MINUTES
STATE
OF
The Henderson County Board of
Commissioners met for a special called meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the
Commissioners' Conference Room of the
Those present were: Chairman
Absent was: Commissioner
Shannon Baldwin who had previously been recused from the proceedings.
QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
Chairman Hawkins called the
meeting to order.
Chairman Hawkins – “When we
uh, uh, when we uh, were last meeting we were looking at some uh, uh, a list of
uh, items that the Planning Board had presented to uh, Mr. Campano and I think
they’ve had an opportunity to uh, discuss those some. And I, and I think
everybody else that was a party got a lo, a look at it. Is that correct Mrs.
Beeker?”
Angela Beeker – “That’s
correct.”
Chairman Hawkins – “The list
of things. So uh, let’s just pick back up and uh, on discussion on that list of
items uh, and uh, uh, for the petitioner
if you wanna uh, address that to the Board where uh, where ya’ll ended up on
that we’ll proceed after that.”
Gaston Campano – “I’m not
sure if you want me to go through each of the items but we did actually go
through the list that uh, was put together uh, by the County and addressed each
of the items in and put together uh, effectively a document that clarified uh,
everything that was involved with the comments and gave effectively our uh,
what we plan on doing with those items just so it was pretty clear what the
intent is all the way through. And I’m happy to go one by one through them if
you feel it’s necessary but they are all written down on a, a three page
sheet.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay. Uh,
do we, do we have that Mrs. Beeker?”
Angela Beeker – “Um, I placed
it in your boxes, but I might need to go make some more copies.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Um, I’ve
got something that looks that. Let me see if it’s.”
Commissioner Young – “Here we
can share this.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay,
it’s on the back of that?”
Angela Beeker – “It’s an
attachment to the notice that went out.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay.”
Angela Beeker – “All the
parties should have gotten a copy of that as well.”
Chairman Hawkins – “I, I
think I have one uh.”
Angela Beeker – “I’ll be
happy to make some more copies if I need to.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Uh, let
me just see if I, I, mine’s here if I can just lay my hands on it.”
Gaston Campano – “Labeled uh,
Fox Glen conditions on the top. There’s seventeen items and then there’s a chart,
or table on the last page.”
Chairman Hawkins – “On the
bottom of the, bottom of the stack. Okay, let me uh.”
Angela Beeker – “Do you have
it?”
Commissioner Moyer – “Yeah,
we got one. We have ‘em here.”
Angela Beeker – “Okay.”
Commissioner Moyer – “Can we
ask that the, image of that document be dated?”
Angela Beeker – “Sure.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Other
than 8 October?”
Commissioner Moyer – “No uh.”
Chairman Hawkins – “…the uh.”
Commissioner Moyer – “That’s
the date of her letter but that wouldn’t necessarily be the date of the uh.”
Chairman Hawkins –
“Document.”
Commissioner Moyer – “Of the
document. There’s so many.”
Angela Beeker – “Would you
want to put.”
Gaston Campano – “Today’s
date?”
Commissioner Young – “Today’s
date?”
Gaston Campano – “We’d be
happy with today’s date.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay,
well I, I, don’t know that we uh, need to go through each and every one of
these uh, at the moment. I’d just ask if uh, uh, if any of the um, other
parties have questions on uh, uh, any of these uh, I guess there was 17, or
three pages of uh, items that should have come in your uh, in you notification.
I think we notified everybody that was a party to the proceedings. Karen, do,
do you have some questions and comments on ‘em ?”
Karen Smith – “Yeah I just,
um, Mr. Smith and I have tried to up over the past couple days and haven’t been
able to. On #10 I just wanted to see if in the second sentence if they wanted
to add it ‘Shall have no limits placed on the hours of operation by the
County’. Didn’t know if you would intend to place your own hours of operation
on um, people in the future.”
Gaston Campano – “Um, I’m
sorry I don’t fully understand…”
Karen Smith – “Okay. I meant,
okay. This says that any facility used by the residents or the guests shall
have no limits placed on hours of operation. I was gonna see if…”
Gaston Campano – “…I think
that’s fine.”
Karen Smith – “Okay.”
Gaston Campano – “That’s
fine.”
Karen Smith – “Or by
Gaston Campano – “That, that’s
correct and then, that may not be in there but we did agree and we will agree
and be glad to add that in there that the l, the lots will not have direct
access to either Patty’s Chapel or
Chairman Hawkins – “Oh okay.”
Luther Smith – “Vehicular
access.”
Karen Smith – “Oh,
vehicular.”
Commissioner Messer – “So the
vested rights you’re asking are for five years right?”
Gaston Campano – “That’s
correct.”
Karen Smith – “That’s all I
had Mr. Chairman.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay are
uh, the, that would if you’re gonna put that in like number 18 wouldn’t have
direct access to Howard Gap or Patty’s Chapel except by the plotted roads?”
Gaston Campano – “Uh, that’s
correct it would be vehicular access uh, would be limited to the internal road
ways and there’d be no direct vehicular access to the lots from Patty’s Chapel
or Howard Gap Road.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay. For
those of you that are parties to the hearing do you have any questions for Mr.
Campano on the uh, letter uh, that you received that had these, uh, three pages
of uh, items addressed? Any, anybody have any questions on that?”
Angela Beeker – “Mr.
Chairman, it might be a good idea to have the parties who are here to identify
themselves for the record so that we know.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay, let’s
see. We can do that. If, if you’ve been made a party to the proceedings would
uh, would you just kinda hold your hand up and let me see who’s here? Um, let
see, sir what, what was your name?”
Bruce Thompson – “Bruce
Thompson.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay, Mr.
Bruce Thompson. And who is the other parties?”
Donna Riley – “Donna Riley.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Mrs.
Riley. Okay and.”
Jane Berry – “Jane Berry,
Berry Boys Inc.”
Chairman Hawkins – “And who
was the other party? You were, you were a witness I think weren’t you? Okay.
There, there’s a little different rules for witnesses and parties. Okay and who
was the last one mam, I, I didn’t catch your name?”
Jane Berry – “I’m Mrs. Jane
Berry.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Jane
Berry.”
Jane Berry – “Yeah. Berry
Boys Inc.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay.
Does, does any of ya’ll have any questions uh, or, for the petitioner on the
document we just addressed? The three pages of um, issues that the Planning
Board had sent over to be considered?”
Bruce Thompson – “Yeah
actually I did…”
Chairman Hawkins – “Come on
up please uh, Mr. Thompson and uh. Did you, did you get a copy of all these
with your?”
Bruce Thompson – “Yeah.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay.”
Bruce Thompson – “But like an
idiot I left it at the house.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Would you
like a co, another copy?”
Bruce Thompson – “No I’m fine
on that. He’s talking vested rights for five years. What exactly does that
mean? I don’t understand that part, whether it’s, I mean, why would it be five
years, one year or two years.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Uh, let
us get into that a little bit further on. Di, d, do you have any specific
questions on.”
Bruce Thompson – “Um, no…”
Chairman Hawkins – “On these
documents.”
Bruce Thompson – “…just on
that vested right thing.”
Chairman Hawkins – “We’ll,
we’ll talk to that in a, in a few minutes.”
Bruce Thompson – “Okay thank
you.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Does any
Board have any questions on the uh.”
Commissioner Young – “Karen
gonna call Bo Caldwell in a minute?”
Chairman Hawkins – “She
can’t.”
Commissioner Young – “Okay.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Uh, he’s
not been made a party.”
Commissioner Young – “Oh,
okay.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Um, okay,
where was I. Uh, lets see. Uh, any questions for the Board for the petitioner
on the three page document. Di, did you have some questions?”
