BOA agenda 111218 - cancelled - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

tax identification number was not obtained until April 12, 2017. The tax ID number on the documents was partially 1 redacted. It looks similar but the document produced shows that the ID was obtained April 12, 2017. The articles of 2 merger for Wild Flora Farm, LLC, and Southeast Property Group, LLC, were not filed until February 19, 2018, on a plan 3 of merger dated February 14, 2018. Nothing in the evidence suggests that an exemption certificate obtained was 4 obtained in the name of the owner of the property, LeAnn Brown siad. There is an assumed name certificate for 5 Southeast Property Group, LLC, to do business as Wild Flora Farm but it wasn’t recorded until October 12, 2017. Here 6 is how the staff erred. Staff determined that Kara Brewer is a member/manager of the LLC and therefore a certificate in 7 her name is the same as a certificate in the name of the LLC. And then there was the merger and the names are similar 8 so if we sort of connect the dots, it must all be the same thing. LeAnn Brown said we cannot look behind what that 9 certificate says and we likewise cannot do the work for someone who is applying and say well, if you’d done it right, it 10 would say this or this. Kara Brewer is not Southeast Property Group, LLC. The fact that she is a member of it simply 11 means she is a member of it. Just as she would not want her personal liability to be subject to any lawsuit filed against 12 Southeast Property Group, LLC, her as an individual obtaining the certificate of exemption is not adequate to meet the 13 statute. Unless the certificate said Southeast Property Group, LLC, related to income it earned in 2016, it would not be 14 a certificate that meets the requirements of the statute. 15 16 LeAnn Brown said that Michael Harvey noted in his letter from which her party appealed in the thing that is an advisory 17 opinion that changes in the property ownership could subject the property to the Unified Development Ordinance. It was 18 not part of Michael Harvey’s final and binding determination but she thinks it was an interesting point. She would ask 19 the board to find that the request to the county and the grant to the county is precluded by the doctrines of res judicata 20 and collateral estoppel. And on the merits, if the board does not find the evidence that she asks it to find, LeAnn Brown 21 noted the records on the documents do not show that the owner of the property at the time the application was made to 22 the county had a tax exemption certificate. And the county cannot look beyond what the statute requires and allow 23 someone to get a certificate in someone else’s name and apply it. That is not what the statute says you can do. The 24 statute does not say you can get the certificate in your personal name and apply it to your corporate entity. 25 26 Randy Herman requested to ask a question. Karen Barrows said she would ask Andy Petesch to speak first and then 27 give the board time to ask questions. 28 29 Andy Petesch addressed the board on behalf of Kara Brewer and Wild Flora Farm, LLC, which is the successor to 30 Southeast Property Group, LLC. Starting with the res judicata and collateral estoppel argument, LeAnn Brown brought 31 up the issue of Michael Harvey having made a determination. Andy Petesch would submit that it was not an appealable 32 determination at any point. It was never in writing. It was something that was verbally conveyed and as Barry Katz 33 noted and as reflected in the minutes, it was something that Kara Brewer had volunteered to pursue. He submitted 34 copies of an excerpt from the abstract of the Special Use Permit hearing and an excerpt from the approved minutes. He 35 took both from the certified record that went to the Superior Court. He has highlighted some key passages, starting with 36 the abstract case. In staff comments, it is noted that there has been a heightened level of concern that the property 37 meets the requirements to be classified as a farm. On the next page, the second paragraph from the bottom states that 38 when staff first met with the property owner, staff indicated that the project would require a Special Use Permit. That 39 was part of a conversation and not a written determination, which would be required for an appeal. He continued to 40 read from the same paragraph that the property owner informed staff that the property was in farm status but Kara 41 Brewer thought it was prudent to go through the Special Use Permit process. The same paragraph states that the 42 property owner had the ability to have a wedding venue or a retreat on the property as it is recognized as a farm 43 according to state law. That fact has frustrated some residents. Andy Petesch then read from the next page, under the 44 first comment from staff, it states that the farm status is completely separate and irrelevant and has no bearing on the 45 this permit process or on the applicant being allowed to pursue a Special Use Permit proposing the development of the 46 land. Andy Petesch said at the beginning of that hearing, Michael Harvey gave a preface that the board’s purpose that 47 night was not to make a determination on the property’s status as a farm as defined under General Statutes. 48 49 11