02FebruaryBOA MINUTES
7779
RANDOLPH COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 14, 1989
There was a meeting of the Randolph County Zoning Board
of Adjustment on Tuesday, February 14, 1989 , at 7 :00 p.m. , in
Courtroom B, Randolph County Courthouse, 145 Worth Street,
Asheboro, North Carolina.
1. Vice Chairman Lynden Craven called to Order the
Randolph County Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting
at 7 :00 p.m.
•
2 . Hal Johnson, Planning Director , called roll of the
members: Doyle Stout_ Chairman. absent ; Lynden
Craven, Vice Chairman, present; Bill Dorsett,
present; Guy Troy, present; Ray Farlow, present;
Charles Adams, present; and Aweilda Little, pre-
• sent.
3 . Vice Chairman Lynden Craven asked for ail persons
wishing to present testimony to the Board of
Adjustment (in either case being reviewed) to come
forward to take the Oath. Craven explained that
the North Carolina Supreme Court has required that
a Board of Adjustment base its decisions only on
testimony given under Oath. Approximately 20
persons came forward.
Vice Chairman Craven asked for everyone to raise
their right hand and said, "Do you swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God" . The persons that gave
testimony stated I do.
4 . Hal Johnson, Planning Director , reviewed the first
case with the Board of Adjustment. Johnson stated
• that the applicant requesting the Variance was
Randy W. Lynch. Johnson stated that the proposed
development was for a one acre lot homesite (out of
a 6. 87 acres tract) located off of SR 2417 in
Liberty Township.
Randy W. Lynch was present at the hearing and
explained to the Board that Henrietta Phillips owns
the property and this was the only site she was
willing to deed him this one acre. Lynch stated
that this lot fronted on an old road that led back
to Joe Moore' s house. Lynch stated that Ms.
Phillips and Thomas Moore gave 15 ' of right-of-way
(easement) each to Joe Moore to build his house
back off the road. Lynch added that he plans to
build a house or modular home on this property and
has no plans for a single wide mobile home.
Bill Dorsett, Board member, asked Lynch when was
the property deeded to him. Lynch answered by
saying that it has not been deeded to him, because
• the surveyor (Thomas Moore) would not survey the
land until this approval was granted by the Board.
Dorsett explained to Lynch that he must have a
special reason or hardship in order for the Board
to grant this type of Variance. Dorsett stated
• that the Ordinance requires a parcel to front on a
State maintained road or the road it fronts on must
February 14, 1989 Page 1
be built to State standard specifications . Dorsett
asked Lynch if he would be willing to build this
road to these standards . Lynch answered that this
30 ' access could not be extended because he did not
own any of this property.
Ray Farlow, Board member, asked Lynch what relation
(if any) was the property owner to him. Lynch
answered that Ms. Phillips is his wife ' s great
aunt.
Hal Johnson, Planning Director, asked Ms. Phillips
if she understood that if this Variance was granted
she would not be able to subdivide her property any
further . Phillips stated that she was aware of
this. Johnson explained that the purpose for the
County requiring large tracts with one residence
only on private roads was to control the density
using a private road.
Lynden Craven, Board member , asked Lynch if this
was a dead end farm road and if so who maintains
the road. Lynch answered by saying it was a dead
end farm road and Mr . Moore maintains the road
(property owner at the end of the road) .
Guy Troy, Board member , stated that he was familiar
with the location of the road, and explained that
it was a single lane gravel farm road.
Awielda Little, Board member , asked Lynch if he
would have a deeded easement (from the State Road
to his property) . Lynch stated that he did not
know. Little e::plained to Lynch that he would have
to have a disclosure on his deed (stating who would
be responsible for maintaining the road) . Lynch
stated that he olanned to maintain this road from
the State Road (to his property) and Moore would
maintain the road from his property to the dead
end.
The Board noted that there was no one present
opposed to granting this Variance request.
Vice Chairman told Lynch that a final . decision
(concerning this Variance) would be made on March
7 , 1989 . Lynch asked if there was a reason for the
delay in the decision, because it has been 50 days
or more since he filed this request and Lynch
stated that he had been told that he would receive
• a decision at this meeting.
