BOA agenda 061217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 41 LeAnn Brown: I object and ask that the Board not look at this. This is a copy of a news article and if 1 you are going to consider this I would like a recess to call David Owen’s as a witness about what 2 this happens to say. 3 4 Karen Barrows: will not consider it. 5 6 Andy Petesch: I’m sorry, I’m. 7 8 Karen Barrows: We can’t consider it I don’t think Andy. Thank you though. 9 Andy Petesch: So in closing, the Applicant’s here to this appeal, they were a part of the Special 10 Use Permit hearing. The Opponents in that case to the Brewer’s application took an all or none 11 approach at that time. This Board could have approved it with conditions that addressed the 12 number of guests, and a number of other issues that dealt with the intensity of the use. The Staff 13 report, Mr. Harvey’s testimony at that hearing indicate that he had communicated with the 14 Opponents, that there was an option that the Special Use Permit wasn’t the only way that they 15 could do, that the Brewers’ could do, an event facility. That it could also be done as a bona fide 16 farm. They knew that, and yet they focused on having that Special Use Permit, which was their 17 opportunity to have conditions placed on this to minimize the affects that they are concerned are 18 going to impact them. This is not a case of the Brewers’ trying to get a second bite at the apple 19 somehow. They were told early on that there were two paths for them. This is a case of the 20 neighbors wanting a second bite at the apple because they missed their opportunity to have to 21 affects addressed mitigated through this Board’s conditions in a Special Use Permit. And because 22 Ms. Brewer veiled herself with that process there’s an argument she would have been bound by 23 that and not at that point, not had that opportunity any longer to seek the bona fide farm exemption. 24 25 Barry Katz: Could, may I ask you a question? 26 27 Andy Petesch: Yes. 28 29 Barry Katz: First, there were the Brewers’ elected to go for a Special Use Permit. Right? Now, 30 they’re claiming that it’s a bona fide farm and they don’t need a Special Use Permit. Am I, Am I 31 right about that? Is that what’s being said? 32 33 Andy Petesch: There, yes, they… 34 35 Barry Katz: Are suddenly not subject to zoning and you’re telling us this is not a second bite of the 36 apple when in fact they had two options, they went through one option, and we made our 37 judgment, and now they’re saying that’s not really relevant because we’re a bona fide farm. So 38 that’s a second bite as far as I’m concerned. 39 40 Andy Petesch: I appreciate you’re your perspective on it, I would submit that they had two, a 41 second bite, meaning that they are trying, that they’re getting something that they, another chance 42 when they already had their chance. There were two chances on different paths in this case and so 43 they’re not trying to get another shot at something that they could’ve gotten, should’ve gotten 44 earlier, that’s, I would argue what the adjacent property owners are seeking in this case because 45 they could’ve had those protections as part of the Special Use Permit if they had presented that to 46 the Board at that hearing. They did not suggest that certain conditions be placed on it so that they, 47