Donna Riley – “Yes I do.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Would you
come on and take the mic please?”
Donna Riley – “Certainly. And
I’m not sure if this is exactly the point to address them. Uh, I’m Donna Riley
and it was to do with the turning areas on
Chairman Hawkins – “So is
your question in reference to Number 16, uh, for Mr. Campano, is that uh,
directed to, to how he thinks the NCDOT is gonna redesign that.?”
Donna Riley – “I guess it’d
be how that’s going to work out because, and also to the Board that I want my
rights protected. Uh, I have you know letters from the Health Department and
letters from the Board of Ed. attorney and I have dealt with Sam Neill my
attorney at that point and we are in no way able to deed land to the DOT, the
Board of Ed. or Mr. Campano.”
Chairman Hawkins – “And, and your,
your property is from the main entrance is it to the north uh, uh, on, on
Donna Riley – “...for the DOT
to come over requesting right-of-ways because I have two apartment buildings
and, you know, I have a letter here from the Health Department stating that
both, one of my my fields runs directly up to the 10 foot setback from Howard
Gap Road itself, not from where everybody assumes that I have fence but the
property goes to the road and when we count setbacks we go to the road so 10
foot from the road is where my septic fields do start.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Let, let
me then give Mr. Campano a chance to respond to that. Do you know how the, at
least the DOT’s thinking about designing that?”
Gaston Campano – “What I
would like to do is call Luther.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay.”
Gaston Campano – “Um, he’s
very, he’s been dealing with DOT on this. And I’m not, I was trying to figure out
where your property exactly was.”
Donna Riley – “Okay, it’s uh,
actually it was…would be right here directly next to the school.”
Luther Smith – “So north of
the school or south of the school? Towards, towards the hospital…”
Chairman Hawkins – “Probably
be north of the entrance on Howard Gap if, cause I think that’s where you said
it was wasn’t it?”
Donna Riley – “…the apartment
building, split rail fence in the front.”
Luther Smith – “Okay if I, if
I can clarify when we started…”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay,
would you take mic uh, please just so we can pick it up for verbatim
transcript. Thank you.”
Luther Smith – “My name is
Luther Smith. If I can clarify for you when we started this hearing we had an
application in to DOT to do improvements to the road. All of the improvements
that we were proposing would have taken right-of-way out of our side, or our
property. DOT’s response was, they asked us to put a hold on those things
because they were looking at doing something with the road. What they end up
doing we have no control over. Uh, I will say in regards to your, your
particular problem um … on the other side of the road actually piece of
property, they took the whole piece of property so that’s something they would
have to deal with if, if they took your right-of-way.”
Donna Riley – “Okay well I
have…”
Luther Smith – “But, but the
improvements we’re talking about all that right-of-way would still come out of
our side only.”
Gaston Campano – “And if I
may add that uh, just to clarify that what DOT is doing on Howard Gap Road, uh,
and the planning that they’re doing on that road is unrelated to this project.
It’s something that’s actually ongoing, uh, regardless of this project at this
stage.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay.”
Donna Riley – “But your
statements you know that you have replanned your organization at the last
meeting if I’m not mistaken based on information, and I guess what I was
saying, it will require condemnation in order to get the property because there
is no land, as in your case, to redo septic fields there.”
Chairman Hawkins – “I, I think what Mr. Campano is saying is that DOT moves in
their own uh, in their own circle.”
Donna Riley – “I know but I
wanted the County Commissioners to understand you know that I am a property owner
there and when you give them rights to do that, that very adversely affects.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Well I, I
don’t think the Board would give DOT any rights they, they take whatever they
need. We don’t have any control over them either. Okay any other questions?”
Donna Riley – “Okay.”
Angela Beeker – “Mr. Chairman
for the record, Karen do you have an extra copy of, a reduced copy that, that
Mrs. Riley could take and mark as Riley’s Exhibit 1 and put an X where here
prop, or indicate where her property is.”
Donna Riley – “Okay. I also
have cop.”
Angela Beeker – “Jus, just so
that we can for the record locate where your property is. Um, could you use the
vicinity map?”
Indistinguishable discussion
away from the microphone.
Angela Beeker – “Okay.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay. Are
there any other, uh, any other questions of Mr. Campano on the, the three page
letter from any of the other parties?”
Jane Berry – “Are we allowed
to make comments?”
Chairman Hawkins – “You’ll be
able to in just a minute. Unless you have a specific question, now is the time
to ask a specific question. And Mrs. Riley if you’d just give that to the Clerk
we’ll uh, we’ll have that for our record.”
Donna Riley – “Okay, I do
have information here from the School Board of Education attorneys and my
attorneys going back and forth on it. Because I’m very supportive of the school,
and I couldn’t even give it to them.”
Angela Beeker – “When it’s your
turn to present evidence if you would like you can submit all of that as part
of your evidence and, up to you.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay.
Okay, we’ve got the um, petitioners evidence. Is the uh, now we’ll call for
evidence from the other parties. Um, if, if you’re a party to the hearing you
have evidence that you wanna present. Mrs. Riley did you wanna present that uh,
those other documents you had in evidence.”
Donna Riley – “Well, you said
the DOT would do what they wanted. Do you want this in evidence?”
Chairman Hawkins – “Well you, you can still present, if uh, if you think that’s
germane uh. But uh, as far as the, the Board and vested rights and, and how DOT
runs the uh, designs the uh, entry and exit uh, we’re not gonna have much to do
with that. Uh, whatever the Board, whatever the Board does or doesn’t do DOT is
probably gonna do some work on
Donna Riley – “I understand
that but it was my understanding in talking with uh, Jabbo Pressley and the
people from the DOT that they were going on their side of the road where, you
know, that I, I have kinda given a slight easement to the school but that you
know other than purchasing the entire apartment buildings that would be the
only”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay.”
Donna Riley – “option
available.”
Commissioner Messer – “Mrs.
Riley, so basically what you’re saying is you want that as evidence so that we
and the state and everybody else that’s involved knows that you come to us.”
Donna Riley – “That I have
come to the
Commissioner Messer – “I
think it would be good to do that personally I mean.”
Donna Riley – “Okay.”
Commissioner Messer – “You
can do whatever but.”
Donna Riley – “Like I say.”
Chairman Hawkins – “You just
submit that to uh, Ms. Brantley over there.”
Donna Riley – “Here’s a
letter from the Health Department. Could you get me a copy of it though cause
I. A copy of the letter from the Health Department. Let’s see.”
Angela Beeker – “Are there
several documents because we’ll go copy them for everybody.”
Donna Riley – “Um.”
Chairman Hawkins – “David
could you do that for us?”
Chairman Hawkins – “And then
we’ll, we’ll give you the originals back and we’ll enter those into evidence.”
Donna Riley – “...letters
from the Board of Education attorney.”
Indistinguishable discussion
away from the microphone.
Chairman Hawkins – “Is there
any other parties that evidence you wanna present? Alright um, I think we’re
ready for rebuttal evidence on your scenario. Does, uh, does anyone have any
rebuttal evidence that they wanna present?”
Commissioner Moyer – “That
lady, one lady had some comments back there.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Yeah.”
Gaston Campano – “One item
that I do need to uh, put into the record. Uh, when we had, when we reviewed
the comments we realized that there were several comments about the
recreational buildings and facilities and their location. So we did do a new
site plan. Uh the only dif, there’s two differences between this and the one
you have. They do show specific locations of building, for the recreation
facility and the same location where the recreation facility was shown to be
located. And then we also just to clarify, did show the, a separate little lot
for the sewer lift station. Uh, you know to go ahead and figure that there will
be a deeded lot that will come out of that at some point in time for the sewer
lift station. I’d like to admit these into evidence.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Has the
parties been able to see those?”