Bill Dorsett stated that to grant a Variance (from
the County Zoning Ordinance) the request would need
to be in harmony with the general purpose and
• intent of the Ordinance. Dorsett stated that in
his opinion he did not think the Board could
, approve this Variance legal because he did not feel
this request was in harmony with the intent of the
Ordinance.
Ray Farlow stated that there was an existing
hardship because of the land-locked situation (of
the property) and with the land owner being a part
of the family that the land was probably priced to
be more affordable to the couple (than any other
land they may wish to purchase) . Farlow stated
that probably Ms. Phillips would want to have a
younger couple near by her. Farlow stated that his
main concern was that this one lot have an easement
for any future owners of the property. Farlow
stated that there was a lot of pros and cons to
this Variance and since arguments (both pro and
con) have risen from the Board that the Board may
need to talk with the County Attorney for some
February 14, 1939 Page 2
clarification.
Bill Dorsett stated that (how to grant) a Variance
is spelled out in the Ordinance and this request
goes against the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Dorsett added that if this request was granted that
anyone else (with a similar situation) would expect
their request to be granted.
Ray Farlow asked Ms. Phillips how long her house
had been on the property and Phillips answered by
saying over 50 years. Farlow expressed his opinion
that the grandfather clause may be able to apply in
this family situation.
Guy Troy expressed his views of this property not
being in a subdivision and that only one of the two
lots ( if subdivided) would be served by a private
road.
Bill Dorsett stated that this lot should be served
by a public road or one built to public road
standards for Lynch ' s protection and future owner ' s
(of this property) protection.
Lynch asked what were the State Road standards and
Hal Johnson explained that the road would be
required to have a 45 ' right-of-way with 18" of
gravel.
Bill Dorsett stated that Mr . Lynch may feel like
this is an imposition but if he built a house and
then was told he had no easement (to this home)
this would be a much larger imposition.
Guy Troy stated that Lynch needs to find out if he
has a deeded right-of-way or if he can obtain a
deeded right-of-way.
Aweilda Little made the motion that a decision be
delayed until Lynch sees what information he can
acquire for the Board. Little explained that a lot
of the Board' s concerns will be at rest if there in
fact is an deeded easement to this property. Guy
Troy seconded the motion and the motion passed
unanimously.
Lynden Craven, Vice Chairman, told Mr . Lynch that
this case will be heard again on March 7 , 1989 .
5. Vice Chairman Craven stated that the next request
(for a Variance from the County Zoning Ordinance)
was J. Wilson Hunt, developer and applicant ,
represented by Paul Bollinger, agent.
Hal Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the case
of the Variance for the proposed development of
Asheton Woods Subdivision, Phases II and III
(approximately 50 acres) located on SR 1404 (Fuller
Mill Road) in Tabernacle Township. Johnson stated
that this case is an appeal from the interpretation
of the Randolph County Director of Planning and
Zoning relative to current County Zoning
Regulations that require single wide manufactured
housing subdivisions to be located in the
appropriate zoning district. Johnson stated that
the applicants have appealed this interpretation to
the Board of Adjustment on the grounds that they
have a vested right to proceed with development as
planned and allowed by existing County Ordinances
prior to changes in County Zoning regulations
enacted by the Board of Commissioners, September 6,
1988.
