESN'T AND THEY'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH MAKING SOME CHEESE.
SO HE'S SAYING YOU CAN'T DO THAT, BUT THEY APPROVED IT
SO WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE CODE SAYS YEAH, BUT THEY APPROVED IT SO THEY THEY VIOLATED THEIR OWN.
BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT TWO HOUSES, I DON'T THINK NECESSARILY A CHEESE SHED.
I MEAN, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S A CHEESE SHED VERSUS ANOTHER SHED THAT I HAVE MY, YOU KNOW, EXERCISE PELOTON IN YOU? YOU WON'T KNOW THAT.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF CHEESE MAKING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S LIKE EMISSIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UH, IT'S JUST THAT THEY'VE ALREADY APPROVED EXTERIOR CHANGES THAT COULD BE NOTICEABLE THAT ARE RELATED TO THE BUSINESS.
[02:00:01]
THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT OR WELL, THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT AND THEY CAN'T GO BACK ON.SO, SO THEY BOUGHT THE OTHER ACRES TO GO THE 7.7 ACRES AND PUT THE UNAUTHORIZED BUILDINGS ON.
AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE BUILDINGS FROM HAPPY CREEK.
BUT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
THAT'S WHY THAT'S NOT ONE OF THE V VIOLATIONS THAT THEY'RE OF.
THEY'RE BASICALLY SAID OUR FAULT, WE DO NEED PERMITS.
THEY'RE GONNA GET THE PERMITS.
THEORETICALLY, IF THE PERMITS GO THROUGH, THEN YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THE PERM, THE BUILDINGS STILL, AND WE'LL BE FINE.
SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
IT'S JUST THINGS THAT ARE STORED SIDE OF THOSE BUILDINGS.
SO BIG STACKS OF HAY, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THERE'S NOT BEING TAKEN BY THE POWER PLANT.
AND I, I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THEY HAVE TO GO TO HIDE IT.
LIKE HAY CAN BE STOR IN A HAY BARN.
UM, BUT I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE HOME OBSERVATION MODE.
THEY'RE NOT STORING CHEESE, MAKING STUFF OUTSIDE.
SO, UM, BUT THEY, THEY WERE SEMI APPROVED FOR A MILKING PARLOR TOO.
SO I DID LIKE THEY INCLUDED THOSE DRAWINGS IN THEIR PERMIT.
THEY HAD THE ADDITIONAL THING SAYING, WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE THESE ARE.
SO THAT'S THE GUY SAYING, I'M GOOD, I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE.
BUT I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO.
SO THE WHOLE OCCUPATION HAS CLEARLY REACHED A GREATER PROPORTION THAN WHAT THE TOWN WOULD LIKE TO SEE A HOME OCCUPATION BE.
BUT HOW DO WE, HOW, HOW DO WE DECIDE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE SMALLER AND HOW MUCH SMALLER? I WOULD, I WOULD AMEND THE VIOLATION TO SAY THAT THEY NEED TO GO BACK TO WHATEVER, WHATEVER THEY HAD WHEN IT WAS APPROVED IS WHAT THEY NEED TO GO BACK TO.
BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE TOWN KNOWS WHAT THAT IS.
'CAUSE THE TOWN APPROVED SOMETHING AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF IT GREW OR 'CAUSE THERE'S NO LIST OF NUMBER OF GOATS THEY APPROVED A CHEESE SHED POSSIBLY
I KNOW THAT IF WE UPHOLD THEIR VIOLATION, THEN THE BUSINESS COURT JUST TO GET CLARIFICATION.
WHICH, BUT THAT REALLY CAN'T, I MEAN THAT I DON'T CAN BE PART OF OUR YEAH, I MEAN, I MEAN WELL NO, IT CAN'T.
SO BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY APPROVED A BUSINESS TO EXIST.
IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE VIOLATION, WE WOULD BE ALLOWING THE TOWN TO SAY, YOU CAN HAVE THIS AND THEN YOU CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING AND TAKE THE WHOLE 'CAUSE IT WOULD TAKE THE WHOLE BUSINESS AWAY, NOT PART OF IT, THE WHOLE THING.
AND THEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A HARDSHIP TOO.
SO SOME OF THAT BUSINESS NEEDS TO REMAIN, LIKE THE TOWN SAID THEY CAN MAKE CHEESE.
IT NEVER SAID HOW MUCH CHEESE OR HOW LITTLE CHEESE, BUT IT SAID THEY CAN MAKE CHEESE.
IT JUST HAS TO BE INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMARY USE.
IT WAS ALL BROUGHT THEIR ATTENTION BECAUSE SHE WAS LOOKING FOR THE ELECTRICAL, SHE WAS LOOKING FOR THREE FACE POWER.
WHICH IS HIGHLY, I MEAN THAT IS, TO ME THAT SEEMS TO BE CLEARLY YEAH.
THAT IS A VIOLATION TO ME OF THE PATIENT.
I I WOULD SAY THAT THEY, THEY, THEY CAN'T HAVE THREE FACE POWER TO RUN COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOW AT YOU AT COMMERCIAL LEVEL FACE POWER.
IT DEFINITELY CROSSES THE INCIDENTAL THRESHOLD.
IT SAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE'S CORRECTIVE ACTION MUST BE TAKEN NO LATER THAN JANUARY MAY.
BUT THEN THEY'RE APPEALING IT.
SO, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT THE CORRECTIVE ACTION WOULD BE.
I MEAN, I GUESS IT, THAT'S IT.
YOU'RE SAYING REMOVING THE GOATS SAYS SOMETHING CAN GIVE THEM SOME GUIDANCE.
THAT, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD NEED.