Angela Beeker – “He can take
it back there. So this is now what your.”
Chairman Hawkins – “This is a
new site specific plan?”
Angela Beeker – “This, this
is the one that.”
Gaston Campano – “It is a
site specific plan that clarifies what we used to show a area in the rec.
facility just located, and this is the area where the rec. facility was going
but nothing in there. Now we’re showing exactly what’s in there which
effectively includes a pool, uh, a building, a cabana and a play, uh,
playground area for.”
Angela Beeker – “That was in
response to some of Karen’s comments right?”
Gaston Campano – “That’s
correct, that was in response to some of Karen’s comments that we should be
showing what is going in this lot that we were calling the recreation area.”
Chairman Hawkins – “And would
you share that with Mrs. Smith and the other parties so they can see what
you’re talking about.”
Indistinguishable discussion
away from the microphone.
Commissioner Moyer – “Well if
you gotta take, if you have to take a site for the lift station you may
actually lose one site right. If I understood you correctly.”
Gaston Campano – “Uh no that
uh, the site is in uh, is number one. It’s a very small, let me show you what
we’re talking about.”
Gaston Campano – “Uh it
should usually be on the bottom on the title block.”
Commissioner Moyer – “Luther
makes ‘em so small you need to have a magnifying glass to uh.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Did you
need the date of this.”
Gaston Campano –
“…effectively the changes occurring are showing these facilities within the
area …”
Commissioner Young – “…just
showing…”
Gaston Campano – “Right. So
that was showing what we’re putting in there.”
Commissioner Young – “Yeah.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Where’s
the lift station?”
Gaston Campano – “The lift
station is over here and it’s just that tiny little box.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay.”
Gaston Campano – “At the top
of the site. The changes that are occurring is showing what’s happening in the
recreation area. And the little box I’m talking about is this little lot.”
Commissioner Moyer – “Oh
geez.”
Gaston Campano – “But it also
needs to be dedicated on…”
Commissioner Moyer –
“Alright.”
Gaston Campano – “…separated
as a separate parcel at that point.”
Angela Beeker – “And, and for
the record it’s dated October 5, 2004.”
Commissioner Messer – “Gus I,
I guess for the record give us a little bit of detail in depth about the lift
station and the sewer and where all it’s coming from, you know, from that
because we do have a, uh, a School Board member here. I think there were some
question last meeting about, you know.”
Gaston Campano – “What the
situation is with the uh, with the lift station, okay. Number one what I’d like
to clarify is that we can get sewer out there. Uh, we can put in a lift station
at this pay, at this point and put in a force main, uh, by teaming up with a
publicly, what do they call it a uh, public utility effectively. Uh, a private
public utility which is monitored by the State. Uh, and we could install a lift
station at the location and run another line parallel to the school line, and
effectively complete the site at this point in time. Uh, we have not done that
because to do that we do have to enter into some agreements or work out some
kind of venture with a utility company not unlike some of the ones that exist
in other places in the County. We feel that what we should do is eliminate
these two parallel systems going side by side but to do that we’re gonna have
to have some discussions with the school in order to get rid of their lift
station. And use the existing force main that presently runs there so we don’t
have two parallel systems. Uh, Mountain Engineering has already done a
preliminary schematic drawing of what it would take to eliminate the school’s
lift station, run it over to a new lift station that would meet all of the
public utility standards and use the existing force main. All the school system
would then go by gravity to the new lift station. Uh, the, the sch, that
particular drawing was given uh, to the, a representative of the school system
and they have looked at it and they have told us preliminary, they do like the
idea. That they’d like to get rid of, rid of their lift station. They don’t
wanna be in the sewer business. Uh they’re just gonna wanna put together some
assurances that this will continue in good operation. As long as they’re
comfortable that they’re gonna get an operating lift station or operating, you
know, to be able to deal with their sewage uh, they don’t wanna be in the sewer
business. So before we get into agreements, we, in any other way we wanna
explore all those possibilities and try to find a way to eliminate that. Uh,
there’s a certain point in time where there may be some conversations that
should be had with the sewer district as well which we don’t wanna do until
after everything is far along. Uh, but there’s a number of different things
that can happen. We do have a solution, it is possible now. We don’t think it’s
the best solution and so we wanna keep exploring what the best solutions are as
we move forward. If that helps clarify. You got any other questions regarding
that or.”
Commissioner Young – “Um did,
do you, do you concur with that Mr. Caldwell?”
Chairman Hawkins – “We, we,
we’ll have to wait till we can him, if he’s gonna be called as a witness. Um,
okay, but um, is there any uh, other rebuttal evidence uh, some lady back in
the back wanted to, uh, that was a party did you have some comments that you
wanted to make.”
Jane Berry – “I wanted to
make a comment about the whole development. I …or not.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Um, maybe
in closing remarks we get to that. Okay let me ask now if any of the uh, uh,
parties have any uh, witnesses that they wanna call or, or question. Any
witnesses? Do any Board members have any questions of, uh, any, we didn’t have
any witness. Yes mam, would you take the mic.”
Valorie Edmunds – “I have
some questions is it time for questions?”
Chairman Hawkins – “Are you a
party to the hearings.”
Valorie Edmunds – “Yes I am.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Would you
come forward then. What was your name please.”
Valorie Edmunds – “My name is
Valorie Edmunds.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay Ms.
Edmunds. An uh, what, what was your question or comment.”
Valorie Edmunds – “I have a
couple questions. Um, first of all is there going to be a, a wooden fence between
the subdivisions and this property, a privacy fence?”
Chairman Hawkins – “Uh, I’ll
have to direct that to the uh, petitioner. Could, could you answer that
question?”
Gaston Campano – “We don’t
have any shown, but I would have no problem in the places where it’s adequate,
where we wouldn’t have to tear down any trees to agree to put in a wooden fence
between the areas where there are, you know, certain number of homes and, and
this particular property. Uh, I would have no problem adding that if that would
make you more comfortable.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Does that
answer your question? Do you have another one?”
Valorie Edmunds – “Yes I have
one more. Um, the other question is, is the pool going to be in an enclosed
area or a closed building?”
Gaston Campano – “Our intent
right now is not to have an indoor pool uh, but the pool would have uh,
adequate safety measures in regards to the appropriate fencing, self closing
gates as are required in those kind of public pools.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Does that
answer all your questions?”
Valorie Edmunds – “At this
moment yes.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay.
Mrs. Beeker I believe we’re ready for closing remarks unless you know something
that we’ve missed.”
Angela Beeker – “I don’t
think so.”
Karen Smith – “Did the Board
want me to call um, Bo Caldwell.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Uh,
pleasure of the Board.”
Karen Smith – “Or, I didn’t
know that, I heard you had a question.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Did you
wanna call him as a witness?”
Karen Smith – “I can unless
the Board wanted to yourself.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Does the
Board have some questions for Mr. Caldwell?”
Commissioner Young – “I just
wanted to hear the school system’s side of the sewer and also the traffic uh,
intersection and stuff, their feeling.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Have,
have you been sworn Mr. Caldwell?”
Karen Smith – “…been sworn.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay, uh
if you’re gonna be called as a witness we probably need to swear you.”
Angela Beeker – “Are you
calling him as a witness?”
Karen Smith – “I can, unless
the Board wants me to. I don’t care. Can they call him?”
Angela Beeker – “Does the
petitioner have any objection to the um, Bo Caldwell coming and answering some
questions from the Board?”
Gaston Campano – “No we have no objection.”
Angela Beeker – “Okay.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Mr.
Caldwell if you’d come up and be sworn then uh, I think Commissioner Young has
uh, has some question, uh, has a question for you.”
