BOA minutes 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/12/16 OC Board of Adjustment – 10/10/16 Page 98 of 113 expert that tells a trier of fact how to interpret the law. The trier of fact has to do that. And the cases are 1 clear about that and you’re the trier of fact. You can consider, of course, legal authorities. Whether they’re 2 primary, secondary or perhaps even tertiary. I stand by saying the blog may be tertiary but what Mr. Owens 3 says in his blog and what I’m saying to you about the statute actually match. He points out in his blog that a 4 produce stand to sell produce for a farm may be incidental to the farm. The planting of the tomatoes outside 5 the Walmart to sell inside is not. Clearing out a barn for a wedding occasionally is incidental. Usually there’s 6 some junk on the floor that demonstrates you cleaned out yesterday. Clearing out a wedding occasionally 7 to use it for a farm is not. If you compare the building permit materials to the SUP application you will see 8 that the use of this property as an event center as that is defined in the UDO. You will see that the building, 9 the driveways, the septic system, are all designed for use as an event center. Event centers require SUP in 10 the AR zone. This event center’s SUP was denied. It was an error to then let a building permit be issued 11 without that SUP in hand. I’m just asking you to fix it. And I appreciate your time and attention. 12 13 Karen Barrows: Ok, thank you. 14 15 Andy Petesch: Could I respond? 16 17 LeAnne Brown: With all respect, unless you want to say that you’ve got the burden of proof here I believe 18 that I have the last argument. 19 Andy Petesch: This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. 20 21 Karen Barrows: James, can I ask? Because this could go on all night, and I have to work tomorrow. Do we 22 have to repeat this back and forth or can we say we’re done? 23 24 James Bryan: So it’s a little complicated. I do not believe that either party has the right to the last statement. 25 I believe both parties have a right to rebuttal, however there’s still the issues of materiality, relevancy, and 26 unduly repetitious so you can say, “do you have anything new to say?” and if they say yes, then I would 27 allow them but as soon as you hear a word that you’ve heard before you could tell them, “I’ve heard this 28 before. You’re repeating yourself.”. But if they’re not repeating themselves I would offer that they should 29 both allow as much rebuttal as they have to offer new information to the Board. 30 31 Karen Barrows: Do you have new information? 32 33 Andy Petesch: I have clarifying information. And if you decide not to hear from me as I start please cut me 34 off and I will end my comments. But I just want to clarify that my argument was not that this farm was going 35 to take 20 years to become productive. The timeline set out in the farm summary is going to be productive 36 much earlier than that. But the timeline in terms of its full capacity was 20 years. The Estoppel argument, 37 two things have to have happened. 38 39 Karen Barrows: I think we have heard this before. 40 41 Andy Petesch: Very well. 42 43 Karen Barrows: Thank you. Are we finished? 44 45 LeAnne Brown: Yes ma’am. You heard Ms. Petesch’s argument. You decide what it meant. 46 47 Karen Barrows: I have a question of staff (inaudible). Michael, is there any process within the Planning 48 Department that deals with issues like this? Specifically questioning actions of the staff? 49