|
Approved January 14, 2019
<br /> 1 owned the property at the time the application was made was Southeast Property Group, LLC. There is no dispute
<br /> 2 about that, Wild Flora Farm, LLC, was not created until February 14, 2017. It could not have had income in 2016, The
<br /> 3 tax identification number was not obtained until April 12, 2017. The tax ID number on the documents was partially
<br /> 4 redacted. It looks similar but the document produced shows that the I❑ was obtained April 12, 2017. The articles of !
<br /> {
<br /> 5 merger for Wild Flora Farm, LLC, and Southeast Property Group, LLC,were not filed until February 19, 2018, on a plan
<br /> 6 of merger dated February 14, 2018, Nothing in the evidence suggests that an exemption certificate obtained was
<br /> 7 obtained in the name of the owner of the property, LeAnn Brown clad. There is an assumed name certificate for
<br /> 8 Southeast Property Group, LLC, to do business as Wild Flora Farm but it wasn't recorded until October 12, 2017. Here
<br /> 9 is how the staff erred. Staff determined that Kara Brewer is a memberlmanager of the LLC and therefore a certificate in
<br /> 10 her name is the same as a certificate in the name of the LLC. And then there was the merger and the names are similar
<br /> 11 so if we sort of connect the dots, it must all be the same thing, LeAnn Brown said we cannot look behind what that j
<br /> 12 certificate says and we likewise cannot do the work for someone who is applying and say well, if you'd done it right, it
<br /> 13 would say this or this. Kara Brewer is not Southeast Property Group, LLC. The fact that she is a member of it simply
<br /> 14 means she is a member of it, Just as she would not want her personal liability to be subject to any lawsuit filed against
<br /> 15 Southeast Property Group, LLC, her as an individual obtaining the certificate of exemption is not adequate to meet the
<br /> 16 statute. Unless the certificate said Southeast Property Group, LLC, related to income it earned in 2016, it would not be
<br /> 17 a certificate that meets the requirements of the statute.
<br /> 18
<br /> 19 LeAnn Brown said that Michael Harvey noted in his letter from which her party appealed in the thing that is an advisory
<br /> 20 opinion that changes in the property ownership could subject the property to the Unified Development Ordinance. It was
<br /> 21 not part of Michael Harvey's final and binding determination but she thinks it was an interesting point. She would ask i
<br /> 22 the board to find that the request to the county and the grant to the county is precluded by the doctrines of res judicata
<br /> 23 and collateral estoppel, And on the merits, if the board does not find the evidence that she asks it to find, LeAnn Brown
<br /> 24 noted the records on the documents do not show that the owner of the property at the time the application was made to
<br /> 25 the county had a tax exemption certificate. And the county cannot look beyond what the statute requires and allow
<br /> 26 someone to get a certificate in someone else's name and apply it. That is not what the statute says you can do, The
<br /> 27 statute does not say you can get the certificate in your personal name and apply it to your corporate entity. i
<br /> 28
<br /> 29 Randy Herman requested to ask a question, Karen Barrows said she would ask Andy Petesch to speak first and then
<br /> 30 give the board time to ask questions. !
<br /> 31
<br /> 32 Andy Petesch addressed the board on behalf of Kara Brewer and Wild Flora Farm, LLC, which is the successor to
<br /> 33 Southeast Property Group, LLC. Starting with the res judicata and collateral estoppel argument, LeAnn Brown brought
<br /> 34 up the issue of Michael Harvey having made a determination, Andy Petesch would submit that it was not an appealable
<br /> 35 determination at any point. It was never in writing. It was something that was verbally conveyed and as Barry Katz
<br /> 36 noted and as reflected in the minutes, it was something that Kara Brewer had volunteered to pursue. He submitted
<br /> 37 copies of an excerpt from the abstract of the Special Use Permit hearing and an excerpt from the approved minutes. He s
<br /> 38 took both from the certified record that went to the Superior Court. He has highlighted some key passages, starting with
<br /> 39 the abstract case, In staff comments, it is noted that there has been a heightened level of concern that the property
<br /> 40 meets the requirements to be classified as a farm. On the next page, the second paragraph from the bottom states that
<br /> 41 when staff first met with the property owner, staff indicated that the project would require a Special Use Permit. That
<br /> 42 was part of a conversation and not a written determination, which would be required for an appeal. He continued to
<br /> 43 read from the same paragraph that the property owner informed staff that the property was in farm status but Kara
<br /> 44 Brewer thought it was prudent to go through the Special Use Permit process. The same paragraph states that the
<br /> 45 property owner had the ability to have a wedding venue or a retreat on the property as it is recognized as a farm
<br /> 46 according to state law. That fact has frustrated some residents.Andy Petesch then read from the next page, under the
<br /> 47 first comment from staff, it states that the farm status is completely separate and irrelevant and has no bearing on the
<br /> 48 this permit process or on the applicant being allowed to pursue a Special Use Permit proposing the development of the
<br /> 49 land. Andy Petesch said at the beginning of that hearing, Michael Harvey gave a preface that the board's purpose that
<br /> 50 night was not to make a determination on the property's status as a farm as defined under General Statutes.
<br />
|