WE WOULD NEED THE TOWN TO SAY, IN ORDER TO TAKE THIS FROM EXCEEDING INCIDENTAL USE TO IN COMPLIANCE WITH HOME OC HOME OCCUPATION MUCH, HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH OF THE BUSINESS THAT EXISTS NEEDS TO BE SCALED BACK.
'CAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S ALL THAT CAN'T BE.
[02:05:01]
SO IT MUST BE SOMEWHERE MM-HMMAND I THINK THAT POWER REALLY ONLY RESTS WITH THE TOWN.
SO WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING? I KNOW WHAT I'M PROPOSING, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORD IT INTO A COHESIVE ARGUMENT.
THAT WOULD BE THE PROBLEM, AT LEAST FOR THE HOME OCCUPATION.
YOU CAN'T MAKE A DECISION THAT DECISION THEIR BUSINESS, RIGHT? NO.
'CAUSE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE A BUSINESS, BUT IT'S TO HOW IT'S SCALED.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR ON, IS OF HOLDING THE VIOLATION.
WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN? SO IF WE, IF WE SAID, YES, THIS IS A REASONABLE, THIS IS A FAIR VIOLATION, THEN THEY HAVE TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE.
WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
SO THEY WOULD CONTINUE WITH THEIR, YOU KNOW, YOU SAID GOING BACK TO HOW IT WAS AT WHATEVER TIME IS IT, IS THAT HOW WE GO BACK TO HOW IT WAS AT 2020? 23.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IF THEY, ACCORDING TO THE TOWN, THEY DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE GOATS AS PART OF THIS HOME OCCUPATION PERIOD.
SO NO GOATS, SO THAT'S ZERO GOATS THEY'RE ALLOWED AT THE CHIEF.
BUT THAT ISN'T ACTUALLY, LIKE, THAT'S WHERE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
THAT SEEMS TO BE PART OF THE OTHER ONE WHERE MM-HMM
BUT I THINK THAT THEY HAVE A LITTLE MORE CLEAR CUT.
I THINK THAT THE APPROVED APPLICATION BASICALLY SAID WE'RE GONNA HAVE GOATS.
AND THEY SAID, OKAY, YOU CAN'T MAKE GOAT JUICE WITHOUT GOATS.
WELL, YOU COULD, YOU COULD IMPORT THE GOAT MILK, BUT THEY ALSO ASKED FOR A MILKING PARLOR.
WHICH, LIKE, WHICH WAS NOT APPROVED.
WE GOT ADDITIONAL MATERIAL THE WAS APPROVED.
BUT THEY KNEW THAT THERE WAS A MILKING PARLOR, WHICH MEANS THEY KNEW THERE'S GONNA BE SOMETHING.
AND THEN THE APPLICANT SAYS, WE HAD CONVERSATIONS, WE EXPLAINED TO THEM WE WILL HAVE THINGS THAT WILL BE MILKED.
THAT'S WHAT THE MILKING PARLOR IS FOR.
IT DOESN'T SOUND REASONABLE TO ME FOR THEM TO SAY, OH, WE SUBMITTED PLANS FOR A MILKING PARLOR.
AND THE TOWN GOES, OH, WELL WE DIDN'T KNOW YOU'D HAVE ANYTHING BEING MILKED.
WE JUST THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA HAVE A MILKING PARLOR FOR FUN.
NO, THAT, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
BUT THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY SEEN IS THE, THAT, I MEAN, HEARSAY IS HEARSAY.
LIKE I THINK SINCE THIS IS LIKE, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH, BUT I'M, WITHOUT HAVING, HAVING MR. CAMP HERE TO WELL, NO.
BUT I'M SAYING THAT'S THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT DOCUMENT.
I KNOW, BUT THAT'S A, THAT'S AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THE TOWN DOESN'T HAVE A VERSION OF THAT AND WHY WE DON'T HAVE A VERSION OF THAT.
AND UNLESS THEY REALLY AIED THAT THING UP, IT'S, I MEAN, IT, IT SEEMS, IT SEEMS LEGIT.
WE, WE CAN ALWAYS ASK THE TOWN IF IT IS LEGITIMATE 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IT.
BUT, AND THAT YOU, YOU GUYS MADE A COPY OF THAT, RIGHT? OR YOU HAVE THAT NOW? I'LL HAVE TO MAKE A COPY.
HUH? WHAT DOCUMENT ARE THE EMAILS BETWEEN JEREMY AND, AND, UM, NO, NOT AND THE, AND THE, UM, 2019.
AND THE, THE PERMIT, WE HAVE A COPY OF THE ONE FROM 2018.
THE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR THE SHED.
FOR THE SHED OR THE HOME OCCUPATION.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? UM, HOLD ON.
IT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE, YOU GUYS HAVE THAT BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT TO THE MEETING WHEN GOT TOGETHER.
IS THAT THE PERMIT OUT OF THE THAT WAS PRINTED OFF OUR OLD PERMIT.
NO, JUST LET THEM PROVIDE YOU WITH WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S THIS, IT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THIS, BUT IT'S, BUT IT'S A 2019 VERSION.
CAN I SEE THAT? YEAH, IT'S THAT ONE BECAUSE THAT'S FOR THE BUSINESS LICENSE, WHICH YOU'RE HOLDING THERE.
AND THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE ANOTHER ONE OF THESE, BUT IT SAYS 2019 AND IT HAS, IT'S SOME DIFFERENT INFORMATION, BUT IT PROBABLY IS NOT A BUSINESS LICENSE.
IT'S A, IT'S A ZONING MINOR OR ZONING MAJOR.
AND WHICH I THINK IS FOR THE SHED.
SO THAT IS, SO THIS THE ONE YOU WANT TO SUBMIT OR, SO THIS IS THE ZONING APPROVAL WITH THE UNCONFIRMED LOCATIONS.
