Loading...
09SeptemberPBRANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 204 E Academy Street, Asheboro NC 27203 (336) 318-6555 RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA September 13, 2022 1. Call to Order of the Randolph County Planning Board. 2. Roll call of the Board members: • Reid Pell, Chair; • John Cable; • Kemp Davis; • Melinda Vaughan; • Reggie Beeson; • Ken Austin; • Barry Bunting, Alternate; and • Brandon Hedrick, Alternate. 3. Consent Agenda: • Approval of agenda for September 13, 2022, Planning Board meeting. • Approval of the minutes from the August 2, 2022, Planning Board meeting. 4. Conflict of Interest • Are there any Conflicts of Interest or ex parte communication that should be disclosed? • If there is a Conflict of Interest, the Board must vote to allow the member with the Conflict of Interest to not participate in the hearing of the specific case where the Conflict of Interest has been identified. 5. Old Business. 6. New Business. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2022-00002160 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Quasi-judicial Hearing on the request by the CITY OF GREENSBORO, Greensboro, NC, and their request to obtain a Special Use Permit on Starmount Rd, Liberty Township, Sandy Creek Balance Watershed, Tax ID #8717520081, 135.72 acres, RA - Residential Agricultural District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit to specifically allow a sewer lift station for the Greensboro-Randolph County Megasite as per the site plan. 7. Adjournment. Attachments Planning Board Minutes August 2, 2022 Page 1 of 9 RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 2, 2022 There was a meeting of the Randolph County Planning Board on Tuesday, August 2, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. in the 1909 Historic Courthouse Meeting Room, 145-C Worth St, Asheboro, NC. Chairman Pell called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance. Next, Pell called for a roll call of the members. County Attorney Ben Morgan called the roll of Planning Board members: • Reid Pell, Chair, present; • Wayne Joyce, Vice-Chair, present; • John Cable, absent; • Kemp Davis, present; • Melinda Vaughan, absent; • Reggie Beeson, present; • Ken Austin, present; • Barry Bunting, Alternate, sitting for John Cable, present; • Brandon Hedrick, Alternate, sitting for Melinda Vaughan, present. Morgan informed Pell there was a quorum of the Board members present. Pell called for consideration and approval of the consent agenda • Approval of agenda for August 2, 2022, Planning Board meeting. • Approval of the minutes from July 12, 2022, Planning Board meeting. Bunting made the motion to approve the consent agenda as presented, with Beeson making the second to the motion. The motion was adopted unanimously. Pell asked the Board members if there are any conflicts in the following cases. Hearing none, Morgan presented the first case along with site plans, and pictures of the site and surrounding properties. REZONING REQUEST #2022-00001368 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative Hearing on the request by EMMANUEL CRUZ GARCIA, Siler Planning Board Minutes August 2, 2022 Page 2 of 9 City, NC, and his request to rezone 14.05 acres at 7845 US Hwy 64 E, Columbia Township, Tax ID #8712473956, Municipal Growth Area, from RA – Residential Agricultural District to CVOM-CD – Conventional Subdivision Overlay Mixed – Conditional District. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a four-lot subdivision for Class B mobile homes or better as per the site plan. Pell opened the public hearing and called for anyone supporting the rezoning request to come forward and speak. Evelyn Hernandez, 131 S Birch Ave, Siler City, speaking on behalf of Mr. Garcia, explained the changes that were made to the plat presented at the previous meeting, addressing the concerns that were made. She said the new plat shows the easement extended to three, allowing tract four to have additional road frontage on US Hwy 64 E and reflect the proper setbacks as required. Davis asked about the access to tract four. Hernandez said the original plat showed tract four having less access on US Hwy 64 E and it has been widened to allow the proper setbacks from the creek as required. Bunting asked if the lots would have individual well and septic tanks for each. Hernandez answered yes. Jim Rains, 7929 US Hwy 64 E, Asheboro, said he is an adjacent property owner and is in favor of the request. He said that Garcia has made changes to his request to reflect the concerns that were expressed at the previous meeting. Raines also asked the Board to note that his property has been an active farm since 1901 so there are no problems in the future. Davis asked Raines if he had stated that he was in favor of the request. Rains answered yes. Pell asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion. Bunting said based on what has been heard tonight, the revisions that were made to Garcia’s original request, and having no opposition he would make a motion. Hedrick thanked Garcia for re-visiting the original plan, and for making the changes recommended by NCDOT to help keep citizens safe. Bunting made the motion to approve the 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 Planning Board Minutes August 2, 2022 Page 3 of 9 minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with all agreed-upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Joyce made a second to the motion to approve the rezoning request. Pell called the question on the motion to approve the rezoning request, and the motion was adopted unanimously. Morgan presented the second case, site plans, and pictures of the site and surrounding properties. REZONING REQUEST #2022-00001825 HAROLD KOGER, McLeansville, NC, is requesting to rezone 3.10 acres along US Hwy 64 W, Tabernacle Township, Lake Reese Balance Watershed, Tax ID #7712437632, Step Three, Inc, Subdivision, lot 2, Secondary Growth Area, from RA - Residential Agricultural District to HC- CD - Highway Commercial - Conditional District. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a proposed 70 ft. by 125 ft. retail building with a 50 ft. vegetative buffer as per the site plan. Pell opened the public hearing and called for anyone supporting the rezoning request to come forward and speak. Daniel Stickler, 5607 Tradd Dr., Greensboro, addressed the Board and passed out binders to each member which included two plats and multiple property descriptions of surrounding properties and their commercial uses, (Exhibit 1A, Exhibit 1B, and Exhibit 1C). Stickler referred to Plat 1 (Exhibit 1A), as being a potential use for the property under the present zoning (Residential Agriculture), which would allow multiple poultry houses and would not be the highest and best use for the property. He explained that the highest and best use, in his opinion, is demonstrated on Plat 2 (Exhibit 1B), illustrating an approximately 8750 square foot retail building with two entrances to the property. Stickler said one entrance would be off Robbins Cir and the other entrance would be US Hwy 64. Stickler said his request was tabled from a previous meeting because he was not fully prepared to present the information. He said after talking to some of the neighbors to the property, he has added a fifty-foot, no-cut buffer to his previous plan to help lessen the impact to neighboring properties. Stickler continued to explain the seventeen properties listed in his binder (Exhibit 1C), that are approximately one mile to the east or west of his request and saying that his request is consistent with the surrounding area. He also said his request meets all the requirements needed for rezoning, and that there is already an existing retail store directly across the street. Davis asked Stickler to describe the proposed use of the building. Stickler said he plans to market the property for a retail store like the building across the street although he is Planning Board Minutes August 2, 2022 Page 4 of 9 only guessing what the use for the property will be because he does not have a potential tenant at this time. He said he also understands if the use were to require changes from his proposal, he would have to come back to the Board for approval again. Stickler said residential zoning does not reflect US Hwy 64 W as it did years ago. He said he has tried to address some of the concerns from neighbors and the entrances were determined after conversations with the NCDOT, including a separate entrance to the property to prevent travel on US Hwy 64 W if traffic is heavy. Nathan Hepler, 351 Tonya Dr, Thomasville, broker-in-charge for Hepler Realty, addressed the Board on behalf of Stickler. He said he has evaluated multiple sales transactions for the area, and it is his opinion that rezoning this property would not lessen the property values for the neighboring properties. Pell asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the request. Terry Yates, 3582 Stutts Rd, Asheboro, said he is a member of Bethel Baptist Church and is against the rezoning. He said crime has increased for the area since the Dollar General has moved nearby, and the community does not want another business to add additional crime to the area. Yates said the second reason they do not want a retail business on the property is because the back entrance to the property is directly across from the Church and cemetery. He said the seventeen properties Stickler described all have one thing in common and they do not have a house of worship in the backyard where distractions and noise are not needed. Yates said when someone is being laid to rest in the cemetery, it would be a shame to have traffic and noise from the business. Yates said having an access point on Robbins Cir, does not allow a complete 50-ft buffer across from the Church and the Church is very active and it also would be a shame to have extended noise and traffic while the Church has activities going on. Yates said the future expansion of US Hwy 64 W would more than likely take away the main entrance to the property on US Hwy 64 W and that will increase the traffic on Robbins Cir which can already be hectic at times when Church services are over. Yates also mentioned the proximity of the business to Tabernacle Elementary School and everyday there is a traffic jam for a while. He also said that altercations at the retail store will cause a lock-down situation for the school and these school children do not need additional emotional stress. Yates said in his opinion, this is the worst possible site on US Hwy 64 W for this commercial zoning because of the proximity to the Church. He said it is the Board’s responsibility to protect the citizens’ property and the seller would be the only one to benefit from the rezoning of this property. Planning Board Minutes August 2, 2022 Page 5 of 9 Jody Harrison, 838 Hidden Ct, Asheboro, Pastor of Bethel Baptist Church, asked if all of those in opposition to the request would stand. Eric Martin, Deputy Zoning Administrator, counted fifty-one people who stood in opposition. Harrison said he was pastor in 2010 when the request was previously brought before the Board for