BOA agenda 011419 - cancelled - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Draft August 13, 2018 Susan Halkiotis said they were added later.1 2 Karen Barrows said right, they were incidental to the barn.3 4 Randy Herman said the question has to be at the time that Michael Harvey reviewed whether the property was exempt 5 from zoning, was the property exempt from zoning based on the laws that existed at that time.6 7 Susan Halkiotis said the question tonight is with regard to Michael Harvey’s determination in October 2017.8 9 Randy Herman agreed.10 11 Susan Halkiotis said her feeling about this is Michael Harvey made a determination based on evidence that was 12 presented to him which in his role with the Planning Department he can’t question. He was looking at a certificate and 13 the new statute and he made a determination. But the appeal is based on these questions about what was presented, 14 about the validity of the certificate to begin with. If the three questions are that the board has to find positively for the15 questions of agritourism, who owns the property, and is the owner of the property actually who the certificate is issued 16 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 17 the person who owns the property is the same entity to whom the certificate was issued because of the questions that 18 have been raised. So, she wouldn’t be able to find positively for all three of those questions. She is open to someone 19 arguing a different point with her.20 21 Barry Katz agreed with Susan Halkiotis.22 23 Karen Barrows said she thinks she is persuaded to agree with Susan Halkiotis. She had thought at the outset that this 24 was going to be clear and easy but of course it isn’t. It is ambiguous. 25 26 Barry Katz asked for someone to succinctly define the ambiguity.27 28 Randy Herman said the ambiguity is that in order to support the determination of staff, the board would have to find that 29 the owner of the property was also the holder of the certificate. And the way that the name is reported on the certificate 30 and the way the name is reported on the application, it is not clear that the person who holds the certificate is the same 31 person who is the owner of the property. 32 33 Susan Halkiotis asked James Bryan whether the board has to make three motions, noting that on James Bryan’s slide, 34 there were motions regarding the findings of fact, conclusions, and affirming/reversing/modifying staff determination. 35 36 James Bryan recommended that the board make three separate motions. 37 38 Randy Herman said the board can make each of the findings of fact motions separately.39 40 Susan Halkiotis checked with James Bryan that the question still comes under the substantial qualification because she 41 is figuring out how to word the findings of fact. 42 43 Randy Herman said he doesn’t think it does. He does not think that there is any question of whether the certificate is 44 valid. He does not think there is question of whether the certificate is substantial. It is what it is. But it concerns him still 45 a little bit because he thinks all the other indicators on the application indicate that it was supposed to be an application 46 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 47 there would be no question. So, basically the board is saying that she does not qualify because she made a small error 48 in her paperwork. That may be the right decision but it is concerning to him to look at it that way, he said. 49 50 21