AND, UM, OTHER PERMITS RELATED TO ELECTRICITY AND WATER.
AND THAT'S, YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT ONE, LIKE THE, THE GMAIL RELATED STUFF.
BUT THAT THE, THE, THE ACTUAL PERMIT LOOKING ONE, THAT'S THE ONE THE CLUE SPECIFIES ON THERE THAT HE'S JUST WAITING FOR LOCATION.
[02:10:02]
AND THERE'S EVEN A PICTURE IN HERE SPECIFYING LOCATION DATA OF, I ALSO HAVE THE DOCUMENTS.I HAVE THE ATTACHMENT THAT HAD THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WE WERE DOING IT A THREE PAGE DOCUMENT.
YEAH, THAT'S IN THE PACKET THOUGH, I THINK, RIGHT? YES, IT SHOULD BE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS, I ALSO THOUGHT OTHER THINGS WERE, SO THEY HAVE THIS RIGHT HERE WHERE IT SAYS, THIS IS WHERE OUR SHED'S GONNA BE AND THIS IS WHERE WE WOULD OUR MILKING PART.
AND THEN THAT EXTRA DOCUMENT SAYS, TELL ME WHERE YOU BUILDING WOULD BE.
THIS WAS I THINK THE PART THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THEIR BUSINESS LICENSE.
THIS, THIS HERE IT SAYS THONEY RIDGE, FARM CREEK CHEESES AND IT HAS ALL THE BUILDINGS AND OBJECT.
SO THAT MEANS THAT WHEN THEY APPROVE THIS, THEY HAD ALL THIS INFORMATION.
HE, HE WAS AWARE OF ALL OF THIS AND SAID YES.
SO HE'S AWARE OF A CHEESE ROOM, HE'S AWARE OF A MILKING POT.
HE DOESN'T KNOW WHERE IT'S GONNA BE EAT.
SO SINCE WHEN IS SOMETHING TONIGHT HE'S APPROVING SOME OF THAT.
NOW MAYBE HE APPROVED IT IN ERROR, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
AND AT THAT POINT, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT GOVERNMENT ACTION THAT HAS NOW TAKEN PLACE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME THAT BY VESTING, BY DOING THAT INVESTING, THE MINUTE IT BASICALLY CREATED A BY SITUATION WHERE NOW THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO THIS.
'CAUSE THE GOVERNMENT AT SOME POINT SAID YES, WHICH GAVE THEM GO, WHICH GAVE THEM A GO.
THEN THEY INVESTED SIGNIFICANT TIME AND ENERGY INTO IT.
AND SO NOW THEY HAVE SOME APPROVAL THAT THEY'VE, THAT THEY'VE USED AS JUSTIFICATION.
AND IT'S, IT'S UP TO THE TOWN TO BE CLEAR, CONCISE, NO, IT'S OWN RULES AND SAY YES OR NO ONCE THEY SAY YES.
SO, SO WAS THERE ANYTHING, I GUESS I'M JUST LIKE, SO WAS THIS, IS THIS, THIS, THIS DOCUMENT RIGHT HERE IS THE ONLY THING THAT, THAT WAS AFTER, YOU KNOW, YOU, THERE'S THIS APPLICATION WITH THREE PAGES OF THEIR WHOLE FIT OPERATION AND THEN THIS IS ALL THEY GET.
I'M GUESSING THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING IF THERE WAS PERMIT, LIKE, LIKE THE, I WOULD THINK THAT THE CHEESE SHED WOULD HAVE A, A BUILDING PERMIT, A SEPARATE THING BEYOND, BECAUSE THIS IS A BUSINESS LICENSE.
SO THERE SHOULD BE A BUILDING PERMIT THAT COMES WITH THE, WITH THE CHEESE SHED.
AND I WAS, BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL 2019.
IT LOOKED LIKE THAT'S THE COUNTY.
SO, BUT I, I STILL THINK THAT THE TOWN WOULD'VE LIKE A COPY MAYBE OR SOMETHING.
OTHERWISE, THE TOWN WON'T KNOW WHAT BUILDINGS ARE PERMITTED AND NOT PERMITTED.
'CAUSE THEY'RE OUT THERE SAYING THERE'S A BUNCH THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED.
IT'S LIKE, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH ONE'S PERMITTED? LET'S SEE THE PERMIT, WHERE'S SECURITY WRONG WITH THE APPROVED MUST HAVE PERMITTED ONE MUST.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S AS CUT AND DRY AS SIMPLY SAYING THE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO MAKE GOATS.
YOU TOLD THEM THEY COULD HAVE GOATS ACROSS THE STREET.
I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH YOU TOLD THEM THAT THEY COULD HAVE GOATS, BUT THAT'S WHERE I, I REALLY DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S CUT AND DRIED BECAUSE I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING HERE THAT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE GOATS.
WHAT I'M CONFUSED BY IS, IF I WAS REVIEWING THIS, MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS ENOUGH, BUT IF I'M REVIEWING AN APPLICATION FOR A BUSINESS LICENSE AND I'M REVIEWING ALL THE MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AND I BELIEVE THAT CURRENTLY THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, THE STAFF WOULD SAY, I I'M SEEING SOME PROBLEMS IN YOUR APPLICATION FOR THIS BUSINESS LICENSE.
SO EXPLAIN IF, IF, IF, IF I'M, IF THIS PIECE OF PAPER IS SAYING, YES, THIS IS APPROVED AS OUTLINED IN YOUR APPLICATION, THEN I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I'M, BUT I'M NOT SATISFIED THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.
I MEAN, I COULD SEE IT EITHER.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND LIKE TO ME THE, THE APPROVAL I I I DO UNDERSTAND.