rezoning, and it was denied at that time and the Church has grown significantly since then. Harrison said the increased crime rate is a concern for them and another concern is that the living quarters on the Church property for guests of the Church will be directly across from the retail business, and the added traffic is not needed. He said if the business were allowed, it would prevent the Church from growing because of the limitations of watershed regulations. Brenda Wood, 4879 Robbins Cir, Asheboro, lives directly across from the Church. She said she moved to her property in 1994 because it is centrally located between Asheboro and Thomasville and in a quiet, rural community and she would like for it to remain that way. She expressed her concerns for the increased crime due to the Dollar General near- by, concerns for an entrance being located on Robbins Cir, and additional concerns for her property values. Ted Wood, 4879 Robbins Cir, Asheboro, expressed concerns of where they would build on the property due to the power lines running through the property as well as trying to find a level spot on the property due to the topography. He also said he has concerns of disturbing the deer crossing at his property. Jerry Robbins, 6133 US Hwy 64 W, Asheboro, expressed his concerns regarding traffic because it is already horrific. He said he understands someone wanting top dollar for their property but there is no protection for the ones that are already there because no one knows who will build on the property and what it will be used for. Tina Yates, 979 Mt Shepherd Rd, Asheboro, said she agrees with the previous comments. She said she is teacher at Tabernacle Elementary School and lives around the corner from Mt. Shepherd Methodist Camp. She said the traffic is horrible in the area and she also has seen an increase in crime for the area which is also a concern for having a school lockdown. Amanda Chriscoe, 4815 Robbins Cir, Asheboro, said she appreciates the fifty-foot buffer Stickler has added to his proposal, but she has concerns that the tenant or the new property owner(s) will change this proposal. She asked if changes to this proposal would require the Board’s approval as well. Pell said if the Board were to approve the request, no changes are allowed to the site-plan without additional approval. Chriscoe expressed concerns for the increased traffic as well. Randy Freeman, 7703 Farmer Denton Rd, Denton, said his family lives in the area and Planning Board Minutes August 2, 2022 Page 6 of 9 he sees the concerns. He said Stickler mentioned that he is being gracious not to develop the property larger than his site plan when in fact, he is near maximum impervious surface for watershed regulations. Freeman also said the sunrise and sunset is blinding for traffic on US Hwy 64 W depending on the direction of your travels, causing many accidents. He said if the Board approves the request, it will disturb the serenity and peace for the area. He asked for the Board to at least deny the access to Robbins Cir and only have access to US Hwy 64 W. Frank Hill, 222 Hoover Hill Rd, Asheboro, said he lives in the community. He said he didn’t understand how the real Estate professional stated that the development would not affect property values and the developer has stated that he does not know what will be on the property. Melissa Harrison, 838 Hidden Ct, Asheboro, said she is not only the Pastor’s wife, but also a mother and grandmother. She said the Dollar General has brought a lot of drug traffic to the area and she has concerns taking her grandchildren to the parking lot to ride their bikes and play. She said the safety for the homeowners in the area, the children and Church members are at risk if this is brought to their community. She expressed her concerns for the increased traffic as well. Wayne Delancey, 2209 Stutts Rd, Asheboro, said he lives in the community, and attends the Church. He said he does not like shell buildings because no one knows who will occupy the building. He said for example, what use to be Snyder Stone became a Fish Game business which you cannot control. Delancey said Stickler has told the Board what he would like to be on the property but does not know for sure. Having no one else in opposition of the request, Pell asked the applicant if he would like to address some of the concerns that have been presented. Stickler said he understands that the community doesn’t want the property disturbed but there are ways to develop the property that could be worse than what he has proposed. He said he has tried to propose what would be best for the community and his request is consistent with properties around it. He asked the Board to consider his request based on what is around it and not limit the rezoning based on emotions. Davis asked if he would be able to close the access to Robbins Cir if he chose to and Stickler answered yes. He said he added that entrance to his site plan for safety and it is not a game changer. He said he is forced to make his best guess as to what he feels would be marketable for the property and would like everyone to understand that if someone were to want to make changes to his plan, they would have to come before the Board again to request those changes. Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion. Joyce said traditionally you would locate a retail business somewhere like US Hwy 64, NC Hwy 49, Hwy 220 Bus, or Hwy 311, or any major road and not back in the woods. Davis agreed. He said the property is marketable for retail because of the location on US Planning Board Minutes August 2, 2022 Page 7 of 9 Hwy 64 W and favorable for commercial property. He said however, he sympathizes with the audience due to the proximity to the church. Joyce said he sympathizes with the church as well, but you must realize there is traffic around many churches and cemeteries such as Randolph Cemetery on US Hwy 220 Business N, and the City of Asheboro cemetery on E Dixie Dr. Austin said he agrees with the concerns of what the business will actually be because all you see on paper are four walls and there is nothing that shows how it will be marketed. Beeson asked about the commercial use for “retail business”. Morgan explained that usually the name of the applicant is recognized when a Dollar General is being developed and people refer to the request as Dollar General store, but in this case it is irrelevant. Morgan said it also is a “retail business”. He said the applicant is limited to the site plan submitted to the Board and any deviation to the plan, would have to be brought back to the Board. Morgan said this request is the difference between a straight rezoning which would allow any commercial use that falls under the Table of Permitted Uses for that zoning, and this is a conditional zoning request that is specific to a site plan which the applicant has shown the footprint of the development, the roads, the parking, and any buffers planned for the development. Beeson said the restrictions proposed for this property are good for the neighbors and normally you would not see a proposal with fifty-foot buffers. He said he feels that Stickler did a great job limiting exposure to the surrounding properties. Hedrick said the Ordinance requires a thirty-five-foot vegetative buffer which will be exceeded. He also said he would like to mention Policy 4.2 in the Growth Management Plan which states “Highway oriented commercial uses should be clustered along segments of arterial streets and contain land uses that are mutually compatible and reinforcing in use and design. They should be designed in a way that minimizes signage, access points and excessive lengths of commercial strip development.” and it makes it tough to deny the request. Hedrick said he would also like to point out to the audience about preservation with the Church, which he has dealt with a little himself. He said the Church should continue the use of the Church, and document the Church’s story and history, which will be key to preserving the legacy of the Church. Joyce made the motion to approve the 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 all agreed-upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is consistent with the Randolph County Growth Planning Board Minutes August 2, 2022 Page 8 of 9 Management Plan. Beeson made a second to the motion to approve the rezoning request. Pell called the question on the motion to approve the rezoning request, and the vote concluded with four members voting to approve the request and three members voting to deny the request by a show of hands. Morgan presented the third case of the night along with site plans and pictures of the site and surrounding properties. REZONING REQUEST #2020-00001902 FRANKLIN REYNOSO, Asheboro, NC, is requesting to amend the Conditional District Permit on 1.40 acres at 7905 US Hwy 220 S, Richland Township, Tax ID #7665773033, Carl King Subdivision Map 1, lots 34-42, 49-52 + TR, Primary Growth Area, HC-CD - Highway Commercial - Conditional District. The proposed Conditional Zoning District amendment would specifically allow a barber shop. Moises Rosario, 1928 Trogdon Hill Rd., Asheboro, spoke on behalf of Reynoso as a translator for the request. Reynoso said he is asking for permission to put a Barber shop in an existing building on what is already a commercial area. He said the building has been unoccupied for many years and he would like to improve it. Joyce asked for the days and hours of operation. Reynoso said he would be open Monday through Saturday from 10 am until 6 pm. Pell asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion. Beeson said the property is already zoned commercial and he will have to follow all guidelines required by the State. Beeson made the motion to approve the 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 all agreed-upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Hedrick made a second to the motion to approve the rezoning request. Joyce called the question on the motion to approve the rezoning request, and the motion was adopted unanimously. Planning Board Minutes August 2, 2022 Page 9 of 9 Having no further business, Pell called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Bunting made the motion to adjourn, with Joyce making the second to the motion; the motion was adopted unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m., with 81 citizens present. RANDOLPH COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA ________________________ Planning Director _________________________ _______________________________ Clerk to the Board Date September Request Location Map 0 2 4 6 81 Miles Archdale Trinity Randleman Asheboro Seagrove Liberty Staley Ramseur Franklinville /0j2 ?v!"c$ Kà !"`$ I¤I¤!"`$ KÈ ?k ?ø ?ø ?k ?i ?Å ?Ú ?Ä ?ç ?d ?ø ?ø?d !"a$ !"a$ !"