Loading...
102119October 21, 2019 — Special Meeting — Zoning Appeal The Randolph County Board of Commissioners met in a special session at 6:00 p.m. in the 1909 Randolph County Historic Courthouse Meeting Room, 145 Worth Street, Asheboro, NC. Chairman Darrell Frye, Vice -Chairman David Allen, Commissioner Kenny Kidd, Commissioner Maxton McDowell, and Commissioner Hope Haywood were present. Also present were County Manager Hal Johnson, County Attorney Ben Morgan, Deputy Clerk to the Board Sarah Pack, and Clerk to the Board Dana Crisco. Chairman Frye called the meeting to order and stated that this meeting was being held to hear the appeal of Nash Duggins whose request was denied by the Randolph County Planning and Zoning Board. Zoning Appeal Jay Dale, Planning and Zoning Director, gave an overview of the request, as follows: Request heard by Planning and Zoning Board NASH DUGGINS, Asheboro, NC, is requesting that 60.61 acres out of 200.05 acres located on NC Hwy 49S and Old NC Hwy 49, Cedar Grove Township be rezoned from RA Residential Agricultural and RR Residential Restricted to CVOE-CD Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive Conditional District. Tax ID #7639187958. Secondary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a 25 -lot site built subdivision with a minimum house size of 1,750 sq. ft. as per site plan. Property Owner: Terry Charles Vuncannon. Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 153A-341 and 342, the Randolph County Planning Board found that the proposed zoning district map amendments to CVOE CD Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive Conditional District as described in the application of Nash Duggins are not consistent with the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan and are not reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: 1. Determination of Consistency with the Growth Management Plan. A. Consistency with Growth Management Plan Map The Randolph County Growth Management Plan map for the southwest area shows the parcel to be rezoned in an area designated as Secondary Growth Area. Secondary Growth Areas are an area for medium density, are predominately residential, and allow for transitional land use patterns. This property is located between NC Hwy 49 S and Old NC Hwy 49. B. Consistency with Growth Policies in the Growth Management Plan Policy 6.5 The protection of viable rural neighborhoods should be encouraged by compatible residential development to ensure the continued existence as a major housing source and as a reflection of the long-term quality of life in Randolph County. Consistency Analysis: While this request would be an extension of an existing rural subdivision, there were many concerns raised by the area residents and Randolph County 10/21/19 Planning Board members. Questions raised included the possibility of adding a new entrance, the potential for this subdivision to become a cut -through from NC Hwy 49S to Old NC Hwy 49 with a new entrance, and other questions regarding access for this proposed addition to Farmwood. During the Public Hearing the applicant refused to consider adding another entrance as it would be "cost prohibitive." The applicant also refused to consider increasing the minimum house size to match those in existing parts of Farmwood. By denying to consider the requests of current residents and the Randolph County Planning Board, the applicant failed to ensure the protection of the existing subdivision and rural neighborhoods as recommended in the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Policy 8.8 The County should seek land use decisions that continue to provide locations for affordable housing while maintaining a choice in compatible housing types in communities within the County. Consistency Analysis: As stated previously, the area residents and Randolph County Planning Board members requested the applicant to make changes to the plan for the property including increasing the minimum house size and adding a new entrance to protect the existing portions of Farmwood. The Randolph County Planning Board asked the applicant several times to consider raising the minimum house size to ease the concerns of the area residents and the applicant refused. Since the applicant refused to make further changes to his request, the housing types within the proposed Phase 4 would not be compatible or consistent with the existing patterns in Farmwood subdivision. 2. Statement of Reasonableness and Public Interest Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: This request is not reasonable and in the public interests for all the reasons stated above. The applicant refused repeated requests by area residents and the Randolph County Planning Board to increase the minimum house size to be more compatible with the existing portions of Farmwood. It should be noted that the applicant did increase the proposed minimum house size from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,750 sq. ft. after the Neighborhood Information Meeting in August 2019 to help ease residents' concerns. Appeal to be heard by Commissioners NASH DUGGINS, Asheboro, NC, is requesting that 34.29 out of 200.05 acres located on NC Hwy 49S and Old NC Hwy 49, Cedar Grove Township be rezoned from RA Residential Agricultural and RR Residential Restricted to CVOE-CD Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive Conditional District. Tax ID 97639187958. Secondary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a 22 -lot site built subdivision with a minimum house size of 1,750 sq. ft. as per site plan. Property Owner: Terry Charles Vuncannon. Chairman Frye wanted to confirm that the request was for 34.29 acres with 22 lots. Mr. Dale explained that the original request was for 60.61 acres with 25 lots. The change decreased the size of the existing lots and removed three lots. 10/21/19 Commissioner McDowell inquired if the Board would be hearing the request that was heard by the Planning and Zoning Board or a request with changes. He said he had asked County Attorney Ben Morgan about the difference. Mr. Morgan said the differences were not a "substantial change." Commissioner McDowell said he felt that it was a "substantial change." Chairman Frye also noted that the change in acreage from 60 down to 34 was significant. Mr. Morgan stated that when the Planning