Bo Caldwell – “I do.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay um,
Mr. Caldwell is a, a witness here for uh, Mrs. Smith and uh Larry you had some
questions you wanted to ask him?”
Commissioner Young – “Well you heard Mr. Campano’s um, statement on the sewer
line and I just wanted to know if you concur with that one, one thing.”
Bo Caldwell – “Right. Um,
thank you Mr. Young for letting me share uh, our thoughts as far as
Commissioner Young – “Okay
one other question. There was some um, discussion about the uh, safety and the
traffic, uh, flow, uh, by putting their intersection directly across from the,
from the school system and putting a traffic light in there and turning lanes.”
Bo Caldwell – “Well there is
a traffic light there already I think, right at the Fletcher intersection. Um,
you know a lot of times when you have a traffic light at a school intersection
is, is much more safe than we do at some of our schools which have no traffic
lights on which you have basically uncontrolled people pulling in and pulling
out. Uh, we have not looked at the, at the traffic flow plans per se. Uh, we
trust that DOT and their engineers know what we’ve got over there. Uh, we do
have a precious cargo in children but I assure that the DOT would take all safety
uh, precautions in, in knowing that their engineers would look at it that if
you did approve this they would be safe for the children of Fletcher Elementary
School.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Any other
questions?”
Commissioner Messer – “Bo,
has anyone from the uh, uh, school department talked to DOT about the possible
changes on
Bo Caldwell – “No sir. No, no
one from DOT has, has talked to the school system about any improvements any
changes to, to uh, Howard Gap. No sir. Not, not that I know of. They have not
talked to me and, and they may have talked to uh, Dr. Page but I’m sure in his
being new and if it deals with facilities he’s quickly calling me and telling
me to take care of ‘em , so I doubt that that’s happened.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Any other
questions from the Board. Does of any of the other parties have questions for
this witness? Yes mam would you come up and ask it?”
Indistinguishable discussion
from the back of the room.
Chairman Hawkins – “I’m
sorry.”
Unknown – “It’s for Glade
Holdings it’s not for.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay not
this witness? Okay. Any other que, uh, questions for our witness.”
Donna Riley – “Yeah. Donna
Riley again. Hi. Um, I’ve had several conversations with Shirley McGee the
Principal and I know for a fact that she has very strong misgivings about the
amount of traffic flow. I would assume she has shared those with you.”
Bo Caldwell – “I have talked
to Ms. McGee. Of course Ms. McGee’s issue is, is traffic flow not only due to a
new sub-development but as Howard Gap in general. Um, there’s a, you know,
traffic flow on Howard Gap whether you deal with a new sub-development or dump
trucks or anything else on that road uh, I think it’s been known that that is a
pretty dangerous, dangerous highway. Um, and I, I’m sure that’s probably why
DOT is looking at that. Ms. McGee has talked to me about, about the
sub-development um, she is, she, she does know that there will be some issue
with the uh, with the sub-development with traffic across the, across the
street. Of course she’s also concerned about the number of families that, that
are moving in there. Um, about capacity. Um, but of course as a school system
whether they build it across the street, up the road or ten miles in our
district we are there to educate those children. So wherever they put it, we
will, we will take those children and, and try to prepare, provide all their
needs.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Thank
you. Any other questions uh, for uh, the witness.”
Donna Riley – “Okay I guess
just since you say you haven’t talked to the DOT I guess the question would be
why.”
Bo Caldwell – “Well I was
kinda waiting for this to, you know, be a, be approved and, and, um, be honest
with you I think that’s DOT’s job once they approve this, then it would be DOT,
you know, and my, and us to talk together um, about making sure what’s safe.”
Donna Riley – “Okay cause,
Mr. Grady has just kindof given me the opinion that what their decision is, has
nothing to do with the, the DOT is that not correct?”
Chairman Hawkins – “Well if,
if, if the Board decides to, to vest right the, uh, the uh, the subdivision
then obviously all the things that go with the subdivision would be there. But
as, as far as how the traffic’s handled on the state road in front of the
school, uh, we have a little input to it but.”
Donna Riley – “I would hope
so really as a taxpayer and a parent with children in the school. I would hope
that the Board of Commissioners does have some say in protecting our children.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Well we,
we, we do our best but uh, DOT has the money and the, and the uh, and the plans
and they do uh, pretty much as uh, as we try to guide ‘em to do. Any other questions for Mr. Caldwell.
Yes mam.”
Jane Berry – “I’m Jane Berry
and um, I know that Mr. Bunham isn’t there, Burnham isn’t there anymore but a
letter that was issued on January the 14th of ’04, a paragraph says
‘first we’re concerned about how this project might impact the timely and safe
entering and departing of students, parents and staff of Fletcher Elementary
School. Secondly we have concerns about the volume of traffic that this project
might increase on
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay.”
Jane Berry – “That’s what
this is all about. And we don’t want the school overfull because that school
was built by the local people for years and years to get the money to put that
school there and now it’ll be flooded out and all the local kids will have to
be pushed out to other places, so that’s just a comment I make.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Any other
questions for our witness here? Yes mam, you wanna come back up to the mic.
Ya’ll can move on down, we won’t uh.”
Valorie Edmunds – “Okay, I’m
Valorie Edmunds. Uh, my question is how, how close to capacity is the school at
this time?”
Bo Caldwell – “Right now
looking at Fletcher, of course she has some programs that are special needs
programs that are taking full classrooms that really have small children. She
does have room I think right now of two available classrooms, um, but of course
you, you never know every year when kindergarten registration comes what the
number’s gonna be. Uh, she has grown out there in the last two to three years.
Um, but of course so, Fletcher’s grown, but unfortunately so has Dana, so has
Upward and, and so has several of the others. But yes, right now she does have
some room. It’s little room but she does have some room. But yet we do not
know. Next year’s kindergarten registration may, may fill that up, uh, even
before the sub-development’s gonna affect it.”
Valorie Edmunds – “I mean do
you feel that you have room for 20 more kids or 100 more kids or 200 more
children I guess is, is what I’m.”
Bo Caldwell – “We certainly
don’t have room for, for 200 more children at, at that location unless we do
some reorganization within the school system to relocate some county-wide
programs that are there that are taking up large rooms. Um, you know, I would,
I would, really can’t without looking at it, looking at her map quickly tell
you how many more school, you know, how many more students Fletcher can take. I
do know in the last two to three years Fletcher Elementary School has grown
very significantly and I think a lot of it is due to maybe uh, what
Livingston?”
Valorie Edmunds – “
Bo Caldwell – “Livingston
Farms has added uh, a lot of students in the last couple years to Fletcher. Uh,
that school has really grown in the last two to three years, yes mam.”
Commissioner Young – “I think
what she was asking, can you state the capacity of the school and the
enrollment in the school now?”
Bo Caldwell – “The capacity
of that school I, I believe was built, Mr. Young, I was not there at, the time.
I think it’s around 600.”
Commissioner Moyer – “600
is.”
Bo Caldwell – “600. Um I do
not have…”
Commissioner Young – “The
present enrollment.”
Bo Caldwell – “… is gonna be
right now on what her, her enrollment, uh, her enrollment is. I’m sorry sir.”
Valorie Edmunds – “I did
speak to her, uh, before the first meeting that we had and she was very
concerned about the capacity of the school at that time. Um, that was a comment
that’s just something I had spoke to her over the phone before the meet, first
meeting trying to find out, you know, how full the school was. And um, I don’t
know if you want any more, this is got something to do with it in a way. I have
heard that Glade Holdings is also looking at b, purchasing a property behind
the school which is 72 acres and putting the same, similar development behind
it coming up
Chairman Hawkins – “Uh, I
don’t know if that’s germane to our proceedings this evening.”