I'M JUST, I'M TRYING, I'M GET TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE, OKAY, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ASSUME THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR IS RIGHT.
I DO UNDERSTAND WHY HE MADE THE DECISION.
I DO UNDERSTAND WHY HE MADE THE DECISION.
BUT I DO FEEL LIKE THERE'S, I THINK WHERE I'M GETTING STUCK IS, IS THERE A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT, THAT UM, THE TOWN THAT THEY APPROVED IT AND SAID, YES, YOU CAN DO THIS.
THE TOWN THEY VISITED, THEY APPROVED IT IN 2019.
IN HIS STATEMENTS, HE SAID THAT THEY DID APPROVE THE CHEESE SHED.
JOHN STOOD THERE AND SAID, RIGHT.
BUT I DON'T THINK THE CHI SAID TO, TO ME, MAYBE I'M MISSING SOMETHING, BUT I DON'T THINK THE CHEESE SAID SHED MEANS YES, YOU CAN HAVE GOATS APPROVING A CHEESE SHED.
YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? CORRECT.
SO THAT, THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING
[02:15:01]
WHAT WHAT HE, WHAT HE WAS SAYING UP THERE IS THAT, SO THIS RIGHT HERE,SO THIS RIGHT HERE APPROVES THE HOME OCCUPATION.
AND DESCRIBED BY THEM AS TO WHAT THEIR HOME OCCUPATION IS.
THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO GO ON IS, UH, THE THINGS THAT THEY SUB PUT IN WITH THEIR THING SAYING, THIS IS OUR HOME OCCUPATION.
AND THEY SAID, OKAY, AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW THESE RULES.
IT SAYS TO MAKE AND MANUFACTURE GOAT MILK.
IT CAN'T READ IT WHERE IT SAYS, BECAUSE IT SAYS RECEIPT, BUT TO MAKE AND MANUFACTURE GOAT MILK.
UH, I THINK IT SAYS BASE AND FEES FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
AND THEN THEY HAVE THESE ATTACHMENTS FOR THE MAKING PARLOR.
I'M SURE THEY HAD LIKE A LITTLE, UH, DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THEY DID AND EVERYTHING AS WELL.
THEY HAD, THEY ACTUALLY HAD, YEAH, THE WHOLE, THEY HAD A WHOLE WRITE UP SINGLE THING.
THAT'S WHAT I'M, THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERENCING AS THE, THIS APPROVAL IS FOR THESE ACTIONS AND THEY DESCRIBE EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.
MILK COLLECTION AREA ANIMALS WILL BE MILKED.
LIKE WHEN HE SAID, YES, THIS IS A GOOD HOME OCCUPATION, HE WAS RELYING ON WHAT THEY SUBMITTED.
SO THAT LIST ANIMALS, THIS LIST GOATS BEING MILKED.
SO IT DOESN'T SAY THAT WE WILL HAVE 50 GOATS OR 20 GOATS OR WHATEVER.
UM, BUT IT DOES SAY WE WILL HAVE GOATS.
AND THEY SAID, OKAY, I THINK MIKE, SO, SO MY QUESTION THOUGH IS, OKAY, SO THEN THE CHEESE SHED WAS APPROVED, BUT THE MOTION PARLOR WAS NOT.
AND THAT WOULD BE LIKE A BUILDING PERMITTING THING.
BUT I GUESS I'M LIKE, IS THERE ANY WAY TO HAVE, BUT THE, THE OTHER ONE OF THESE THAT THEY HAD DOES KIND OF PROVE TO MILK PAR.
HE'S JUST ASKING 'EM WHERE THEY'RE PUT YEAH.
ALL HE SAID WAS THE ONLY S**T THAT WE DIDN'T REALLY, BASICALLY HE WAS SAYING THAT HILLARY, THEY DIDN'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT DISTURBED THE LOCATION.
HE WAS, HE WAS ASKING THEM FOR THE LOCATION.
NOW HE COULD HAVE STILL SAID NO, THAT LOCATION'S BAD.
BUT HE WASN'T, HE WOULDN'T ASK FOR A LOCATION IF HE WAS LIKE MILKING PARLOR'S A NO GO, NO MATTER WHERE YOU PUT IT.
HE'S ASSUMING THAT'S, HE'S ASSUMING THAT AS LONG AS YOU PUT IT IN THE CORRECT SPOT, THEN OKAY, WE'LL GO.
BUT I NEED TO KNOW WHERE THAT'S THE THING THAT COMPLICATES THIS.
SO IF WE, IF WE UPHOLD, THEN THE NEXT STEP IS, I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S PROBABLY ATORY DECISION.
LIKE THE NEXT STEP IS THAT IS GOING TO COURT.
IF THEY APPEAL, THEN THE NEXT STEP IT COULD, WHICH IS, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY NO MATTER WHAT DECISION WE MAKE, WHETHER WE AFFIRM, OVERTURN, OR MODIFY, WE HAVE TO INCLUDE A WHY, WHY WE DID IT.
SO IF THE MILKING SHED IS THE PRIMARY CONCERN HERE, SO THEY DON'T GO BACK TO MILKING BY HAND UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THIS GETS STRAIGHTENED OUT, I'VE DONE, THAT'S A LOT OF WORK.
UM, BECAUSE THERE, BECAUSE THERE'S TWO, IT, WE'RE STILL GONNA HAVE TO RULE ONE THE KEEPING OF THE GOODS.
BUT I THINK THAT IF THE HOME OCCUPANCY THEY APPROVED INVOLVES SOME GOODS, THEN THE IDEA OF THEM LEANING ON ACCESSORY USE, WHICH CLEARLY ACCESSORY USE LIMITED TO RABBITS.
IT'S A MISINTERPRETATION OF THE CODE ON THEIR PART.