Board was providing advisory recommendations, there may have been changes from what the Planning Board heard and what the Commissioners heard. Now that the cases only go to the Board of Commissioners in an appeal, the process is different. Chairman Frye asked if an applicant would need to submit a new application if that applicant wished to develop the remaining acreage in the future. Mr. Dale said yes. Mr. Mack Summey, Summey Engineering Associates, had raised his hand and was acknowledged to come forward. He had the acreage for the plat rechecked and found that the actual acreage for the request including right-of-ways was 45.45 acres. Chairman Frye asked Mr. Morgan if the Commissioners could hear the request with the changes. Commissioner McDowell said, in his time on the Planning Board, the applicant could only make up to a 10% change or they would have to wait one year to go before the Planning Board a second time. Chairman Frye said the decrease of the number of lots would be a 10% change but the acreage change would be more. Mr. Morgan said the Board should hear the original application presented to the Planning Board. Commissioner Haywood asked why it was not realized a month ago that the Commissioners should hear the same case that the Planning Board had denied. The neighbors have come to hear the case and she wanted to serve the citizens. Chairman Frye said he wanted whatever the Board does to be defendable in court. Commissioner Kidd asked Mr. Morgan if the original request could be heard and then amended tonight. Mr. Morgan replied that it could not be heard tonight because it was not advertised that way. Commissioner McDowell apologized to the audience. He stated that whatever the Board decides must be defendable in Superior Court. 10/21/19 Commissioner Haywood said she was aware of that but this had still wasted citizens' time. She wished that it had been decided earlier that the Board could not hear the request. Chairman Frye asked if the Board had the authority to hear the case as amended. Mr. Morgan said that in the future there should be limited changes on an appealed case. With the Commissioners only voting on appeals, the process and allowances are different. Commissioner Allen stated that the Board had voted to change the procedure. He asked what the procedure said regarding the appellate process. Mr. Morgan said the procedure states the Board will hear cases de novo, from the beginning, without considering the Planning Board's decisions. Commissioner Allen asked why the Board could not hear the case if it is from the beginning. Mr. Morgan asked which case the Board wanted to hear. Commissioner Haywood stated the Board should hear the case with the changes because that is the one Mr. Duggins presented and this is what the neighbors have seen. Mr. Morgan said the neighbors will say they haven't seen it. Mr. Dale said the Planning and Zoning department has provided the map and packets of information to many of the neighbors. Mr. Morgan said there are two choices. The Board can hear the same case that the Planning Board heard. However, it cannot be heard tonight because that was not what was advertised. The other choice is for the applicant to go back to the Planning Board with the changes and let them decide on the new request. The Board can table this request. The applicant will decide what he wants to do. Commissioner McDowell asked if the Board has to know the applicant's decision in order to table it. Mr. Morgan said the applicant would need to decide whether he will withdraw the appeal but it did not have to be done tonight. Citizen Brian Nance asked to come forward and said this is the third meeting he has attended regarding this request. His property backs up to the property in question. He said he was frustrated that something had changed at every meeting. He stated that the process had not been organized and he felt like his time had been wasted. Chairman Frye agreed that many changes had been made and said the Planning Board denied the request because of changes and lack of answers. This Board needs to be sure to follow due process. He said he understood the frustration of the neighbors. 10/21/19 Chairman Frye said information has continued to come in throughout this process. He spoke of a request for a new access road into the subdivision. The Board had just received information regarding that access. He read the following from a letter sent by Mickey Pate, DOT Assistant District Engineer, Division #8 - District #1, as follows: The question was asked whether NCDOT would allow another access to NC49 to serve the proposed 22 lots. At this time, we would not allow another access to NC49 for that purpose. He said he had spoken with Brandon Jones, DOT District Engineer, and Mr. Jones stated that temporary access would be for constructing a roadway only. The access could not be used for housing construction because that would take years. There would be no additional permanent access for the development. Mr. Morgan advised the Board that it would be appropriate to table the appeal. The applicant will then need to decide how he wants to proceed. Chairman Frye wanted to confirm with Mr. Morgan that there was no way the Board could hear the request at this meeting. Mr. Morgan said it didn't seem appropriate to hear the case as an appeal with these changes. Commissioner Allen stated that he didn't like the fact that the process has been lengthy. The reason for changing the Planning Board's authority was to expedite the process. In the past, there have been allowances for changes that were suggested by the applicants. Chairman Frye said now that the Board is hearing appeals, the request to be heard must be what the Planning Board heard. Commissioner McDowell reiterated that the Board was supposed to vote on what was presented to the Planning Board without negotiations. Commissioner Kidd apologized to everyone present for the confusion. Chairman Frye added that the Board apologized as well. On motion of Kidd, seconded by McDowell, the Board voted unanimously to table the appeal of Mr. Nash Duggins. Adjournment At 6:37 p.m., on motion of Allen, seconded by Haywood, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn. Darrell Frye, Chairman David Allen 10/21/19 Kenny Kidd Hope Haywood Maxton McDowell Dana Crisco, Clerk to the Board 10/21/19