BOA agenda 121216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

sure that the record reflects that those numbers are not the numbers of the exhibits as he has offered them 1 today, unless you use this set as opposed to that set so we're not confused. Second, with regard to the 2 exhibits that have been offered we object to exhibits 10 through 21, exhibit 11 and 12 are excerpts from 3 Orange County's comprehensive plan. I certainly think that the Board is entitled to review the County's 4 comprehensive plan if that has relevance, which you would receive that in a different way and you should 5 be able to receive that as you wish, but Mr. Owens is a treatise. I do not have an objection to you reading 6 his Treatise but it is not technically an exhibit. It's not evidence. It's legal authority. The other exhibits that 7 are offered are a combination of things that have been printed from the internet which have no probative 8 value to any of the facts and evidence before you nor are they, in my opinion, documents that would be on 9 legal authorities and so I would ask that you not consider those and exhibit 17 is instead of giving you a 10 statute it's sort of a chart excerpt from the statute and while we can all make legal argument to you, and I'm 11 sure we will, that again it's not an evidentiary exhibit so for the record I object to those exhibits so. And 12 again I recognize that you are not working under the strict rules of evidence and a quasi-judicial setting but 13 in order to preserve these objections and any subsequent proceeding I wanted to make them now. 14 15 Karen Barrows: What’s the Board feeling? We consider the objections inaudible. 16 17 Craig Benedict: Excuse me, I’m just trying to make sure that everybody can hear so please speak up to the 18 microphone because the back of the room can’t hear it that well. I’ll try to adjust this without getting 19 feedback. 20 21 22 Andy Petesch: To help perhaps make this clear these exhibits are listed on page 3 of the deliberations 23 paper that Mr. Bryan handed out if that makes it easier for you to review. And as I’m introducing them as 24 exhibits I'll leave it up to the Board to assess their evidentiary value. Some of this is for a illustrative 25 purpose or reference to either primary or secondary authority. I would object to characterizing Mr. Owens 26 work as tertiary in the state, and so those are the reasons either that I'll be referring to these to age you in 27 my argument and understanding my argument or that they are evidentiary. I would submit that for example 28 the printout from the web sites are evidentiary, they are probative and the 393 which governs evidence 29 under these proceedings specifically says the term competent evidence shall not preclude reliance by the 30 decision-making Board on evidence that would not be admissible Under The Rules of Evidence as applied 31 in the trial division of the general court if the evidence was admitted without an objection or the evidence 32 appears to be sufficiently trustworthy and was admitted under such circumstances that was reason for their 33 decision-making Board to rely upon it. And those web sites are all government website and believe I do 34 have the indicia of reliability on them. 35 36 Barry Katz: This suggests that we're relying on this material. When in fact we are probably not relying on 37 most of the stuff. But if we accept this as part of this case, if this goes forward at any other venue will the 38 fact that we have accepted this have any consequential impact if this was more than any kind of litigation? 39 40 James Bryan: so they're sort of two thresholds. First there's just hearing it at all. So there might be 41 something that so prejudicial that you hear it and you'll be like “oh, once I heard it I can't unhear it “. That 42 doesn't happen very often in zoning. That's more in the criminal world type of thing. The second threshold 43 is your findings of fact. You say, “okay I heard this we will add some speakers to come speak” and you 44 know that you can't rely on opinion. You have to rely on fact. So that's when the findings of fact come into 45 play. You say, “Look, we decided before against this, these are the reasons for it”. So that's why I suggest 46 that the Board be rather lenient with accepting it during the hearing but the key I think is for it to be clear 47 75