AND THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE BECAUSE LIVESTOCK, LIVESTOCK, LIVESTOCK, THAT'S, IT SHOULDN'T BE LIKE THAT.
YOU SHOULDN'T USE ONE WORD TO MEAN TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS OF THINGS.
I MEAN TO SAY THAT LIVESTOCK IS SPECIFICALLY THIS NO, NO, NO.
WE CAN'T DETERMINE WHAT LIVESTOCK MEANS.
BUT WE CAN SAY THAT LIVESTOCK AS A TERM IS VAGUE.
BECAUSE IT'S CONTRADICTORY TO ITSELF.
AND IN CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTS, UH, CONTRA REFERENDUM MEANS THAT ANYTIME THERE IS AN UNKNOWN, THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT LOSES BECAUSE THEY HAD THE, THEY THEY HAD THE ABILITY TO WRITE IT.
[02:20:01]
THEN THEY SAY LIVESTOCK, AND THEN GO ON TO SAY, WELL, LIVESTOCK HERE MEANS THIS.DOES THAT MEAN THE OTHER LIVESTOCK MEANS THAT TOO? YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T DEFINE LIVESTOCK TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
IT HAS TO BE, I MEAN, IT DOES SPECIFICALLY SAY BREEDING, AND I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING IN THE URBAN AGRICULTURE THAT CAN BREED.
THEY MAY, THEY MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO BREED.
SO THERE, THERE MAY BE, THEY CAN HAVE GOATS, BUT THEY CAN'T BREED THEM.
BUT I THINK MILK REQUIRES BREEDING.
SO
SO YES, THERE'S EVEN MORE STUFF TO THAT.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, YOU CAN SAY NO AND SAY YES.
LIKE WE CAN SAY YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE GOATS, BUT YOU CAN'T BREED THEM.
THEY COULD TECHNICALLY TRUCK 'EM ELSEWHERE, BREED 'EM AND BRING 'EM BACK LIKE
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW THEY HANDLE IT.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO CERTAIN THINGS AND HAVE, DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DO OTHER THINGS.
HOW THEY HANDLE ITSELF TO THAT.
THAT'S WHY I INITIALLY ASKED, CAN THE PROPERTY BE REZONED? RIGHT.
AND IF IT'S NOT OVER THE 10 ACRE LIMIT AND THEY WON'T LET 'EM REZONE IT.
BUT ALSO, I MEAN, THERE GOES THE SIMPLE SOLUTION, RIGHT? BUT THAT, I MEAN, YES, BUT THAT DOESN'T, I DON'T THINK THAT REALLY HAS BEARING ON THIS.
WHETHER OR NOT IT CAN BE REZONED LIKE THIS ISN'T A CORRECT.
DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE A, UH, GO FOR IT.
SO SINCE IT'S BEEN DEFINED UNDER FERENCE AND THEY REFERENCE GOAT MILK AND YOU ALSO MILK FACTOR ALL THOSE FACTORS TOGETHER TO THE, SO WE HAVE ALL THESE THINGS THAT
HAVE, SEE THE
BUT THIS ASSUME WHAT, YOU KNOW, THAT I GUESS AS THIS GOAT MILK, AS THE GOAT LIVESTOCK EVOLVES, THESE THINGS COME INTO PLAY.
AND BECAUSE THE LIST'S A PART OF THE INITIAL BUSINESS TECHNICALLY, BUT THE BUSINESS GONNA ONLY BE SO BIG.
SO NOW WE'RE TALKING, WE'RE TALKING.
SO THOSE ARE SOME FACTORS HERE THAT DECISIONS.
I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THIS WAS DONE TODAY, LIKE I, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GO BACK INCORRECTLY SUBMIT.
BECAUSE IF IT WAS DONE TODAY, I DON'T IT WOULDN'T HAVE, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
NO, BUT SO, BUT THEY SUBMITTED.
I KNOW YOU CAN'T LIKE GO BACK AND FIX THE I KNOW, I KNOW.
I'M JUST, THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING A LITTLE STUCK.
BUT THEY SUBMITTED INFORMATION FROM EMAILS, WRITTEN DOCUMENTS THAT WERE READ AND IT DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT, THEY MAY NOT APPROVE.
THEY WOULD INCLUDED IN THAT PROCESS.
YOU DON'T WANT TO ASSUME, BUT THEY MOVE, STACK THEY UNDERSTANDING WITH QUESTIONS BEFORE.
AND SO THEY DID NOT GET A NO, YOU CAN, THEY DIDN'T GET A YES.
YOU CAN JUST CONTINUED TO MOVE FORWARD DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
I WOULD SAY THEY DID GET A YES, YOU CAN.
THAT BUSINESS LICENSE, THAT BUSINESS LICENSE IS A YES YOU CAN.
[02:25:01]
FULLY WELL IT IS THERE.IT, AND THIS WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION.
SO THEY SUBMITTED THIS AND I MEAN IT, WHEN YOU READ IT, IT, THEY'RE BASICALLY SAYING, UH, THEY'RE MAKING CHEESE PRODUCTS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
EAT ON THE PROPERTY OF 1205 HAPPY CREEK, FRONT ROYAL, UNDER THE NAME HAPPY CREEK CHEESES.
THE MILK WILL BE SUPPLIED BY DAIRY GOATS OWNED AND CARED FOR BY DAVID AND MELANIE.
ALL ASPECTS OF THE CHEESE'S MAKING FROM HOUSING OF ANIMALS TO THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE CHEESE WILL BE STRICTLY MONITORED AND DONE.
ALL ACCORDING TO V DCAS AND EVERYTHING, UH, IT SAYS THERE'LL BE NO SALES.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA DO THAT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DO THAT.
AND, AND, UH, NO SALES DIRECTLY BECAUSE IT'S PROHIBITED.
