Agenda 05-21-19 8-a - Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

14 1 Michael Harvey said from a manufacturing standpoint, on page 121, there are 2 allowances in the proposed text for animal feed preparation, manufacturing, packaging and 3 distribution. He said the animal slaughtering process has been left out. He said there was 4 concern about allowing this in the Economic Development Districts (EDDs), where they may 5 negatively impact adjacent commercial operations, or could detract from locating in an EDD. 6 He said it may be time to look into whether this could be done in an industrial district, as 7 opposed to an economic district. 8 9 Commissioner McKee arrived at 8:08 p.m. 10 11 Commissioner Greene referred to the Agricultural Use District, and asked that included 12 slaughtering of livestock would that be just for that property's own use, or could the service be 13 marketed to others. 14 Michael Harvey said the Agricultural processing facility land use could market to non- 15 farmers, and are currently allowed in industrial districts. 16 Commissioner Greene said this exists currently, but not for animals. 17 Michael Harvey said correct. 18 19 A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin for 20 the Board to open the public hearing. 21 22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 23 24 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Greene to 25 close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments 26 at a later date are permitted). 27 28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 29 30 Chair Rich said the Planning Board voted 7-1 about the burden of persuasion, and she 31 did not want to discount the work put in by the Planning Board. She asked if John Roberts 32 could explain this a bit. 33 John Roberts said the burden of persuasion issue is trying to make this clearer in what 34 is required. He said during a quasi-judicial hearing, the applicant has a burden of proving by 35 clear or competent material that they have met all the requirements in the ordinance, and are 36 entitled to their permit, variance, etc. He said part of the burden of proof is that you persuade 37 the fact finder that you have presented sufficient evidence, and met your burden in complying 38 with all of the requirements. He said courts do look at the burden of persuasion. He said the 39 opponent has a burden of persuading the fact finder that the applicant has not met their burden 40 of proof, and must present evidence as such. He said having the burden of persuasion 41 included, is an attempt to clarify, but it will not get the UDO thrown out of court, and it is not 42 absolutely necessary if the BOCC decides to not include it. 43 Michael Harvey said currently under section 5.3.2 (dealing with special use permits) 44 there is language establishing a burden of proof, that through competent material evidence and 45 sworn testimony an applicant is obligated to demonstrate that he/she complies with the 46 ordinance. He said when he reviewed the UDO text amendment with the Attorney's office, it 47 was noted that similar language did not exist in sections 2.10 variances and 2.11 48 interpretations, so it was moved. He said the issue then came down to establishing, what the 49 state statute already spells out, which is there has to be a burden of persuasion. He said the