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