Orange County NC Website
the subpoenas request.Beginning on Page 70 isthe excerpt of the session law. The background of this is 99 <br />as follows andis articulated in the abstract:On July 12, Session Law 2017-108 became effective, which 100 <br />established the use of structures on a bona fide farm. Orange Countyreceived a request on October12 101 <br />from Andy Petesch, representing Barn of Chapel Hill/Wild Flora Farm for adetermination from the county 102 <br />onwhether the property met the requirements of the sessions lawand could conduct agritourism activities.103 <br />This requestinvolved thestructure located on the Orange County parcel identified as PIN: 9729-50-7168 104 <br />owned/operated by Southeast Property Group LLC (a.k.a. Wild Flora Farm), and is commonly referred to 105 <br />as theBarn of Chapel Hill. The request was reviewed with John Roberts of the county attorney’s office, and106 <br />after review of Andy Petesch’s request, staff made adetermination that the structure located on this 107 <br />property is classified as a bona fide farm, pursuant to the provisions in General Statutes 153A-340(b)(2)a.It108 <br />is not subject to land use regulationsas embodied within the Orange County Unified Development 109 <br />Ordinance. Michael Harvey noted that LeAnn Brown has attached a copy of the Orange Countyletter, 110 <br />within Attachment 1, which is the appeal application. As part of the submittal, LeAnnBrown, who 111 <br />representsseveral adjacent property owners, had requested thechair, under his or her discretion as part of 112 <br />local land use regulations and state statute,to issue subpoenas forrequestedinformation. That request 113 <br />has been denied. Per request of LeAnnBrown, the full board has been askedto review that denial and 114 <br />determine whether or not the subpoenas should be issued. 115 <br />Michael Harveyreminded the board that attorneys representing each side, LeAnn Brown and Andy 116 <br />Petesch, have requested that the purposeof the meeting is to review the subpoena request only. The 117 <br />meeting isopen to the public but testimony is limited to the parties that have standing. The decision to 118 <br />issue or not issue the subpoenas is ultimately appealable to Orange County Superior Court within 30 days. 119 <br />120 <br />Michael Harvey then requested that the agenda packet be entered into the record. 121 <br />122 <br />MOTION by Barry Katz to enter the agenda packet into the record.Seconded by Randy Herman.123 <br />124 <br />VOTE:UNANIMOUS125 <br />126 <br />Karen Barrows said the board would give each attorney 10 minutes to address the board. 127 <br />128 <br />LeAnn Nease Brown addressed the board. She asked that the board find that the parties she represents 129 <br />have standing as the board has found previously that those parties have standing. She said there is a 130 <br />procedure in the Board of Adjustmentstatute that is designed to add a means by which information that 131 <br />may be relevant to a hearing can be obtained, and that is a subpoena process. Subpoenas, as a general 132 <br />principle, are a means by which documents or other informationare brought before a tribunal. Admissibility 133 <br />of that information is decided in the context of thehearing. Subpoena is the means by which the documents 134 <br />can be obtained. The issuanceof subpoenasis generally a ministerial act. She said there are case laws in 135 <br />North Carolina to which she could refer but quotedBone v. Broadfor the record. She continued, stating that 136 <br />the word relevant in the statue is informed by how the word relevant is applied in the rules of evidence. The 137 <br />Orange County Board of Adjustment applies relaxed rules of evidencein its hearings.She noted that the 138 <br />North Carolina General Statues §1-401defines relevant evidenceas having any tendency to make the 139 <br />existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of an action more probable or less 140 <br />probable than it would be without the evidence. The comments to note 401 state that dealing with 141 <br />probabilityin the language of the rule hasadded the virtueof avoiding confusion between questions of 142 <br />admissibility and questions of sufficiency of the evidence. It has also subsumed in it the concept of 143 <br />materiality. 144 <br />145 <br />19