BOA agenda 111218 - cancelled - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the period for which the certificate was issued, then he thinks that it tends to support the conclusion that the Department 1 of Revenue did not intend to issue the certificate to the LLC but to Kara Brewer personally. 2 3 Barry Katz asked what would the consequence of that be. 4 5 Randy Herman said if the certificate was issued Kara Brewer and she is the holder of the certificate, she is not the 6 property owner and so in that case the building would not qualify under the statute. So, really the question is: Who is 7 the holder of the certificate, which was issued in two different names and one of which was maybe supposed to say 8 LLC but doesn’t say LLC and based on the application which has two names, one of which is the name of the LLC 9 without the LLC written? The board is trying to guess at what the Department of Revenue intended when it issued this. 10 11 Barry Katz said I don’t think the department thought that much about it. 12 13 Randy Herman said that’s part of the problem. And if you look at the certificate, I think it is pretty clear that all the 14 Department of Revenue did was copy what was written on the application. 15 16 Barry Katz said it seems that Kara Brewer was the owner and the LLC was formed later. 17 18 Randy Herman said Southeast Property Group, LLC, was the owner of the property at the time. It has since merged. 19 So, if the board is taking the facts as of today, the LLCs are the same thing but Kara Brewer as an individual is not. It 20 clearly indicates on the application that it is for an LLC but the name under applicant is not an LLC. 21 22 Barry Katz asked Randy Herman for his opinion on when the LLCs existed. 23 24 Randy Herman answered Southeast Property Group, LLC, existed earlier and Wild Flora Farm, LLC, was created in 25 early 2017. So, it existed at the time that the certificate was filed but maybe didn’t have the income. 26 27 Barry Katz asked Randy Herman that it is his opinion that this is the only thing to consider and not the arguments that 28 were made considering res judicata and collateral estoppel but he does not think they are correct because the issue 29 before the board is different from what was presented in the earlier case. 30 31 Barry Katz said one of the arguments before the board is that the board has made decisions in the past on this case 32 and the property owner hasn’t appealed those decisions in a timely manner. That should have ended it. 33 34 Randy Herman said the decision that was made earlier was that the property did not qualify for a Special Use Permit. 35 And they are not arguing now that they do qualify for a Special Use Permit. They are arguing that they don’t need a 36 Special Use Permit because they are exempt from zoning. 37 38 Barry Katz said we have heard this over and over again. 39 40 Randy Herman said that the board has been told, although he hasn’t looked through the documents to verify, that the 41 Board of Adjustment at some point earlier made the determination that there was bona fide farm use on the property. 42 43 Barry Katz said he does not think the board did. 44 45 Susan Halkiotis said if the board did, it was only with opposition because this has always been the point of contention 46 with this property. 47 48 Karen Barrows said she wasn’t sure the board was contesting that farm activities were going on but … 49 50 20