Browse
Search
BOA agenda 121018 - cancelled due to weather
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Agendas
>
2018
>
BOA agenda 121018 - cancelled due to weather
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2018 12:37:40 PM
Creation date
12/27/2018 12:15:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/10/2018
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.
/
399
PDF
View images
View plain text
1 Susan Halkiotis said they were added later. <br /> 2 <br /> 3 Karen Barrows said right, they were incidental to the barn. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Randy Herman said the question has to be at the time that Michael Harvey reviewed whether the property was exempt <br /> 6 from zoning, was the property exempt from zoning based on the laws that existed at that time. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Susan Halkiotis said the question tonight is with regard to Michael Harvey's determination in October 2017. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Randy Herman agreed. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Susan Halkiotis said her feeling about this is Michael Harvey made a determination based on evidence that was <br /> 13 presented to him which in his role with the Planning Department he can't question. He was looking at a certificate and <br /> 14 the new statute and he made a determination. But the appeal is based on these questions about what was presented, <br /> 15 about the validity of the certificate to begin with. If the three questions are that the board has to find positively for the <br /> 16 questions of agritourism, who owns the property, and is the owner of the property actually who the certificate is issued <br /> 17 to, she can't say that for sure. She can't vote or affirm in any way that those last two items are true. She can't say that <br /> 18 the person who owns the property is the same entity to whom the certificate was issued because of the questions that <br /> 19 have been raised. So, she wouldn't be able to find positively for all three of those questions. She is open to someone <br /> 20 arguing a different point with her. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Barry Katz agreed with Susan Halkiotis. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Karen Barrows said she thinks she is persuaded to agree with Susan Halkiotis. She had thought at the outset that this <br /> 25 was going to be clear and easy but of course it isn't. It is ambiguous. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Barry Katz asked for someone to succinctly define the ambiguity. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Randy Herman said the ambiguity is that in order to support the determination of staff, the board would have to find that <br /> 30 the owner of the property was also the holder of the certificate. And the way that the name is reported on the certificate <br /> 31 and the way the name is reported on the application, it is not clear that the person who holds the certificate is the same <br /> 32 person who is the owner of the property. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Susan Halkiotis asked James Bryan whether the board has to make three motions, noting that on James Bryan's slide, <br /> 35 there were motions regarding the findings of fact, conclusions, and affirming/reversing/modifying staff determination. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 James Bryan recommended that the board make three separate motions. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Randy Herman said the board can make each of the findings of fact motions separately. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Susan Halkiotis checked with James Bryan that the question still comes under the substantial qualification because she <br /> 42 is figuring out how to word the findings of fact. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Randy Herman said he doesn't think it does. He does not think that there is any question of whether the certificate is <br /> 45 valid. He does not think there is question of whether the certificate is substantial. It is what it is. But it concerns him still <br /> 46 a little bit because he thinks all the other indicators on the application indicate that it was supposed to be an application <br /> 47 for an LLC and the wrong name was put in on Line 3 and if Kara Brewer had put the name of the LLC on Line 3 then <br /> 48 there would be no question. So, basically the board is saying that she does not qualify because she made a small error <br /> 49 in her paperwork. That may be the right decision but it is concerning to him to look at it that way, he said. <br /> 50 <br /> 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
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).