BOA agenda 121216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

that if there’s some sort or record that you guys did lay eyes on it. But other than that, accept it and then 1 when you get into deliberations you can sort it out. 2 3 Barry Katz: Just to be clear I gave this package that we received last time back to their attorney. So I didn't 4 read this material. Ok? 5 6 Susan Halkiotis: We all did. 7 8 Barry Katz: Well I haven't read it and for me I see it's all there but I'm not sure this has any bearing on our 9 decision because we investigated what agritourism is in other context here, related to this hearing. These 10 don't have any bearings as far as I'm concerned on this hearing. I don't know where that stands. I can't 11 accept this myself because I haven't really digested this, except that I can see what's highlighted in there. 12 13 James Bryan: yeah and I think that's fine. I think that's one of the reasons why you give a little bit of 14 latitude to let it in and then you say now show me again why that's relevant. And they might fail and they 15 might but it does not convince you of it. 16 17 Karen Barrows: Do you have something? 18 19 Matt Hughes: Yes, I do. For Mr. Petesch what is the relevance of the Orange County 2030 comprehensive 20 plan, chapter 3 and 6 excerpt? 21 22 Andy Petesch: Those were documents that Mr. White reviewed in conducting his analysis of the farm 23 project. That’s a lawfully adopted policy of Orange County jurisdiction and it references farms and the policy 24 for farm preservation. And so it has relevance. And I would just read the definition of relevant evidence 25 under the state statute 401, relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence 26 of any fact that is of consequence of the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be 27 without the evidence. And the question here, as identified in this deliberation cheat sheet, is what is a non 28 farm use versus a bona fide farm purpose and all of these items do tend, I would submit, to show to some 29 degree more likely or less likely that that fact exists that would support an understanding of what the Board 30 is asked to determine here today. 31 32 Matt Hughes: Ok, I have a motion if you all are ready for it. 33 34 Susan Halkiotis: Well I think in order to discuss it we have to have a second, is that true? If I want to ask a 35 questions it has to be seconded? Because if these things were introduced… My question is, and I want to 36 reiterate what Barry said, I haven’t read this either. I handed it back in and I didn’t know that we were to 37 keep it. So that wasn’t the impression I had at all. So my question, having said that, is if these things were 38 admitted into evidence last week that wasn’t the time to object to it? 39 40 LeAnne Brown: They were not entered into evidence at the end of your hearing last week. They were 41 placed in the notebook. The exhibits that were entered into evidence were the exhibits, what are now 1-10, 42 which are the exhibits from which Ms. Brewer had testified. The remaining exhibits were not entered into 43 evidence at the end of the last hearing. There is relevance issues related to them and, again, a couple of 44 those are your comprehensive plan, the David Owens document, it’s not evidence, it’s something else. It’s 45 information as opposed to evidence. Others of these you also create significant due process problem when 46 you start introducing information into your record as evidence that is something someone has printed from 47 the internet or picked up from some agency or anything else and the reason it’s a due process problem is 48 76