BOA agenda 121216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

looks like, how it’s built… If Bill Gate buys the farm, some land, and starts trying to do agriculture he can 1 put a taj mahal barn on it if he wants to. Until that barn starts getting used in a way that is non-farm he is 2 permitted to build that barn. And that’s what we’re talking about today. A building permit that was issued 3 without being subject to zoning. So my first submission to this Board is that you lack the jurisdiction at this 4 point to make a decision as to future uses on this site. It is clear, both in Ms. Brewer’s affidavit and in the 5 email, which is being appealed, that the County will continue to assess the uses that are occurring on that 6 property. Turning to the estoppel argument. Ms. Brown raised the Marsh case. I would submit first of all, 7 there is a jurisdictional issue here as well in that… The power to rule on estoppel claim is an equitable 8 power that this Board does not have. 9 10 Barry Katz: Equitable? 11 12 Andy Petesch: An equitable power. 13 14 Barry Katz: Court? 15 16 Andy Petesch: Yes. That is conferred on our trial courts but the authority of this Board is set out in (North 17 Carolina General Statute) 160a-388. Again, made applicable to counties through a separate statute. And 18 that is your powers are to rule on SUP, Conditional Use Permits, variances, and appeals from staff 19 determinations. From final and binding determinations. It does not include ruling on an estoppel claim. That 20 aside, Ms. Brown’s heavy reliance on the Marsh case communicated that the facts were very similar and it 21 should apply here are misplaced. In Marsh what happened is that the gentleman had some land, he was 22 doing some farming on it, he wanted to run a rodeo. He wanted to have rodeo events. And he applied for a 23 SUP and he was granted that SUP. The conditions included, among other, he would only have 1 access, 24 not two accesses to the rodeo events and that he would only have 4 rodeos a year. He violated. He 25 exceeded the 4-rodeo limit and then also created a second access. So the jurisdiction then issued notices 26 of violation and then the staff went to the Board Of Adjustment on their own and requested that the SUP be 27 revoked. The Board of Adjustment then did revoke the SUP and then the owner appealed that to Superior 28 Court and in their appeal he had spent all 5 pages of his brief arguing and claiming the reason why 29 inaudible shouldn’t matter is that he was exempt under 153a-340. And then the Superior Court ruled 30 against him, affirmed the revocation and in doing so said one of the basises was that he was estopped 31 because he had been granted a SUP and now he was challenges that approval. Something that he had 32 received. And so he did not appeal that decision. So he went on to continue to operate rodeos. He was 33 issued additional notice of violations, he appealed that and it went on to the Superior Court. They held that 34 because he did not appeal that he had his chance, made his argument about the exemption, and then 35 didn’t appeal that and then couldn’t come back and claim the exemption again. That’s not at all what 36 happened here. There was no approval granted in the beginning. And in the process Ms. Brewer never 37 tried to challenge the fact that… She never raised the exemption issue. In fact, when she asked for the 38 exemption to be approved and to be able to go forward under the exemption it was granted by staff. She’s 39 not been issued any notice of violations. So for estoppel to apply, especially they type of estoppel called 40 collateral estoppel that was identified by the Court in Marsh, this issue that you’re trying to be estopped 41 from claiming in this case that you qualify for the exemption. That has had to have been heard and litigated 42 before and a decision made on it, in order for estoppel to apply. If that issue has never been raised and 43 heard by a judicial body, and decided, then estoppel isn’t applicable. So that reliance on the Marsh case 44 and the entire estoppel argument here completely fails because this is the first time that Ms. Brewer has 45 sought approval under the exemption. And I will specifically ask you to turn your attention to the Special 46 Use Agenda abstract. This is for case A2-15, heard on November 9th 2015. So what was introduced by the 47 applicants as a staff report? They’re exhibit number 8. I’ll read the relevant sections quickly. This is on page 48 95