Orange County NC Website
APPROVED 6/12/17 <br />1 Andy Petesch: I'd like to ask Chris Brewer to come up and address the chestnuts, whereas Ms. <br />2 Brown asked about and believe that his testimony, at least from my questioning, should be only <br />3 two minutes. <br />4 <br />5 LeAnn Brown: I think for... for due process purposes if the Board has indicated to me that it wished <br />6 for me to cease a line of questioning of a witness that it would be appropriate to not receive further <br />7 evidence that continues the, what Mr. Hughes referred to as, the walk down memory lane. <br />8 Otherwise, the appellant has been asked to not proceed with evidence that now the property owner <br />9 is allowed to proceed with. <br />10 <br />11 Matt Hughes: I certainly agree with that. <br />12 <br />13 Karen Barrows: I think we've heard Mr. Brewer, so. <br />14 <br />15 Andy Petesch: Alright. Now I just would ask the record to show that Mr. Brewer was available and <br />16 prepared to testify about update on chestnuts, I'll leave it at that. Thank you. <br />17 <br />18 Karen Barrows: Thank you. <br />19 <br />20 Matt Hughes: Thank you. <br />21 <br />22 Karen Barrows: So from here do you each tidy it up with a closing statement? <br />23 <br />24 LeAnn Brown: Despite the fact that you've heard some additional evidence this evening this is <br />25 really not a hearing that's about receiving more evidence. You made a decision before, which is <br />26 actually on appeal by Ms. Brewer. We've got an odd procedural part posture because Mr. Harvey's <br />27 opinion was issued before you could even get an order done and start the clock ring for us to deal <br />28 with it. Be that as it may I'd like to turn to Mr. Harvey's, ask you to turn to Mr. Harvey's, November <br />29 7th 2016 opinion. And I want to go through with you what he decided and why that's wrong. I want <br />30 to advise you as I begin this process that under 160a388 you are empowered to substitute your <br />31 judgment for Mr. Harvey's. You are this evening the people who make the determination about the <br />32 legal meaning of the various statutes involved. I realize that most of you are not judges by training <br />33 during the day, the one who is had to recuse herself from this hearing. Just as Mr. Harvey is not an <br />34 attorney and not a judge either, but you are tasked with deciding whether this is correct and you <br />35 are free to substitute your judgment for him, which means just as it meant at our last hearing you <br />36 could decide what this statute means and you can decide whether or not this property fits in it. And <br />37 so with that in mind I want to go through the process. I do want to raise for the record, I don't want <br />38 to talk about it much, but I do want to raise for the record cause I am certain that we are going to <br />39 be elsewhere with this case before it's over that I have serious due process concerns about the <br />40 fact that we have had members of the Orange County staff, including the legal staff, involved in <br />41 representing you and advising Michael twice and we have a situation where you're being advised, <br />42 as my judges, as to procedure and I think to some degree as to what the law is while the County is <br />43 also advising in other ways and it's giving me some heartburn and I want to raise it so that I have it <br />44 on appeal, and I'm through discussing that for tonight, that's not your issue to decide. Moving on to <br />45 the opinion. The first question that Mr. Harvey addresses in his opinion is whether the property is a <br />46 bona fide farm. You have before you a copy of 153a -340b that Mr. Harvey introduced into <br />47 evidence. Chapter 153a section 340 is the grant of power of zoning. I say that to you because I <br />32 <br />