`$ !"a$ Legend Roads Reservoirs County line Municipal Zoning City of Greensboro CASE SUMMARY FOR SPECIAL USE REQUEST #2022-00002160 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Quasi- judicial Hearing on the request by the CITY OF GREENSBORO, Greensboro, NC, and their request to obtain a Special Use Permit on Starmount Rd, Liberty Township, Sandy Creek Balance Watershed, Tax ID #8717520081, 135.72 acres, RA - Residential Agricultural District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit to specifically allow a sewer lift station for the Greensboro-Randolph County Megasite as per the site plan. ALL WITNESSES FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS MUST BE SWORN IN BEFORE GIVING TESTIMONY. PARCEL INFORMATION: ZONING INFORMATION: Zoning District 1: RA-RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT Zoning District 2: Zoning District 3: Specialty District: N/A Watershed Name: SANDY CREEK WATERSHED Class A Flood Plain On Prop?: YES 3710871700JFlood Plane Map #: Total Permit Fee: $100.00 COMMENTS: The undersigned owner/applicant do hereby make application for a SPECIAL USE PERMIT as required by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance. By making this application the owner/applicants acknowledge that no work may be done pursuant to a Special Use Permit issued by the County Planning Board except in accordance with all conditions that may be imposed by the Board. It is also acknowledged that any restrictions or conditions imposed shall be binding on the owner/applicants and their successors in interest. SPECIAL USE REQUESTED: PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A SEWER LIFT STATION AS PER SITE PLAN. Signature of Applicant: Eric Martin Authorized County Official Applicant: CITY OF GREENSBORO City, St. Zip: GREENSBORO, NC 27406 Address: P O BOX 3136 Owner: MONARD LLC Address: 204 LOYD RD City, St. Zip: STATESVILLE, NC 28625 Permit #: 2022-00002160 Parcel #: 8717520081 Date: 07/29/2022 Location Address: 5651 STARMOUNT RD LIBERTY, NC 27298 Permit Type Code: PZ 3 CONTACT NAME:BORCHERS, MICHAEL M.Contact Phone:336 373-2494 Acreage: Township:135.7200 11 - LIBERTY Subdivsion: Lot number: SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Page: 1 of 1 - LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER - Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov COUNTY OF RANDOLPH Department of Planning & Development 204 E Academy St - PO Box 771 - Asheboro NC 27204-0771 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION City of Greensboro Request Location Map SHILOHRD STARMOUNTRD U S H W Y 4 2 1 HERMAN HUSBAND RDHOOTSHO LLOWRDTROY S MI T H R D 1 inch equals 750 feet KÈ KÈ US Hwy 421N - (R) Starmount Rd - Site on (R) approx 1/4 mile past Troy Smith Rd. City of Greensboro Special Use Permit Request !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Sand y Creek Sand y Creek San d yCre ekSHILOH RD U S H WY 42 1HOOTSHOLLOWRD T R O Y S M IT H R D STARMOUNTRD The request is located in Sandy Creek Watershed Area. 1 inch equals 750 feet Request location Legend Parcels Structures Type !(Permanent Structure !(Temporary Structure Roads Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer Flood plains County zoning Districts HI RA KÈ KÈ City of Greensboro Special Use Permit Request Sand y Creek Sand y Creek San d yCre ekSHILOH RD U S H WY 42 1HOOTSHOLLOWRD T R O Y S M IT H R D STARMOUNTRD The request is located in Sandy Creek Watershed Area. 1 inch equals 750 feet Legend Parcels Roads Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer Flood plains KÈ KÈ City of Greensboro Special Use Permit Request Picture 1: Request location. Picture 2: Request location. Picture 3: Adjacent residence. Picture 4: Adjacent residence. Picture 5: Request location on left as seen looking toward Troy Smith Rd. Picture 6: Request location on right as seen looking toward end of Starmount Rd. | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2022 LexisNexis AIMEE SCOTTEN User Name: AIMEE SCOTTEN Date and Time: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 2:48:00 PM EDT Job Number: 176133258 Document (1) 1. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-42 Client/Matter: -None- Search Terms: 40A-40 Search Type: Natural Language - Expanded Results Narrowed by: Content Type Narrowed by Statutes and Legislation Sources: NC state AIMEE SCOTTEN N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-42 Current through Session Laws 2022-46 of the 2022 Regular Session of the General Assembly, but does not reflect possible future codification directives from the Revisor of Statutes pursuant to G.S. 164-10. General Statutes of North Carolina > Chapter 40A. Eminent Domain. (Arts. 1 — 6) > Article 3. Condemnation by Public Condemnors. (§§ 40A-40 — 40A-61) § 40A-42. Vesting of title and right of possession; injunction not precluded. (a) (1) Standard Provision. — When a local public condemnor is acquiring property by condemnation for a purpose set out in G.S. 40A-3(b)(1), (4) or (7), or when a city is acquiring property for a purpose set out in G.S. 160A-311(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7), or when a county is acquiring property for a purpose set out in G.S. 153A-274(1), (2) or (3), or when a local board of education or any combination of local boards of education is acquiring property for any purpose set forth in G.S. 115C-517, or when a condemnor is acquiring property by condemnation as authorized by G.S. 40A-3(c)(1), (8), (9), (10), (12), or (13) title to the property and the right to immediate possession shall vest pursuant to this subsection. Unless an action for injunctive relief has been initiated, title to the property specified in the complaint, together with the right to immediate possession thereof, shall vest in the condemnor upon the filing of the complaint and the making of the deposit in accordance with G.S. 40A-41. (2) Modified Provision for Certain Localities. — When a local public condemnor is acquiring property by