BOA agenda 121216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

there were any that strike you that Andy objected to or on your own volition not substantial, immaterial, or 1 incompetent then you could exclude those. 2 3 Barry Katz: Alright, so my comments that I made in support of number 2 relate to these findings of fact? Do 4 I need to identify? I will if that’s what you want? 5 6 James Bryan: Yeah. 7 8 Barry Katz: I mean, I’m doing this one at a time I haven’t had the chance to reconsider this but the fact is 9 that I indicated that the application for the SUP, essentially, is the same as the later applications that were 10 filed in there for developing it. So it’s clear that this is intended to be a wedding venue, based on the 11 materials that were presented to us last year and this year. She’s essentially say, like by 15, that the farm 12 event barn and the electrical costs, etcetera were identical to the SUP application that she made. It’s 13 consistent with that. All indicating that, in fact, the primary purpose of this is as an event center. Traffic 14 impact analysis, driveways, all of this was the same. 15 16 Karen Barrows: And Ms. Brewer stated it. 17 18 Barry Katz: Yes, that’s what she said. In 24 she’s just reiterating that, in fact, it’s the same property. Mr. 19 Harvey testified that the March 16th plans were essentially the same as the January 15th plan and the May 20 18th plan. The wastewater, guests, staff, all of these things were identical. So essentially you’re trying to 21 create an event space, which is really the primary purpose… Somebody else. 22 23 Karen Barrows: Well you might want to look at number 4. About square footage, and parking spaces, 24 emergency service personnel. 25 26 Barry Katz: Everything in it is related back to the event center. And I guess 35 as to Ms. Brewers’ 27 testimony, “Started looking up my business plan for this project 3 ½- 4 years ago doing some initial market 28 research into local wedding venues”, it goes on. She testified the barn could be the center of the property, 29 the fact that there were substantial trees I think is amazing. Again, it’s the appearance for a wedding venue. 30 It’s not agricultural… And the fact that she has connections with people that she might actually be able to 31 solicit more business with this. It was the focus of what all this is. 32 33 Susan Halkiotis: All of that is regurgitation but there’s one sentence that strikes me and it is that the barn is 34 only in operation during events. So to me that says that the barn’s only in operation during events. Not for 35 drying, or cleaning chestnuts, or flour distribution. 36 37 Barry Katz: That speaks to 46: Kara Brewer confirmed, on the website states, on your wedding day you will 38 enjoy exclusive use of the farm and all our facilities. I don’t know if that has any bearing on the agricultural 39 space, the 25 square foot space that was identified. The whole scale of effort seems so focused on this use 40 to make it look not simply incidental. There’s really no evidence taken into account about cost of farm labor 41 or anything in the plan, there’s no plan for all of that. Or the capacity of water. Whether there’s enough 42 water in there to actually irrigate this stuff. It’s so different than a farm that allows some activity like a 43 country band to come over once in a while so they can sell more apples. They’re not trying to sell more 44 apples, or more flowers by having a wedding there. That’s not what’s happening. They’re not offering 45 chestnut flower as an appeal for the wedding. 46 47 113