Browse
Search
BOA agenda 111218 - cancelled
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Agendas
>
2018
>
BOA agenda 111218 - cancelled
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2018 3:11:20 PM
Creation date
11/13/2018 2:51:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/12/2018
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
391
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
certificate, etc., etc., can we do that? Can we question the trustworthiness of the evidence and therefore the 1 <br />competence of the evidence? 2 <br /> 3 <br />James Bryan said that is nuanced. The trustworthiness speaks to a piece of evidence for what it is proffered to be. For 4 <br />instance, if you were to have an affidavit from somebody and you don’t know whether that’s their true statement, 5 <br />whether it’s notarized and things like that speak to the trustworthiness of the affidavit. The actual substance of it, that’s 6 <br />not the competency that they’re talking about with the rules of evidence. For instance, if you were to have a case that 7 <br />dealt with traffic, if you had an engineer’s sealed report that it would increase traffic tenfold, then you would have a 8 <br />competency issue with the trustworthiness of it if he wasn’t an engineer. If he gave the same report and you just didn’t 9 <br />believe him, saying that he was only out there one day and it was a Saturday, not a Monday, that’s a very poor report 10 <br />and I just can’t trust your conclusions, that’s different. That goes to whether there is substantial evidence of something 11 <br />being there. 12 <br /> 13 <br />Susan Halkiotis said then she has questions about the substantial qualifications for this evidence, I guess. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Karen Barrows said I think we can still close the public hearing and still speak with James Bryan. She asked if that is 16 <br />correct. 17 <br /> 18 <br />James Bryan answered that she was correct. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Karen Barrows called for a motion to close the public hearing. 21 <br /> 22 <br />MOTION by Randy Herman to close the public hearing. Barry Katz seconded. 23 <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS 24 <br /> 25 <br />Randy Herman said not having been here for any of the previous iterations of this case, as James Bryan stated there 26 <br />are only three issues that the board has to determine: whether a tax certificate was issued, whether the person who 27 <br />owned the property was the holder of the certificate, and whether the structure is used for agritourism. There is a pretty 28 <br />clear definition of agritourism in the statute. And he does not think that anyone is seriously contending that it does not 29 <br />meet that definition and no one is really questioning whether the tax certificate was issued so really the only question 30 <br />that remains is whether the person who owns the property is the same person who holds the certificate. And then the 31 <br />board has to look at specifically what does the certificate say and what does the application for the certificate say. And 32 <br />it’s interesting because it is pretty clear that if you just look at the certificate it does not say LLC, it just says Wild Flora 33 <br />Farm, which is not necessarily the same thing. But if you go back and look at the application that was submitted, it 34 <br />clearly shows a federal employer identification number, that it is an LLC is clearly checked, but on the other hand if you 35 <br />look under No. 3, it says the applicant’s legal name is Kara Brewer. It doesn’t say Wild Flora Farm, LLC. So, the 36 <br />application kind of goes both ways and it isn’t clear from the application who actually is applying. And there’s evidence 37 <br />that could support either conclusion in there, so he doesn’t know. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Barry Katz asked Randy Herman to reiterate the three items for consideration, which he did. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Barry Katz said there has been argument that the entity in 2016 was not the same entity as what’s on the document in 42 <br />2017. That’s a problem. 43 <br /> 44 <br />Randy Herman said there are two different ways you can look at that. You can say the certificate was issued in error 45 <br />and shouldn’t have been issued because maybe the information provided on the return was inaccurate or was 46 <br />fraudulent or something and he doesn’t think the board can consider that kind of argument because once the certificate 47 <br />is issued, the board has to take it at face value. But, he does think it goes toward the question of who was the intended 48 <br />holder of the certificate; was it Kara Brewer or was it the LLC. And if the fact is that the LLC did not have any income for 49 <br />19
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.