Valorie Edmunds – “Well it
does because of the traffic and because of the school and that’s, that’s
something if, if, if this one goes in and then the next one’s allowed to go in
that’s all relevant to the same thing.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay. You
have any other questions?”
Valorie Edmunds – “No.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Thank
you. Okay let’s see um, thank you Bo.”
Bo Caldwell – “Mr. Young did
I answer your question about the sewer?”
Commissioner Young – “Yes.”
Bo Caldwell – “I mean I was.”
Commissioner Young – “I just
wanted to know if you, if you uh, concurred with what Mr. Campano said and, and
also with what the…”
Bo Caldwell – “I, I, I do
concur. Howe, however I would like some, 100% responsibility that someone in,
in the sewer business will be taking care of that pump station for the children
of
Commissioner Young – “Thank
you for being here.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay
we’re gonna move on then to closing remarks. Uh, first uh, up would be the
applicant if you have any closing remarks you’d like to make.”
Gaston Campano – “Yes I do
but I’d like to see if we can defer our closing remarks until all the other
parties have given theirs.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Alright.
Staff do you have closing remarks?”
Karen Smith – “I don’t, I
just wanted to see if I could make one clarification. I think that earlier Mrs.
Beeker had said the plan, the new plan was dated 10/5.”
Angela Beeker – “That’s what
I thought it said, yes.”
Chairman Hawkins – “October 5th?”
Karen Smith – “In the, in the
title block or in the, the last one was also dated 10/5.”
Angela Beeker – “I’m sorry, I
didn’t see that.”
Angela Beeker – “Okay.”
Karen Smith – “Okay, thank
you.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Was that
all you needed uh, Karen? Okay. Uh, okay then we’ll, we’ll move on to the other
parties closing remarks. Any of you that are party to the hearing uh, can make
your closing remarks at this time.”
Jane Berry – “Okay I’m Jane
Berry and uh, my first remark is the fact of the density, and the fact of the
traffic, and the fact that it’s dumping right out in front of the schools. The
fact of teenagers and fast driving. The fact of children walking home. This
area, there is a lot of, I own property just above them. This area has a lot, a
lot, a lot of wetlands on it. Um, I’m concerned about closing in the wetlands
and hauling in dirt. Um, the most important thing is the density. There are
developments going up all over. There’s that huge thing on
Chairman Hawkins – “Any other parties have any um, closing remarks? Any other
parties have closing remarks?”
Bruce Thompson – “Yeah I’m
Bruce Thompson. Um, talking about the uh, sewer again. The uh, you know,
they’re gonna put their own lift station in. That will be privately maintained.
Uh, school uh, superintendent or whatever it was said that, yeah they’d love to
give it to ‘em provided somebody in the sewer business takes care of it. If I
remember correctly uh, the last meeting, uh, Commissioners uh, said that they
didn’t want to be in the sewer business either. They did not want a lift
station to maintain and to uh, operate. So take that into effect too on the
sewer cause all that area there is, everybody’s on septic, everybody has lots
big enough. Here a d, you know, a development that big on that small a piece of
property you can’t put septic so, they are stuck with the uh, sewer system. And
when you start tearing up roads and stuff like that they’re never being put
back right. And like uh, Jan just said, DOT yeah is probably gonna do something
with Howard Gap. Look how long it’s taken them to do Highway 25. You know it’s
not gonna be done tomorrow. Look at the uh, I-26, uh corridor that they’re
trying to go through uh,
Chairman Hawkins – “Any other
closing remarks from the parties?”
Donna Riley – “I’m Donna
Riley, and I think I’m probably readdressing some of the same issues but I do,
as a parent, feel that Howard Gap is way too hazardous. My child is no longer
at Fletcher Elementary, but for the past several years they have been and I was
one of the people that was out there with the bake sales and everything raising
money and in here petitioning the Commissioners to get a new school. It is now
close to capacity. I understand there’s maybe 60 to 70 available spaces and
we’ve been through areas where the children this Board has graciously provided
a new school, but you tear up friendships you ear up everything else that
happens. And I know growth is inevitable but I would like the Commissioners to
keep that in mind when you have parents that try and be parent and the child,
and the children that your child has been friends with for years, you’re
comfortable where they are when they’re at their home. They’ve been in Cub
Scouts, Boy Scouts, baseball, t-ball, soccer, so you’re aware who their friends
are versus when they’re pulled to another school and you no longer have the
sense of community. Fletcher has a very distinct sense of community and I
really feel that the Commissioners should do everything they can and in their
power to protect that. There was also the question of zoning and I came to a
zoning meeting a few weeks ago and you couldn’t even get in there were that
many people considered with zoning, and this was part of the area that was to
be zoned. And I think the citizens in this area have made their thoughts very
well known to the Commissioners that they would prefer that it was zoned tha,
that the density was less. And there again back to the safety issue on Howard
Gap Road as far as the school and I would also ask that the Commissioners
consider my apartments and my septic systems. They’ve been there 20 years and
I’ve been paying taxes on them for 20 years. Thank you.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Any other
closing remarks by the parties? Yes mam if you’ll come forward.”
Valorie Edmunds – “Uh, what I
have to say is nothing new. It’s just to back up what they’re saying. Uh, we’re
pretty much, the traffic flow on Howard Gap is a big con, a big worry for all
of us. We live in Beth Eden. Um, we’re concerned about the traffic flow there.
There is already a problem on Howard Gap. It has been on the news about it. Um,
you know about trying to straighten out Howard Gap because it’s, in a, the
traffic is too fast and, and the roads too curvy. Uh, adding the, this type of
density to our area which people bought in that area because everybody was on
half acre or larger lots. Um, and that’s what we would like to keep our area.
Um, I’m speaking for everybody in our subdivision. There’s nobody in there that
um, some of us could not be here because of work schedules um, but they, we
would like to see it stay a medium density and not high density which is what
they’re trying to put in. Um, and I have mentioned it before that I have heard
that they are trying to buy the property behind the school which will also be
putting in, I have not got an answer to that yet. Um, maybe it’s none of my
business but it is as a homeowner. Uh, and I would also like to say that, you
know, we are concerned about the safety of the kids because of, because of this
traffic. And um, that I don’t see, you know, the homes would sell if they put
‘em on half acre lots. I, I’m in the business, I know. I mean it would s, and
they, they build a v, a very fine product. I’ve sold some of their homes, I
know that the sell, they have very nice products. We’re not here to dispute
that. It’s just the density, the amount of product that they’re trying to put
in and the small amount of space they’re trying to put it into. That’s pretty
much all I’ve got to say.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Thank
you. Does the applicant have any closing remarks.”
Gaston Campano – “Yeah,
unfortunately a fairly long one. But uh, Mr. Chairman, members in the Henderson
County Commission, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our
Petition for Vested Rights. Uh, Glade Land Fund has applied for vested rights
under Chapter 189 of the Henderson County Code. Uh you prev, previously
received a Project Summary shown in your packet and I’d like to just go over a
few highlights as several revisions by the way.
Uh, Fox Glen is contemplated
as a Planned Residential Community with 198 housing units on 47.198 acres for a
gross density of 4.2 units per acre. Uh, as Luther previously noted, the approvals,
subdivision approvals are actually in place for the apartments, villas and
cottages. Uh, the Fox Glen will have a community recreation center and pool,
open space and playground areas. It will have connections with sidewalks from
each neighborhood community to
Our proposal utilizes the
natural boundaries and characteristics of the property create distinct separate
neighborhoods with natural buffering and significant open space. We are well
beyond the current zoning requirements for the project to protect open areas,
establish exterior project setbacks to minimize impact on adjacent properties,
and provide buffer plantings where required. Glade works with the land, not against
it. Uh, we’re preserving the natural
resources there including the wetlands, clustering our development in an
environmentally responsible way and leaving as many trees as possible.