Hal Johnson gave a brief summary of the case to the
February 14 , 1989 Page 3
Board of ?Adjustment . Johnson stated that Article
V, Section 2, of the Randolph County Unified
Development Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations,
require that a Preliminary Subdivision Plat of a
•
major subdivision be prepared by the developer and
submitted to the Planning Board for review and
approval prior to development. Johnson added that
it should be noted that this requirement was in
affect prior to the changes in County Zoning
Regulations enacted by the Board of Commissioners,
September 6, 1988 . On July 8, 1987 , Preliminary
Plat approval of 24 lots for Asheton Woods, Section
1 , was approved by the Planning Board. The
Developers were not , Present at this meeting . No
other sections were shown on the subdivision plat
however there was a notation of land to used for
future development on the plat the Planning Board
reviewed. On April 13 . 1988 , the Final Plat of
Asheton Woods, Section 1, for 24 lots, was approved
by the Planning Board. The Developers were not
present at this meeting . On June 7 , 1988 , a
Preliminary Plat for Asheton Woods, Sections 2 and
3 was presented to the County Planning Board. At
this meeting, concerns were expressed by citizens
and public officials concerning the affect major
subdivision development would have on water
supplies and environmental concerns . The Planning
Board (at this meeting of June 7 , 1988) voted to
' • delay any decisions on all major subdivision
approval until recommendations could be made to the
Board of Commissioners relative to environmental
impact considerations of major residential subdi-
vision development. On September 6, 1988 , the
Board of County Commissioners adopted new Zoning
regulations that addressed these issues. The new
Zoning regulations required that major subdivisions
be located in the appropriate zoning district prior
to development. On October 4. 1988 , the Planning
Board reviewed the request for rezoning for Asheton
Woods (Sections 2 and 3) and recommended to the
Board of County Commissioners that the request be
denied. The Board expressed its concerns (at this
meeting) that the additional development could
constitute (due to topographical features) poten-
tial environmental pollution into the Uwharrie
River . The Developers again were not present a
this meeting . On October 7 , 1988 , the County
• Planning Department was notified by the Developers
that they desired to withdraw the request to rezone
the property. Subsequently, the appeal to the
Randolph County Board of Adjustment. Johnson
stated to the Chairman (of the Board of Adjustment)
that this was a review of the case before the
Board.
• Paul Bollinger , Attorney representing H & F Asso-
ciates, stated that he had three witnesses (to
address the Board) . Bollinger gave the Board a
brief summary of his case (before the witnesses
spoke) . Bollinger stated that the entire tract
size (for this development) is approximately 80
acres and was purchased July 4, 1987 . Bollinger
stated that the developers began development (of
this subdivision) in August, 1987 and produced
brochures (for advertisement) and published news-
paper advertisements in all the local newspapers
(Asheboro, Lexington, Thomasville, High Point,
Archdale, etc) and hired a realtor . The developers
laid a foundations for a spec house also at this
time. Bollinger stated that for the next seven
months all efforts (by the developers to sale lots
for site built houses) yielded no return.
Bollinger stated that $180,000 was the purchase
• price for the land and because of lack of interest
in the (stick built) housing market the decision
February 14, 1989 Page 4
was made to change the type of development to
manufactured housing. The plats were filed with
the Planning Board and once approved (Bollinger
stated) 4 lots were sold immediately and 18 have
been sold since. Bollinger stated that 95% of the.
lots in Section 1 have been sold and 30% of the
total project number of lots have been sold.
Bollinger said that the total number of (intended)
lots was 65. Bollinger stated that Asheton Woods
doesn ' t want a trailer park and that Asheton Woods
is not a trailer park . Bollinger stated that H & F
would have filed all the Plats (of sections
intended) but H & F wanted a planned orderly
growth, planned in stages . Bollinger added that
Asheton Woods was not planned to take away from
adjoining properties, that things that exist now in
the area (around Asheton Woods) that can not go on
in Asheton Woods (because of the deed
restrictions) . Bollinger stated that Asheton Woods
will not detract from the area it will only add to
it. Bollinger stated that the developers wished to
continue development of this single unified
development that is 30% developed at this time and
be grandfathered in under the pre-existing clause
of the Ordinance.
Bollinger called his first witness, Margaret
Flippin, Route 4, Thomasville, and asked what her
association was to this project. Flippin answered
a junior partner . Flippin stated that she bought
in to this development on July 21, 1987 and that
the original intent was for stick built homes.
Flippin stated that after extensive advertising the
type of development was changed. Bollinger showed
Flippin a brochure and asked Flippin if she was
familiar with it and if so what was it for .
Flippin answered by saying yes she was familiar
with it, that the brochure was for advertising
purposes of Asheton Woods. Bollinger asked that
this brochure be considered exhibit #1 as evidence.
