BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 72 of 113 1 2 Andy Petesch: To help perhaps make this clear these exhibits are listed on page 3 of the deliberations 3 paper that Mr. Bryan handed out if that makes it easier for you to review. And as I’m introducing them as 4 exhibits I'll leave it up to the Board to assess their evidentiary value. Some of this is for a illustrative 5 purpose or reference to either primary or secondary authority. I would object to characterizing Mr. Owens 6 work as tertiary in the state, and so those are the reasons either that I'll be referring to these to age you in 7 my argument and understanding my argument or that they are evidentiary. I would submit that for example 8 the printout from the web sites are evidentiary, they are probative and the 393 which governs evidence 9 under these proceedings specifically says the term competent evidence shall not preclude reliance by the 10 decision-making Board on evidence that would not be admissible Under The Rules of Evidence as applied 11 in the trial division of the general court if the evidence was admitted without an objection or the evidence 12 appears to be sufficiently trustworthy and was admitted under such circumstances that was reason for their 13 decision-making Board to rely upon it. And those web sites are all government website and believe I do 14 have the indicia of reliability on them. 15 16 Barry Katz: This suggests that we're relying on this material. When in fact we are probably not relying on 17 most of the stuff. But if we accept this as part of this case, if this goes forward at any other venue will the 18 fact that we have accepted this have any consequential impact if this was more than any kind of litigation? 19 20 James Bryan: so they're sort of two thresholds. First there's just hearing it at all. So there might be 21 something that so prejudicial that you hear it and you'll be like “oh, once I heard it I can't unhear it “. That 22 doesn't happen very often in zoning. That's more in the criminal world type of thing. The second threshold 23 is your findings of fact. You say, “okay I heard this we will add some speakers to come speak” and you 24 know that you can't rely on opinion. You have to rely on fact. So that's when the findings of fact come into 25 play. You say, “Look, we decided before against this, these are the reasons for it”. So that's why I suggest 26 that the Board be rather lenient with accepting it during the hearing but the key I think is for it to be clear 27 that if there’s some sort or record that you guys did lay eyes on it. But other than that, accept it and then 28 when you get into deliberations you can sort it out. 29 30 Barry Katz: Just to be clear I gave this package that we received last time back to their attorney. So I didn't 31 read this material. Ok? 32 33 Susan Halkiotis: We all did. 34 35 Barry Katz: Well I haven't read it and for me I see it's all there but I'm not sure this has any bearing on our 36 decision because we investigated what agritourism is in other context here, related to this hearing. These 37 don't have any bearings as far as I'm concerned on this hearing. I don't know where that stands. I can't 38 accept this myself because I haven't really digested this, except that I can see what's highlighted in there. 39 40 James Bryan: yeah and I think that's fine. I think that's one of the reasons why you give a little bit of 41 latitude to let it in and then you say now show me again why that's relevant. And they might fail and they 42 might but it does not convince you of it. 43 44 Karen Barrows: Do you have something? 45 46 Matt Hughes: Yes, I do. For Mr. Petesch what is the relevance of the Orange County 2030 comprehensive 47 plan, chapter 3 and 6 excerpt? 48 49