Regarding the traffic, DOT
has already issued a driveway permit for the streets and has provided an
engagement letter to commence the re-design of the traffic signal to accommodate
Fox Glen. Smart design, while allowing the access at an intersection. Future
improvements on Howard Gap road are already planned. Uh, while this undoubtedly
development will undoubtedly bring further school children to the community,
growth within the school as you’re very well aware is inevitable. And development
that provides close access and in many cases pedestrian access, to the local
schools is far preferable to development located far away from the schools,
requiring an increase in car traffic transporting the children.
Uh, regarding stormwater,
Glade always works to minimize the storm water runoff to its neighbors. In addition to fulfilling all the requirements
of the ordinances affecting the property, including those covering drainage, we
will, as in all projects, erect retention and detention ponds and other
facilities to control stormwater runoff, in every case meeting or exceeding the
required standards.
Uh, regarding utilities availability,
uh all the portions of the project will be served by water and sewer. We can presently acquire sewer service
without the school or any additional easements. Uh, however, we are looking to
work with, to try to find a method to work with the school system and try to
find the best solution uh, for the sewer before we get into uh, agreements that
we cannot easily undo.
Uh, other potential uses under
current open zoning, numerous industrial and commercial uses could be made for
the property as a matter of right merely by securing a building permit application
at this time. Further, alternative uses could also include several hundred
apartments as well as commercial, retail, and other uses. Taking all of this in
light, we believe the character of our development is compatible with the
neighborhood, especially considering the other commercial and industrial uh, uses
of the property.
Regarding protection of values,
our residents also will want to live in a well-maintained, naturally beautiful
community. They have an investment like everyone
else and they’ll want to make sure it’s protected. The owners of the residential, residential
community, likewise, will have a significant investment in maintaining the
desirability of the area. Uh, both the for sale and rental portions of the
community will be provided with significant amenities in the form of a pool,
clubhouse, open areas, common space, all of it maintained jointly by the
homeowner association or associations and the rental community in a way to
maintain it in a first class condition. All streets and roads within the
project will be constructed in accordance with the applicable standards, with
most of the roadways being dedicated to NCO, NCDOT, Transportation, except
those around the townhouses and rentals. Uh, thus all streets and roadways will
have adequate mechanism to assure that they are consistently and permanently
maintained in a first class condition.
Uh, the financial and economic
impact of this property to us is significant.
As previously noted, we have a very substantial investment in the
property and the designs and approvals that presently exist at Fox Glen. Work
completed includes Environmental Reports, wetland study, Surveys, Topography,
Complete Site Planning including county subdivision approvals, engineering,
market studies, preliminary architecture, DOT access Permits which are
acquired, erosion control plans and permits which are acquired, uh, US Army
Corps creek crossings which are acquired, uh, Hendersonville water supply
approvals, public serving, Public Service gas company development plan adjacent
to uh, right-of-way approvals and several legal costs as well as all the equity
involved in dealing with the purchase and financing of the project. The
potential loss of overhead and revenue to the company is large. Uh, this translates into a potential loss of
jobs and significant dollars into our economy.
Not just the investment of well over $150,000 in actual cost today, not
including the land, uh, but in the lost opportunity to the company would be
substantial. The value of the completed
project is expected to exceed $23 million dollars.
As stated at this time, the
plan project can be built within the existing zoning and subdivision
regulations. Our goal here is two fold. To protect our rights if or when
conditions change and to demonstrate our desire as a responsible to, developer
to work with the community and the County to ensure quality growth.
Chapter 189 implements the
provision of the North Carolina General Statute 153A-344.1. Uh, the Preamble
sections of the statutory provisions state, as a matter of public policy, that
the General Assembly has found it necessary and desirable to provide for the
establishment of certain vested rights in order to insure reasonable certainty,
stability and fairness in the land use planning process, secure the reasonable
expectation of loan, uh landowners and foster cooperation between public and
private sectors in the areas of land use planning. That was a quote. The vested
rights process, by requiring specific development planning and a public hearing
and opportunity to be heard, assures that public, including adjoining property
owners, both a fair opportunity to be heard and that their interests will be
considered, while assuring both the certainty of compliance with the plans
presented and the granting to the developer the reasonable certainty of the
opportunity to develop the desired project without the risk associated with
subsequent changes in zoning.
The statute also does
recognize the significant costs and investment often associated with obtaining
land use approvals and site evaluation, planning, development costs and related
expenses. Uh, as mentioned, we have incurred significant expenches, expenses, and
there is a very large potential impact to the company with this community.
The statutory provision then
goes on to note that these provisions eventually strike an appropriate balance
between the private expectations of developers and owners and the public
interest while protecting public hat, health, safety and welfare. This is no more
evident than in the context of property such as this one, which is an Open-Use Zoning.
As noted the property could
be built under current zoning regulations as planned without the opportunity
for such public input and participation, but in view of the current land use
study, and in order to assure that it could be done, this developer, we would
be, required to hasten the development process in a manner to assure that
building permits for all the project were obtained prior to completion of the
land use study and possible re, rezoning. By providing this vested rights a public
is allowed participation and assurances of future expectations uh, that they will
be met as per the plans that we submitted.
I’ve obtained a uh, explanation
the hic, of the history of the statute and believe it does merit a little bit
of consideration over here. Uh, the
vested rights statute was added by the General Assembly in approximately 1989
to 1990. Prior to that, the law of vested rights was covered by law related to
a common law vested rights. Under this law, when a party was made, prior to the
amendment of a zoning ordinance, significant expenditures or incurred
significant contractual obligations in good faith reliance on a valid building
permit, if a permit was required, and the amendment of the ordinance was
detrimental to that party, that party can claim a common law vested rights.
This usually required a lawsuit and much litigation apparently resulted in the
problem, in the process.
The problem with the common
law vested rights was exactly that litigation. The land owner or developer who
ser, sought to develop his property, failed to have reasonable certainty that
the vested right statutes seek to preserve. Further, such common law vested
rights provided no opportunity for public participation or the presenta, preservation
of public interest by local officials seeking to protect public health, safety
and welfare. It was against this backdrop that the General Assembly sought to
encourage the balancing of these interests by the opportunity to obtain a
vested rights under the statute.
It is my understanding the
Board’s decision is to be based on public health, self, safety and wearf, welfare.
I would like to reiterate that the granting of our vested rights application would
not eliminate our obligation to comply with other laws and ordinances, such as
soil and erosion control, which would be applicable to the project. We have
previously demonstrated to you a significant potential loss of revenue and
overhead should the vested rights not be granted. This would have a significant
impact on the company and would likely result in a reduction of significant
percentage of the employees of the company. This does not take into account the
significant impact to its various subcontractors and suppliers who as a group
employ several hundred people.
For all of these reasons, we
believe it is in the best interest of the public in terms of its health, safety
and welfare that the vested rights application be granted for this project. In
addition to all the other reasons above, the comparison of other potential uses
of the property under Open Use zoning make the case for granting of the
application more compelling.
Once again, we thank you for
the opportunity to present our Petition for Vested Rights.”
Commissioner Moyer – “Grady,
Grady.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Yes.”
Commissioner Moyer – “Mr.
Campano before you leave would you speak to the term, the length of years
you’re requesting and why?”
