09-04-2009, 08:08 AM
Rob, here's the best compilation of information.
The property where the green house resides is Agricultural zoned and has to meet county code for zoning. What is and isn't permitted is in the code. No variance or other legal change has been filed for converting an agricultural green house structure into a meeting hall.
Although there were complaints over noise and vehicles that was not part of the process since it does not pertain to how a structure usage was altered.
Whenever a government entity uses a private location for official purposes, they will sooner or later, verify the usage, zoning and permitted use. They will also check to ensure that there are no building code violations that make the place unsuitable for continued use.
The "retreat" is made up of several parcels. For whatever reason, the operators did not seek a "V" zoning for all the properties. They were able to still operate in other zoning designations because the use of that parcel was for purposes other than the resort, consistent with that zoning. The greenhouse was permitted on AG land because it was said to be a green house for "growing" plants. Nothing was ever said about holding meetings inside.
The "retreat's' marketing material list the greenhouse as an activity center. They do not themselves classify it as an agricultural building. They do not even discuss any agricultural purpose for the building. They do not grow, cultivate or propagate any vegetation in the building. Nothing about the building would ever make anyone assume it was an active greenhouse.
There are similar building on the property but because they are on a "V" zoned parcel, all that is required when the use changes is to ensure that codes related to the use are met.
Finally, the county had a legal mandate to act on the violation. The same legal mandate that you could use if you find someone operating a rendering plant on residential zoned property, or a waste transfer station on AG zoned land.
People have to put aside the issue of whom and what the retreat is all about. The issue is a zoning violation by a commercial enterprise. If people are asking government to ignore the regulations for handling a violation at the retreat, don't expect them to follow the rules for something you want. You are giving them the green light that you really don't care if they do or don't follow the proper procedures. This is not stupidity on the part of government, they are following the rules that the people wanted in place to stop these types of violations. Now everyone is upset because it happens to be their friends who got caught.
(Rob the above is not aimed at you)
The property where the green house resides is Agricultural zoned and has to meet county code for zoning. What is and isn't permitted is in the code. No variance or other legal change has been filed for converting an agricultural green house structure into a meeting hall.
Although there were complaints over noise and vehicles that was not part of the process since it does not pertain to how a structure usage was altered.
Whenever a government entity uses a private location for official purposes, they will sooner or later, verify the usage, zoning and permitted use. They will also check to ensure that there are no building code violations that make the place unsuitable for continued use.
The "retreat" is made up of several parcels. For whatever reason, the operators did not seek a "V" zoning for all the properties. They were able to still operate in other zoning designations because the use of that parcel was for purposes other than the resort, consistent with that zoning. The greenhouse was permitted on AG land because it was said to be a green house for "growing" plants. Nothing was ever said about holding meetings inside.
The "retreat's' marketing material list the greenhouse as an activity center. They do not themselves classify it as an agricultural building. They do not even discuss any agricultural purpose for the building. They do not grow, cultivate or propagate any vegetation in the building. Nothing about the building would ever make anyone assume it was an active greenhouse.
There are similar building on the property but because they are on a "V" zoned parcel, all that is required when the use changes is to ensure that codes related to the use are met.
Finally, the county had a legal mandate to act on the violation. The same legal mandate that you could use if you find someone operating a rendering plant on residential zoned property, or a waste transfer station on AG zoned land.
People have to put aside the issue of whom and what the retreat is all about. The issue is a zoning violation by a commercial enterprise. If people are asking government to ignore the regulations for handling a violation at the retreat, don't expect them to follow the rules for something you want. You are giving them the green light that you really don't care if they do or don't follow the proper procedures. This is not stupidity on the part of government, they are following the rules that the people wanted in place to stop these types of violations. Now everyone is upset because it happens to be their friends who got caught.
(Rob the above is not aimed at you)