No law supports county position
by Reid Phifer
11 months ago | 448 views | 1 1 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Unnamed county government workers told Pinky Marsh to expect legal documents. Marsh received 22 pages by certified mail on Thursday October 1, 2009. After review of the document, it became apparent that this was not a citation since no law was broken, just an effort to manipulate a judge into issuing an injunction against the Marsh farm. Union County can’t construct a new law to fit this situation enabling them to issue a citation since he would be protected under the “grandfather clause” due to preexisting facts. The county attorneys will not jeopardize their financial well being by writing a citation with no law to back their actions.

This is how the Marsh situation evolved:

Marsh in an attempt to comply with county rules went to Lee Jenson (Land Use Administrator.) Jenson told Marsh that his situation fell under an agriculture heading in which the county had no authority. Marsh expected this to be true since this is Jenson’s area of expertise.

The information sent to Marsh, which is listed on the filed document “Verified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction,” filed in the Union County Clerk of Superior Court office on September 30, 2009.

Quote: 5. In the fall of 2006, Marsh went to Lee Jenson, the Land Use Administrator for Union County, and described his idea to operate a “saddle club” and “rodeo” on his land located in Union County. Marsh inquired whether there were any regulations governing the use of his property and whether Marsh needed to obtain any permits.

6. Based on the terms of the Union County Land Use Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) and its Table of Uses, Jenson determined that a Special Use Permit (“SUP”) for special events would be required and informed Marsh of his decision in the fall of 2006. Marsh did not appeal Jenson’s determination that a SUP would be required.

7. On January 30, 2007, Marsh filed an Application for a SUP (“Application”) with Union County. The Application stated that the affected property was located at “1625 Landsford Rd., Marshville, NC 28103” and that the nature of the request was a “Saddle Club/Rodeo and horse events; train horses & kids in the events of rodeos; trail riding.”

8. The application did not mention the bona fide farm exemption to a County’s zoning authority pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 153A-340, and did not contend that a SUP should not be required because the use for a bona fide farm purpose.

This is totally different from facts stated by Jenson in the beginning that Marsh’s situation fell under agriculture and the county had no governing control over agricultural property. Note that either Jenson provided the attorneys with an untrue statement; or conveniently forgot to mention the facts that he told Marsh in the beginning.

The law is written in statute form and is the responsibility of Union County’s governing body and their attorneys to interpret the laws meaning and application. It is not the responsibility of a Union County citizen to know these laws. However, in Section 8 they state that Marsh never mentioned in his application he was using a bona fide farm definition as an exemption from county governing authority. Total responsibility of defining law and how it applies is up to county governing authority through guidance of their attorneys. The citizen’s responsibility is to ask county government for their help and guidance, then depend on what they are instructed to be truthful and according to law.

In section 38 of the document is another interesting statement.

Quote: 38. Marsh’s refusal to comply with the Ordinance exposes Union County to immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be resolved adequately by law. Moreover, Union County is entitled to enforce its Ordinance, as a matter of law, by injunctive relief in order to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of all Union County residents, which outweighs whatever damage, if any, the injunction would cause Marsh.

Had Union County been worried about irreparable harm, this issue would have been long resolved. Possibly they feel if this goes into a court of law and testimonies are made under oath, information revealed would damage political careers and cause job losses.

Reid Phifer

Marshville

comments (1)
« john barker wrote on Wednesday, Oct 07 at 09:43 AM »
The fact that Mr. Marsh got a legal opinion from the county before starting his operation amke the county liable for any further prosecution. This is going to be just another massive waste of taxpayer money and, In my opinion, we will eventually lose. Using the government to persecute (yes thats the right word) is not only un-american it is illegal. When DA honeycutt wrongly put a man on death row it cost the people of NC hundreds of thousands of dollars. The same legal principal applies here. Drop it!