BOA minutes 050718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED JUL Y 9, 2018 99 the subpoenas request. Beginning on Page 70 is the excerpt of the session law, The background of this is 100 as follows and is articulated in the abstract: On July 12, Session Law 2017-108 became effective,which o 101 established the use of structures on a bona fide farm. OrangeCounty received a request on October 12 102 from Andy Petesch, representing Barn of Chapel Hill/Wild Flora Farm for a determination from the county 103 on whether the property met the requirements of the sessions law and could conduct agritourism activities. 104 This request involved the structure located on the Orange County parcel identified as PIN: 9729-50-7168 105 ownedloperated by Southeast Property Group LLC (a.k.a. Wild Flora Farm), and is commonly referred to 106 as the Barn of Chapel Hill. The request was reviewed with John Roberts of the county attorney's office, and 107 after review of Andy Petesch's request, staff made a determination that the structure located on this 108 property is classified as a bona fide farm, pursuant to the provisions in General Statutes 153A-340(b)(2)a. It 109 is not subject to land use regulations as embodied within the Orange County Unified Development 110 Ordinance. Michael Harvey noted that LeAnn Brown has attached a copy of the Orange County letter, 111 within Attachment 1,which is the appeal application.As part of the submittal, LeAnn Brown, who 112 represents several adjacent property owners, had requested the chair, under his or her discretion as part of 113 local land use regulations and state statute,to issue subpoenas for requested information. That request 114 has been denied. Per request of LeAnn Brown, the full board has been asked to review that denial and 115 determine whether or not the subpoenas should be issued. 116 Michael Harvey reminded the board that attorneys representing each side, LeAnn Brown and Andy 117 Petesch, have requested that the purpose of the meeting is to review the subpoena request only. The 118 meeting is open to the public but testimony is limited to the parties that have standing. The decision to 119 issue or not issue the subpoenas is ultimately appealable to Orange County Superior Court within 30 days. 120 121 Michael Harvey then requested that the agenda packet be entered into the record. 122 123 MOTION by Barry Katz to enter the agenda packet into the record. Seconded by Randy Herman. 124 125 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 126 127 Karen Barrows said the board would give each attorney 10 minutes to address the board. 128 129 LeAnn Nease Brown addressed the board. She asked that the board find that the parties she represents 130 have standing as the board has found previously that those parties have standing. She said there is a 131 procedure in the Board of Adjustment statute that is designed to add a means by which information that 132 may be relevant to a hearing can be obtained, and that is a subpoena process. Subpoenas, as a general 133 principle, are a means by which documents or other information are brought before a tribunal, Admissibility 134 of that information is decided in the context of the hearing. Subpoena is the means by which the documents 135 can be obtained. The issuance of subpoenas is generally a ministerial act. She said there are case laws in 136 North Carolina to which she could refer but quoted Bone v. Broad for the record. She continued, stating that 137 the word relevant in the statue is informed by how the word relevant is applied in the rules of evidence. The 138 Orange County Board of Adjustment applies relaxed rules of evidence in its hearings. She noted that the 139 North Carolina General Statues §1-401 defines relevant evidence as having any tendency to make the 140 existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of an action more probable or less 141 probable than it would be without the evidence. The comments to note 401 state that dealing with 142 probability in the language of the rule has added the virtue of avoiding confusion between questions of 143 admissibility and questions of sufficiency of the evidence. It has also subsumed in it the concept of 144 materiality. 145 3