BOA agenda 061217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 45 Matt Hughes: Absolutely. 1 2 Barry Katz: Well again, I believe the question then is; do we just look at these, do we, do we look at 3 these issues here in a vacuum? Do we look at 153a340 or 1065811 or any of these things here? 4 Just on the page? We know a lot about this, this particular plan, we know a lot about how things 5 came to be and what the real focus is, the focus is not on agriculture itself, it’s on agro-tourism and 6 you have to have an ag in order to have the agro-tourism, and so there’s an attempt to create an 7 ag or on face value because they have a permit, you know? Then they’re ag. But in fact I really 8 believe that this, the motive and the facts that were presented to us indicate to me that the intent is 9 a non-farm purpose. That, I really believe that. And I would support reversing the decision made by 10 the planning supervisor in this case. 11 12 Karen Barrows: So in that case, I think you were asking James how to word a motion so that… 13 14 Barry Katz: Do we have to go beyond reversing the decision? 15 16 James Bryan: Yeah, I think it’d probably be in your best interest to clarify that. Because, so what’s 17 going to happen if this were to be appealed to Superior Court, Superior Court’s going to look at two 18 different things; that the law and the facts. And the facts, you guys get a lot of discretion. That’s like 19 at a Special Use Permit hearing and whether something’s going to be safe or not. As long as you 20 have something competent, you know, competent evidence you might get some discretion there 21 but the law you have no discretion on. Same thing Mr. Harvey has no discretion on and so if he 22 had a reasonable interpretation of the UDO and said I think this is what it means, that might be a 23 reasonable interpretation but it’s either right or wrong and this Board has the authority and duty to 24 step in and say somebody has appealed your determination, your interpretation of the UDO; it’s 25 either right or wrong. If it’s right it’s pretty clear, you could just rely on why do I think it’s right, 26 because what you told me, ok. If it’s wrong you have to say, ok that was wrong; this is what you 27 should have done. LeAnn gave her three steps, is that your three steps, then walk through those 28 three steps and say you should have asked whether this is a farm and it’s uncontested that it is, 29 you should have asked whether it is a farm purpose or non-farm purpose, and then you could use 30 that framework and then apply the facts to that. I think, I know for myself I’ve worked on this for a 31 long time in many different cases related to this. It helps to write it out and have my thinking and I 32 read it differently different times that I read it. The Statute is not clear. But have in your mind, and I 33 wouldn’t rush this decision. I know you all have spent a lot of time but you know, this is very 34 important that you all get this right so, look at what does the UDO require. 35 36 Barry Katz: My understanding is the UDO is not relevant, is not pertinent to this. 37 38 James Bryan: I believe there was testimony that. So Michael’s letter, the November 7th one, is to 39 Michael Rettie, who’s a building inspector, so there’s a process in place. What it was was there 40 was a building permit and as you heard there is testimony that the building code is separate, it 41 stands alone, it’s not the zoning power. So the building code, a separate thing, was going to issue 42 a permit and they… 43 44 Barry Katz: Wow. 45 46