BOA agenda 061217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 42 and allow it, and then the County at that point would’ve been in charge of enforcement. They 1 instead took the approach that they wanted all or none, they wanted it turned down, and that left 2 them in a position now where they’re trying to fight on the grounds of the bona fide farm exemption 3 and they’re clearly exempt. I’m sorry that the threat of that exemption is so wide, but that’s the 4 policy of this state. As simply the policy of this state and you must affirm Mr. Harvey’s decision. 5 6 Karen Barrows: Thank you. 7 8 LeAnn Brown: Madame Chair, as the Appellant may I have my rebuttal? I think I’m entitled with the 9 party of proof to be last? I’ll be very quick. Very quick. 10 11 Karen Barrows: We have till 10 o’clock, that’s it. 12 13 LeAnn Brown: And I promise you I’ll be through by 10 o’clock. Number one, Mr. Petesch said that 14 there is no authority to look behind the affidavit. The authority to look behind that affidavit starts 15 with 160a388, which allows my client to appeal Mr. Harvey’s decisions and which requires you to 16 take evidence. We went through that process, you took evidence and apparently it made no 17 difference whatsoever in his opinion and that’s an error. And if you want authority you can start 18 there. The cases that have dealt with the farm exemption have all looked at evidence and looked at 19 evidence deeper than an affidavit. You can also go there. But the statement to you that there’s no 20 authority for evidence to be taken is absolutely and patently false, and it starts with 160a388. What 21 Mr. Petesch did not argue you to you that I think is very important is he never explained to you how 22 this use is in fact related to or incidental to this wedding venue. So we heard a lot of argument 23 about that but it was really, there’s really nothing there that that answered that question. The 24 Drucker article that you were handed deals with expansion of the farm exception to allow people to 25 have multiple tracks has nothing to do with the question before you today. The argument, I don’t 26 know what to do with the argument that says if the people who opposed the SUP had decided to let 27 you grant it with conditions they wouldn’t be here today. That’s an amazing argument to me. I just 28 don’t even know where to go with that. They were not required, they were not required to say well 29 we’re scared you may go some other way, let us go see if we can get you to condition up our SUP. 30 They put on evidence as to impact and you decided what that impact meant and you decided it 31 was too much, and so I can’t do much with that argument, except to say that’s ridiculous. I I did not 32 say to you, if I did I misspoke but, 160a581.1 was not referenced in the Statute, what I said is that 33 that Statute when you read it picks up that concept of incidental use in the definition. 99e, which 34 relates to liability is the one that’s not incorporated and while you can certainly look at it, it’s written 35 very broadly because it’s designed to address something completely differently. With that being 36 said, you have the power and the authority to take evidence. You have to power and authority to 37 act on it. You’ve done it. You remanded it. It didn’t work. I’m going to ask you to take what you 38 decided before, apply your judgment to the decision, and ask you to reverse Mr. Harvey, and thank 39 you. I have three minutes left. 40 41 Karen Barrows: Let’s go wild. Any questions from the Board for staff or lawyers? Barry? 42 43 Barry Katz: My question is to our attorney. We’re going to need. I think, possibly, need some 44 guidance in how to frame whatever it is that we decide and how to go about this. So, that’s just a 45 general prayer for some assistance, ok? 46 47