Gaston Campano – “Yeah, we,
we are lookin’ for five years. Uh, this project will be built out based on
market conditions. As we do in most of our projects we will open up a model
center and we will start opening up for sales. And the uh, we, we are asking
for five years. Uh, we’d like to build out the project obviously as fast as we
possibly can but we can’t fully control market conditions and it is our
understanding that without the five year vested rights if in fact we were not
completed before that time period with all of the housing and permits that uh,
there, there are issues that could affect the property even if we had the roads
and the infrastructure and the property actually subdivided. And so we’re
lookin’ for the five years cause that a, a number that we’re comfortable with
that we do feel that the market, even if there is a fluctuation in the market,
that we would be able to sell out the property in that time period.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Any, any
other questions? Okay, um, I’m to uh, move that we close the public hearing
Mrs. Beeker unless you can think of anything we’ve omitted? Any Board members
think of anything that we’ve omitted?”
Commissioner Moyer – “I’d
like to have a discussion of the legal requirements for the vested, in, that
are in the ordinance. You wanna do that before or after? I thought you’d might
wanna do that before we close the hearing.”
Chairman Hawkins – “We can do
that.”
Angela Beeker – “As far as
the legal requirements to obtain a vested right?”
Commissioner Moyer – “Right. That we have to take into consideration in
granting or denying it.”
Angela Beeker – “I’ll be
happy to talk to that right now. The vested rights ordinance as well as the
statute um, is pretty general. Um, it’s clear that an applicant must uh, submit
a plan that meets the requirements of a site specific development plan. It’s
clear that if they wish five years they have to submit evidence as to market
conditions and things like that um, that would justify five years. And it is
clear that decisions need to be based on public health, safety and welfare. But
there is no specific, like if for a special use permit, that has special
conditions and general conditions, there are none. It’s, it’s a le, this is a
legislative action. It is quasi-judicial in that any decision you make to
impose conditions, um, or to, um, I guess deny the permit or whatever based on
public health, safety and welfare would have to be based on evidence that was
presented at the hearing. That’s why it’s quasi-judicial. It’s kind of a
combination thing though because you do have the legislative discretion to
write what is really a mini zoning ordinance that applies just to this property
for the duration of the vested right. But as far as specific requirements, if,
if this were zoned already a traditional zoning district, it would have to meet
those requirements in order to qualify for a vested right. Be, say if this was
already zoned R, I don’t know R-15 or something, they’d have to demonstrate
they meet those specific requirements but since it’s open use there really are
none. No specific requirements for this particular project.”
Commissioner Moyer – “And any
action taken on a statutory vested rights has no affect at all on common law
vested rights. Am I correct in that?”
Angela Beeker – “Um, if at
the end of the five year period um, the development had not been built out then
I think that um, developer would still be able to, you know, apply for or make
his case that he has a common law vested right. It wouldn’t be a guarantee like
this is, but the doctrine would still apply at the close of the um, vesting
period under this statute.”
Commissioner Moyer – “But the
granting or denying of statutory vested rights does not affect?”
Angela Beeker – “No, no. It
doesn’t mean that he couldn’t then establish a common law vested right. That’s
correct if that’s what you’re asking.”
Commissioner Moyer – “Yes.”
Angela Beeker – “And on the
market conditions, way back at the first, he did submit some reports on that
and it was left in the Clerk’s office for ya’ll to review so.”
Chairman Hawkins – “It’s
still down there. I looked at it.”
Angela Beeker – “You looked
at it? Okay. Alright.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Does that
answer? Okay. Let me, uh, be, before we go out of public hearing because uh,
Mrs. Beeker has uh, explained vested rights um, in attorney language and uh,
I’ll try to go back through it uh, because I’m a layman like you are and uh,
and tell you what I think she said and I’m sure she’ll correct me if there’s
any error. Be, because I, I, I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding. Um, uh
first of all in, in the case that you’re looking at the, the property uh, Mr.
Campano owns is in an Open Use zoned area. And, as he’s alluded to in his
comments, uh, if he were to start tomorrow, he could do all the things that
he’s asked the Board to give him vested right to do. And, and be perfectly
within the, with, within the statutes. Okay? So that’s, that’s one thing that
uh, that we’re not dealing with tonight. He already can do that. Uh, he
mentioned another thing uh, that kinda goes along with, with uh what Mrs.
Beeker talked about, the uh, common law vested rights. He has already secured a
number of legal permits for uh, various operations uh, uh in the area. Uh, and
those uh, whether or not the Board gives a vested right or not uh, he is still
able to execute those permits in the time frame of the permit. So if he’s got
a, a building permit for two years uh, uh he’s gonna be allowed to build
whatever he’s been permitted to build if he does it in the time of the permit.
So the Board’s action won’t have any effect on that. Uh, the, the idea, as Mr.
Campano uh, went to some detail to explain and Mrs. Beeker alluded to of vested
rights by statutory authority, is something that the general assembly has
generated uh, for these cases where uh, either an, an, uh, anticipated land use
change zoning wise may be occurring uh, but yet it takes time to make those
zoning changes occur. And so vested rights gives the uh, uh, a person that’s
gonna develop uh, an assurance that the, they’ll be able to develop whatever
they get started uh, uh prior to uh, a change to the uh, to the zoning
ordinance. And so the time frame that comes up deals with uh, again what’s
allowed by statute. It’s normally a two year period but could be extended to
five. And again those are established by statute uh, somewhere other that this
Board. It’s out of the uh, the general statutes and, and our zoning, or, and
our vested rights ordinance. The.”
Angela Beeker – “The two year
versus five years.”
Chairman Hawkins - “So that um, uh, I, I don’t know if that kinda
brings the things together for you but uh, I, I know you had some questions
about it and that’s about as good as I can explain it, so.”
Angela Beeker – “I guess the
bottom line is that even if you denied the vested right there’s a good chance
that the development could still occur. The vested rights process that we’re in
just gives the land owners a chance to come in and participate and express
their concerns so that some, you know, conditions can be imposed to offer some
protection to the community that you don’t have right now. And that’s the whole
purpose of, of the hearing. Um, if the vested right is granted then whatever
conditions have been imposed, those setbacks, those buffers, um, I believe he
said he’s willing to do the fence. Those would have to be done. So that’s,
it’s, it’s a give and take, it’s an opportunity for the um, developer and the
citizens to have a give and take in front of a Board who has the authority to
impose those conditions to, you know, to protect, help protect everyone’s
interest.”
Chairman Hawkins – “And, and
I think as Mrs. Beeker pointed out that’s the, uh, uh, and it may be one of the
things the general assembly was thinking about. It gives the developer in this
case an opportunity to, to know what time frame he’s got to develop it in and
it also gives the uh, other, uh, other citizens an opportunity to, to mold it
into something that fits in their community. Which as Mrs. Beeker explained uh,
if the Board a, agrees with vested rights with these eighteen items on it it’s
like uh, a little mini zoning ordinance and uh, and so the developer has to do
all those things. It, that you’ve uh, that you’ve talked about and seen so um,
that’s kinda that in a nutshell. Okay, motion on the floor was to go out of public
hearing.”
Commissioner Messer – “Mr.
Chair I.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Yeah.”
Commissioner Messer – “I’ve
got one more question that I would like to ask Mr. Campano before he, you know,
before we go out of closed session.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay.”
Commissioner Messer – “And
it, I guess it has a question with Fletcher. You know we brought this up some
months back or, almost a year back now. But have you had any direct
communication with anyone from Fletcher uh, government uh, concerning this
development?”
Gaston Campano – “No we, the,
the, the only communications we had with Fletcher is when we were first, still
in the due diligence, inspections phase on this property looking at whether to
buy it or not uh, we met uh, with the uh, City Manager, uh, Mr. Honeycutt, I
believe he’s a City Manager. And uh, just want to, showed him the plan and
wanted to make sure that they didn’t have any, being that it was pretty close
to Fletcher that they didn’t have any major objections to it. And in fact they
did not. They were actually very pleased to see it was gonna be residential
and, you know, fit in the type of character it was considering it was open use,
so they were quite pleased with it. Uh, we have not communicated with Fletcher
since then.”
