Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />Barry Katz: When we reviewed this property in the past were there any realtors that came out and made a 2 <br />statement one way or the other regarding the value of the property and the impact that this would have on 3 <br />their property? 4 <br /> 5 <br />James Bryan: Let me address just the legal questions. You can ask other people about the recollections of 6 <br />it. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Barry Katz: Well it would be in the Minutes. I just don’t recall them. 9 <br /> 10 <br />James Bryan: So for standing you need special damages. Special damages isn’t perfectly clear but 11 <br />proximity is part of it. The most common one is property value. The statutes aren’t clear that you need an 12 <br />expert witness to establish property value that elite person cannot do that. I would advise the Board not to 13 <br />rely on a previous hearing that the Board had if it is separate from this hearing. So the last one was a SUP 14 <br />that had a lot more information to it. This is about a determination by staff based on just a building permit 15 <br />without the additional information. 16 <br /> 17 <br />LeAnne Brown: And if I could perhaps respond to the legal argument that was made to the Board . It is my 18 <br />opinion, my opinion will be slightly different than Mr. Petesch’s I think, but the Magnum case that he 19 <br />mentioned clearly establishes that property owners who are in proximity, particularly contiguous and 20 <br />adjacent, who demonstrate the kind of value. They do not have to demonstrate a real estate appraisers 21 <br />diminution in value. What my clients have testified to is that the value of the property as farm property has 22 <br />been diminished. Property owners are qualified in the state of North Carolina to testify as to their belief 23 <br />about the value of their own value in all kinds of cases, and the expert testimony information in 160a-393 I 24 <br />do not believe applies in the standing context. It applies in the context of the type of findings of fact that this 25 <br />Board made at an earlier hearing. What the court has said in Magnum and what it repeated in the Cherry 26 <br />case to which Mr. Petesch eluded is that testimony that property owners have concerns about vandalism, 27 <br />about safety, about littering, about trespass, about parking overflow, about the interference with the use of 28 <br />their property is sufficient as a matter of law as those special damages and I believe you have ample 29 <br />evidence of that for us to proceed. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Barry Katz: So what happened at our last hearing regarding this property is not germane to this? 32 <br /> 33 <br />James Bryan: I would advise the Board that that’s correct but also keep in mind that they don’t have to 34 <br />show that, it can be any of the damages; noise, light pollution, anything like that. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Barry Katz: Ok. Because we did have comparable, from another location out off of Highway 54, that 37 <br />somebody did attest to property values being diminished by another event location that was near them. 38 <br /> 39 <br />LeAnne Brown: I certainly believe that the Board is entitled and in fact I think required to consider the 40 <br />findings of fact that it made with regard to something that I’m going to show is virtually identical on this 41 <br />issue. But I think with or without it we have ample evidence. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Barry Katz: This is one of the parts of this whole thing. Do the findings we had previously determined have 44 <br />any relevance to this hearing? 45 <br /> 46 <br />James Bryan: I believe you’re not bound by previous decisions. Take everything as a de nova review but 47 <br />this is a new matter before you. 48 <br />22