BOA agenda 111218 - cancelled - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Andy Petesch said he would disagree with that characterization of it. There was never an error made. It was indicated 1 to Kara Brewer that she could have pursued either option but one was a faster option. It did not work out but that did not 2 mean that she is precluded from pursuing the other. 3 4 Barry Katz said that the board has heard that it may be, depending on what case law you’re looking at, that she is 5 precluded. And then there is this issue that the board has heard that there is an ownership discontinuity. Would Andy 6 Petesch get to that as well? 7 8 Andy Petesch said he would. He said LeAnn Brown did not present any case that is squared on the facts of this case 9 and he has shown the board several reasons why this case is distinguished from other cases. 10 11 Barry Katz said the board has not had time to look at the cases that either Andy Petesch or LeAnn Brown has 12 presented and has not made any determination at all. 13 14 Andy Petesch said the Board of Adjustment does not have the equitable powers to make such a determination. He 15 believes the power is too broad for this board and the board’s powers are more narrowly prescribed. 16 17 Barry Katz asked if Andy Petesch believes that this would be better decided by Superior Court. 18 19 Andy Petesch answered that he believes LeAnn Brown needs to raise the issue now for it to be considered in Superior 20 Court and he does not believe this board has the authority granted by the state to adjudicate res judicata and collateral 21 estoppel issues. He said he thinks it would be potentially different in a case where you have a very clear Special Use 22 Permit being submitted because that usually is included in the language of the UDO with regards to submitting a 23 substantially similar application but in this case, we’re talking about something very different from that. 24 25 Karen Barrows asked Barry Katz to hold his questions. 26 27 Andy Petesch said to address the merits of the materials that have been submitted with respect to Michael Harvey’s 28 decision, referring to the agenda packet, the application for a qualifying farmer exemption certificate on Page 70, LeAnn 29 Brown tried to indicate that it would be unreasonable for the staff to go behind the Department of Revenue but he would 30 submit that the application clearly references that if the owner is an entity, partnership or LLC, enter the tax ID number 31 on Line 1. Kara Brewer gave the identification number of the LLC and it has been partially redacted but its last three 32 numbers clearly match that of Kara Brewer and Wild Flora Farm. It is the LLC that has made the application and that is 33 further underscored on the profit-and-loss Schedule F, the 1040 form, that again the Wild Flora Farm is the proprietor 34 and the ID number. It also includes a social security number that has been redacted. A single-member LLC Wild Flora 35 Farm, LLC, sole member, also part of plan of merger on Page 74 indicated under paragraph 4 that Kara Brewer was 36 the sole member of Southeast Property Group and Wild Flora Farm. When you have a single member LLC, it is not 37 regarded differently from Kara Brewer herself for tax purposes. From a Department of Revenue standpoint, there is 38 zero difference between Kara Brewer and Wild Flora Farm, LLC, but it is clear that the certificate is issued to Wild Flora 39 Farm, LLC, and not a DBA because the federal tax ID number is listed specifically there connecting it. Whether there 40 was a typo in terms of the pen not listing LLC or whether she put her name on the wrong line, those things are 41 irrelevant or at least it is within Michael Harvey’s power and this board’s power to look at this and make a finding of fact 42 that it was indeed Wild Flora Farm, LLC, that was issued the certificate. While Southeast Property Group, LLC, was the 43 property owner of the time, in October 2017, the merger process had been started and it became effective in February 44 of 2018. The certification of merger was recorded with the Orange County Register of Deeds February 14, 2018. This is 45 a de novo review by this board that Wild Flora Farm is the owner of this property and is also the holder of the qualifying 46 farmer exemption and therefore it meets the statutory standard. As far as it being used for agritourism, Paragraph 2 (a) 47 clearly addresses wedding, meals as being agritourism activities. He requested that this board affirm Michael Harvey’s 48 determination that Wild Flora Farm, LLC, Kara Brewer, The Barn of Chapel Hill, however you want to frame it, meets 49 the statutory requirements and is therefore exempt from the UDO and other zoning regulations of Orange County. 50 13