UM, BUT IT SAYS THE MILKING EQUIPMENT MUST OF FLIES.
I MEAN, THE DAIRY GO, RIGHT? YEAH.
IT SAYS, IT SAYS ALL, ALL ASPECTS OF THE MILKING PROCESS.
SO, AND, AND THEY SUBMITTED THIS WITH THIS AND GOT AN APPROVAL FOR A BUSINESS LICENSE.
NOW MAYBE, MAYBE THEY, MAYBE THE GUY SHOULD HAVE READ IT MORE THOROUGHLY, BUT THIS IS ENOUGH JUSTIFICATION TO SAY, HEY, I GOT A, I GOTTA GO AHEAD HERE.
RIGHT? AND THEN NOBODY CAME OUT WITHIN SIX MONTHS, EIGHT MONTHS, A YEAR, TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, FOUR YEARS, FIVE YEARS.
NOBODY EVER CHECKED UP ON THE WHOLE THING SAYING, HEY, WE SHOOT THIS THING FOR SOME GOAT MILKING.
LIKE MAYBE WE SHOULD CHECK UP ON THAT.
SEE WHAT'S, NO, IT WASN'T UNTIL THREE PHASE POWER.
THEY COULD HAVE, IF THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR THREE PHASE POWER, THEY COULD JUST KEPT RIGHT ON GOING.
AND IT WOULD'VE JUST BECAUSE THEY HAD A YES.
I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, AND IT, IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT A SECRET BUSINESS.
BUT, BUT IS THE QUESTION LIKE WITHIN THEN IT'S THE PHASE THREE POWER OF THE IT'S COMMERCIAL.
SO I'M SAYING, I GUESS I'M SAYING, I WOULD SAY THAT IS THAT THE, THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED THREE PHASE POWER.
THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT 'CAUSE THEY'RE CLEARLY BEYOND OMO.
SO, BUT I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING THEN, IS THAT LIKE, IS THAT THE, IT IT IS A CUTOFF VIOLATION THEN IT IS A BUT WE'RE NOT HERE TO, WE CAN'T DECIDE THAT.
SO ONLY THE TOWN CAN DECIDE WHERE INCIDENTAL WISE.
SO WHEN THE STATEMENT ALL ASPECTS AT THAT POINT, ALL ASPECTS SHE ALL, ALL, SO IT'S ALL ASPECTS OF THIS MILKING CHEESE MAKING ENTERPRISE THAT FIT WITHIN HOME OCCUPANCY.
SO THAT MEANS NO COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT, NO GIANT COMBINES OR NOTHING LIKE THAT.
SO IT HAS TO BE HOME OCCUPANCY.
THEY SAID YES TO A HOME OCCUPANCY VERSION OF GOAT MILKING, WHICH MEANS AN INCIDENTAL USE OF THE PROPERTY.
SO TO ME, HOME OCCUPATION WOULD BE SOMEBODY THAT ENJOYS CLEANING AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN CLEANING BUSINESS.
ONE PERSON CLEANING BUSINESS OR BELLA DOWN THE STREET THAT HAS TAX GARAGES TO HIS HOUSE.
HE REBUILDS THE, IT'S ALL DONE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE FOUR WALLS.
THEY OBTAIN PERMISSION FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING PARKED.
I THINK I CORRECT JOHN, PULL MY CASE.
I CAN, FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT HOUSE AND SAY, OH, THAT DOESN'T LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE OTHER ONE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? YOU CAN'T ANSWER ANY QUESTION.
WE'RE IT, IT'S, THAT'S JUST WHAT I HEARD.
HE, HE SAID THAT THE, HE SAID HE TOOK KNOWN A NOTICE THAT THE OTHER PERSON NOTICE THE THING HAPPENED TO ME.
I'VE BEEN AROUND HERE A LITTLE WHILE.
I REMEMBER THEY'RE, THEY'RE BESIDE THE OLD ODIN FARM.
FROM HAPPY CREEK AND SIXTH STREET, THAT INTERSECTION, THERE WAS HORSES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD AND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD WAS CATTLE.
THERE WAS A COUPLE CATTLE FARMS THROUGH THERE THAT HAD CATTLE.
SO THAT'S NEXT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
'CAUSE THEY BOUGHT ACTIVE BUT LAND THEY ARE ON AT ONE TIME, I BELIEVE CATTLE.
BUT THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE HAPPY RIDGE SUBDIVISION.
NO, THEY'RE JUST, IT, IT'S JUST ALL ABOUT THE ZONING.
I MEAN YOU CAN HAVE A SUBDIVISION AND AG BUTTED UP AGAINST TO IT, BUT THAT'S NOT HOW THEY HAVE THIS.
SO 'CAUSE IT HAS TO BE 10 ACRES OR THAT.
SO THIS IS ZONED RS AND IT'S BEEN ZONED THAT WAY FOR A VERY LONG TIME NOW.
NOT, NOT INFINITELY BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS FARM AT SOME POINT, BUT
[02:30:01]
IT IS CURRENTLY S SO THERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO THAT.LIKE I SAID, APPROVED, THEY SHOULD, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE APPROVED.
THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID, THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID NO.
AND I THINK I WOULD ON ITEM ONE WITH THE WHOLE RAISING GOATS AND ALL THAT, I WOULD JUST OVERTURN THAT, THROW THAT UP.
AND ON ITEM TWO, WHERE IT'S THE HOME OCCUPATION, I WOULD MODIFY THAT TO SAY THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME HARD NUMBERS SET ABOUT HOW BIG THE BUSINESS CAN BE BECAUSE THEY'VE APPROVED A BUSINESS, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY'VE GIVEN THEY'VE, THEY APPROVED A BUSINESS WHICH GAVE THEM VESTED RIGHTS AND THEY CAN'T NOW STRIP THEM OF THEIR VESTED RIGHTS.
LIKE THE STATE CODE GIVES THEM THIS, UM, BECAUSE OF A MISTAKE.
THAT'S FINE, BUT, OH, WELL THAT'S THE WAY IT IS NOW.
SO THAT MEANS THIS WILL BE BECOME LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING.
WELL THERE'S OTHER LEGALLY NONCONFORMING OVER THERE WITH HORSES AND STUFF.
IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.
BUT WE DO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T EXPAND INTO SOME MASSIVE DAIRY PRODUCTION, I DON'T KNOW, DOWN THE ROAD.
SO IT NEEDS TO SAY A HOME OCCUPANCY.
SO WE NEED TO, I'M GUESSING WE NEED TO SAY, MODIFY THEIR VIOLATION TO SAY THAT NO, NO.
COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS MUST CONFORM TO THAT.
CAN'T EXCEED TWO ACRES OF WHATEVER LIVESTOCK LAND OR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF GOATS.
THAT'S WHAT I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE SUBJECT TO KNOW WHAT LIMITS TO PLACE.
I WOULD, IF I HAD MY DRUTHERS, I WOULD SAY WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW, NO BEGGAR, NO MORE GOATS, NO MORE BUILDINGS, NO MORE EXPANSION OF THE SPACE THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE.
'CAUSE THAT'S THE EASIEST WAY TO SAY, THIS IS YOUR POINT.
THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS IT BECAUSE THE TOWN DOESN'T HAVE A DEFINITION OF INCIDENTAL, THAT'S METRICS.
WE'LL JUST SAY NO BIGGER THAN YOU ARE NOW, OR YOU WILL GET VIOLATIONS AND THEN THAT'LL BE A THING.
SO IT'S JUST LIKE NO MORE EXPANSIONS.
AND THEN I WOULD SAY, WELL, THE COMMUNITY WON'T SUFFER OR THAT I DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA BE A, A THING.
BUT, AND WHAT ARE YOU, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO? ARE YOU GONNA SHUT DOWN THE WHOLE, I MEAN, VIOLATE THE WHOLE BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY GOT SOMETHING LIKE
THEY DO HAVE, THEY DO HAVE A LEGAL THING TO HANG THEIR HAT ON, BUT IT'S THE BOARD'S DECISION.
I'M ONLY, THIS IS WHAT I THINK.
SO CLAIRE'S SHUFFLING ALL THESE PIECES.
I'M TRYING TO LIKE, JUST KEEP IT.
I JUST, IT'S A LOT OF SLICES OF PAPER.
WHAT YOU JUST SAID, WHAT THEY HAVE NOW, THIS IS IT.
ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN THAT? ABOVE THAT? YEAH, BUT YOU CAN'T SHUT THEIR, SHUT THEIR BUSINESS DOWN.
WOULDN'T WANT, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT.
I, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN.
I THINK THE VESTED RIGHTS NOW WILL DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE INTO IT.
WE TAKE IT FURTHER UP THE CHAIN.
BUT I THINK AT SOME POINT THE COURT SAYS, YEAH, NO, YOU, YOU WERE TOLD YOU COULD, YOU PUT IN A BUNCH OF MONEY AND THAT'S A PROBLEM.
BUT DO WE WANT THEM TO PAY LOTS OF LAWYERS FEES JUST TO GET THAT ANSWER WHEN WE COULD VERY REASONABLY GIVE THAT TO THEM AND THAT BE THE END OF IT.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT, I MEAN, AND I HAVE, I DON'T THINK THAT HAS ANY BEARING ON THIS THOUGH.
I MEAN, BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT I'VE READ ABOUT MUCH TO MY SCREEN, I DON'T THINK WE GET TO DECIDE LIKE, OH, WELL WE DON'T.
SO, I MEAN, SO YOU WOULD SAY IT SO NO, I, I KNOW WE CAN MODIFY, BUT I'M SAYING I DON'T THINK THAT LIKE THE COST OF TAKING IT FURTHER CAN FACTOR IN AT ALL TO OUR DECISION.
I MEAN WE CAN SAY IT CAN'T, BUT YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT CAN, THAT CAN'T BE A FACTOR.
IT HAS TO BE, I MEAN IT, IT, IT HAS TO BE, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA GET ANYWHERE BUT FURTHER DISCUSSION.
BUT IT, I MEAN IT HA IT HAS TO BE BASICALLY LIKE, I MEAN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING MAKES SENSE THAT THE TOWN THAT I, I THINK IT, I THINK YOU COULD ARGUE THAT YES, THE TOWN SAID YES TO SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SOMETHING THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID YES TO WHAT THEY
[02:35:01]
DID.SO WE HAVE THE, I MEAN WE ONLY HAVE THE COUPLE OPTIONS.
WE CAN ACCEPT THE TOWN'S THING AND GO WITH THE VIOLATIONS.
WHICH WILL, WHICH MORE THAN BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF NUMBER, I THINK IT'S ONE THE LIVESTOCK AND BREEDING THING.
BECAUSE OF THAT, IF WE GO WITH THAT, THAT ALONE WILL KILL THEIR BUSINESS.
THAT WOULD BE THE END OF THE BUSINESS.
THEY COULD GO BACK TO CHEESE, JUST CHEESE MAKING IF THEY IMPORT MILK TO DO IT.
BUT ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN DOCUMENTS THAT THEY SUBMITTED WITH THIS, THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT.
THE INTENT WAS TO HAVE YOUR OWN GOATS AND MAKE THE CHEESE.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE BUSINESS WOULD BE VIABLE IF YOU COULD BUY MILK AND THEN CHEESE IT.