Bollinger showed Flippin a section of a newspaper
and asked her if she was familiar with it. Flippin
answered yes that it was an advertisement that had
been published in a local newspaper for Asheton
Woods. Bollinger asked that this large advertise-
ment be considered exhibit #2 as evidence. Flippin
told the Board that the property was on the market
(for site built residences) approximately 8 months
with only 1 or 2 prospects and no sales. Bollinger
showed Flippin a typed listing on paper and asked
her if she was familiar with the listing. Flippin
answered yes that it was a list of expenses incur-
red in developing this subdivision. Flippin told
the Board that Section 1 was of 24 lots and 18 have
been sold and approximately 2 or 3 were unsuitable
to develop. Bollinger asked if there were any lots
in Sections 2 or 3 that may fall in to this cate-
.gory and Flippin stated that there would be a few
lots . Bollinger asked if Flippin felt sections 2
and 3 could be marketed for site built homes and
Flippin answered no, not in her opinion. Bollinger
asked Flippin what type of hardship would it cause
if this property would not be developed for manu-
factured homes and Flippin answered that it would
leave them (the developers) with a large amount of
undeveloped land. Bollinger asked if Flippin was
aware that Mr . Henley (surveyor for Asheton Woods)
had not filed a preliminary on all three sections
and Flippin stated that she did not know that he
had not filed all three sections.
Hal Johnson, Planning Director asked Flippin why
was there no one at the hearings representing
Asheton Woods. Bill Elberson (man . from the
audience) stated that he was at the first two
February 14, 1989 Page 5
hearings.
Ray Farlow asked Flippin what was the extent of the
advertising (because exhibit #2 was from the High
Point Enterprise) and Flippin answered in all the ,
local newspapers . Farlow stated that it seems that
all the advertising was done during winter months,
a time of little development anywhere. Farlow
asked Flippin where did the major of the buyers (of
the 18 lots sold) come from, Flippin answered High
Point/Trinity area. Flippin stated that they (the
developers) sent brochures to several realtors in
Asheboro, Lexington, and the High Point area and
was only contacted by Mr . Hill . Aweilda Little,
Board member , stated that this area was sort of a
no man' s land to realtors in this area.
Charles Adams asked Flippin what was the average
price that the lots were marketed for , Flippin
answered $10 ,500 per lot.
Aweilda Little asked if this property was serviced
by County water , Flippin answered it was serviced
by Davidson County Water .
Paul Bollinger called his seconded witness to
address the Board. Mr . Bill Hill, Hill Real
Estates, 401 National Highway, Thomasville, came
` • forward. Hill stated that he was from Thomasville,
had been in real estate for 3 1/2 years, and
specialized with residential property. Hill stated
that he has also taken appraisal courses (for
land/property values) . Hill stated that Mr . Hunt
contacted him in February or March of 1988 and
talked with him about the marketing problems he was
having (for stick built homes) . Hill stated that
Hunt then decided to market the property for
manufactured homes . Hill stated that advertising
was done in Asheboro, Lexington, High Point ,
Thomasville, and most of the response came from
persons in the High Point/Trinity area. Bollinger
showed Hill a document and asked him if he was
familiar with this document. Hill answered yes
that it was the restrictive covenants of Asheton
Woods. Bollinger asked that the restrictive
covenants be entered as evidence (Exhibit #4) .
Hill explained briefly a few of the restrictions he
was familiar with. Bollinger asked Hill if the
restrictive covenants allowed site built residences
in the subdivision and Hill answered yes . Bollin-
ger asked Hill if there were any mobile home parks
near Asheton Woods, and Hill answered 2 (Big Oak
and Dempsey Kindley Mobile Home Parks) - approxi-
mately 1/4 mile from Asheton Woods. Bollinger
asked Hill if he had ever been to Asheton Woods and
Hill answered several times. Bollinger asked Hill
if there were any junked vehicles in the area and
Hill answered yes, just before you turn in to
Asheton Woods. Bollinger showed Hill some pictures
and asked if he was familiar with them. Hill
stated that they were pictures of the surrounding
neighborhood of Asheton Woods. Bollinger asked
that the pictures be entered as evidence (Exhibit
#5) . Hill explained to the Board that most of the
buyers (of lots in Asheton Woods) have bought the
lots because of the deed restrictions. Bollinger
asked Hill of the impact of the restrictions to
Asheton Woods. Hill explained that the restric-
tions up the value of the lots , but it slows down
the sells because of the restrictions being so
strict. Hill stated that he asked the developers
about laxing the restrictions so the lots would
sell faster, but Hunt would not hear of it.
Bollinger asked Hill what effect did Asheton Woods
have on adjoining property values, Hill answered
February 14, 1989 Page 6
that it did not hurt the values that if it made any
change in the values it would up the values .
Hal Johnson, Planning Director , asked Hill who
would enforce the restrictions once all the lots
were sold. Hill answered that his attorney may
best answered that question. Bollinger stated that
the land owners could then enforce the restric-
tions .
Bill Dorsett, Board member, asked Hill if all the
lots in Asheton Woods were enforced with these
restrictions, and Hill answered yes.
Bollinger called his last witness to the front of
the room. J. Wilson Hunt, 605 Valley Drive,
Thomasville, told the Board that his association
with this development was that he is a partner .
Hunt stated that he didn 't agree with what Johnson
said about no one being present to represent his
development, because Bill Elberson was a two of the
hearings and his surveyor (Phil Henley) was
supposed to be there to represent him. Hunt stated
that the purchase price for the property was
$130 ,000 for approximately 80 acres and each lot
has a tax value of more than $6,000 . Hunt stated
that he was a licensed appraiser and that Asheton
Woods development would increase the land values of
adjoining properties. Hunt stated that he was told
by his surveyor and the Planning Director that
there was no need to file the complete project in
the beginning. Bollinger asked Hunt if he would be
willing to go along with any restrictions (if
Variance granted) the Board may place on Asheton
Woods, and Hunt stated with in reason. Hunt
explained to the Board that the reason the plans
changed from stick built to manufactured homes was
because the market dropped out the bottom for site
built homes. Hunt stated that the vas majority of
the property owners in Asheton Woods, as their
financial stability increases, will build site
built homes on their lots. Hunt added that Asheton
Woods is built like any first class subdivision
with public water , paved streets, and underground
utilities.
Vice Chairman Craven asked for any arguments
against granting this request.
Ron Hughes, Route 11, Box 1631, Lexington, stated
that he purchased (at auction) some of this
Richardson Property (approximately 7 acres) and was
told (at the time of purchase) by Mr . Jack Beck
that before any trailer parks could be developed
there would have to be a public hearing. Hughes
stated that the adjoining properties are not worth
any where near $10 ,000 an acre. Hughes stated that
_it would be hard to sell a model house not built.
Hughes expressed his concerns of the restrictions
not being enforced once all the lots are sold.
Hughes stated that a modular home project could not
increase land values in this area and he did not
feel that the tax base (from these new home owners)
could pay for itself (with schools, etc. ) . Hughes
stated that his property is located on the corner
of SR 1404/SR 1367 .
Jessie Sellars, Asheboro, stated that her property
was family land and that mobile homes would not
upgrade her property. Sellars stated that her
property is located across the road from Asheton
Woods.
Mildred Younts, Route 1, Trinity, stated. that her
main concern was the stream that flow across this
February 14, 1989 Page 7
property. Younts stated that there was enough
manufactured home developments on this stream at
this time (Asheboro' s Water Supply) . Mounts added
that it is far easier to control the environment
before developments are build, instead of trying to .
control the environment later . Younts expressed
her concerns of the impact this development would
have on the police, fire department, and school
system. Younts stated that Tabernacle School is
already operating with mobile homes for classrooms.
Younts stated that she lived less than 1/4 mile
north of Asheton Woods. Younts added that this was
a rural agricultural area and she would like to
keep it that way.
Nancy Younts, Route 1, Trinity, stated that she
lived on the dirt section of Fuller Mill Road and
was concerned of the additional traffic to this
road with a single lane bridge and curvey
conditions .
Donald Hughes, property owner of this community,
stated that his concerns were for the traffic
hazzards/problems and this narrow country road.
