HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_0653 (2)Williams said a special use permit would even be needed if a neighbor, who also
grew apples on his/her farm, brought them over to be sold alongside of the red apples.
Warren said seasonal sales would probably not require a permanent parking
area. Warren said an unused vacant field would suffice for parking as long as it was
cordoned off, and it did not cause any problems.
Williams said a local farmer was in the audience who already engaged in
agricultural tourism. Williams said it was his understanding this individual would be
grandfathered in the ordinance.
Warren said that if the farmer maintained the current volume or intensity this
would be acceptable (grandfathered); however, if the individual decided to introduce
another component, for example, crafts, then this would be a totally new "value added
product." He said this would dictate the purchase of a special use permit.
James Meacham, the Executive Director of the Statesville Convention and
Visitor's Bureau, encouraged the passage of the agricultural tourism amendment.
Meacham said there were numerous grant programs to aid in this type of venture and
one of these was the Golden Leaf Grant. He said $25,000 was recently awarded to the
Yadkin Valley region for vineyard marketing. Meacham said his organization had a
nonprofit status, and it could be utilized to help promote agricultural tourism, along
with assisting in trying to alleviate some of the financial burdens the farms might have
in purchasing a special use permit.
Doul: Carriean, the owner/operator of Carrigan Farms, encouraged approval of
the amendment. Carrigan said agricultural tourism activities would then be available to
any farms wanting to provide them, but the amendment would not be a detriment to the
existing farmers. Mr. Carrigan said his farm had to evolve as the community changed.
No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Tice adjourned the hearing
Commissioner Johnson said he wanted to make sure the amendment didn't
create any problems, especially anything as serious enough to prompt a farmer to apply
for a federal grant to alleviate a financial burden. He said there was a need, however,
to establish some legitimacy for some of the activities already occurring. Johnson said
the amendment could be helpful, but there needed to be an understanding that it might
need to be revised in the future. Johnson said he understood the $350 special use permit
was an across-the-board fee. He asked if the permit could be reduced for the
agricultural community.
Attorney Pope asked if the question was, "Is it lawful to charge a different fee
for a special use permit for one application versus another application?" He said if so,
then he felt it would be lawful.
Johnson said another concern was about setbacks. He said individuals were
being taxed on their property, but then the government was telling them they couldn't
use a portion of it. Johnson said the practice of using setbacks should be eliminated
when possible. He referred to the amendment's item C that stipulated an 80 -foot buffer
(from all side properties) or a 50 -foot buffer, if screened. He asked Mr. Warren why
the 80 feet was necessary.
Warren said in some instances 80 feet would not be enough and in others, it
might be "overkill." He said this was somewhat subjective, and it could be changed.
Johnson said that if 80 ft, were used, and there was a 100 -foot tun, then that was
a 115 of an acre that couldn't be used, but it was being taxed. He suggested a 50 -ft.
setback and 30 ft., if screened.
Commissioner Robertson said the intent of the amendment was to allow
individuals with farms who were already conducting commercial activities in a retail
10