condemnation for a purpose set out in G.S. 40A-3(b1)(1), (4), (7), (10), or (11), or when a city is acquiring property for a purpose set out in G.S. 160A-311(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7), or when a county is acquiring property for a purpose set out in G.S. 153A-274(1), (2) or (3), or when a local board of education or any combination of local boards of education is acquiring property for any purpose set forth in G.S. 115C-517, or when a condemnor is acquiring property by condemnation as authorized by G.S. 40A-3(c)(8), (9), (10), (12), or (13) title to the property and the right to immediate possession shall vest pursuant to this subsection. Unless an action for injunctive relief has been initiated, title to the property specified in the complaint, together with the right to immediate possession thereof, shall vest in the condemnor upon the filing of the complaint and the making of the deposit in accordance with G.S. 40A-41. This subdivision applies only to Carteret and Dare Counties, the Towns of Atlantic Beach, Carolina Beach, Caswell Beach, Duck, Emerald Isle, Holden Beach, Indian Beach, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, Kure Beach, Nags Head, North Topsail Beach, Oak Island, Ocean Isle Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Southern Shores, Sunset Beach, Surf City, Topsail Beach, and Wrightsville Beach, and the Village of Bald Head Island. (b) When a local public condemnor is acquiring property by condemnation for purposes other than for the purposes listed in subsection (a) above, title to the property taken and the right to possession shall vest in the condemnor pursuant to this subsection. Unless an action for injunctive relief has been initiated, title to the property specified in the complaint, together with the right to immediate possession thereof, shall vest in the condemnor: (1) Upon the filing of an answer by the owner who requests only that there be a determination of just compensation and who does not challenge the authority of the condemnor to condemn the property; or (2) Upon the failure of the owner to file an answer within the 120-day time period established by G.S. 40A-46; or (3) Upon the disbursement of the deposit in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 40A-44. Page 2 of 4 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-42 AIMEE SCOTTEN (c) If the property is owned by a private condemnor, the vesting of title in the condemnor and the right to immediate possession of the property shall not become effective until the superior court has rendered final judgment (after any appeals) that the property is not in actual public use or is not necessary to the operation of the business of the owner, as set forth in G.S. 40A-5(b). (d) If the answer raises any issues other than the issue of compensation, the issues so raised shall be determined under the provisions of G.S. 40A-47. (e) The judge shall enter such orders in the cause as may be required to place the condemnor in possession. (f) The provisions of this section shall not preclude or otherwise affect any remedy of injunction available to the owner or the condemnor. History 1981, c. 919, s. 1; 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 871, s. 1; 1998-212, s. 9.10; 2001-36, ss. 2, 3; 2001-239, s. 1; 2001- 478, s. 2; 2003-282, s. 2; 2004-203, s. 33; 2009-85, s. 1; 2014-86, s. 2; 2021-14, s. 2. Annotations Notes Local Modification. Cabarrus: 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 937, s. 2; 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 700, s. 1; Duplin: 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 608, s. 1; Franklin: 1989, c. 432, s. 1; Guilford: 1987, c. 669, s. 4; Person: 1983, 829; Wake: 1985, c. 640, s. 2; cities of Greensboro and High Point: 1987, c. 669, s. 4; city of Monroe: 2009-258 (as to taking of property for the Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport); city of Winston-Salem: 2011-149, s. 1; town of Caswell Beach: 2015-14, s. 1 (as to the taking of property for public services facility where a fire department and other emergency service providers will be located); town of Holly Springs: 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 941; town of Hope Mills: 2016-66, s. 2(a) (as taking of property for projects involving or relating to Hope Mills Lake or Hope Mills Lake dam, and expiring on July 1, 2019); town of Troy: 2003-328, s. 1, as amended by 2008-62; town of Wrightsville Beach: 1993, c. 187, s. 2. Editor’s Note. Session Law 2001-36, s. 2, amended subsection (a) by substituting “(4), (7), (10), or (11)” for “(4) or (7)” in the first sentence. Section 3 of the act, as amended by Session Laws 2001-478, s. 2, made this amendment applicable only to Carolina Beach, Carteret County, Dare County, and the Towns of Atlantic Beach, Emerald Isle, Holden Beach, Indian Beach, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, Kure Beach, Nags Head, North Topsail Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Surf City, Topsail Beach, and Wrightsville Beach. The amended subsection (a) was set out as new subdivision (a)(2) at the direction of the Revisor of Statutes. Effect of Amendments. Session Laws 2004-203, s. 33, effective August 17, 2004, added the subdivision catchlines for subdivisions (a)(1) and (2). Session Laws 2009-85, s. 1, effective June 11, 2009, substituted “G.S. 40A-3(c)(1), (8)” for “G.S. 40A-3(c)(8)” in the first sentence of subdivision (a)(1). Page 3 of 4 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-42 AIMEE SCOTTEN Session Laws 2014-86, s. 2, effective July 25, 2014, inserted “Duck” following “Caswell Beach” in the second paragraph of subdivision (a)(2). Session Laws 2021-14, s. 2, effective April 27, 2021, inserted “Southern Shores” prior to “Sunset Beach” in the last paragraph of subdivision (a)(2). CASE NOTES Vesting of Title. — Under G.S. 40A-42(b)(1) and (2), title to the subject property did not vest in the State immediately upon serving the defendants with notice of the condemnation action. Condemnation of the subject property was for a purpose other than for the purposes listed in G.S. 40A-42(a); thus, under G.S. 40A-42(b)(2), title to the subject property vested with the State upon a failure of the owner to file an answer within the 120-day time period established by G.S. 40A- 46. City of Wilson Redevelopment Comm'n v. Boykin, 193 N.C. App. 20, 667 S.E.2d 282, 2008 N.C. App. LEXIS 1755 (2008). Subsection (a) does not grant landowner a statutory right to bring an action for injunctive relief to bar condemnation proceeding and to prevent the title and the right to immediate possession of the property from vesting in defendant when under G.S. 40A-45 landowner has an adequate remedy of law. Tradewinds Campground, Inc. v. Town of Atlantic Beach, 90 N.C. App. 601, 369 S.E.2d 365, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 635, writ denied, 323 N.C. 180, 373 S.E.2d 126, 1988 N.C. LEXIS 559 (1988). Title of Defendants Holding Property as Tenants by Entirety Need Not Be Divested Simultaneously in Condemnation Proceeding. — Where plaintiff acquired title to defendants’ interest in certain property owned by them as tenants by the entirety, and even though plaintiff argued such title on separate dates, this Chapter contains no requirement that title to condemned property be divested simultaneously. Town of Chapel Hill v. Burchette, 100 N.C. App. 157, 394 S.E.2d 698, 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 898 (1990). Effect of Answer Which Did Not Contest Plaintiff’s Power to Condemn. — Where, in condemnation proceeding original answer of defendant property owner contested only amount of compensation due and did not contest power of plaintiff to condemn property, title to defendant’s interest vested in plaintiff at that time, and plaintiff’s filing of amended complaint did not void defendant’s original answer. Town of Chapel Hill v. Burchette, 100 N.C. App. 157, 394 S.E.2d 698, 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 898 (1990). Effect of Failure to File Action for Injunctive Relief. — Title to condemned property vested and the county had the right to take immediate possession when they filed the complaint and deposited the estimated just compensation, since the landowners did not file an action for injunctive relief before the condemnation complaint was filed. Scotland County v. Johnson, 131 N.C. App. 765, 509 S.E.2d 213, 1998 N.C. App. LEXIS 1555 (1998). Effect of Landowner’s Failure to Request Injunctive Relief at the Condemnation Hearing. — Since the landowners had the opportunity to present all affirmative defenses argued in their action for a permanent injunction during the condemnation proceedings, judicial economy counseled against litigating the same issues Page 4 of 4 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-42 AIMEE SCOTTEN again. Nelson v. Town of Highlands, 159 N.C. App. 393, 583 S.E.2d 313, 2003 N.C. App. LEXIS 1516 (2003), rev'd, 358 N.C. 210, 594 S.E.2d 21, 2004 N.C. LEXIS 194 (2004). “Reasonable Diligence”. — In an inverse condemnation suit where plaintiff’s advertisement sign was torn down by defendant city, plaintiff’s allegation in the complaint that defendant city failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover plaintiff’s interest and that plaintiff’s sign was prominently constructed upon the property creates an issue of fact as to whether defendant city exercised reasonable diligence. Schloss Outdoor Adv. Co. v. City of Charlotte, 50 N.C. App. 150, 272 S.E.2d 920, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 3473 (1980) (decided under prior law). Public Trust Doctrine Not Violated. — Defendant did not violate the public trust doctrine by asserting its rights of eminent domain as bequeathed to it by the State legislature because the State granted defendant the authority to assert its eminent domain powers over certain parts of plaintiffs’ property for the purpose of the project. Fisher v. Town of Nags Head, 220 N.C. App. 478, 725 S.E.2d 99, 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 660 (2012). Notice Requirement Satisfied. — Defendant’s notice, as provided to plaintiffs, was sufficient to meet the requirements of G.S. 40A-40 and otherwise did not prejudice plaintiffs due to their ability to file the current action and have a surveyor accurately locate the requested property; the notice properly cited to the statute regarding the condemnation procedure, G.S. 40A-42, and defendant’s description of the “easement area” was sufficient for plaintiffs to determine the requested property, or at least for a hired surveyor to locate. Fisher v. Town of Nags Head, 220 N.C. App. 478, 725 S.E.2d 99, 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 660 (2012). Defendant’s decision to estimate that no compensation was required did not violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights requiring just compensation because defendant adequately estimated that the benefit received by the project was sufficient compensation, and the issue of whether that was reasonable was more properly left for the condemnation hearing; defendant’s estimate of no compensation adequately satisfied the notice requirement of G.S. 