Commissioner Messer – “Thank
you.”
Chairman Hawkins – “That
answer your question?”
Commissioner Messer – “Yes.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay. Any
uh, other discussion on the motion? Okay all those in favor of the motion say
aye.”
In unison – “Aye.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Opposed?
Okay we’re out of public hearing so we won’t hear any more comments from the,
from the public. The rest’ll be uh, deliberations of the Board. Now that the
evidence has been presented and the closing remarks concluded it’s appropriate
for the Commissioners to discuss the issues presented today. Uh, as far as a
vote and decision we can either vote today and direct staff to bring back
findings of fact and conclusions consistent with the decision and the Board’s
discussion or we can continue our discussion and decision till a later date. I
would remind the Board however that the Board must make a decision within 30
days and issue a written decision within 45 days of the conclusion of the
hearing. So um, we had a um, a lot of uh, material presented. Uh, we’ve had it
over several days. I think everybody’s had a chance to uh, uh, to look at uh,
all the materials being presented. Uh certainly there’s been some uh, uh issues
raised of uh, safety and public concern. Uh, we’ve had information uh, uh, uh,
from the, uh, pending uh, road uh, situation with Department of Transportation.
Uh, and, uh density in the uh, in the area and so forth. So um, at this time
uh, I’ll just uh open it for the Board for discussion of uh, how you want to
proceed with the uh, with the hearing. Mr. Messer that’s in your area up there
what are, what are your thoughts on.”
Commissioner Messer – “Well I
do have some concern with uh, the schools, the roads and public safety, you
know, the whole public safety aspect of it. But if we do, uh, and have to do by
the law that Angie and, and you have stated uh, uh, you know it’s, you know,
mean I have a concern with density too, but uh, like you said this is a tough
call cause it is, that area is growing some much, so fast, uh, you know, uh, but
if we’ve gotta do what we have to do to be public officials then uh, you know,
I guess I would uh, you know support it.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Bill do
you have comments?”
Commissioner Moyer – “Well
this is um, this is a tough one from my standpoint. I guess you and I are the
ones that were on the Board when the
Chairman Hawkins – “Larry?
Uh.”
Commissioner Young – “I guess
I would agree with Mr. Moyer and, and Charlie on the uh.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Uh let me
make uh, I guess just a few comments. Um, uh first of all reference the um, uh,
time request. As indicated the Board uh, has an option of either two year or
five year period. I, uh, and I’ve reviewed uh, the marketing analysis that Mr.
Campano has presented uh, uh on two occasions and uh, I don’t think for the
scope of this project that, that five years is unreasonable. And I think for
the people that uh, is gonna be up there, uh, to, to be able to develop it over
that time period will make it a uh, a much better development. I also think that
the uh, uh, I’ve got now 19 items that uh, really constitute a, a mini zoning
ordinance that uh, the developer has worked out with the Planning Department
and the people that’s gonna be mostly affected. Uh and, and I think that uh,
that in itself is uh, uh, is, is, is a good compromise and uh, uh, I would uh,
uh, I would then uh, move that.”
Commissioner Moyer – “Grady,
before you, can I just add one condition to that?”
Chairman Hawkins – “Yeah.”
Commissioner Moyer – “Subject
to Mrs. Beeker saying this is alright. If we could put a statement, not a
condition in there, that the developer who has offered already to provide
sufficient land on his side for the expansion of, of the
Chairman Hawkins – “Well I
think they initially, initially they had, they had already offered that and I
don’t think they’ve changed that so.”
Commissioner Moyer – “No, and
we, at least we could point to the State if they come back with some other plan
and look, the developer has offered this and, and uh, why don’t you work with
them to do that.”
Chairman Hawkins – “That’ll
be in the evidence already will it not?”
Angela Beeker – “It is in the
evidence already. Um, would the Board approve it, I, cause I can tell you’re
going towards approving it without such an agreement? I guess that would be
the, the issue. Because I don’t want it, in other words that discussion would
be appropriate I think after the Board makes it’s motion if that’s where the
Board would like to see it go. It might not be an enforceable contract but a
gentleman’s agreement along those lines. But I wo, I would not tie that in as
part of your decision. To require.”
Commissioner Moyer – “But
couldn’t you put in like in that a whereas clause but not make it a conditional
term?”
Angela Beeker – “Um, I think
you could encourage.”
Commissioner Moyer – “Yeah.”
Angela Beeker – “Suggest.”
Commissioner Moyer –
“Something like that.”
Angela Beeker – “That would
be fine. Um I just wouldn’t make it contingent on that.”
Commissioner Moyer – “No I
understand that.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Well and,
and again I think it’s already been presented in evidence that, that they have
made that offer uh, under.”
Angela Beeker – “They had,
they had originally uh, done some turn lanes and showed ‘em in the drawing and
as I understood the testimony DOT said, you know, we’re gonna do our own thing
here. And so um.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Then what
we say won’t matter anyway.”
Angela Beeker – “DOT
ultimately, I think that DOT will have to take into account now, um, the number
of homes and things that are going in there when they make, do their plans in
there. But um, and if DOT went in and did take property on both sides of the
road they’re gonna have to compensate the people.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Out of
the way.”
Angela Beeker – “To do it. Um
I think you can suggest, encourage the developer to work with DOT to dedicate
whatever land is necessary for the improvement. I, I’m fine with putting that
in the order.”
Commissioner Moyer – “Yeah and
I think that’s a statement of our intention and I think it should be
reflected.”
Angela Beeker – “But it
wouldn’t be binding.”
Commissioner Moyer – “I
understand that.”
Angela Beeker – “Okay.”
Chairman Hawkins – “And then
uh, I would continue that motion to include uh, that it contain these, and I
had uh, we have 17 items on a printed, and I added two more that uh, one of ‘em
was the lots uh, not have direct access to Howard Gap Road uh, the verbiage on
that.”
Angela Beeker – “Or Patty’s
Chairman Hawkins – “And, and
the other one dealt with the wooded fence. Uh, that Mr. Campano agreed to, so I
would include in the motion that it contain those 19 items.”
Angela Beeker – “And the
language.”
Chairman Hawkins – “And, and
the language on uh, the uh, opportunity for taking of land on the developer’s
side.”
Angela Beeker – “Okay.”
Commissioner Messer – “And
aft, after we vote I’ve got a question concerning Monday night’s meeting with
DOT.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Oh. Well,
we’ll deal with that later.”
Commissioner Messer – “Well,
you know, I mean, I think it would be good to.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay.”
Commissioner Messer – “Let
the people know the. Maybe they can put some of this, some of these road issues
in
Angela Beeker – “Well there’s
nothing that says your vote would preclude you from then contacting DOT,
sharing concerns that you have and that kind of thing. I mean, you’re ab, able
to do that with regard to…”
Commissioner Moyer – “Well we
can speak to that after the vote.”
Angela Beeker – “Right,
right.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Okay then
the, uh, then I would make that motion that uh, we approve uh, VR-03-01 Vested
Rights Hearing and direct Staff to bring back uh, findings to that effect,
include the uh, 19 or 20 items now listed uh, uh, three additional items that
was listed on the draft that uh, have been agreed to. Any discussion on that
motion? All those in favor say aye.”
In unison – “Aye.”
Chairman Hawkins – “Opposed?
Okay thank you, and no other business before the Board we’ll adjourn, cause we
didn’t have that on the agenda.”
Attest: