Loading...
012320January 23, 2020 Special Meeting Zoning Appeal The Randolph County Board of Commissioners met in 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 opened the meeting and thanked the audience for their attendance. He said during the Public Hearing, anyone wanting to speak will have a chance to do so. He asked Ben Morgan, County Attorney, to explain what the guidelines are for the Board in hearing and making a decision on this appeal. Mr. Morgan said the previous case regarding this project came before the Board with an application that had been amended since the Planning Board decision. Because of the changes, the case was referred back to the Planning Board. This case is now to be heard de novo, anew, as if it has not been heard before. He suggested that anyone present any evidence they feel is appropriate for this case. This is a straight zoning hearing. First, the Board will hear from the applicant, then from those in opposition, then the applicant can respond to the opposition. When deciding the case, the motion should incorporate two steps into one to approve or deny the case is or is not in harmony with the Growth Management Plan. He urged speakers to speak into the microphones and mentioned to the Board to be careful talking to one another because it can appear to the audience as if things are not being considered publicly. Jay Dale, Planning Director, presented the request to appeal the decision of the Planning Board, as follows: WILLIAM L JONES, 1487 Allen Ct., Asheboro, NC, has requested an appeal for the decision made by the Randolph County Planning Board to approve a rezoning on 45.43 acres located on NC Hwy 49S and Old NC Hwy 49, Cedar Grove Township from RA Residential Agricultural and RR Residential Restricted to CVOE-CD Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive Conditional District. Tax ID 47639187958. Secondary Growth Area. The Conditional Zoning District requested was for a 22 -lot site built subdivision with a minimum house size of 1,750 sq. ft. as per site plan. Property Owner: Terry Vuncannon. Mr. Dale said on December 3, 2019, the Randolph County Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the rezoning request of Nash Duggins to further develop the Farmwood Subdivision. This was a reversal of their previous decision to deny rezoning. Some of the issues addressed in the meeting were as follows: 1. The development was lessened by three lots going from 25 lots to 22 lots. This of course decreased the size of the development. 2. A "no burn" statement was added to the plat as there were concerns that Mr. Duggins would burn or bury scrap materials. Mr. Duggins has already spoken with the Planning department and will be removing any construction debris in the correct legal manner. 1/23/20 3. Mr. Duggins removed an easement that concerned the neighbors. 4. Mr. Duggins has added a statement to the plat that the development would not be used as an access point for agricultural uses. 5. It was made clear in the meeting there would be no road constructed through the property linking Old Highway 49 with the new Highway 49. There is a considerable flood zone running through the property and according to Mack Summey, PE of Summey Engineering Associates, crossing the flood zone would be extremely expensive to the point of cost prohibitive. 6. While house size was still a major concern for residents who insisted on 2000 sq. ft. it was pointed out to them that by state law Randolph County cannot require Mr. Duggins to increase his house size which still stands at 1750 sq. ft. It should be noted of the existing three phases of the Farmwood Subdivision only one phase has a minimum house size of 2000 sq. ft., the other two phases being 1500 sq. ft. 7. The NC Department of Transportation (DOT) had provided Mr. Duggins with a letter explaining that for safety reasons they would not allow another access on to HWY 49 (Attachment 41 following these minutes.). *Some comments from the audience were not audible as they were not spoken into the microphone and are therefore not part of this record. W. Nash Duggins, 3092 Old NC Hwy 49, Asheboro, gave a presentation of his application. He commended Jay Dale for his work in getting to this point and answering questions. The technical review committee made two recommendations that the application for expansion of the Farmwood subdivision met the Growth Management Plan and said the Planning Board approved it. He has tried to meet citizens in the middle regarding desired square footage, including changing the minimum twice before the Neighborhood Meeting and once at the meeting to the current 1750 square feet (sq. ft.). He anticipated hearing complaints regarding the entrance to Farmwood and said the current entrance was originally intended to be used to access more development. Farmwood has been built in three phases thus far. The previous phases were built through the same entrance with no construction entrance. Farmwood Lane was left without a cul-de-sac due to property owner Terry Voncannon's intent of future expansion. Mr. Duggins' intent is to bring more options for quality residences to the county. He addressed the stigma surrounding "spec homes" and said they can still be quality homes even though they are not custom to a particular buyer's demands. The current spec homes in Farmwood are very nice homes. Just because there's no buyer when the home is built doesn't mean it cannot be a nice home. Chairman Frye asked if the lots would be sold to other builders in order for them to build spec homes or if Mr. Duggins would be building the spec homes. Mr. Duggins answered that it could go either way; he doesn't anticipate the lot price attracting people who will buy ten lots and build ten houses at one time. He said that while the goal is to sell lots, the restrictive covenants will protect the neighborhood from new houses being "cookie cutter homes." He wants to continue the feel, look, and value of the current neighborhood. Chairman Frye clarified that Mr. Voncannon still owned the property and asked if Mr. Duggins was planning to purchase the property contingent upon the rezoning. Mr. Duggins confirmed that to be the case. He will be the owner and developer. 1/23/20 Commissioner McDowell asked if the intention was to sell lots, develop spec homes, or sell lots for homes. Mr. Duggins said the intention is to sell lots. Sometimes the neighborhood needs "energy" to attract interest which may require a couple of homes to be built to attract buyers. While that is not the intention, it is a possibility. Chairman Frye asked if Mr. Duggins would sell a lot to a family who wanted to buy a lot to build a home. Mr. Duggins said yes, that's what he wants. Commissioner McDowell confirmed that Mr. Duggins plans to sell lots, regardless of who the buyer may be. Mr. Duggins agreed. Mr. Duggins again commended Mr. Dale for his summary and explanation of the case and said he was happy to answer questions by the Board or the homeowners present at the meeting. Chairman Frye commented that the ingress/egress to the neighborhood was still a concern for residents. The residents desired a separate access point to the neighborhood for the next phase. He asked if Mr. Duggins had reached out to the DOT for an opinion on a potential separate access and Mr. Duggins said he had. Chairman Frye said that County had reached out to Mike Fox, Chairman of the NCDOT Board, and had determined that adding a secondary entrance to the neighborhood would be a safety hazard. Mr. Duggins said that not only do they not want to spend the extra money, but adding an entrance would be hazardous to residents entering and exiting the neighborhood. Chairman Frye asked if there would be a Phase 5 for Farmwood. Mr. Duggins said no, the part of the map that backs up to Farmwood is the location of the 22 lots. It was noted that a notation on the map on the far side of Taylor's Creek saying "Request Location" had been placed in an incorrect location. Mr. Duggins said that he does not plan to cross Taylor's Creek due to financial constraints. Commissioner McDowell asked Chairman Frye to provide some details regarding his conversation with Mr. Fox. Chairman Frye said there is a steep embankment and guard rail where the secondary entrance would have to be. Using this location would require the developer to correct this at their own cost. The guard rail is present as a safety precaution. Mr. Duggins added that the DOT is limiting access points by only allowing one entrance and exit to Farmwood. Chairman Frye said that the additional lots do not require an additional entrance point if there is already access. Mr. Duggins said that he asked DOT if he needed to make improvements to the existing entrance and was told no. He said using the existing entrance is the safest way to develop these lots. Chairman Frye asked what Mr. Duggins' plan was in regards to construction debris. Mr. Duggins said originally there was a mistake listed on their plans that, when found, was immediately corrected. He submitted his plan to Planning and Zoning as required by ordinance showing that debris will be disposed of offsite. Debris will not be burned. 1/23/20 Commissioner Haywood asked if the developers were in charge of protective covenants. Mr. Duggins said the developer is in charge of monitoring the covenants. The County is not responsible for the covenants; they solely inspect buildings for code violations. The developer will be in charge of approving preliminary designs that are submitted to them, including elevation and square footage, in order to maintain the intent and feel of Farmwood. Mr. Morgan said that the developer and any other lot owners subject to the restrictions will be responsible for monitoring the covenants. Chairman Frye said that the covenants are probably more binding than County zoning regulations relative to the construction of the home. Mr. Duggins clarified that if a homeowner were to present plans for approval and then build something differing from those plans, they could be subject to a lawsuit. Chairman Frye asked if homes will be allowed to be built on a slab. Mr. Duggins said no, a crawlspace would be required. He said that to determine a direction for Phase 4, they copied the previous covenant and changed the square footage to a 1750 sq.ft. minimum and updated the power company to be more generalized rather than indicating a specific company. Commissioner Kidd asked if Farmwood Lane would be connected to Badin Lane and if it was a State maintained road. Mr. Duggins said that yes, Farmwood Lane had been upgraded to a State maintained road and Badin Lane will be as well once built. Commissioner Kidd asked what the speed limit in the neighborhoods was. Mr. Duggins said there are no speed limit signs posted in the neighborhood. Mr. Morgan said that typically in the county, the speed limit is 55 miles per hour (m.p.h.) unless otherwise posted, but he doubted that the neighborhood speed limit was 55 m.p.h. In the city limits, the speed limit is 35 m.p.h. unless otherwise posted. Commissioner McDowell agreed that unless otherwise posted, the speed limit is 55 m.p.h. Mr. Duggins said that those roads were established before he was involved, so he did not implement a 55 m.p.h. speed limit. Commissioner Haywood addressed representatives from DOT, Mr. Mickey Pate and Mr. R.J. Monroe, to ask what would be involved in putting speed limit signs in the neighborhood. Mr. Monroe said the Traffic Service Unit handles signage and said that he can verify the process and report back to the Commissioners about what it would take to add speed limit signs. Ms. Haywood said that it was important to get signs posted in neighborhoods. Mr. Duggins said that if they are able to build Badin Lane, they will post a speed limit sign with the limit determined by the DOT before the road is turned over to the State. Commissioner Kidd confirmed that the minimum square footage for the homes would be 1750 sq.ft. He asked what the price would be for a 1750 sq.ft. home. Mr. Duggins said that it should average around $262,000, which works out to about $150 per square foot. The price range would likely be between $140 and $150 per square foot. Chairman Frye addressed Mr. Dale and asked if this was Phase 4 of Farmwood and if the plan for this phase was on a plat. Mr. Dale confirmed. 1/23/20 Mr. Morgan gave a brief explanation of the rezoning case proceedings when they are not quasi- judicial. Typically, the applicant presents first, followed by questions from counsel or homeowners, after which the applicant is allowed to speak again. William "Lew" Jones, 1487 Allen Ct., Asheboro, posed a hypothetical scenario to the DOT as an option to the zoning hearing before the Commissioners as well as for future development. His concern was that the Farmwood subdivision would become a "pass through" between Hwy 49 and Old Hwy 49. He stated that "compatible" was used many times in the Randolph County Growth Management Plan and the Guide for Developers. He noted that the current homes in Farmwood average over 2400 sq. ft. compared to the 1750 sq. ft. minimum for the proposed Phase 4 properties. That is a difference of 27%. He said that if the Commissioners could not hear the previous case because there was a variance of more than 10% in the changes that had been made since the Planning and Zoning Board had heard the case, then he thought more than 10% must be significant. Homes adjacent to the proposed development are even larger creating more difference. In September, the Planning and Zoning Board denied the request because the square footage of the proposed homes was not compatible with the current homes. The minutes stated that the Board had asked the applicant to increase the minimum square footage at that time but were refused by the applicant. In December, the zoning was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board and considered compatible with surrounding housing. Mr. Jones asked what had changed from September to December that caused it to be compatible. Farmwood Subdivision is a cul-de-sac neighborhood. There is one road that ends which was meant to be extended. Mr. Vuncannon had told him that new phases would have to obey by the same covenant. Mr. Jones said custom homes were not compatible with spec homes. He referenced the September Planning Board minutes and quoted, "Cable asked Duggins if the square footage will affect his ability to sell lots. Duggins answered yes. He said if a builder is not building a custom home, he will not take the gamble on building a spec home with those costs." Tax values from the Randolph County Tax department show a total tax base of $13.7 million for the current Farmwood homes with over $105,000 in tax revenues to the County. He questioned what the County would do when those tax values were lower creating less revenue. He asked the neighbors from Farmwood to stand. He said they were not opposed to the land being developed, they are just opposed to a new development with homes that are incompatible with current homes. Chairman Frye asked when the square footage minimum changed. Mr. Dale said the square footage was changed after a Neighborhood Meeting but before the first Public Hearing. He also mentioned the new verbiage about house size that was adopted between the September and December meetings. The number of lots was also reduced. Commissioner Haywood clarified that the answer to Mr. Jones' question about what had changed between the two meetings was the ruling by the Legislature. Mr. Dale agreed. Sam Lasine, 300 N. Main St., High Point, Attorney representing the residents of Farmwood, said a board cannot mandate house size. However, a board can consider the proposed size in determining that is compatible with the existing homes. Mr. Morgan agreed. He said an ordinance 1/23/20 cannot state that certain classifications be buildings of a certain minimum size. However, the builder or developer could include those specifics with their proposal. Chairman Frye stated that there were always certain conditions that the Board was not able to impose on the applicants. The developer can make those changes, however. Ann Shaw, 1555 McDaniel Dr., Asheboro, said the proposed subdivision gives no benefit to the Farmwood residents. She passed out two pages which are Attachment 42 following these minutes. She said she had spoken with Appraiser Harold Brubaker and he had given her a formula to calculate cost per square foot and he recommended comparisons with surrounding subdivisions. She compared randomly selected homes from Back Creek Hills and Oak Hollow Subdivisions to Farmwood Subdivision. Homes in Oak Hollow Section 6 were the most recently built and she felt they would be most representative of the homes in Farmwood. The data she presented had Oak Hollow Subdivision at an average home size of 1833 sq.ft. with an average value of $87.64, Back Creek Hills Subdivision at an average home size of 1746 sq.ft. with an average value of $78.88, and Farmwood Subdivision at an average home size of 2582 sq.ft. with an average value of $107.56. She said this data shows the value the County has placed on the homes in Farmwood. Commissioner McDowell asked where the data had come from. Ms. Shaw explained that she used the Randolph County GIS system. She took the value of the house only and divided it by the square footage to get a cost per square foot. Commissioner Allen questioned if it was a cost or a value per square foot. She responded that it was a value per square foot. Ms. Shaw said that Farmwood was an investment for the residents and a good investment for the County. Farmwood Subdivision is unique in Randolph County. There is no other development that is comparable. When the Neighborhood Information Meetings started, the residents realized that their restricted covenant had expired. Ms. Shaw stated that the petition to renew the covenant had 95 out of 97 adults in Farmwood sign it. That shows how important it is to the residents to protect their neighborhood. Next, she addressed some of the comments Mr. Dale had made at the beginning of the presentation. She said Mr. Duggins had claimed he had addressed these at the last Planning Board meeting. The "no burn" statement was a correction that was brought up at the first Planning Board meeting by the residents. She stated that Mr. Duggins did not remove an easement. When you see the old map, there is an easement between lots 10 and 11. He added a flag lot but did not mention in his restrictions if further development could use a lot to access the remaining acreage. On the south side of the parcel, there is a dead end that can be used for future access to the 200 acres. Commissioner Kidd asked if she was talking about the old or the new map. She said she had given an old map to each of them to show the easement. She was showing the Board how the easement had gone from the northwest corner of the property to the southwest corner. 1/23/20 Commissioner Allen asked if the difference is a cul-de-sac on the old map and a dead end on the new map. She replied that she was indicating how the access point for new development had only changed. The flag lot on the new map only "capped it off " (the easement on the old map) so it had an ending. Commissioner Kidd clarified with Ms. Shaw that she was trying to show the dead end of Farmwood Lane instead of a cul-de-sac shows future access. She confirmed that it did and said Mr. Duggins has already indicated that he would leave an access for future development. Ms. Shaw disagrees that there will not be potential construction to link Hwy 49 to Old Hwy 49. She agrees that it would be costly but someone else could connect these. There is no guarantee that it won't be done. Mr. Duggins had said he cannot predict what could happen in the future. By using Farmwood Lane to enter Phase 4, it opens up their neighborhood for unknown development. They aren't telling Mr. Duggins not to build, they just don't want their subdivision impacted. The residents want to retain the reputation of the subdivision. She moved there because of the quiet atmosphere and safe traffic patterns. People walk and jog there. Kids ride their bikes there. The residents do not want twenty more years of construction traffic coming through their neighborhood. Chairman Frye asked when Allen Court was added to the subdivision. Ms. Shaw stated the year 2000. Commissioner McDowell said that the residents are asking for a different entrance to Mr. Duggins' proposed subdivision but the DOT is saying they will only grant access by way of Farmwood Lane. Ms. Shaw urged the DOT to put up speed limit signs in Farmwood Subdivision. Mr. Monroe said he would look into that for the residents. Commissioner Haywood asked what the minimum square footages were in Oak Hollow and Back Creek Hills Subdivisions. Ms. Shaw said Oak Hollow has a minimum of 1500 sq.ft. and she thinks Back Creek Hills has less than a 1500 sq.ft. minimum. In Farmwood, Phases 1 and 2 had a minimum square footage of 1500 for a one story home, 1600 for a story and half, and 1700 for a two story home. Phase 3 minimum square footage was 2000. Chairman Frye noted that most people built larger than the minimum. Commissioner Allen asked where Back Creek Hills was located. Ms. Shaw said it is off of Hwy 64. Mr. Brubaker had recommended it as a comparable subdivision. Commissioner Haywood asked if the roads were State maintained at either subdivision. Ms. Shaw was not sure. Chairman Frye asked DOT representatives to come forward to respond to some questions. 1/23/20 Commissioner McDowell was trying to understand why DOT would deny a new access point to 49 for new development. Mr. Monroe stated that DOT limits the number of access points for safety reasons. They direct developments to connect to State roads within a subdivision when possible and to use the same entrance. Chairman Frye asked if Farmwood Lane was not being used, would another access be granted. Mr. Monroe replied if there was not access to Farmwood Lane, DOT would have to investigate it. However, this proposed development does have that access and would still be required to use Farmwood Lane. Commissioner Kidd asked about access before coming to the guard rail if travelling towards Oak Hollow subdivision. Mr. Monroe knew there was a guard rail but was not sure if there could be access on either side of it. Mr. Jones came forward and responded that there is a small driveway before coming to the guard rail that has a telephone switching station. There is a drainage ditch in that area and the ravine is much shallower. It could possibly be filled in to create an access. Commissioner Allen asked how road access was determined. Mr. Monroe said because Farmwood Lane is an accessible DOT street, it is the safest way to access Hwy 49. DOT wants to limit the number of contact points. Chairman Frye commented that there are plans to make Hwy 49 a four lane road and asked about a time frame. Mr. Monroe said he was aware of the project but does not have specific information at this time. Commissioner McDowell commented that the section of Hwy 49 being discussed does not have enough space to put in four lanes. Pamela Freeman, 2248 Farmwood Lane, Asheboro, passed out a packet that follows these minutes as Attachment 43. She has been at her address for nineteen years. She found out about the upgrade of Farmwood Lane to State standards when she received a letter placed on the windshield of her car the morning that the road paving began. She stated that Mr. Duggins had nor --t spoken to all of the neighbors before proposing this project to the Planning department. She said during the first informational meeting on August 13th, Mr. Duggins presented his plans for the addition to Farmwood saying that after the property had been developed, remaining land would be divided into tracts of five and ten acre lots and would be sold, noting that no properties would be landlocked. Ms. Freeman pointed out a piece of property that she was interested in purchasing and asked how that property could be accessed. Mr. Duggins told her that access would come from an extension off the Farmwood Lane cul-de- sac. Residents have asked that the future subdivision be developed separately from Farmwood. If the new development must be connected to Farmwood, the residents have asked if a secondary entrance could be built to keep construction traffic off of Farmwood Lane. Mr. Duggins said that access to Highway 49 is too cost prohibitive. 1/23/20 Residents are concerned that Farmwood Lane would become a cut -through between Old Hwy 49 and new Hwy 49. They do not want Farmwood Lane to become a "thoroughfare." The residents have never questioned the number of lots in the new development, but rather are concerned about the minimum square footage of the new homes. Phase 1 and 2 of Farmwood were required to have a minimum of 1500 sq.ft. There are only three homes in Farmwood that are under 1750 sq.ft. She said that Mr. Duggins references the high costs of construction as the reason for keeping the square footage minimum at 1750 sq.ft. Ms. Freeman stated Mr. Duggins also plans to build "a couple of spec homes" but she is concerned because the three spec homes on Allen Court are each between 1900 and 1995 sq.ft. Ms. Freeman is concerned with how the restrictive covenants for the proposed project were filed because Mr. Pugh is listed as the developer when she thought it was Mr. Duggins. The original covenants for Phases 1,2, and 3 expired in June 2000. The restrictive covenants were renewed with the same restrictions as the original covenants. Ms. Freeman referenced page three of the packet she handed out and explained the average square footage data she had compiled of each phase. There is a23.1% difference when comparing a 1750 sq.ft. home to Phase 1, a 21.8% difference when compared to Phase 2, and 33.5% when compared to Phase 3. Ms. Freeman said that Mr. Duggins' proposal was rejected at the September 101h Planning Board meeting. During the December 3rd Planning Board meeting, residents learned that the changes suggested at the September Planning Board meeting had not been made. Ms. Freeman believes that Mr. Duggins has made more than a 10% difference in his application which would not allow his proposal to be reviewed for one year, which would be September 2020. She asked that residents be allowed to rebut Mr. Duggins' comments made in response to citizen concerns. She asked for residents of Farmwood subdivision in the audience to please stand. Julie Parrish read aloud a letter written by Deborah Brown, 1376 McDaniel Drive, Asheboro. Ms. Brown's letter is included as Attachment 44 following these minutes. Julie Parrish, 1391 McDaniel Dr., Asheboro, lives with her husband Ron and son Seth in Farmwood. They have invested a lifetime of savings to buy this property. A new subdivision with the Farmwood name with lower minimum square footage homes will decrease the value of their home. They would not have bought a home in Farmwood if they knew smaller homes might be built which are incompatible with the current homes. She doesn't want this new phase to be called Farmwood if the minimum square footage is not comparable. She stated that the developer says he met the requests of the neighbors but she does not think he did. The things changed were his elected changes and changes to meet regulations. He did not address the smaller square footage of the homes or Farmwood Lane being used as a "thoroughfare" to access the 200 acres of property. 1/23/20 Using the Farmwood name is a knockoff. She urged Commissioners not to let smaller homes be built causing current owners to lose hard earned money in the investments of their homes. She asked the Board not to pass a subdivision that has the Farmwood name without custom homes and minimum square footage equal to the current restrictions. Mr. Lasine said that the Planning Board determined 1750 sq.ft. was not compatible with the current development in September but in December came back and approved it with no material changes. Since Phase 3 has a minimum 2000 sq.ft., Phase 4 is going backwards with minimum 1750 sq.ft. homes. This is incompatible with phased development. Mr. Jones gave statistical data and said the average home currently is 2600 sq.ft. Ms. Shaw showed the sq.ft. value difference. He reminded the Board that they cannot require specific square footage but can find that a proposed development is incompatible with the current development based on housing square footage minimums. DOT addressed the road access issues but residents still have concerns with traffic coming through their neighborhood to access the proposed development and the remainder of the 200 acres as well. The rezoning should be denied. Chairman Frye reiterated the minimum proposed housing size is 1750 sq.ft. in Phase 4, the minimum housing size is 2000 sq.ft. in Phase 3. The most serious issue from the residents to his knowledge was all about access through the neighborhood but now it is all about the square footage of the proposed homes. He, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Dale met with DOT to find another access but were told that it could not happen. He asked Mr. Dale what changes had occurred from the denial to the approval by the Planning Board. Mr. Dale said it was his understanding that the reduction of lots, the removal of the easement, and the statement by DOT about future access cleared up the concerns for the Planning Board. Like the citizens, the Planning Board was concerned when Mr. Duggins did not have clear answers at the first hearing. At the second hearing, they felt he addressed their questions. Mr. Morgan clarified that the restrictions had not been changed. At the first appeal, a conservative approach was taken by the Commissioners to send the request to the Planning Board because the map and lot configuration were different from what had been heard by the Planning Board. Commissioner Kidd asked about a small driveway past the entrance to Farmwood. Mr. Jones said it was a telephone switching station where elevation is not as steep. Mr. Jones posed a hypothetical scenario. If he purchased the adjacent section which is not part of the proposal, where would he get access to the property and would it need to be rezoned. He said he has always had an issue with the square footage. At a previous meeting, he spoke to Mr. Duggins and made a comment that if the proposed homes would have a minimum square footage of 2000 sq.ft. "just about all this problem would go away." Ms. Freeman said there is property for sale on the corner of Union Church Road and Hwy 49. She went to the DOT office and spoke with Jennifer Britt regarding access to that property. Ms. Britt told her that access would probably be on Union Church Road. She asked Ms. Britt if the 1/23/20 property was between Union Church Rd. and Farmwood, where would the access be. Ms. Britt responded to her that it would be on Hwy 49 because the DOT cannot keep you from accessing your property. Commissioner Kidd asked how construction traffic would access the proposed subdivision. The response was that all construction traffic would use Farmwood Lane. Mr. Duggins presented the Board with a copy of an email regarding the removal and disposal of construction debris that is following these minutes as Attachment 45. Mr. Duggins answered questions and concerns the residents had presented during the hearing, as follows: • Access to the residual land is from Farmwood Lane currently regardless of his proposal. • Every street has a cul-de-sac except for Farmwood Lane. He feels that there was intention to expand by way of that road. • Construction traffic is common to subdivisions that are phased. • Covenants for Phase 1, 2, and 3 had expired. They originally had minimum sq.ft. of Phase 1 and 2 at 1500 sq.ft. and Phase 3 at 2000 sq.ft. It was refiled just like the original covenant. • Not everyone was notified by him personally that he was developing the property. He feels like the Neighborhood Information Meeting is part of that notification process. • This proposal had nothing to do with the road not being turned over to DOT. It should have been turned over to them by the developer a long time ago. • People called him regarding the road paving. He was not informed either. • Because Taylor's Creek is running through the 200 acres, there will not be a "cut through" from Old Hwy 49 to Hwy 49 because the Creek would need to be crossed. • Part of the 200 acres does have an access on Old 49. • When the proposal was sent back to the Planning Board, he insisted that there be another Neighborhood Meeting to show the neighbors he is not hiding anything. • Many of the neighbors here tonight live in larger than minimum square footage homes. People can choose to build a home larger than the minimum. • After the first Planning Board hearing, he contacted the Planning department to know what changes needed to be made. The flag lot on the second map is one of those changes. • He gave the neighbors a resume with his experience. • The neighbors think their home values will be hurt by the minimum square footage but he doesn't think they will. He can't change their minds. This proposed subdivision is not incompatible with the previous minimum house size. He doesn't want the values to be lower because it hurts his project too. • All the things that were problems at the first Planning Board meeting were fixed and the second Planning Board meeting proved that. Chairman Frye asked who made the decision to dead end Farmwood Lane. Mr. Duggins said the change from the cul-de-sac to a dead end was made by him. 1/23/20 Chairman Frye asked Mr. Duggins if he owned the property. Mr. Duggins replied that it is under contract with Mr. Vuncannon pending approval of the zoning. He and his partners are buying the whole 200 acres. Commissioner Haywood asked what the price of the lots will be. Mr. Duggins said they will be sold at no less than $30,000 but the final price has not been determined. Commissioner McDowell inquired if the proposed subdivision lines could be moved since he and his partners are buying the whole tract. He thinks that lot 22 could be used as an access to Hwy 49 if the DOT approves it. Mr. Duggins responded that it was pretty clear that DOT will not allow it. Commissioner McDowell was concerned about access to the property on the other side of the tract from Hwy 49. He still has a problem with DOT not allowing an additional access to Hwy 49. Chairman Frye asked if the area was flat enough for access past guard rail. Mr. Duggins replied that it is not just the topography, it also involves the number of access points onto Hwy 49. DOT has decided that access via Farmwood Lane is the safest way to direct traffic into the proposed subdivision. Mr. Morgan spoke to try to clear up confusion about access. He said DOT will allow a driveway for one home. They do not have to issue a permit for a 22 lot subdivision if the access is not safe. Commissioner Kidd asked if DOT can say no to a development. Mr. Morgan's response was yes. Commissioner Allen questioned if he had one lot and wanted to access Hwy 49 where the guard rail was, does he go to DOT to get approval for a driveway. Mr. Monroe answered that access is not permissible through a guard rail. Mr. Pate stated that generally single residential homes are not issued permits for driveways. Commissioner McDowell inquired about access for three lots in the middle of the tract. Mr. Pate responded access would be by way of Farmwood Lane. Chairman Frye commented if Farmwood Lane were not there, the solution would be different. Mr. Pate said it is a liability issue if DOT allows access to a busy Hwy. Commissioner McDowell asked if a citizen needed an ambulance, how long would using Farmwood Lane delay response. Mr. Pate said that would be a question for the Emergency Services department. Commissioner Kidd asked if he bought 15 acres in the middle of the tract and put a house in the middle of it, could the driveway come out on Hwy 49. Mr. Monroe answered that it would if he couldn't connect to Farmwood Lane. DOT is going to choose the safest way to access the property. Commissioner Kidd said there is already a driveway on Hwy 49 to get to the telephone switching station, so why won't DOT allow access through that. Commissioner Allen stated that 1/23/20 the driveway goes to a utility box that is not accessed every day. Mr. Monroe reiterated that DOT is concerned about the citizens and looks at what is the safest access point. Mr. Jones suggested a scenario where he buys the 200 acres to make a new subdivision and blocks off access to Farmwood Lane, would he have access to Hwy 49. Mr. Monroe said DOT would have to look at it. Mr. Jones stated that he proposed to Mr. Duggins in the beginning to make a separate subdivision with any home size and not connect to Farmwood Lane or connect and build homes with a minimum 2000 sq.ft. Commissioner Kidd asked if Mr. Duggins opposed a different access to Hwy 49. Mr. Duggins responded that there is access to Hwy 49 using Farmwood Lane, a State road. Chairman Frye commented that changing the scenario does not change the fact that Farmwood Lane is there and built to State standards. Chairman Frye asked about the renewed covenants being the same as the original. Mr. Morgan said they were renewed like the original documents. Chairman Frye asked if all lots on McDaniel Dr. are sold. Commissioner Allen said they are but not all have structures on them. He asked to have the minimum square footage of the covenants restated. They were restated at follows: Phases 1 and 2 had a minimum square footage of 1500 for a one story home, 1600 for a story and half, and 1700 for a two story home. Phase 3 minimum square footage was 2000. Chairman Frye questioned if Allen Ct. is a State road. Ms. Freeman responded that McDaniel Rd. and Richard Cir. are up to State standards. Farmwood Lane was brought up to State standards in November 2019. Now Allen Ct. can become a State road. Chairman Frye asked if Mr. Vuncannon needed to request Allen Court be brought up to State standards. The response was a road must be brought up to State standards before DOT will take it into their system. Commissioner Haywood asked if Oak Hollow subdivision had one entrance. Mr. Duggins replied yes and many subdivisions like it. Commissioner Haywood said the majority of the homes in Farmwood Subdivision are built above the minimum square footage. Per the data presented by Ms. Shaw, the average home in Oak Hollow Subdivision is built above the minimum. If lots are $30,000 and so many people overbuild, following the pattern, the new houses will be above the square footage. If you are buying a lot costing $30,000, you would build a nice home. The Tax department said the square footage would not affect the current values. Mr. Jones said he would agree with Commissioner Haywood if the developer were building custom built only, the houses would not be affected. These lots are being sold to builders not to 1/23/20 homeowners. Mr. Duggins clarified that a few homes might be built to spark interest, but his intent is to sell to homeowners. Commissioner Haywood said she visualizes that lots will be purchased by the home owner. This would be similar to a development close to her home. Commissioner Allen referenced the statistics provided by Ms. Shaw comparing square footage and value against other subdivisions. He made some calculations on potential houses in the proposed subdivision and mentioned that the value of Farmwood on Ms. Shaw's sheet was actually approximately $115. He said assuming $153 per square foot with a minimum 1750 sq.ft. the house would cost approximately $267,000. He is also assuming that is the value. Using the same assumptions, existing Farmwood homes would average $297,000, a difference of approximately $30,000. Commissioner Haywood stated that no one likes change but some of it can be good. People have overbuilt. We are all trusting the developers. If a developer does not do what they say, the Board will not approve subsequent subdivisions. She and her fellow Commissioners have done a lot of research. She spoke to Debra Hill, Tax Accessor, and Ms. Hill said she doubted that smaller square foot minimums would have any effect on current values. Chairman Frye commented that there were two motions, one to approve and one to deny, prepared for the Board prior to the meeting. Mr. Morgan confirmed that this is common practice at Planning Board hearings as well as Commissioner meetings. On motion ofHaywood, seconded by David Allen, the Board voted 3-2 with Kidd and McDowell opposing, to approve this rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan. " Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 153A-341 and 342, the Randolph County Board of Commissioners finds 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 consistent with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan and are 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. A Secondary Growth Area is an area for medium density, predominately residential that allows for transitional land use patterns. This property is located between NC Hwy 49 S and Old NC Hwy 49. 1/23/20 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: This request, as presented, would be consistent with the Plan, in that the proposal is a compatible residential development keeping with the previously established pattern in the existing sections of Farmwood. The request identifies that site built homes are a major housing source in this part of the County and reflect the long-term quality of life that the County wants for its citizens. Policy 6.6 Development in designated flood zones shall be avoided. Subdivision lots that are partially within designated flood zones shall compute the minimum lot size as that area outside the flood zone. Consistency Analysis: This proposal ensures that residential development does not occur in areas designated as flood zones. The proposal has all residential development outside of the established flood zones. 2. Statement of Reasonableness and Public Interest Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The policies listed above illustrate how this request is consistent with the Ordinance, the Plan and applicable General Statutes. The Development Impact Analysis shows that within one -mile of the proposal, there are approximately 541site built homes and 33 mobile homes. The average site built house size within the same one -mile radius is 1,744.49 sq. ft. indicating that the proposal of 1,750 sq. ft. is reasonable and in the public interest as being compatible with surrounding development. Adjournment At 9:31 p.m. on motion ofKidd, seconded by Allen, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn. Darrell Frye, Chairman David Allen Kenny Kidd Hope Haywood Maxton McDowell Dana Crisco, Clerk to the Board 1/23/20 Attachment #1 On Oct 18, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Pate, Mickey <m pate 1 @ncdot.gov> wrote: K4r,DuQQns, After calculating the estimated trips generated for a total of 69 homes, only a right turning lane on NC49 would be warranted at the existing entrance of Farmwood Subdivision, The existing right turn lane is sufficient in fulfilling this requirement. Therefore, no roadway improvements will be required for the additional 22lots. The question was asked whether NCDOTwould allow another access toNC49 toserve the proposed Z2 lots. At this time, we would not allow another access to NC49 for that purpose. Studies have shown that accidents increase and level of service decrease as the number of highway access points increase, Thenefnnevvhenneaxonab|e,w/eUmmitthenumberofhi8h\meyaccesses,particu|adyxvithm 'or thoroughfares such as NC49. Connecting the lots as proposed to Farmwood Lane is safer and provides a better level of service on, NC49 where speeds are higher and traffic is dramatically heavier than within the subdivision. Additionally, the level of service within the subdivision should not be significantly affected by the 22 lot increase due to the slower speeds and low traffic volume. in short, the potential event mfaserious accident ortraffic congestion associated with anadditional access, onNC49is significantly higher than such an event would be with access connecting to Farmwood Lane and associated increased traffic at existing NC49 access. Ifyou have any questions please feel free tocontact meorthis office. Thanks, Mickey Pate Assistant District Engineer Division 8- District 1 (336)-318-4005Direct (336)-318-4000 Main Office Mail: PO Box 1164 Asheboro, NC 2720 Physicat3O8DOT Drive Asheboro, NC272@5 Attachment #2 i!t to to i/,)- ih "V th Vj- -V)- A- IA- o on n o O 01 N Ln Cu C fD -0 r�D _ 00 0 00 W M 0 0 r �-' 00 00 V V to w 00 00 Co tD lD N1 CD M N W W 00 � Ln b) N CD :P V Q1 Q-) W W W V V lD Ol 4�:k v iJ'F -Ih ih Jh {!i- -th t/1- qVl- 4J'I- jh n D C v 00 Oq n 0 n v, T E(D n rD rrD m rD to .p cn V Ori M _ 00 N, 00 -h r+ 00 O O Ln W W 00 4�k N 01 Ln lD N 61 :P lD W to bl N -P W U'1 00 U'1 Ln I� i!? Vl- illh th vi- -tn- 'V7- 'V7- -Cr►- V1- iI>• -VT -Vl- 40- n < o -n rD rD N N Ul --i 0 O CL V � � Ln H I -Q I -A I-, I-, I� I-, I-, M ;: O O N N N 4�- W O O O N h- O W O N N M W Ln W 4�:b .p N O .P O Ql W •P :�h lD Q1 W Ql to I A U'I 00 I-1 �4 I-� W W W V 0 W N I -A W 0 N v e .. 1 as 4 ._. 16 ,.a�%'���.etaz%seg � �� �va�• _� _ r: a�N 16r 0330 zm dIto dp p -d # ! n 6 L V ,^f e.. $i5 l\� \1\IND �1� f ✓" s \\y N \+\\ 91 AN Ln N r• .a..5 Mata t -+ CtAIA --"" .rjdlW"'+t� °'%\, na �. Zr �o�0cirsSio" .. � `kms\ � �„ .'- i�,�% '.�� 'h N vc if 0.', Vit,=a�-A,c'.n" a.,, *" 'l '. \ �A� •�w .... r'\rY, if $ . ,oaf s t OWN a � ', +r. � \4,; 4 9f�L�4�'S�u''�Q..4�' •.A � [. \ t°Uw, ,�'� \ x ,\.�9�\ '' ✓ \: w � � �� � � .� � � � �Cj s�—ears/gra 1 `xw z `�'' tga/�eex= d/a+e Q33Q ak ✓j 6 r�r, to 9a5seSeet Nrd v it 4 z; m 33NVN "N NvM ONMO p �s�-gta ..�alee aid y \k Jr`/ f t > v'0 r ' g �ro/eebz �Dd(ee 0334 y / P At 0 LT �` :. a•r �mJrr Mill cWtar I 1�a_ �',�r �. err• ryy �s � Nal g oo > &� S. q a t �z KgAREUMAMYFUr , a.. Jeexxr ,�ummey�n�airvecrin�,,gssocr"etch; ^" ,�: C"`1 �..�zm FARMWOO(] . PHASE 4 whem immy,mom GM9�t" �swA°C AI:eM � 4RLLlR'rRU�'. JM1..arhr+aawwP !fF->.r..ar. 'S?ry. 5� .. mt I To Whore It May Concern. Attachment #3 We are In the process of having Farmwood Lane brought up to NCDOT standards. This work will involve the raising of overhead power and utility lines, cleanup of the road right of ways and resurfacing of the road to NCDOT specs, This NCDOT standard will also require the replacement of all brick mailboxes with US Mail standard post and mailboxes. The brick mailboxes will be required to be removed with the work of the road upgrade. This removal brick mailboxes will be included in the road upgrade work. The homeowners with brick mailboxes will need to provide a standard US Mail post and mailbox of their liking. This mailbox and post will be installed during the road upgrade at no expense to the homeowner. If the current standard US Mail post and mailboxes already In place require moving (right of way distance) this will be done during the upgrade work, Other than the replacement of brick mailboxes with standard -post and mailboxes this road upgrade is not expected to be of further expense to the homeowners,on',Tarrnwood Lane. This upgrade work to NCDOTstandards will allow Farmwood Lane to be accepted into the state system and state maintenance responsibilities. This acceptance sets the road up to be maintained by the state In the future. This also provides that the road will be provided with snow removal as required. If there are questions, please contact me for further info. Hayworth Lemonds-Broker PREMIERE Realty 336 259 9099 '� MWOOD Square Footage Stats OAK HOLLOW Square Footage Stats 1200 1'� 3 � Size Qty % of Total 1100 Under 1700 3 6.38% 1200 1300 0 o �� Under 2000 8 17,02% 23,40% 1300 1400 3 �; v Over 2000 36 76.60% 1400 1500 3 Total Homes 47 1500 1600 9 �' 16 1.600 1700 11 + SQFT Range QTY Percent 1700 1.800 14 12). 0' 1500-1600 3 6,38% 1800 1900 11 tt) h 0/� 1600-1700 0 0.00% 1900 2000 7 Lo 0t>�t� 13 �/v 1700-1800 0 0.00% 2000 2100 8 "1 Cj v4 1800-1900 5 10.64% 2100 2200 10 � 1.900-2000 3 6,38% 2200 2300 9 i�, 2000-2100 3 6,38% 2300 2400 3 2100-•2200 4 8.51% 2400 2500 2600 3 2 1.000/0 2200-2300 2 4,26% 2500 2300-2400 3 6.38% 2600 2700 1 2400-2500 2 4.26% 2700 2800 3, .j`f( 2500-2600 4 8.51% 2800 2900 0 0 I 2600-2700 2 4.26% 2900 3000 0 0 r6 2700-2800 5 10,64% 3000+ 8 X15 0 2800-2900 3 6,38% 106 2900-3000 3 6,38% 3000+ 5 1.0.6.4% 47 100.00°% Size Qty % of Total Under 1700 27 25.47% Under 2000 32 30.19°% Variance From Average Over 2000 47 44,34% 2411 Total Hames 106 1700 70,51% 711 75% over 1700 Sq Ft 29.49% 44% over 2000 Sq Ft m", Phase 1 average square footage is 2275 or 23,1% more than 1750 (IQ of 77) Phase 2 average square footage is 2237 or 21,8% more than 1750 (IQ of 78) Phase 3 average square footage is 2630 or 33.5% more than 1750 (IQ of 67/66) Oak Hollow average square footage is 2031 or 14% more than 1750 (IQ of 86) Standard scores for education are considered to be within the normal range of 85-115 with 85 considered to be below average, 100 considered to be average, and 115 considered to be above average. 15% is one standard deviation from the norm. 20% is considered clinically significant from the norm. 30% is two standard deviations from the norm. Attachment #4 12 /'6 y 6 tole, ICD aq& Ty'6 ]Qf 3111, 6C4.. . °IT A do, I it /r CE., ML e- -id 6r' e C c b:) 19") Z(,� le- c iut ..,� .� „ Z f 4� /O _ J} f p p .✓a ..� ., N.�,- / �. ±��. s °?, "w" �L. / p� f ���"n.. mw� 77„A �✓ � �Y' d, b«.�4 F �d' M. C. 751 ow.)t�',d ,, p. t'' /1, �"L�; vlecho 150a) fi) 5Av/(L_ andUU/ 6�ee,/,A 1)vwl Pc� in- X; R0 r 01 4 el s p_a jcv1( And .6; Q&c. it 4 b dd,v I C C__ 0 ; /71 1k oretif-1.1; h R A w , �, oks c 00 yo IJ bel 6IL-c" A a Al ==_ Attachment #5 Nash Duggins <nash.duggins@grnail.com> Randolph County Ordinance Article VII Section 4 (G) 6 messages Nash Duggins <nash.duggins@gmail.com> Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:58 PM To: "Mangum, Timothy V." <Tim.Mang um@randolphcountync.gov>, "Martin, Eric J." <Eric. Martin @randolphcountync.gov>, "Dale, Jay L."<Jay.Dale@randolphcountync.gov>, Mack Summey <mack@summeyengineering.com>, Zach Gardner <zach@summeyengineering.com>, Nash Duggins <nash.duggins@gmail. com> Mr. Martin, Since we met this morning I have contacted one of the Site Contractors that could be handling the Clearing and handling of Debris as it relates to Tree Removal and Clearing activities for this development. 1 have confirmed that they intend on Grinding this debris on site. The Grinder will load the debris onto a tractor & trailer and will likely be sold to a Power Company for their use. In the event that the debris cannot be sold, they will dispose of the debris in a properly approved location off site for these types of materials. In No event will this debris be disposed of on site or in this subdivision or any residual land. I cannot answer which one will happen today, but again it will not be disposed of on site. Stumps will be hauled off site to a C&D Landfill or equivalently approved off site location for disposal of this type of debris. In No vent will these be buried on site or on any residual land. We also discussed Construction Debris for any houses that would constructed in this subdivision. Builders will be directed to dispose of an Construction Debris at a C&D type landfill or equivalent. In NO event will they be allowed to dispose of Construction Debris on site or any residual land. Hopefully this will suffice for our plan and compliance with the Randolph County Ordinance Article VII Section 4 (G). Thank you, Mash Duggins nash.duggins@gmail.com (336) 382-6327 - Mobile Nash Duggins <nash.duggins@gmall.com> Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 6:07 PM To: Nash Duggins <nash.duggins@gmail.com>, "Martin, Eric J." <Eric.Martin@randolphcountync.gov>, "Dale, Jay L."<Jay,Dale@randolphcountync.gov>, Mack Summey <mack@summeyengineering.com>, "Mangum, Timothy V." <Tim. Mang um@randolphcountync.gov>, Zach Gardner <zach@summeyengineering.com> Are we good on this? Nash Duggins 336.382.6327 On Oct 2, 2019, at 12:58 PM, Nash Duggins <nash.duggins@gmail.com> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] Nash Duggins <nash.duggins@gmail.com> Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:56 AM To: "Mangum, Timothy V." <Tim.Mangum@randolphcountync.gov>, "Martin, Eric J." <Eric.Martin @randolphcountync.gov>, "Dale, Jay L."<Jay,Dale@randolphcountync.gov>, Mack Summey <mack@summeyengineering.com>, Zach Gardner <zach@summeyengineering.com>, Nash Duggins <nash.duggins@gmail.com> Jay, Are we good on this? [Quoted text hidden] Dale, Jay L. <Jay.Dale@randolphcountync.gov> To: Nash Duggins <nash.duggins@gmail.com> It looks good. Thank you. [Quoted text hidden] Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:24 AM This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended for use only by the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying of this communication, or unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately by reply email and then delete this message from your system. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Randolph County Government. This email and any file attachments have been scanned for potential viruses; however-, the recipient should check this email for the presence of viruses and/or malicious code. Randolph County accepts no liability for any damage transmitted via this email. Nash Duggins <nash.duggins@gmail.com> To: "D61e, Jay L." <Jay.Dale@randolphcountync.gov> Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:44 PM Sorry about just typing your name. I jumped to something else and I hit send somehow with typing anything else. Thank you. [Quoted text hidden] Dale, Jay L. <Jay.Dale@randolphcountync.gov> To: Nash Duggins <nash.duggins@gmail.com> No problem at all. [Quoted tc;xt tridden] [Quoted text hidden] Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:59 PM