I THINK IT, I THINK THAT JUST THIS ONE WOULD CLOSE THE WHOLE BUSINESS DOWN.
BUT IF YOU HAD BOTH AND AFFIRM BOTH, I THINK THAT'S THE END OF THE BUSINESSES RIGHT NOW.
WE ASSUME THEM TO BE CORRECT, BUT IN AMONGST THAT, I'M ALSO ASSUMING JEREMY CAMPBELL TO BE CORRECT, WHO IS THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WHO APPROVED THE BUSINESS.
SO IS HE, IS HE CORRECT? ARE THEY CORRECT? BUT HE'S NOT, OR HE'S CORRECT, BUT THEY'RE NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE BOTH, THEY'RE BOTH THE TAP.
WHY IN OUR PLACE, IF THEY, IF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DID HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THIS INFORMATION WHEN THEY MADE THE DECISION, EXCEPT FOR ME, THAT ONE THING THAT WAS INTRODUCED TONIGHT.
BUT WHEN THEY MADE THE DECISION TO ISSUE THE OH, VIOLATIONS IT ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY.
I'M LIKE, SHOULD WE VOTE OR IS THERE A MOTION ON THE TABLE? I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, UNLESS WE WANT TO DISCUSS WHETHER THERE, THERE, THERE WILL BE TWO MOTIONS.
SO IS EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY GOOD? YES.
SO FOR, I'LL GO WITH ITEM FOR BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS 2 6 0 0 0 0 1.
THAT'S THE APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION RELATED TO A VIOLATION OF TOWN CODE.
UH, APPELLATE WAS FOUND TO BE RAISING AND BREEDING LIVESTOCK, SPECIFICALLY GOATS WITH THE RSS ZONING DISTRICT.
UM, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO OVERTURN THAT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE GOATS, THE MILKING OF THE GOATS, HAVING THE GOATS AS PART OF THE BUSINESS WAS I BELIEVE TO BE SOMEWHAT APPROVED BY THE TOWN.
I DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY TOLD THE TOWN THEY WERE GONNA HAVE GOATS AND THE GOATS AND THE TOWN SAID YES IN SOME CAPACITY.
UH, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT CAPACITY, BUT SOME CAPACITY.
SO I WOULD SAY I MAKE A MOTION TO OVERTURN BUSINESS ITEM 2 6 0 0 0 0 1.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
UH, CONNIE, CAN WE HAVE A VOTE? MM-HMM
VICE CHAIRMAN SCHMIDT, THIS IS FOR NEW BUSINESS ITEM ONE.
BUSINESS ITEM TWO, WHICH IS NUMBER 2 6 0 0 0 0 2.
UH, IS THAT RIGHT? UM, UH, APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION RELATED TO HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN TOWN CODE SPECIFICALLY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOUND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CHANGED THE EXTERIOR EXPERIENCE OF THE DWELLING OR CHANGED THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAS OUTDOOR STORAGE OF GOODS, MATERIALS, AND EQUIPMENT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1205 HAPPY CREEK ROAD.
I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO MODIFY THE VIOLATION.
[02:40:02]
YES.IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO MODIFY THE VIOLATION.
UM, YOU HAVE TO SIGN MODIFICATION.
SO THE VIOLATION, HOW DO I PUT IT? DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY IN 2018 TO HAVE CHEESE MAKING AND GOATS AND THE SHED AND THE SHED AND ALL THAT STUFF THAT GOES WITH IT.
I, I FEEL THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED THAT THE EXTERIOR EXPERIENCE OF THE DWELLING WILL BE CHANGED.
AND THEY KNEW ABOUT IT AND THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT.
UH, BUT I, I ACCEPT THAT THE, THE HOME OCCUPATION REQUIRES IT TO BE AN INCIDENTAL USE, WHICH MEANS THE BUSINESS CANNOT GROW OR EXPAND BEYOND ITS CURRENT CAPACITY.
THAT INCLUDES NUMBER OF GOATS, NUMBER OF AREA UNDER OCCUPATION BY AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS AND NUMBER OF BUILDINGS RELATED TO THOSE AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS THAT CAN'T INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT.
THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION TO MODIFY THE VIOLATION TO KEEP SO THAT THEY'RE NO LONGER IN VIOLATION.
AS LONG AS THEY DON'T CHANGE FROM WHERE THEY ARE RIGHT NOW.
UM, THAT CLOSES EVERYTHING FOR THE NEW BUSINESS PORTION OF OUR AGENDA.
WE DO, HOWEVER, HAVE FLOOR BUSINESS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF.
UM, FIRST BOARD BUSINESS IS, IT'S A NEW YEAR.
IT WOULD BE ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
SO WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO NOMINATE SOMEONE FOR CHAIRMAN? I'LL NOMINATE CODY.
I WAS JUST WAITING FOR CONNIE TO STOP TALKING BEFORE TYPING BEFORE I ASKED HER FOR THE VOTE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY INTEREST IN BEING VICE CHAIRMAN? DO YOU WANT TO BE AGAIN? I MEAN, I CAN DO, BUT I'M ALSO HAPPY TO PASS THE TORCH IF ANYBODY ELSE FEELS LIKE I DON'T FEEL THAT I'M READY YET.
THEN I MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE CLAIRE VICE CHAIR.
SECOND VICE CHAIRMAN SCHMIDT? YES.
SO WE HAVE OUR NEW OFFICERS FOR THE YEAR.
UH, THE LAST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS BZA ANNUAL REPORT.
IT'S THE LAST THING IN YOUR PACKET.
SO WE JUST HAVE TO APPROVE IT.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2025 BZA REPORT PREPARED BY CONNIE.
AND OUR FINAL MOTION, I MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING OF THE BDN.