BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 73 of 113 Andy Petesch: Those were documents that Mr. White reviewed in conducting his analysis of the farm 1 project. That’s a lawfully adopted policy of Orange County jurisdiction and it references farms and the policy 2 for farm preservation. And so it has relevance. And I would just read the definition of relevant evidence 3 under the state statute 401, relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence 4 of any fact that is of consequence of the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be 5 without the evidence. And the question here, as identified in this deliberation cheat sheet, is what is a non 6 farm use versus a bona fide farm purpose and all of these items do tend, I would submit, to show to some 7 degree more likely or less likely that that fact exists that would support an understanding of what the Board 8 is asked to determine here today. 9 10 Matt Hughes: Ok, I have a motion if you all are ready for it. 11 12 Susan Halkiotis: Well I think in order to discuss it we have to have a second, is that true? If I want to ask a 13 questions it has to be seconded? Because if these things were introduced… My question is, and I want to 14 reiterate what Barry said, I haven’t read this either. I handed it back in and I didn’t know that we were to 15 keep it. So that wasn’t the impression I had at all. So my question, having said that, is if these things were 16 admitted into evidence last week that wasn’t the time to object to it? 17 18 LeAnne Brown: They were not entered into evidence at the end of your hearing last week. They were 19 placed in the notebook. The exhibits that were entered into evidence were the exhibits, what are now 1-10, 20 which are the exhibits from which Ms. Brewer had testified. The remaining exhibits were not entered into 21 evidence at the end of the last hearing. There is relevance issues related to them and, again, a couple of 22 those are your comprehensive plan, the David Owens document, it’s not evidence, it’s something else. It’s 23 information as opposed to evidence. Others of these you also create significant due process problem when 24 you start introducing information into your record as evidence that is something someone has printed from 25 the internet or picked up from some agency or anything else and the reason it’s a due process problem is 26 that the other party cannot then ask questions about the document. Where’d it come from, how was it 27 created, what information went into your writing what you wrote in this document? There is no one here 28 about whom we can ask those questions. And so, that’s the other problem with it. I don’t disagree with your 29 attorney’s thought processes that you may or may not end up in error if you have something before you but 30 if you don’t end up considering it or it doesn’t weigh in your final decision that’s there but that’s the reason 31 that I need to object because my objection needs to be of the record. And I truly can’t tell you what Harnett 32 County has done with regard to their definition of agritourism and for you to receive that and for that to be 33 probated to you as to what the ultimate decision you must make as a Board . You get to be the group of 34 people who ibnterrupt the meaning of this term and the context of how Orange County is applying it. And 35 you can listen to us make legal argument, you can look at legal authorities that we may provide to you 36 including, Professor Owens, who by the way is a dear friend of mine so I’m not insulting him but I think he 37 would agree with me that he is neither case law nor statute. You certainly can consider legal argument from 38 both of us, and you should. But you can’t substitute your job and your judgment in interrupting what the 39 statute mean by reading something somebody out there may have written and may have posted on a 40 website for a government entity or for any other reason. In this proceeding or in any other legal proceeding. 41 And so that’s my concern. I don’t want to get you hung up on an evidentiary issue for an extended period of 42 time. I have to object for the record. But that’s what’s going into my deciding that I need to make an 43 objection. 44 45 Karen Barrows: Does that answer your question? 46 47 Susan Halkiotis: Well, it begs another question. Which is, why wasn’t it introduced 2 weeks ago? 48