BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 20 of 113 LeAnne Brown: And if I could perhaps respond to the legal argument that was made to the Board . It is my 1 opinion, my opinion will be slightly different than Mr. Petesch’s I think, but the Magnum case that he 2 mentioned clearly establishes that property owners who are in proximity, particularly contiguous and 3 adjacent, who demonstrate the kind of value. They do not have to demonstrate a real estate appraisers 4 diminution in value. What my clients have testified to is that the value of the property as farm property has 5 been diminished. Property owners are qualified in the state of North Carolina to testify as to their belief 6 about the value of their own value in all kinds of cases, and the expert testimony information in 160a-393 I 7 do not believe applies in the standing context. It applies in the context of the type of findings of fact that this 8 Board made at an earlier hearing. What the court has said in Magnum and what it repeated in the Cherry 9 case to which Mr. Petesch eluded is that testimony that property owners have concerns about vandalism, 10 about safety, about littering, about trespass, about parking overflow, about the interference with the use of 11 their property is sufficient as a matter of law as those special damages and I believe you have ample 12 evidence of that for us to proceed. 13 14 Barry Katz: So what happened at our last hearing regarding this property is not germane to this? 15 16 James Bryan: I would advise the Board that that’s correct but also keep in mind that they don’t have to 17 show that, it can be any of the damages; noise, light pollution, anything like that. 18 19 Barry Katz: Ok. Because we did have comparable, from another location out off of Highway 54, that 20 somebody did attest to property values being diminished by another event location that was near them. 21 22 LeAnne Brown: I certainly believe that the Board is entitled and in fact I think required to consider the 23 findings of fact that it made with regard to something that I’m going to show is virtually identical on this 24 issue. But I think with or without it we have ample evidence. 25 26 Barry Katz: This is one of the parts of this whole thing. Do the findings we had previously determined have 27 any relevance to this hearing? 28 29 James Bryan: I believe you’re not bound by previous decisions. Take everything as a de nova review but 30 this is a new matter before you. 31 32 Andy Petesch: And just for the record, the Brewers’ would object to consideration of that prior determination 33 because one, the standards are not equivalent. We’re talking about, here, special damages unique from the 34 rest of the community and it was a different standard in the SUP in terms of impairing the property values of 35 adjacent properties. They are similar but they are not necessarily equivalent. More importantly, however, is 36 that anyone who testified and presented evidence at that hearing is not present today for me to be able to 37 cross-examine, so it would not be competent from that perspective. 38 39 Barry Katz: But we heard similar testimony from these same people who are adjacent to your property, the 40 same kinds of statements were made then as were made now. And you’ve had the opportunity to cross-41 examine them. 42 43 Karen Barrows: And I think I had always heard that adjacent property owners could testify in what they 44 think will diminution of their property and that’s to be considered. Am I wrong? 45 46 James Bryan: They can definitely testify to the things that they would have personal knowledge of. What 47 they see, smell, hear. Things like that. So when they are testifying that, “I am on my property and I see a 48 driveway there” and then the average person can tell you whether a cars headlights were there, you don’t 49