Vicky Curtis, Route 1 , Trinity, property owner
beside Asheton Woods, expressed her concerns of the
crime rate in the area growing rapidly (since this
development began) , noise from the mobile homes ,
and the danger this could cause to Asheboro' s Water
Supply.
Patricia Neely, Route 3 , Trinity, expressed her
concerns of her children standing near this road at
the bus stop with all this added traffic to this
area.
Hal Johnson, Planning Director , stated that it is
important to understand the role of the Board of
Adjustment. The Board serves as a quasi judicial
body and the issue the Board must decide is a very
narrow legal issue involving the developers rights
under North Carolina Law to go ahead and proceed
with development . Johnson said that a lot of the
issues, such as the effects on the environment, are
issued the Planning Board will deal with (if the
Variance is granted) , because a plat would have to
be reviewed by the Planning Board. Johnson stated
that this hearing was to decide the legal rights
and what occurred or didn ' t occur before the Zoning
changes. The Zoning laws allow citizens to buy an
acre of land for development, but if more than 5
lots are to be sold, it requires the property to be
rezoned because of the possible effect a major
subdivision would have an its surrounding area.
The Planning Board works in a different capacity as
the Board of Adjustment to decided on issues such
as vested rights , etc . The County appreciates your
testimony and is here to listen to you but the
testimony given is not that relevant to the Board
of Adjustment, but will be to the Planning Board.
Nancy Younts, Route 3 , Thomasville, stated that the
adjoining property owners were not aware of the
manufactured homes until the first one went into
the subdivision and this made the adjoining land
owners feel deceived by the developers.
Ron Hughes, Route 11, Lexington, addressed the
Board again by saying that there may be some legal
ramifications concerning these mobile homes being
placed on this property because when the property
was auctioned off, Mr . Jack Beck told the buyers
�-' •
that the property would have to be rezoned before
any mobile homes could be placed in this area.
February 14 , 1989 Page 8
Johnson stated that the mix-up may be that (at the
time of the auction) a property owner would have
had to have the property rezoned for a mobile home
park , but not a mobile home subdivision. Hughes
stated that Beck said for any mobile homes to be
located in the area.
Roger Hedrick , Route 1 , Trinity, stated that the
reason the lots were sold faster to mobile home lot
buyers was because they were being sold with a
septic tank, water hook ups, and driveways with no
down payments . Hedrick added that Kindley' s Mobile
Home Park is a mile away from this area.
Rhonda Burnett, property owner in Asheton Woods,
stated that there was a down payment (to purchase a
lot) , she had had no problem with crime, she was a
member of the ladies auxiliary with the local fire
department, and she added that the people who are
buying these lots are not bad people. Burnett
added that if the mobile homes are nice and well
kept they will not bring the values of land down.
Catherine Hughes, adjoining land owner , stated that
she objected to the way this development was
started (site built, then changed to mobile homes) .
Hughes stated that this was destroying the 'rural
nature of this area and has mushroomed into a
community.
Paul Bollinger , Attorney for H & F Associates,
stated that for the recorded he objected to this
type of testimony, that he felt it (the testimony)
was going to far .
Marlene Hedrick , Route 1, Trinity, stated that even
if this development was for site built homes she
would be against the number of lots in this
development.
Greg Sprinkle, Route 1, Trinity, stated that he
lived 1/2 mile from Asheton Woods and his house has
been up for sale for approximately a year and that
this development has hurt the sale of his house.
Paul Bollinger stated that he wanted to asked the
Board to look over the application and petitions he
turned in to the Planning Department.
Bill Dorsett stated that he felt both sides had
been thoroughly represented and that the Board
would need time to think through all the testimony
given.
Vice Chairman Craven stated that this case would be
back before the Board on March 7 , 1989 .
7 . -The Board of Adjustment adjourned at 9: 04 p.m.
MT Y. RANDOLPH COUNTY
GpO e,45. NORTH CAROLINA
c2“::1'fe",-•"'124:71"-
Planning Director ,d
7779
•
Date Sec etary/Clerk
February 14, 1989 Page 9