40A-40. Fisher v. Town of Nags Head, 220 N.C. App. 478, 725 S.E.2d 99, 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 660 (2012). Impact Fees Not Authorized. — Public utility authority and a county were not authorized to assess sewer and water impact fees against developers because, inter alia, another entity provided such service to the developers and that entity’s property was in actual use and needed to run the entity’s business could not be condemned. Point South Props., LLC v. Cape Fear Pub. Util. Auth., 243 N.C. App. 508, 778 S.E.2d 284, 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS 878 (2015), overruled in part, Quality Built Homes Inc. v. Town of Carthage, 371 N.C. 60, 813 S.E.2d 218, 2018 N.C. LEXIS 325 (2018). General Statutes of North Carolina Copyright © 2022 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. End of Document COUNTY OF RANDOLPH SPECIAL USE PERMIT REMINDERS A Special Use Permit is a quasi-judicial action designated by the Randolph County Board of Commissioners to the Randolph County Planning Board. Special Use Permits only allow the specified use and the Randolph County Planning Board must find the following findings of fact: 1. The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved; 2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications as outlined in the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance; 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity; and 4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance. Only testimony by “expert witnesses” that can prove their status as an expert witness can be considered by the Planning Board for approving or denying a Special Use Permit. In granting the Special Use Permit, the Planning Board may designate only those conditions as authorized by the North Carolina General Statutes. Any conditions shall be agreed to by the applicant or property owner in writing before the vote of the Planning Board for the conditions to be enforceable. When denying a Special Use Permit, the Board Member making the motion to deny the request should cite which of the above required findings of facts were NOT met. COUNTY OF RANDOLPH ORDER APPROVING SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE CITY OF GREENSBORO SPECIAL USE REQUEST #2022-00002160 NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Having heard all the evidence and argument presented at the hearing on September 13, 2022, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the application is complete, that the application complies with all of the applicable requirements of the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance for the development proposed, and that therefore the application to make use of the property located on Starmount Rd for the purpose indicated is hereby APPROVED, subject to all applicable provisions of the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance. HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD APPROVES THE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CITY OF GREENSBORO BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING: 1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Click here to enter findings of fact. 2. That the use meets all required conditions and specifications. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Click here to enter findings of fact. 3. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Click here to enter findings of fact. 4. That the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Growth Management Plan for Randolph County. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Click here to enter findings of fact. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Randolph County Planning Board has caused this Special Use Permit to be issued in its name and the property owners do hereby accept this Special Use Permit, together with all its conditions as binding on them and their successors in interest. Adopted on September 13, 2022. _____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board ATTEST _______________________________ Kimberly J. Heinzer, Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to APPROVE this Special Use Permit request on the specified parcel(s) on the Special Use Permit application, based upon the sworn witness testimony that is included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed-upon revisions, and that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety, the use meets all required conditions and specifications, the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property, that the use is a public necessity and the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan(s) as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area and in general conformity with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion. MOTION TO DENY SPECIAL USE PERMIT NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to DENY this Special Use Permit request on the specified parcel(s) on the Special Use Permit application, based upon the sworn witness testimony that is included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed-upon revisions, and that the use may materially endanger the public health or safety, or the use does not meet all required conditions and specifications, or the use may substantially injure the value of adjoining property, that the use is not a public necessity and the location and character of use if developed according to the plan(s) as submitted and approved, or will not be in harmony with the area and in general conformity with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion.