10OctoberCC - Nash Duggins Rezoning AppealDuggins Appeal Page 1 of 3
RANDOLPH COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 204 East Academy Street • Post Office Box 771 Asheboro, North Carolina 27204-0771 Telephone: (336) 318-6555 • Fax: (336) 318-6550
TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Jay Dale, Planning Director DATE: October 21, 2019 SUBJECT: Appeal of the decision of the Randolph County Planning Board denying the rezoning request of Nash Duggins On September 10, 2019, the Randolph County Planning Board voted 4 to 1 to deny the rezoning request of Nash Duggins, Asheboro, North Carolina. The request, #2019-00001680, was to rezone 60.61 acres out of 200.05 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 #7639187958. Secondary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District at the time of the public hearing would have specifically allowed a 25-lot site built subdivision with a minimum house size of 1,750 sq. ft. as per site plan. The current property owner is Terry Charles Vuncannon. This matter is now being appealed to the Randolph County Board of Commissioners by Mr. Nash Duggins based upon three specific reasons for the appeal, (1) “that no official reason for denial was listed in the September 11, 2019, letter from County Planning,” (2) “We believe we meet the Growth Management Plan and Ordinances” and (3) “We believe we have addressed most of the citizens concerns expressed in the Neighborhood & (sic) Planning Board Meetings.” The first point of the reason for the appeal, “that no official reason for denial was listed in the September 11, 2019, letter from County Planning.” It is true that the letter did not state the reason for denial but there are several things to consider. First, the Planning Board members, during the public hearing portion of the meeting, asked Mr. Duggins numerous times if he would make concessions to the area residents such as building a new entrance off of NC Hwy 49, etc., and each time Mr. Duggins said it would be “cost prohibitive.” Furthermore, in his motion to deny the request, John Cable said that he was making a motion to deny the rezoning request due to “omission of information” and that the Board needed “accurate information so they (the Board) could “move forward” with the decision. The Planning Board then voted 4 to 1 that the request was “not consistent, reasonable and in the public interest” as required by the North Carolina General Statutes § 153A-341 and 342. Mr. Duggins was present at the meeting and took an active role in the public hearing portion of the request and, as such, should know the reason for the denial. There is another issue that must be addressed concerning ““that no official reason for denial
Duggins Appeal Page 2 of 3
was listed in the September 11, 2019, letter from County Planning.” According to the North Carolina General Statutes, the Planning Board has to approve a Consistency Determination and Finding of Reasonableness and Public Interest. This statement cannot be prepared before the public hearing since the staff has no way of knowing how the Planning Board will act on any requests before the Board. Also, the Planning Board has to state how the request is not consistent, reasonable and in the public interest for the determination to be valid. Again, this cannot be prepared prior to the public hearing since the staff does not know how the Planning Board will act on the request. The statements are completed by staff after the public hearing is completed and are approved by the Planning Board at their next meeting. The second point in the appeal is that “We believe we meet the Growth Management Plan and Ordinances.” This property is located in a Secondary Growth Area which are areas for medium density, predominately residential and allows for transitional land use patterns. Based on just the Growth Management Area alone, the request is “consistent, reasonable and in the public interest” but the Planning Board has to go beyond just saying that the request is “consistent, reasonable and in the public interest” by including actual policies that support this decision. The Technical Review Committee reviewed this request and pointed out Policy 6.5 from the
Growth Management Plan, which states, “The protection of viable rural neighborhoods should be encouraged by compatible residential development to insure the continued existence as a major housing source and as a reflection of the long-term quality of life in Randolph County.” The key phrases in the policy are “protection of viable rural neighborhoods” and “long-term quality of life.” While this request would be an extension of an existing rural subdivisions there were many concerns raised by the area residents and Randolph County Planning Board members. Questions raised included adding a new entrance, the property potentially becoming a cut-through from NC Hwy 49S to Old NC Hwy 49 and other access questions for this proposed addition to Farmwood. During the Public Hearing the applicant refused to consider adding another entrance as it would be “cost prohibitive.” The applicant also refused to consider increasing the minimum house size to match those in the existing parts of Farmwood. By denying to consider the requests by the existing residents and the Randolph County Planning Board, the applicant failed to insure the protection of the existing subdivision and rural neighborhoods as recommended in the Growth Management Plan. The second policy from the Growth Management Plan is Policy 8.8 which states, “The County should seek land use decisions that continue to provide locations for affordable housing while maintaining a choice in compatible housing types in communities within the County.” As stated earlier, the area residents and Randolph County Planning Board members requested the applicant to make changes to the plan for the property including increasing the minimum house size and adding a new entrance to protect the existing portions of Farmwood. The Randolph County Planning Board asked the applicant several times to consider raising the minimum house size to ease the concerns of the area residents and the applicant refused. Since the applicant refused to make further changes to his request, the
housing types within the proposed Phase 4 would not be compatible or consistent with the existing patterns in Farmwood subdivision. Finally, the Consistency Determination and Finding of Reasonableness and Public Interest looks to see if the request is reasonable and in the public interest. This request is not reasonable and in the public interests for all the reasons stated above. The applicant refused repeated requests by area residents and the Randolph County Planning Board to increase the minimum house size to be more compatible with the existing portions of Farmwood. It should be noted that the applicant did increase the proposed minimum house size from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,750 sq. ft. after the Neighborhood Information Meeting in August, 2019, to help ease residents concerns. The last point in the specific reason for appeal is “We believe we have addressed most of the citizens concerns expressed in the Neighborhood & (sic) Planning Board Meetings.” The neighbors in the adjacent subdivision and even Planning Board members asked many questions of Mr. Duggins and some of those concerns were addressed but many were not addressed by Mr. Duggins. Members of the community and Planning Board members asked Mr. Duggins numerous times to consider increasing the house size or create a new drive off of NC Hwy 49S and Mr. Duggins decided not to make the changes requested. The Planning Board had to make a difficult decision on this request and they voted to deny the request. I hope this memo has been helpful and please feel free to contact me with any questions your may have.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 1 of 20
RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 10, 2019, Public Hearing
The September 10, 2019, Randolph County Planning Board Public Hearing was held at the 1909 Historic Courthouse, 145-C Worth Street, Asheboro, NC. The Public Hearing was called to order by Chairman Pell at 6:30 p.m. Planning Director Jay Dale called the roll of the Randolph County Planning Board.
• Reid Pell, Chairman, present;
• Wayne Joyce, Vice Chairman, present;
• John Cable, present;
• Keith Slusher, present;
• Kemp Davis, present;
• Ralph Modlin, present; and
• Michael Koehler, Alternate absent. Dale informed Pell that there was a quorum of the Randolph County Planning Board present.
Pell asked for a motion for the approval of the minutes and the statements of Consistency and Reasonableness from the August 6, 2019, Randolph County Planning Board Public Hearing. Davis made the motion, seconded by Slusher to approve the minutes and the statements of Consistency and Reasonableness from the August 6, 2019, Randolph County Planning Board Public Hearing. The motion to approve the minutes was unanimous.
Dale gave an overview of the first rezoning case for the Public Hearing. REZONING REQUEST #2019-00001979
KERRY W. KINNEY, Asheboro, NC, is requesting that 4.66 acres located at 2472 Woods Stream Ln, Franklinville Township, be rezoned from RR-CU – Residential Restricted – Conditional Use District to CVOR-CD – Conventional Subdivision Overlay Restricted – Conditional District. Tax ID #7781363155. Secondary Growth Area. Woodridge Creeks Subdivision lot 48. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow lot 48 to be divided into a 1.40 acre lot and a 3.26 acre lot as per site plan. Pell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of this request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion for the request.
Cable asked if the 1.40 acre lot requested would meet the required lot size. Dale said it would be adequate.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 2 of 20
Slusher said it seems to be a reasonable request and made the motion, seconded by Cable to approve the request. The motion to approve the rezoning request was unanimous.
Pell called the question stating that this rezoning request is consistent and reasonable with the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Slusher made the motion, seconded by
Cable that the rezoning request is consistent and reasonable with the 2009 Randolph County
Growth Management Plan. The motion that the rezoning request is consistent and reasonable with the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan was unanimous. Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 153A-341 and 342, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the proposed zoning district map amendments to CVOR-CD – Conventional Subdivision Overlay Restricted – Conditional District as described in the application of Kerry W. Kinney are consistent with 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 southeast area shows the parcel to be rezoned in an area designated as Secondary Growth Area. Secondary
Growth Areas are an area for medium density, predominately residential and allows for transitional land use patterns.
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 insure the continued existence as a major housing source and as a reflection of the long-term quality of life in Randolph County. Consistency Analysis: When this subdivision was originally proposed and approved on August 5, 1996, this lot was originally shown as three separate lots. Based upon the application, this division of property will be less intense than the plat that was approved in 1996 and insures the protection of the viable rural neighborhoods in the area and protects the quality of life in the area.
Policy 6.13 Conventional residential subdivision are anticipated of similar housing
characteristics to the community.
Consistency Analysis: As this request is based upon the originally approved plat from 1996, where the lot was shown as three lots, this application is continuing the type of residential subdivision housing characteristics on the request property. 2. Statement of Reasonableness and Public Interest Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The parcel in this rezoning request is subject to the Conditions agreed upon between the property owner and the Planning Board. These Conditions will limit the amount and type of development on the property reducing the impact on adjoining parcels. The proposed use will also increase the tax base and increase economic activity within the County.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 3 of 20
Dale gave an overview of the second rezoning case for the Public Hearing. REZONING REQUEST #2019-00002155
NATHAN DAVIS, Sophia, NC, is requesting that 4.15 acres out of 17.97 acres located on Monterey Rd, Cedar Grove Township, be rezoned from LI-CD – Light Industrial – Conditional District to RA – Residential Agricultural District. Tax ID# 7657585045. Secondary Growth Area. Pell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of this request.
Nathan Davis, 4570 Allen Dr., Sophia said he purchased the property with intensions of building a home and has decided to possibly build on the lower portion of the property with safer driveway access on Monterey Rd. which is currently zoned commercial rather than the northern side of the property accessing NC Hwy 134. He said he has spoken to some of the neighbors in the area which have expressed they would much rather have a home site than a commercial building which was previously approved. Pell asked if there was anyone else present in favor of this request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone present in opposition to this request. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion for the request. Slusher made the motion, seconded by Joyce to approve the request. Pell called the question to approve this rezoning request. The motion to approve the rezoning request was unanimous.
Pell called the question stating that this rezoning request is consistent and reasonable with the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Slusher made the motion, seconded by
Joyce that the rezoning request is consistent and reasonable with the 2009 Randolph County
Growth Management Plan. The motion that the rezoning request is consistent and reasonable with the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan was unanimous. Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 153A-341 and 342, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the proposed zoning district map amendments to RA – Residential Agricultural as described in the application of Nathan Davis are consistent with 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. Secondary
Growth Areas are an area for medium density, predominately residential and allows for transitional land use patterns.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 4 of 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 insure 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 property was rezoned to LI-CD – Light Industrial –
Conditional District on August 1, 2016, to allow a warehouse distribution center for automotive parts in a proposed 24,000 sq. ft. building with a 12,000 sq. ft. future addition as per the site plan. The applicant requested that the property be returned to its previous zoning (RA – Residential Agricultural) and as such, it would again provide protection for the rural neighborhoods in the area and will contribute to the long-term quality of life in this part of Randolph County. A Resolution Adopting the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan, number 3, “Ensure the opportunity for landowners to achieve the highest and best uses of their land that are consistent with growth management policies in order to protect the economic viability of the County’s citizens and tax base.”
Consistency Analysis: Based upon the information that the previously approved warehouse distribution center will not be built on the property, returning the zoning to the previous zoning (RA – Residential Agricultural) allows the owner to achieve the highest and best use of their property.
2. Statement of Reasonableness and Public Interest
Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: This request, in returning the zoning of the parcel to its original zoning, (RA – Residential Agricultural), is reasonable and in the public interest based upon the facts that the previously approved commercial operation will not be constructed and by reverting to the previous zoning, (RA – Residential Agricultural), the owner can pursue the highest and best use of the property. Dale gave an overview of the third rezoning case for the Public Hearing.
REZONING REQUEST #2019-00002155 MERIC, Inc., Randleman, NC, is requesting that 8.63 acres located at 9755 US Hwy 220 Bus N, Level Cross Township, be rezoned from LI-CD – Light Industrial – Conditional District to
HC-CD – Highway Commercial – Conditional District. Tax ID #7767265344. Primary Growth Area. Randleman Lake Watershed. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow an event center in the existing building as per site plan.
Pell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of this request. Hearing none, Pell asked if anyone was present to speak in opposition of this request. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion for this request.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 5 of 20
Joyce made the motion, seconded by Davis to approve the request. The motion to approve the rezoning request was unanimous.
Pell called for a motion that the rezoning request was consistent and reasonable with the
2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Joyce made the motion, seconded Davis that this rezoning request is consistent and reasonable with the 2009 Randolph County
Growth Management Plan. The motion was unanimous. Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 153A-341 and 342, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the proposed zoning district map amendments to HC – CD –
Highway Commercial – Conditional District as described in the application of MERIC, Inc., are consistent with 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 northeast area shows the parcel to be rezoned in an area designated as Primary Growth Area. Primary Growth
Areas generally lie along major transportation corridors and have access to urban services. This parcel is along US Hwy 220 Business N which is a major transportation corridor.
B. Consistency with Growth Policies in the Growth Management Plan
Policy 4.1 Provide for sites in Randolph County jurisdiction where rural commercial
activity can locate, with the goal of increasing economic activity, job creation and the provision of services to the rural community. Consistency Analysis: This property has been rezoned several times to allow different uses with very little opposition from the community. This parcel is along US Hwy 220 Business N and in an area that has established rural commercial activities. This request is consistent as it allows a new type of commercial activity and will provide services to the rural community.
Policy 4.2 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.
Consistency Analysis: This property is along a segment of US Hwy 220 Business N where there are multiple rural commercial activities and all the existing uses are mutually compatible are designed to minimize signs and access points. 2. Statement of Reasonableness and Public Interest Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The parcel in this rezoning request is subject to the Conditions agreed upon between the property owner and the Planning Board. These Conditions will limit the amount and type of development on
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 6 of 20
the property reducing the impact on adjoining parcels. The proposed use will also increase the tax base and increase economic activity within the County.
Dale gave an overview of the fourth rezoning case for the Public Hearing. REZONING REQUEST #2019-00001680 NASH DUGGINS, Asheboro, NC, is requesting that 60.61 acres out of 200.05 acres located on NC Hwy 49S and Old NC Hwy 49, Cedar Grove Township be rezoned from RA – Residential Agricultural and RR – Residential Restricted to CVOE-CD – Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive – Conditional District. Tax ID #7639187958. Secondary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a 25-lot site built subdivision with a minimum house size of 1,750 sq. ft. as per site plan. Property Owner: Terry Charles Vuncannon.
Pell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of the request.
Nash Duggins, 3092 Old NC Hwy 49, Asheboro, NC said he and his business partner are requesting to expand Farmwood subdivision with an additional 25 lots. He provided the Board with a packet of information including restrictive covenants for Phases 1, 2 and 3 of Farmwood, a draft copy of covenants he is proposing for Phase 4, a copy of an email provided by his engineer, Mack Summey and a summary of house sizing in the existing subdivision. Duggins said Mack Summey was sick and apologized for his absence although he would like to highlight some of the key points of Summey’s email; he said they feel the subdivision requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance are being met, their proposal is environmentally friendly with no negative impact to the area, and the streets will be built in accordance with regulation requirements from NCDOT.
Duggins said his square footage requirements seemed to be the biggest concern of the existing property owners. He said Phase 1 and 2 of the subdivision required 1,500 sq. ft. minimum and Phase 3 required 2,000 sq. ft. He said his current proposal of 1,750 sq. ft. has been increased from 1,700 sq. ft. which he feels shows his effort to be in the middle of the existing covenants. Pell said the covenants he gave them showed 1,700 sq. ft. Duggins said they should have been marked out. He said his current proposal is 1,750 sq. ft. Duggins said he understands the concerns of the neighbors wanting to protect the value of their investments. He said this would be an investment on his part as well. He said someone could obviously build much larger homes than the minimum required. He said he feels that he has addressed most of the concerns that were forthcoming at the Neighborhood Information meeting and apologized for any confusion that may have originally taken place during the application process.
Morgan explained to the public that everyone would have the opportunity to speak to the
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 7 of 20
Board or ask questions and the applicant would be given another chance to address those questions and concerns before closing the public hearing.
Pell asked the Board if they had any questions of Duggins at this time. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone else present to speak in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone present in opposition of the request.
Morgan noticed the applicant for the MERIC, Inc., case had arrived late and announced to him that his case had been approved. Lew Jones, 1487 Allen Ct., Asheboro said he has been a resident of Farmwood for approximately 15 years. He said he would like to first of all ask the Board to consider postponing a decision on the request based on the fact that there is an error on the information just presented to the Board and the residents have not had the opportunity to review the information presented. Jones said there are not only concerns of the residents regarding the proposal, there are also concerns regarding the remaining portion of property that appears to be landlocked and what it will be used for.
Jones asked if Farmwood Ln had been approved by NCDOT and if not, would an approval be required before proceeding with a rezoning request. Jones said there has been an effort made to upgrade Farmwood Ln to NCDOT standards and asked if it has been approved by NCDOT at this time. Dale answered yes. Someone spoke out in the audience. Morgan asked the audience to refrain from speaking until they are presenting their information to the Board. He said comments from the audience do not make it to the record and each person would have the opportunity to speak. Jones expressed his concern that the proposed 1,750 sq. ft. home would affect the value of the adjacent homes which average 2,400 sq. ft. Jones also said Duggins had indicated during the Neighborhood Information meeting he planned to keep lot 9 for himself. Jones said the property he mentioned earlier that would be land locked adjoining lot 9. He said someone had mentioned the tract would be used for farmland and they have concerns that a resident of Farmwood would use their property as access to adjoining property, allowing farming vehicles such as cattle and chicken trucks to travel through the neighborhood which are not compatible with a residential neighborhood. He said there is a small strip of land between lot 10 and 11 which has been indicated as access to the larger adjoining tract to prevent it from being land locked. He said he would like clarification on what the strip would be used for. He said there are also concerns of burning debris while clearing the property which have the potential for fires, soot and ash from the burn. He told the Board there is grave concern about the proposal and asked if the individuals in opposition of the request would stand to give the Board an idea of the number of people with concerns of the request. Morgan asked if everyone would remain standing to get a count for the record. There were 30.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 8 of 20
Julie Parrish, 1391 McDaniel Dr., Asheboro, NC said she and her husband own land in and around Farmwood Subdivision. She read from a prepared statement, provided to the Board prior to the meeting. Parrish stated that she and her husband have invested their life savings into their property because of the upscale nature of the neighborhood and has concerns, if development is allowed, a decreased value of their home. She said Farmwood Ln should not be allowed to serve as access to a new development. She said although this proposal is called Farmwood, it is not equal to the existing subdivision.
Parrish said one entrance is not safe or sufficient for an additional 25 homes. She said constructing another entrance is a small price to pay in regards to the impact the residents will endure from long-term construction and daily traffic from these additional homes. Parrish also said the developer has plans to burn debris from the clearing of the property which she is totally against because of fire hazards to other homes and the smell of smoke and reduced air quality. She said the thing that bothers her the most is the fact that the residents have heard more than once, from people who work closely with the Planning Department that this is “a done deal” no matter what is said because it is economically advantageous to the County. She said that she would like to believe that Randolph County has Planning, Zoning, and developmental professionals who are willing to listen and be concerned about every issue to make wise and fair decisions instead of being swayed by politics, money and the “good ol’ boy” system.
Ann Shaw, 1555 McDaniel Dr., Asheboro, NC, said she spoke to someone at NCDOT earlier and was told the plans for Farmwood Ln have been transferred from a Civil Engineer to a District Engineer and has not been finalized at this time. Dale stated he has a letter in the office regarding the approval from NCDOT and the request has gone before the County Commissioners and approved as well. Shaw said the approval from County Commissioners is a part of the process but it does not mean that it is finalized. She said the restrictive covenants for Phase 1and 2 have been on public record since1987 and on record for Phase 3 since 2000, readily available for the developer to gain access. She said there is no benefit for the current residents of Farmwood to allow the rezoning request from Duggins. She said she feels there has been a deliberate attempt to keep Farmwood residents in the dark, beginning with the paving of Farmwood Ln by their developer to bring the road up to NCDOT standards and extend it for this new proposal. She said there was no notification from their developer, Terry Vuncannon, until late May or early June just hours before the paving was to begin which was placed on the windshield of their vehicles, early August they were notified of a Neighborhood Information Meeting, stating that Mr. Duggins had applied for a rezoning of the entire 200 acres he planned to purchase from Mr. Vuncannon, and required a minimum house size of 1,400 sq. ft. She said Mr. Duggins told them he had made a mistake, although she feels it was the intent. She said she asked for a copy of the proposed restrictive covenants on August 12, 2019, for the August 13, 2019, Neighborhood Information Meeting and was told none had been submitted. Shaw said there have been multiple discussions among the neighbors regarding this proposal and discovered during some of those meetings that the restrictive covenants for Phase 1, 2 and 3 have all expired and they currently in the process having the restrictive
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 9 of 20
covenants for all three phases reinstated. She said they all want to protect the investments they have made and Mr. Duggins proposal will devalue the value of their properties. Shaw said she has concerns for the traffic patterns and excessive traffic including additional construction traffic for the next 8-12 years in a quiet family friendly neighborhood. She said she would like to see a separate entrance and a buffer, completely separating Duggins proposal from Farmwood, allowing him to proceed with his plan and keeping Farmwood as it exists currently. She said by using Farmwood Ln to access his subdivision, it will open their neighborhood to 200 acres of unknown which could have never been conceived of when the current residents purchased their homes. Shaw said Duggins has not been forthcoming with his intensions for the remaining property outside of the 60 acres containing the 25 lot proposal. She said if Duggins intends to use their access as the only entrance, they have a right to know how the remaining 140 acres will be developed and how it may affect them. She said she has not been convinced that the extension of Farmwood Ln will not become a link from NC Hwy 49 to Old Hwy 49 South, also increasing traffic their neighborhood. She said requiring Duggins to build a new entrance to his subdivision would allow those who choose to build in his subdivision to have knowledge of the potential before buying rather than forcing the situation on existing Farmwood residents. She said Duggins has stated it would not be cost effective to build a new entrance for his proposal. She said he would rather use their neighborhood, access and resources at their expense.
Pamela Freeman, 2248 Farmwood Ln, Asheboro, stated she has been a resident of Farmwood for 16 years. She thanked the Board for their time and read from a prepared statement which included some concerns and questions she had regarding Duggins’ proposal. She said the residents were not notified that Farmwood Ln would be paved until the morning of construction, with a note and contact information for anyone who may have questions and stated there would be no costs to the residents except those who would be required to relocate mailboxes. She explained some of the damages and the costs for those damages made to properties during preparation for pavement. She said she later discovered the reasoning for paving Farmwood Ln was to extend Farmwood Ln for an addition to the subdivision.
Freeman told the Board the original application filed by Duggins was a proposal to rezone 200.5 acres for 27 home sites allowing 1,400 sq. ft. homes and no restrictions. She said at the Neighborhood Information Meeting, Duggins blamed Planning and Zoning when the 1,400 sq. ft. house size was discussed. She said she asked Duggins to have another informational meeting, reflective of the changes discussed and not on file for the proposal and Duggins said no. Freeman said a revised application was filed in August for 60.88 acres, 25 lots and 1,750 sq. ft. homes and a plat appearing to have even further extension for Farmwood Ln. She told the Board she was aware they could only rule on the proposal brought before them although the residents have concerns on the future plans for the development. Freeman said Duggins was asked about creating a new entrance to his proposed home sites and he said it would be cost prohibitive. She said Farmwood residents should not have to suffer due to the costs of developing this land.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 10 of 20
She said Mr. Duggins has indicated he will retain lot 9 to build a home for himself. She said the larger tract of land would be land locked and there is concern that Duggins will use his property as access to the remaining acreage for additional development of larger tracts or farming which leads to concerns of farm animals, traffic and equipment passing through their neighborhood. She said no one in Farmwood envisioned there subdivision being used to access farm land. She said her question has been answered regarding Farmwood Ln being taken over by NCDOT. She said she would like to know the purpose for the strip of land between lots 10 and 11 rather than a vague answer that it is a dirt road, she said would like a definitive answer regarding burning rather than hauling debris off site and expressed her concerns of fire hazards near their homes. She asked if the required 1,750 sq. ft. would include garage space or if the homes would be required to have garages. She said the proposal is not compatible to homes in Farmwood with an average house size in excess of 2,400 sq. ft. She concluded her statement by saying the expired restrictive covenants for Phase 1, 2 and 3 would be reinstated to protect the existing properties within Farmwood. She asked for those in the audience who agreed with her statement to please stand. The same individuals stood up as before.
Wayne Simpson, 1524 Allen Ct., Asheboro, said he and his wife were the first to build in Phase 3 of Farmwood. He said they chose Farmwood because it is a great area to raise a family, light traffic throughout the neighborhood with no fear of walking. He expressed his concerns regarding the small house size requirements and said it is unclear if the 1,750 sq. ft. would be heated space or total sf under roof. He also asked for clarification regarding the strip of land between lots 10 and 11. He asked the Board to consider requiring the same restrictive covenants for this development that were placed on Phase 3 of Farmwood and asked that farm equipment not be allowed access through Farmwood. He said he also has concerns regarding burning the debris from clearing the land. He said a separate entrance would resolve most of the concerns and complaints and asked the Board to vote no to this request. He also asked the audience to stand in agreement with his statements.
Pell said he would like to read a portion of the restrictive covenants submitted by Duggins for his proposal. He read as follows: “Any residence erected in this subdivision shall contain a minimum of 1,750 square feet of heated living area exclusive to any garage, porch or carport area”. Pell asked if anyone else would like to speak in opposition of the request.
Steve Johnson, 1417 Richards Cir., Asheboro, told the Board the residents would like to request that 2,000 sq. ft. be the minimum house size allowed if proposal is approved. He said it has been mentioned that Duggins may build a couple of spec houses and smaller homes would increase the marketability of those homes. He said he feels the same standards should be set for the proposal that currently exists on adjoining homes. He said the residents of Farmwood are very passionate about their neighborhood and although they do not want to prevent someone from development, they would like to see consistency with the homes. He also mentioned the traffic concerns. He also said if several homes are built smaller in size than the existing homes, it could potentially decrease the value of their homes. He thanked
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 11 of 20
the Board for their time. Barry Houston, 1478 Richards Cir., Asheboro, asked the Board urge to strike out burning wood as has 2 granddaughters with Cystic Fibrosis and are required to take breathing treatments every day. He said his grandchildren would not even be allowed to visit him if burning is allowed due to the air quality. He said the second entrance that has been mentioned would be helpful but his main concern is that a road will connect Old NC Hwy 49 to NC Hwy 49, creating a cut-through, would be a real safety issue. He said although it has been said a cut through would not happen, everyone knows how things can eventually process. Theresa Morgan, 1530 Allen Ct., Asheboro, said she would like to clarify a statement made about the minimum house size for Phase 1 and 2 of Farmwood being 1,500 sq. ft. The average house size is in excess of 1,800 sq. ft. She also said there was a Development Impact Analysis provided to them at the Neighborhood Information Meeting stating the speed limit is noted as 55 mph which she doesn’t understand. Pell asked Duggins if he would like to address any of the concerns that have been mentioned.
Duggins said he has not mentioned burning anything on site and is unsure where that information came from. He said site contractors that priced the job may have mentioned it but one he spoke to said he would be grinding. He said he thought burning would be allowed with the proper permitting although it has not been planned.
Duggins said his initial plan for this development was driven from the idea that he would like to move back into Farmwood where he once lived. He said he is now unsure if that is still his plan although lot 9 would be under the same restrictive covenants as the proposed development if approved regardless of the remaining land adjoining. He said he is unsure why it is a concern of the residents whether property is land locked unless an access lot is the concern. He said he currently has interested parties in possibly purchasing some of the adjoining land and the intent is not to use access through Farmwood as access to farming land. He said the 200 acres, currently zoned for agricultural use, has existing access off Farmwood Ln even if the proposal is not approved. He said if the proposal is approved, there will be no farming access through Farmwood. He said he forwarded an email from NCDOT, approving the repairs for the road, excepting that it is ready to be maintained by the state although it may not be officially taken over at this time. He said the restrictive covenants have been a big issue and apologized for not having them completed earlier. He said he increased the square footage from 1,700 sq. ft. to 1,750 sq. ft. based on conversations during the Neighborhood Information Meeting and it is a direct copy of Phase 3 restrictions other than the square footage requirements, power company name change and changed construction material for garages to be same as house. He mentioned Oak Hollow, a nearby subdivision which has been referenced multiple times in comparison to compatibility, has over 100 homes with one entrance. He said there are many developments in rural areas of a county with only one access to a main road much larger than his proposal and he does not feel it is a safety issue.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 12 of 20
Duggins said he feels the standards have been met for the request and the notion that his proposal was deliberately being hidden could not be more false. He said he spoke to numerous residents in the beginning of the road preparation for NCDOT to obtain feed-back. He also said the road was required as part of the original approval of the subdivision to be completed and should have taken place a long time ago. He said it had to take place for him to move forward with his proposal.
Duggins said he has made mistakes during the process and he could only ask for forgiveness. He said he used to be a resident of Farmwood and he would like to continue to maintain the integrity of the subdivision. He said the cost of construction has skyrocketed which is one of the deciding factors for the square footage requirements. He said his goal is to sell lots although he may build a couple of nice spec homes to create some energy and doesn’t believe his square footage will have negative impact on the existing homes due to the increased value of homes. He said the minimum square footage requirement does not prevent someone from building a much larger home just like the existing homes in Farmwood. He said the majority of the residents in Farmwood built larger than the minimum which is a choice.
Duggins said he is not sure where Morgan obtained the information she referred to as an impact analysis regarding the 55 mph through the subdivision and that is not the plan. Joyce said while doing research for his own development years ago, he found that 55 mph is standard throughout the County, unless otherwise posted, which lead to speed limit signs throughout his subdivision. Duggins said there are currently no speed limit signs in Farmwood although stop signs were installed as part of the NCDOT requirements for road maintenance. Morgan asked Duggins to clarify the space between lots 10 and 11. Duggins said it is currently intended for access to the land adjoining his proposal and will be up to the Planning Board to decide if it will be allowed. Duggins said he feels it was intended for Farmwood to expand based on the road not being completed into a cul-de-sac and as stated previously by one of the residents, Mr. Vuncannon had told him verbally what he would or would not allow for future development. He said every street in the subdivision has a finished cul-de-sac except Farmwood which indicates the plans for future development.
Duggins said there were an average of twenty three percent of homes in Oak Hollow and Farmwood with less than 2,000 sq. ft. He said there are people present tonight, complaining about his proposal of 1750 sf which own houses less than 2,000 sq. ft., according to tax records. Modlin asked how wide the strip of land is between lots 10 and 11. Duggins said he was unsure. Modlin said the Board needs to know. Duggins said he would have to obtain that information from his engineer. Modlin said it is obvious, the strip of land provides access to the remaining acreage. Duggins said there is also access at the end of Farmwood Ln. He said there is also available access from NC Hwy 49.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 13 of 20
There was discussion between Cable and Duggins regarding access. Cable asked if Duggins planned to extend Farmwood Ln from the cul-de-sac, shown on his proposal, in the future. Duggins answered no. He said the remaining 140 acres of land has access on Old NC Hwy 49.
Modlin asked if he would be opposed to using access off of NC Hwy 49 for the new development. Duggins said it is cost prohibitive. Modlin said it appears he would only lose one lot with new access. Duggins said it is not the cost of losing one lot. He said the costs of installing a turning lane and other requirements by NCDOT would not work for them and does not feel the addition of 25 lots warrants building a new road. Duggins said the larger tract of land has additional access and does not have to come off the cul-de-sac. He said someone had also mentioned the possibility of building a street as a link between Old NC Hwy 49 and NC Hwy 49 which would require crossing a creek, also cost prohibitive. Cable asked if the housing would be consistent with other homes in the subdivision. Duggins answered yes. Cable asked what type of homes would be allowed. Duggins said site built homes would be required, using the same restrictive covenants as other Phases in Farmwood with the exception of square footage. He said one of the key things within the covenants, requires the developer to approve the construction plans which will enable him to maintain the integrity of what already exists in the subdivision, trying to protect the investments of the residents of Farmwood as well as their own as developers.
Slusher asked Duggins what his objection is to increasing the square footage to 2,000 sq. ft. Duggins said it comes down to being able to sell lots and sell houses that people can afford with the costs of construction. Slusher asked what the cost difference would be for the difference in square footage. While Duggins was gathering information for Slusher, Dale said square footage is important when considering the value of someone’s home and wanting to protect it although the Board cannot approve or deny a request based on house size. Slusher said he asked the question because it seems to be the majority of concern for the existing residents. Morgan said it was fine to take house size into consideration. Duggins said the square footage is the issue. He told Slusher the cost difference for square footage would be approximately $37,500.00.
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. He also said he feels there will be more homeowners building than spec houses from builders. Davis asked Duggins if he plans to burn or not. Duggins said he was unsure of plans at this time as it has not been discussed. Davis asked if the covenants presented to the Board this evening were the covenants that would be used. Duggins answered yes. Duggins said in summary, he was born and raised in Randolph County, lived in Farmwood for eight years, has a wonderful wife and three children and are deeply rooted in the community. He said his wife is a school teacher, he coaches ball and they care about the community as well and intend on this proposal to be as nice as the first three phases of
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 14 of 20
Farmwood and would appreciate the consideration to approve his request. Davis said even though the land between lots 10 and 11 had been discussed, he is still unclear of its purpose. Duggins said it was intended for access to the remaining land and if not allowed, it would not be a deal breaker for them. Davis asked Duggins how he would gain access to the adjoining tract if he were to dissolve the land between the two lots.
Duggins said there is other access to the property. Cable asked where the access would be.
Duggins said it would be off NC Hwy 49 at the end of the cul-de-sac. Slusher said he thought he had understood Duggins to have said the cul-de-sac would not extend into the remaining tract. Duggins described the access to the remaining property as being beyond the cul-de-sac on NC Hwy 49. Pell said even though the maps show the existing Farmwood Ln to have a cul-de-sac, there is not one there. He said he went out to the site to take a look at it. Duggins said every road in Farmwood has a paved cul-de-sac and Farmwood Ln was left open. Pell said it is still unclear what the access between lots 10 and 11 will be used for. Duggins said he had already stated the property was intended for access to the remaining property although it is not a deal breaker for them.
Modlin said residents are having difficulties with the uncertainty of future development having access through Farmwood. Duggins said if future development were to take place, the same process would have to take place to obtain approval from the Board. Modlin said the uncertainty seems to be the issue. (Applause from the audience) Slusher said the width of the access is unknown at this time as well. Cable asked Duggins if he developed any of the first three phases. Duggins answered no. He said if the proposed access needs to be removed, it can be done. Cable said his main concern is that it does not become a thoroughfare to Old NC Hwy 49. Duggins asked how it could become a thoroughfare. Cable said it sounds like it will have a cul-de-sac that could potentially carry on. He said he lives on what was indicated on paper to be a cul-de-sac, which was extended for four additional homes. Duggins said there will not be a connection from Farmwood to Old NC Hwy 49 by him. He said he cannot predict what will happen to the acreage outside of what he is proposing and regardless of the outcome of his request, someone could still choose to install access from NC Hwy 49 to Old NC Hwy 49, although it will not be him. Cable said he is trying to clarify some of the confusion that has been created from this proposal before he makes a vote. (Applause from the audience).
Slusher said the proposed plat shows the existing portion of Farmwood Ln as a cul-de-sac which it is not and will potentially extend into new phase of Farmwood with another cul-de-sac. He asked Duggins if he has any plans to extend that cul-de-sac into the remaining acreage outside of his proposal. Duggins said he does not intend on extending it, it would depend on what is approved by the Board. Slusher said everyone is afraid the proposed cul-de-sac will be opened up as a thoroughfare to the remaining acreage, allowing traffic to flow through the subdivision and there is no clarity to the question. Duggins asked if he realized the very thing everyone is afraid of could happen right now. Slusher said it would not happen with approval. Duggins said the existing access to the 200 acres is already Farmwood Ln.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 15 of 20
Joyce asked if the right of way already exists to this large tract. Duggins answered yes. Cable asked if he owned the property in question. Duggins answered no. He said he is proposing to purchase the property if his proposal is approved and there is access to the property through Farmwood whether this proposal is approved or not.
Joyce asked Duggins if he would be willing to remove access between lots 10 and 11 if approved. Duggins answered yes.
Davis asked if ingress and egress to an adjacent property could be restricted as part of a decision of the proposal. Duggins said he did not think that was normally done. He said there are cul-de-sacs in Oak Hollow currently leading into larger tracts of land. Modlin asked Duggins if he would be willing to increase his minimum house size to 2,000 sq. ft. Duggins answered no. Modlin asked if he would consider a separate entrance off of Hwy 49. Duggins said it is cost prohibitive to do so and he feels it does not create safety issues. Modlin said there is no doubt that 25 additional homes is not unreasonable for this road. He said there is a big group of citizens with great concerns and he feels no compromises are being made for them. He said it seems unfair to the residents to expand their development, using their access and not continue using the same square footage they were required to have. Duggins asked Modlin if he realized the first two phases were only required to have 1,500 sq. ft. Modlin said he did not have concerns of the first two phases. He said he understands a smaller house can be built to look just as nice as a larger home but he feels compromises should be made due to all of the concerns from the existing residents.
Duggins said his proposal falls right in the middle of the existing 1,500 and 2,000 sq. ft. minimum house size. Pell asked the Board if there were any additional questions for Mr. Duggins before closing the public hearing. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion for this request. Morgan advised the Board to speak loudly and clearly into their microphones so everyone would be able to hear their discussions and he suggested they use a show of hands when voting for clarity.
Cable said he would like to address one of the comments made during presentations. He said he did not know of one member of the Board that comes to these meetings without having an open mind, ready to listen to questions and concerns and no one has their minds predetermined or pre made up. He said each one of them listen to both sides equally and fairly with equal and fair discussion. He said the Board members are good gentleman and deserve that kind of courtesy. Cable said he has a concern regarding the access road and Mr. Duggins does not have an answer. He said he has a concern in regards to burning and Mr. Duggins does not have an answer. He said he also has a concern regarding the cul-de-sac which could possibly be extended and Mr. Duggins does not have an answer. He said he has seen a development take place in Trinity that opened up into a new section which decreased property values on the
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 16 of 20
existing homes. He said he also has concerns of the property becoming a cut through without guarantee that it will not be.
Cable said he believes in development and he believes that a person has the right to do what they choose with their own property. He said if someone does not want property to be developed they should purchase it themselves. He said the Board also has to protect the existing property owners as well.
Davis said he agrees with Cable’s comments, specifically in regards to the ingress, egress for the cul-de-sac and the burning on the property. Pell asked if there were any additional comments or questions. Hearing none, Pell called for a motion to the request. Cable made a motion to deny the request based on the inadequate information presented and mistakes made by the developer, seconded by Slusher. There was a 4 to 1 vote with Joyce voting against the motion.
Pell called for a motion that the rezoning request was consistent and reasonable with the
2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Davis made the motion, seconded Modlin that this rezoning request is contrary to the requirements of the 2009 Randolph County
Growth Management Plan. There was a 4 to 1 vote with Joyce voting against the motion. Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 153A-341 and 342, the Randolph County Planning Board 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 not consistent with the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan and are not reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: 1. Determination of Consistency with the Growth Management Plan. A. Consistency with Growth Management Plan Map The Randolph County Growth Management Plan map for the southwest area shows the parcel to be rezoned in an area designated as Secondary Growth Area. Secondary
Growth Areas are an area for medium density, predominately residential and allows for transitional land use patterns. This property is located between NC Hwy 49 S and Old NC Hwy 49.
B. Consistency with Growth Policies in the Growth Management Plan
Policy 6.5 The protection of viable rural neighborhoods should be encouraged by
compatible residential development to insure the continued existence as a major housing source and as a reflection of the long-term quality of life in Randolph County. Consistency Analysis: While this request would be an extension of an existing rural subdivisions there were many concerns raised by the area residents and Randolph County Planning Board members. Questions raised included adding a new entrance, the property potentially becoming a cut-through from NC Hwy 49S to Old NC Hwy 49 and other access questions for this proposed addition to Farmwood. During the Public
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 17 of 20
Hearing the applicant refused to consider adding another entrance as it would be “cost prohibitive.” The applicant also refused to consider increasing the minimum house size to match those in the existing parts of Farmwood. By denying to consider the requests by the existing residents and the Randolph County Planning Board, the applicant failed to insure the protection of the existing subdivision and rural neighborhoods as recommended in the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management
Plan.
Policy 8.8 The County should seek land use decisions that continue to provide locations
for affordable housing while maintaining a choice in compatible housing types in communities within the County. Consistency Analysis: As stated earlier, the area residents and Randolph County Planning Board members requested the applicant to make changes to the plan for the property including increasing the minimum house size and adding a new entrance to protect the existing portions of Farmwood. The Randolph County Planning Board asked the applicant several times to consider raising the minimum house size to ease the concerns of the area residents and the applicant refused. Since the applicant refused to make further changes to his request, the housing types within the proposed Phase 4 would not be compatible or consistent with the existing patterns in Farmwood subdivision.
2. Statement of Reasonableness and Public Interest
Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: This request is not reasonable and in the public interests for all the reasons stated above. The applicant refused repeated requests by area residents and the Randolph County Planning Board to increase the minimum house size to be more compatible with the existing portions of Farmwood. It should be noted that the applicant did increase the proposed minimum house size from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,750 sq. ft. after the Neighborhood Information Meeting in August, 2019, to help ease residents’ concerns. Pell announced there would be a ten minute break before beginning the next case. The Public Hearing was called to order again by Chairman Pell at 8:34 p.m.
Dale gave an overview of the last rezoning case for the Public Hearing.
REZONING REQUEST #2019-00001680 GENERATION DEVELOPMENT, Oak Ridge, NC, is requesting that 29.80 acres located on US Hwy 220 Bus S, Cedar Grove Township, be rezoned from CS-CU – Community Shopping – Conditional Use District, RM – Residential Mixed District, and RA – Residential Agricultural District to RA-CD – Residential Agricultural – Conditional District. Tax ID #7658528817 and 7658528849. Primary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a Planned Unit Development consisting of 131 units of 5 triplexes and 58 duplexes as per site plan. Property Owners: Ulah Properties, LLC, and Pinewood Country Club, Inc.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 18 of 20
Pell asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of this request.
Hiram Marziano 1612 Lake Ctry Dr., Asheboro, said he was there on behalf of Mark Smith, developer. He said he designed the preliminary sketch that has been provided for the Board to represent the approximate design of Mark’s project. He said they planned to design it as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), they have already talked with NCDOT regarding access requirements and he was unsure if a traffic study had been completed but he did not feel this development would impose additional traffic congestion beyond the existing school traffic. Marziano said there would be public water and sewer provided for this site, it will have privately maintained streets, and to maintain the quality of the development, there would be a homeowner’s association. He said he was unsure of any other Planned Unit Developments within the County. Dale said this was the first. Marziano said there should have been an Article of Incorporation provided by Mark Smith and there would be a Homeowner’s Association set up as well. He also said there would be a small clubhouse and pool house built within the development, as well as walking areas for the residents.
Marziano said if rezoning is approved, they will follow up with detailed, finalized plans and apply for a Special Use Permit to allow the Planned Unit Development.
Davis asked what the transition would be from US Hwy 220 Bus to the first unit. Marziano said the embankment would have to be cut down. He said the units require fairly level ground for slab on grade construction. Davis asked if there would be any buffers installed. Marziano said there would be plantings. Pell asked if there was anyone else present to speak in favor of the request. Darrell Alexander, 5474 US Hwy 220 S, Asheboro, said he wanted to let the Board know he has not heard of any opposition for the surrounding neighbors and he is in favor of the request.
Pell asked if there was anyone else present in favor of this request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone present in opposition to this request. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion for this request. Davis made the motion, seconded by Slusher to approve the request. The motion to approve the rezoning request was unanimous. Pell called for a motion that the rezoning request was consistent and reasonable with the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Cable made the motion, seconded Joyce that this rezoning request is consistent and reasonable with the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan. The motion was unanimous.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 19 of 20
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 153A-341 and 342, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the proposed zoning district map amendments to RA – CD – Residential Agricultural – Conditional District as described in the application of Generations Development are consistent with 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 southeast area shows the parcel to be rezoned in an area designated as Primary Growth Area. Primary Growth Areas generally lie along major transportation corridors and have access to urban services. This parcel is along US Hwy 220 Business S which is a major transportation corridor. B. Consistency with Growth Policies in the Growth Management Plan Policy 6.4 Innovative and flexible land planning techniques should be supported as a means of encouraging development configurations which are more desirable and which may better safeguard existing natural land and water resources.
Consistency Analysis: In this request for a Planned Unit Development, the developers are proposing to use innovative and flexible planning techniques in the County that have rarely been used in the County. This proposal will safeguard the existing Pinewood Country Club and protect water and sewer resources as it will receive water from the Seagrove Ulah Metropolitan Water District and sewer services from the City of Asheboro. Policy 6.15 Residential neighborhoods in Primary and Secondary Growth Areas that have become infused or surrounded by non-residential uses may undergo an orderly conversion through the rezoning process from residential use to higher-density residential use or other compatible alternative land uses.
Consistency Analysis: This request is consistent as the area has become infused with non-residential uses, mainly Uwharrie Charter Academy along with the existing Pinewood Country Club. This proposal will start an orderly conversion to a higher-density residential use.
2. Statement of Reasonableness and Public Interest
Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The parcel in this rezoning request is subject to the Conditions agreed upon between the property owner and the Planning Board. These Conditions will limit the amount and type of development on the property reducing the impact on adjoining parcels. The proposed use will also increase the tax base and increase economic activity within the County. Pell made an announcement that Chris McLeod would no longer be on the Board and he would be missed and welcomed Melinda Vaughn as a new member. Joyce asked if Vaughn would become an alternate. Pell said Koehler would remain as alternate.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2019 Page 20 of 20
Pell opened the floor for a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing. Modlin made the motion, seconded by Slusher to adjourn the public hearing. Pell called the question to adjourn the public hearing. The motion to adjourn the public hearing was unanimous. The September 10, 2019, Randolph County Planning Board Public Hearing was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. with 44 citizens present.
RANDOLPH COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA _______________________________________________ Planning Director _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Clerk to the Board Date Approved by the Randolph County Planning Board
_______________________________
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR
REZONING REQUEST #2019-00001680
NASH DUGGINS, Asheboro, NC, is requesting that 60.88 acres located on NC Hwy 49S and Old NC Hwy 49, Cedar Grove Township, be rezoned from RA – Residential Agricultural District and RR – Residential Restricted District to CVOE-CD – Conventional Subdivision Overlay
Exclusive – Conditional District. Tax ID #7639187958. Secondary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a 25-lot site built subdivision with a minimum house size of 1,750 sq. ft. as per site plan. Property Owner: Terry Charles Vuncannon.
Neighborhood Information Meeting: The Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on August 13, 2019, with approximately 40 citizens in attendance. The main concerns voiced by the citizens was the proposed house size of 1,400 sq. ft. vs. the average 2,000 sq. ft. in the homes in the existing sections of Farmwood. After the meeting, Mr. Duggins increased the minimum house size to 1,750 sq. ft. Technical Review Committee Recommendation: The Technical Review Committee met and determined that this proposal is in compliance with the standards outlined in The 2009 Growth Management Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. After review, the Technical Review Committee recommends to the Planning Board that this request be approved.
Examples of Growth Management Policies that the Technical Review Committee found
supporting this recommendation are as follows.
Policy 6.5 The protection of viable rural neighborhoods should be encouraged by compatible residential development to insure the continued existence as a major housing source and as a reflection of the long-term quality of life in Randolph County. 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 located outside the flood zone.
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
Department of Planning & Zoning
204 E Academy St - PO Box 771 - Asheboro NC 272044771
APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE
Date:06/10/2019
Parcel #: 7639187958
Applicant: DUGGINS, NASH
Addr68s: 3092 OLD NC HWY 49
City, St. Zlp: ASHEBORO, NC 27205
Ownsr: VUNCANNON, TERRY CHARLES
Address: 3'151 OLD NC HWY 49
City, St. Zlp: ASHEBORO, NC 27205
CONTACTNAME: DUGGINS, NASH
Pormit #: 2019-00001680
Permit Type Codet PZ 2
Locatlon Address:
Contact Phone: 336 382-6327
PARCEL INFORMATION:
Lot num ronAcreago: 200.0500 Township: 04 - CEDAR GROVE
ZONING INFORMATION:
ning 1:
Zoning Dlstrict 2:
Zoning District 3:
Growth Management Areas:
Speclalty District:
Watershed Name:
Class A Flood Plain On Prop?:
Flood Plane Map #:
RA.RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL D STRI
SECONDARY GROWTH AREA
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT
NONE
YES
Flood Plain Map #: 3710763900J
REQUESTED CHANGE:
60.8800
ACRE(S)
CVOE-CD-CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION OVERLAY EXCLUSIVE
CONDITIONAL DISTRICT
TO ALLOW A 25 LOT SITE BUILT SUBDIVISION WITH 1,750 SQ.
FT. MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE AS PER SITE PLAN
Proposed Use(S):
Condltlon(S):
Total Permit Fee: $100.00
Tlmothy Mangum
Authorlzed County Official of
- LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER.
Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Archdal€/Trinity: (336) 81$3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov
APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page: I of 1
Area To Be Rezoned:
Lot Ske lndlcator:
Proposed Zoning Dlstric.t:
COMTIENTS:
The undersigned owner/applicant do hereby make application for a PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE as
allowed by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance.
AApplication Submitted to Planning Board
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH Department of Planning & Zoning 204 E Academy St -PO Box 771 -Asheboro NC 27204-0771
Applicant: DUGGINS, NASHAddress: 3092 OLD NC HWY 49
APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE
Date: 06/10/2019
Parcel#:7639187958 City, Sl Zip: ASHEBORO, NC 27205
Owner: VUNCANNON, TERRY CHARLESAddress: 3151 OLD NC HWY 49
Permit#: 2019-00001680Permit Type Code: PZ 2
City, Sl Zip: ASHEBORO, NC 27205 Location Address:
CONT ACT NAME: DUGGINS, NASH Contact Phone: 336 382-6327
I PARCEL INFORMATION:
Lot number: Acreage: 200.0500
jzoNING INFORMATION:
Zoning District 1: Zoning District 2: Zoning District 3:
Growth Management Areas:
Specialty District: Watershed Name: Class A Flood Plain On Prop?:
Flood Plane Map #:
!REQUESTED CHANGE:
Area To Be Rezoned: Lot Size Indicator:
Subdlvsion:
Township: 04 -CEDAR GROVE
RA-RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
SECONDARY GROWTH AREA
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT NONE YES
Flood Plain Map#: 3710763900J
34.2900 ACRE(S) Proposed Zoning District: CVOE-CD-CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION OVERLAY EXCLUSIVE CONDITIONAL DISTRICT Proposed Use{S):
Condition{S):
COMMENTS:
TO ALLOW A 22 LOT SITE BUil T SUBDIVISION WITH 1,750 SQ.
FT. MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE AS PER SITE PLAN
Total Permit Fee: $100.00
DENIED BY PLANNING BOARD 9/10/19 ON 4-1 VOTE
The undersigned owner/applicant do hereby make application for a PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE as allowed by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance.
Timothy Mangum
Authorized County Official
-LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER -Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 -Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov
APPLICA TION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page: 1 of 1
Application Submittedffor Appeal
Duggins Request Location Map
TAYLORSCREEK
D
R
FARMWOO
D
L
N
OLD NC HWY 49
OAKHOLLOW DR
CABLE
C
REEKRD
MCDANIELDR
DEERHOR NCT
ARROWSTONEDR
RICHARDSCIR
MC
D
A
N
I
E
L
R
D
SHAW ST
BENLAM
BET
H
R
D
ALLENCT
N C H W Y 4 9 S
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Directions to site: NC Hwy 49 S - (R)McDaniel Dr - (L) Farmwood Ln -Site at end.
Duggins Rezoning Request
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
TaylorsCreek
TaylorsCre e k FARMWO
O
D
L
N
DEERHORN CT
ARROWSTONEDR
MCDANIELDR
MCDANIELRD
BE
N
L
A
M
B
E
T
H
R
D
SHAW ST
OAK H O LL O W DR
ALLENCT
T
A
YLORSCREEK
D
R
OLD NC HWY 49
NC HWY 4
9
S
The request is located in Municipal Airport Overlay District.1 inch = 1,000 feet
Farmwood Phase3 (Rezoned 2000)Farmwood Phase2 (Approved 1990)
Oak HollowWest S/D
Keyaee Hills S/D(Rezoned 2000)
Silo's(Rezoned 2005)
Requestlocation
?k
Legend
ParcelsStructures
Type
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
!(Miscellaneous Structures
Roads
Streams
50 ft. Stream buffer
Flood plains
City of Asheboro
Overlay zoning districtsCounty zoning
Districts
RA
RBO
RE
RR
Plat Submitted to Planning Board
Plat Submitted for Appeal
Duggins Rezoning Request
TaylorsCreek
TaylorsCre e k FARMWO
O
D
L
N
DEERHORN CT
ARROWSTONEDR
MCDANIELDR
MCDANIELRD
BE
N
L
A
M
B
E
T
H
R
D
SHAW ST
OAK H O LL O W DR
ALLENCT
T
A
YLORSCREEK
D
R
OLD NC HWY 49
NC HWY 4
9
S
The request is located in Municipal Airport Overlay District.1 inch = 1,000 feet
Farmwood Phase3 (Rezoned 2000)Farmwood Phase2 (Approved 1990)
Oak HollowWest S/D
Keyaee Hills S/D(Rezoned 2000)
Silo's(Rezoned 2005)
?k
Legend
Parcels
Roads
Streams
50 ft. Stream buffer
Flood plains
Duggins Rezoning Request
Picture 1:
Request location.
Picture 2:
Existing residence
along Farmwood Ln.
Picture 3:
Existing residence
along Farmwood
Ln.
Picture 4:
Existing residence
along Farmwood Ln.
Picture 5:
Entrance to
Farmwood
Subdivision to right
as seen looking
along NC Hwy 49S.
Picture 6:
Entrance to
Farmwood
Subdivision to left as
seen looking along
NC Hwy 49S.
CITIZEN SIGN.IN SHEET
August 13,2OL9
Farmwood Phase 4 Subdivision
Location: NC Hwy 499/Farmwood Ln
Name Address CiW. State. Zin
STLI€ Tvct+1*7 lbkloo,lh@'L,/nrtu""MC Z?LdT
\v.,t-sa.
f\atAN
\,,1^) \53c A,t[r^ Cx.) I\,s\."!o, o a-rarr6'
/rJ,7l,.nSu.*,,)' -?/ tl a lL Pc tt*t(\,t$e/'n. Pc)>ffi
, l,
Sm*LUhJkt!^rf 0 Z'iInJ, c,i.
^/cX-W
m.
B*v lY-ft kd+*QPe Rlwow, Et)
Shau 5u1r-t{al l4Jncl O,Autm(o llc 27o
/l-t .. tv,qA r^ lsa4 Ail,"0.(k\i-*, fic I t*
zqt6 A/tc-, &-
/VL4l*/^Ht^
lrau, lL&a^.
l4qb ,,ttuy., (*-
frdnln-nr:, lJcZ \
J
"/J'd,1,'*CIdL sra4
#lr.-.-'
\\nhr^^J,)k
) Nst
-,fl,rLon ) C,aile./*!oJr)l,c &7aod
tZfl1 ktefu,ru U
Aal,,ao.a fiL)>So1 /lrl-.z,rre^ fur .
)J4,*
Jd It /)
flr*l <Bz,l XW !r*{+ P*?gAL tAa- ematL 1-
' '"di),.. i,f*r,,iO gma;l"Lev' i1.l iZ'n'E'Parrish 6t',"w?l(em
ilb8^*,
CITIZEN SIGN.IN SHEET
August 13,2019
Farmwood Phase 4 Subdivision
Location: NC Hwy 49S/Farmwood Ln
Name Address Citv. State. Zin
1i tNt>O slt-,tm'fftrmtp 61-p*Qt41z
t) ALLT'J
0s $r4o c o
tu- c, ,0 0.1o /
fu,JlA cHndu
t4,,4
?,rt"tasCitctu-:Ash,/,oroNL 17105
h^* SlNa'n 1555 cn dDCL\iaLD
fu:l*L"^;>A<Jt^xa
/a"?tAu, dc- s
/5se ntc D4pri | )7
fls/- l- z o fr]oi
4*'{/<JS t,'te Dtrz;g/ ??
l4rA *6 o.o ll <>/ze S
Srto^ lfo*e t* fll Qthh eL
nd"br.>21Zb€
/14^ ry //anJ,n
,SFl AlLE,,V ET
A= /rtl-,,''.,gTaoS
$r*rilt lltl'il t l;tAbfuillilil Vup H^rlW,tJUTt?6
U
fiArn"lrar oN?*--1S)-cl *,tt*uU-A\lztAct rt t\,,/v( }))cl(
&my DAret?l ll+\ Ffr&v4 ruqrr) rA r4+ Nefupo zlzog
ALql),n)os 7oq'2 old/U./r4
A.Aebnt O, 'ue7aa
1/Ol'tn {-Yv;,"t^r{r- hLdug D
23 )?q 0.-*^ n-a,
CA
$$/0l\^-
FftsO fv\@ni Q tY ,f>hrroo nc
tc- 4rrlr.lVSo *//t" t",./hhl*, r" 2tzo{
CITIZEN SIGN.IN SHEET
August 13,2019
Farmwood Phase 4 Subdivision
Location: NC Hwy 49S/Farmwood Ln
Name Address CiW. State. Zio
}4-tw6 + cheLn
€HrruN 7o52 oL/ Nc- qq tbtttfur*.o z7z o5
a/r+q a"6l'r.'
F!:.P5 sa{ a.A; I N.\J\.'^.r N c->'tz{
[)al*'* t y
Pq-vv { Jt rqs,)+e0 kLLrP cf ft-g-2a<,Lo 272-o{$c
{a4y:s^'lJ\d4r13<eq-l1 o\a sLrbry *Ar Nae
Ctd &rat *3st Oil tuc !-fiQ tehilo. 21)frzs
RL <],,,*l+l/ /t.0*,,-/0r AskL"*,/vc zTeor
PI /
,Y'n,4)
n *,,4ar; ))4)z A))o,<l Aal*t L,d
L(*r,*/qyt Hh; U 4s/,J,o,
NEIGHBORHOOD lNFORMATION MEETING
C]TIZEN CONCERN FORM
Randolph County Planning Department
204 East Academy Street . Asheboro NC 27203
Phone (336) 318-6555 o Fax (336) 318-5546
E-mail: planning@randolphcountync.gov
N"
Address:
City, State, ZIP:
grl
Aslbro tJc z1zo5
oZ2*621 E-mal:Lno4o"bashrbro . Ktz. na, uJ
Nah D'.*,is tto^ Voron
P1,en2r'53b ,!
Rezoning request applicant name:l,v/l- a-.7?l.ux'/'Rezoning request location:l'a ,raY lYl u)
Concerns/comments:
\r ll Qav hae
St,:l.)T
A^-
&3o
u
+.
+
il"A
V.o,?->to + )= a Crsrtcz(h -I
l*,,a ,1S hot 3 4" 6\r.
e "5&terr-- k"IJ.l"
It
v /B
Date
Thonk you lor participating in this meeting!
htt p :/ /w w w. r o n d o I ph co u nty n c. g ov
itnature
Name:
t9,
I
)
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
CITIZEN CONCERN FORM
Randolph County Planning Department
204 East Academy Street . Asheboro NC 27203
Phone (335) 318-5555 o Fax (336) 318-6546
E-mail: planning@randolphcountync.gov
Name:
Address:
City, State, ZIP:eboro
1
Rezoning request appl icant name: 11 /"nc V
rr/C 6
e-mait: /!'a*eu c-,hovd i,^A&li
a- t//r;.(
rv-
s
lAl . cott'
Concerns/comments:
te
a-/t/"J
h,r* Z//rU.;-'n,f-/?"1 D/7
Signature
Thank you for porticipating in this meeting!
h ttp : //www, ra n d ol ph cou nty n c.g ov
lc'v/ ttrt / trl/ c,7-
7
enon", j3/-,62/- 2252
Rezoning request location:
Date
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEfiING
CITIZEN CONCERN FORM
Randolph County Planning Department
204 East Academy Street . Asheboro NC 27203
Phone (336) 318-6555 o Fax (336) 318-6546
E-mail: planning@randolphcountync.gov
Name:OrtIAr-- +a(1.^r.,qC U\\ cv\ PJ O/1
Address: t5l,-t A\,"\tn eI
City, State, ZIP:
Phone:
Rezoning request applicant name:
E-mail: \tSirnoSo^t 7O@CrFfirl\. COft1i(J
Concerns/comments:
Subd',u,s'vr O{Q Hr^,rr qq.
Il\\ ho
E
Date
Thonk you lor porticipating in this meeting!
http ://www, ra n d ol ph cou nty n c. gov
(
t.\ctrr1.(Su
SePr.tr
x e+
.€eJ..
G)
3,(
Signature
'1
Rezoning request tocation, Frrv-rr. rdr: l- SJSd',,.r ;S i qq O\Gs., {
,r
NE]GHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
CITIZEII CONCERN FORM
Randolph County Planning Department
204 East Academy Street . Asheboro NC 27203
Phone (336) 318-5555 o Fax (335) 318-6546
E-mail : planning@randolphcountync.gov
Name:
Address
Clty, State, ZIP:
Vb L
Phone:
Rezoning request applicant name:
Rezoning request locationr
E-mail l. ctm
+MS
\
1s
concems/comments, Allen #
fu"r-t-t-tr-t1
Signature Date
Thank you lor participating in this meeting!
hap://www, rondol ph au nEnc, gov
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
CITIZEN CONCERN FORM
Randolph County Planning Department
204 East Academy Street . Asheboro NC 27203
Phone (336) 318-6555 o Fax (336) 318-6546
E-mail: planning@randolphcountync.gov
A^.", S.h'o,,>
Address: t555 fffiDa-nid T.
City, State, ZIP:ftt\*5o- N 4- 2-7>6
Phone: 33L- 0lq-f,70L E-mail:
Rezoning request applicant name:a^sk
fr . rt. eoh
Rezoning request location:€a-rn vro-\
=r"rb-
Concerns/comments:3-.r-{a-tl"-t A
El",8- tt.13
Date
Thonk you for porticipoting in this meeting!
htt p : //w ww, r o n d ol ph cou n ty n c, g ov
Signature
Name:
AnnShaw
1555 McDaniel Dr
AsheboroNC 27205
August 16,2019
Concerns/comments: Rezoning request Farmwood SuMivision
Nash Duggins, developer
There is no benefit to cu ent Farmwood residents with this rezoning proposal.
UnIortunately, most of the details of rezoning we had been lead to believe were
disputed by the developer at the Neighborhood Information Meeting on August
13, creating confusion and even more distrust of his intentions.
My biggest concern is the increase in traffic that is currently proposed to furrrel
through existing Farmwood to Hwy 49S - traffic *rat will include clearing and
construction vehicles for the next 8-10 years in addition to increased residential
traffic. Like other residents, I think the developer should include a separate
entrance to Hwy 49 for all future property owners and a barrier included to keep
the proposed subdivision separate and apart from Farmwood SuMivision. It's a
win-win solution: the developer can go tfuough with plans, we get to keep our
existing neighborhood as is, and the county benefits from the increased tax base.
I moved into this enclosed subdivision of cul de sacs 11 years ago, on purpose, to
escape a busy street in the city limits that had become a pass-thru between Zoo
Parkway and Dixie Dr. Farmwood offered a saJer environment for me and my
family.
Opening our neighborhood to a potential of 2@ acres of development sets a
dangerous precedent that none of the current residents conceived when we
bought and built in this peaceful section of the county.
The developer has not convinced me that expanding Farmwood Iane into the
new development won't eventually lead to linking new Hwy 49S and old Hwy
49, creating a pass-thru for traffic trying to cut from old 49 to the new 64 by-pass
since there is not an exit to the by-pass from old FIwy 49. The separate entrance
on to Hwy 49S would insure that only those that choose to build in the new
subdivision, knowing that their neighborhood could become a pass-thru, would
be a{fected. Forcing that situation on those of us in existing Farmwood is not
justified.
There have been many discrepancies presented by the developer, from square
footage requirements to the number of acres in the re-zoning request. There was
a deliberate attempt to keep current Farmwood residents in the dark, beginning
with the sudden paving of the quarter mile Farmwood lane, which we learned
was the first step in creating a state maintained road intended to lead into the
proposed subdivision and beyond, depending on what is created in the rest of
the 200 acres.
The developer stated at the Neighborhood Information meeting that there was
also a mistake in the notice put out by Planning & Zoning that he did NOT want
to rezone the entire 200 acre tract, only the 31 acres where the 27 lots are located.
But the initial application sisned by the developer clearly states that he is asking
to rezone 200.05 acres. As of August 16, the application still calls for rezoning
2fi).05 acree and a minimum house size of 1a00 sq ft.
No restrictive covenants were presented to cover the 27 lots included in the re-
zoning request until hours before the Planning & Zontngis Neighborhood
Inlormation meeting on August 13. I asked to see restrictions after receiving
notice of the first rheduled meeting in fuly, which was cancelled, and was told
that none had been filed. I called Planning & Zoning again on August L2 to
request a copy of restrictions in preparation for the meeting on the 13th and still
none had been presented. Magrcally, a quickly prepared draft of restrictions
signed by SIG Rentals LLC appeared the next day.
The original application signed b], the developer indicates a minimum house size
of 1400 sq ft but at the Information meeting the developer claimed that was a
mistake and the draft of the hastily prepared restrictions that were distributed
indicated a 1700 sq ft minimum. Mr Duggins did not back down when residents
complaind that the possibility of 14{X) or 1700 sq ft houses backing up to the
2000 sq ft minimum homes in Farmwood Phase 3 was not acceptable.
Restrictive covenants are the only way to legally "protect the character of
established residential areas" as referenced in the county Growth Management
Plan. The process of development began months ago, and a responsible
developer would have realized that restrictions should not be an afterthought.
It's discrepancies like these that have destroyed my confidence in everything
proposed in this re-zoning proposal. I donjt want my neighborhood to be
included in what has been a shabby proposal for change. The developer states
that he did not apply for a separate entrance to his subdivision from Hwy 49
because it would cost him too much money so he insists on using OUR
neighborhood for access, at OUR expense.
I hope you can see that approving this rezoning request will bring long term
devastation to our neighborhood, devastation that can be avoided by keeping
any development of the 2fi).05 acres separate and apart from Farmwood
Subdivision.
O","-SLs
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
CITIZEN CONCERN FORM
Randolph County Planning Department
204 East Academy Street . Asheboro NC 27203
Phone (336) 318-6555 o Fax (336) 318-5546
E-mail: planning@randolphcountync.gov
Name:
l!
LJJ , A.fc)F..lr\eS
Address: )484 ktts ) c(
City, State, ZIP:IJ
phone: 33o-Crn-311L E-mait: /cz^> @ -TA-*0. pa--<a*1
Rezoning request applicant name:kg t+,pS
Rezoning req uest location: F,aa-*," h)@n =t+E - Az-t-r=-sFo )
Concerns/comments:a z- z,
s o d ,<
F T ApA O*tL tJrLLz.J 6tJ1, < /*rt < *-*9I 2AZl
9q Ff , 2..,: an-^EL-A Ax- Cov..-sl.-:. el\LL ftl z-
tJ Z-t) e zcTza.^l p LLAs fo Aa * y^-z- LE r.,-t^-11\ I Jar*z
6/- z,ea t=T.
2tlp 'j-t! r, t? . "l Lz- P*a-c.zL o? Lr,'o A- ^)P l-t <. 2-
bo uJ pt-U F*n. /*a<-z.es *Ta-xf F-z<- '7-utt-aq1 lJ A
?-/f-4r,rt'*do
Date
/Lzxsc
e zL)rp ,ar-^ La nA t-
sLx
Signature
pT{>o*tl
tOL *CSo uuOct <f ,: tl YvL^ A ug q.2.,:,5. PL*,t s Ta
Thank you for porticipoting in this meeting!
h ttp ://www, ra n dol p h co u nty n c. gov
Additional Concerns:
1. The lack of a final and accurate pan for existing homeowners to review. This project feels like it
is being rushed before the board with poor preparation. During the Neighborhood Meeting the
answers were vague, and the information presented was in conflict. The developer even stated
some information (i.e. 200 acres or 59 acres?) is not correct. As citizens of this county we have
the right to review ACCURATE information, and we should be afforded the time respond
accordingly. We therefore request a delay for 30 days for the presentation to the planning board
while the developer Bets an accurate request completed, and the citizens of Farmwood and Oak
Hollow are allowed time to review the actual request.
Oak Hollow Home Sizes
Home Size Range SqFt Quantity % of Total
1100 1200 1 t%
7200 1300 0 o%
1300 1400 3 3o/o
1400 1500 3 3%
1500 1600 9 a%
1600 1700 11 L0%
1700 1800 r4 t3%
1800 1900 1,1 L0%
1900 2000 7 7o/o
2000 2roo 8o/o
2100 2200 9%
2200 2300 9 8v
2300 3 3%
2400 2s00 3%
2500 2600 2 2Yo
2600 2700 1 \%
2700 2800 3%
2800 2900 0 0%
2900 3000 0 0%
3000+8 8%
Farmwood Home Sizes
% of TotalQuantityHome Size Range SqFt
3 6%16001500
oo/,7700 01600
o%1800 01700
71%1900 51800
2000 3 6Yo1900
3 6%2000 2t00
4 9%2|00 2200
2300 2 4%2200
3 6%2300 2400
2 4/o24002500
4 9%26002s00
2700 2 47io2600
5 'l-lo/o27002800
3 6%2800 2900
3000 6/o2900
1,1%3000+I
106
75% over 1700 SqFt
44% over 2q)O SqFt
94% over 1700 SqFt
77% over 2q)O SqFt
Size aty % of Total
Under 1700 27 25%
32 30%Under 2000
Over 2000 47 44%
Total Homes 106 I
aty % of TotalSize
6%Under 1700
Under 2000 8 \70/o
36 77%Over 2000
Total Homes 47 I
8
10
2400
3
5
47
Penalties for Transferring Lots in Unapproved Subdivisions:
NCGS 1534-334 prescribes legal penalties for persons who transfer or sell land by reference
to a plat that has not been properly approved by Planning and Zoning officials, or recorded
in the Office of the Register of Deeds. The description by metes and bounds does not exempt
property from County subdivision regulations.
Approved subdivision plats must be recorded with the Register of Deeds within 60 days of
final Randolph County Planning Board, or Board of County Commissioners approval if the
case is appealed.
The following are exceptions to County subdivision regulations and are not subiect to
Randolph County Ordinances:
1. The combination or recombination of portions of previously plotted lots where the
total number oflots is not increased and the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the
standard ofthe County as described herein;
2. The division of land into parcels greater than 10 acres where no street right-of-way
dedication is involved;
3. The public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for the widening or opening of
streets;
4. The division of land in single ownership so that the entire area of which is no
greater than two (2J acres into not more than three (3) lots, where no street right-
of-way dedication is involved, and where the resultant lots are equal to or exceed
the standards ofthe subdivision ordinance; and,
5. The division of property among heirs for the sole purpose of settling an estate.
Maior Subdivisions:
Amajor subdivision in Randolph County is the division of land into four (4) or more lots or
tracts. Maior subdivisions must be located in either Residential Restricted (RR), Residential
Mixed (RM), Residential Exclusive (RE) zoning districts, as well as Cluster Subdivision Overlay
(CL)), Rural Lot Overlay (RLO), and Conventional Subdivision Overlay (CVO) districts. Most
often, major subdivision developments will require zoning approval from the Randolph
County Planning Board unless the case is appealed to the Board ofCounty Commissioners.
b. be a certified copy from the custodian of public records 0R
c. contain the statement "This map is not a certified survey and no reliance may be
placed on its accuracy."
Major subdivisions should be planned to insure that housing type is compatible with that of
the existing area. Residentiol Exclusive IREJ allows only site built homes or conventional
modular homes. Residenti ol Mixed (RMJ districts allow maior subdivisions that include site
built, modular, double-wide, and single-wide (Class A and B) manufactured housing.
Residential Restricted fRR] districts allow only site-built, modular, or Class ,4 double-wide
manufactured housing on permanent masonry foundations.
Minor Subdivisions:
Aminor subdivision is a division of land containingthree (3) lots or fewer. Minor subdivisions
can be approved by the County Planning Director.
Manufactured Housing
Randolph County land use zoning regulations are designed to recognize that manufactured
housing is an affordable and acceptable method of providing owner occupied housing. As a
result, County zoning regulations do not unnecessarily restrict manufactured housing;
however, Randolph County regulations do regulate the placement and appearance of
manufactured homes to assure their compatibility with neighboring site built homes.
RR - Resldential Restricted zoning districts allow only malor subdivisions that consist ofsite-
built (conventional) housing or Class / double-wide manufactured housing on permanent
masonry foundations.
NM - Residential Mix zoning districts allow only maior subdivisions that consist of all types
of housing including single-wide mobile homes.
RA - Residential Agricultural zoning districts allow minor subdivisions consisting of all types
of housing including owner occupied single-wide mobile homes.
Mobile Home Parks
Mobile Home Parks consisting of more than two units for rental purposes located on one tract
(in same ownership) are allowed in Residential Mixed zoning districts after issuance of a
Conditional Use or Special Use Permit by the Randolph County Planning Board, or Board of
County Commissioners if the case is appealed. Mobile Home Park development is subject to
standards and requirements outlined in County ordinances.
Polic,y 6.2 Molor subdivision development which does not hove occess lo either cenlrol woter
or sewoge focilities should locole in oreos where soil ond geologicol chorocteristics ore conducive
to ihe long-term support of on-site syslems such os wells ond seplic ionks.
Policy 6.3 Rood design should be developed to provide greoter efficiency in the siting of
services ond infrostructure by reducing rood lengths. Privote roods sholl be discouroged ond,
where permitted, the length of the privote rood ond number of lots served by the privote rood
sholl be reslricted.
Policy 6.4 lnnovolive ond flexible lond plonning techniques should be supporled os o meons
of encouroging developmenl configurotions which ore more desiroble ond which moy better
sofeguord existing noturol lond ond woler resources.
Policy 5.5 The protection of vioble rurol neighborhoods should be encouroged by compofible
residentiol development to insure lhe conlinued existence os o moior housing source ond os o
refleciion of the long-term quolity of li{e in Rondolph Couniy.
Policy 5.6 Developmenl in designoted flood zones sholl be ovoided. Subdivision lots lhot ore
portiolly within designoted flood zones sholl compute ihe minimum lol size os thot oreo locoted
oulside the flood zone.
Pollcy 6.7 Open spoce flexible cluster subdivisions should be encouroged.
Policy 5.8 The County should encouroge o system of incentives thot encouroges o developer to
reserye open spoce by coupling clustering techniques with density bonuses in the subdivision.
Policy 5.9 Moior resideniiol subdivision developmenl in oll growth monogement oreos sholl be
computed by the number of lols divided from lhe originol bose lroct.
Policy 6.lO Lond thot hos been cleor cut or forest horvested ond is plonned for moior
subdivision should retoin o noturol vegeiotive buffer zone olong property lines fronting stole roods
Policy 6.1 I Privote pockoge sewoge treotment systems for new residenliol development should
nol be encouroged.
PR'MARYAND SECONDARY GROWTH AREAS
Policy 6.12 Foctors to be considered in moior subdivision opprovol in Primory ond Secondory
Growth Areos should include suitobility of soils, occess to moior lhoroughfores, the potentiol
ovoilobility of public services ond focilities ond community compotibility.
Policy 6.I3 Conventionol Residentiol subdivisions ore onlicipoted of similor housing
chorocleristics to ihe community.
Plonning Coordinotion
Policy 8.1 Coordinoted inlergovern mentol plonning for lond use, tronsportolion, woter ond
sewer, tourism promotion, scenic preservotion ond economic development should be encouroged.
Policy 8.2 Public involvement is encouroged in decisions on lond use ond developmenl
by moking the public owore o{ proposed developments ot the eorliesi opporlunity, ond fostering
communicolion between londowners, the development industry the public ond Rondolph County
government.
Policy 8.3 The County should conlinue octive implementolion of relevonl gools ond strotegies
identified from the countywide strotegic plonning ond nolurol heriloge losk forces.
Policy 8.4 The County should opprooch lond use ond economic development decisions, not
os isoloted individuol issues, but os port of o lorger interconnecling fromework of building
sustoinoble growth within Rondolph County.
Policy 8.5 Performonce zoning crilerio, such os open spoce or londscoping provisions, should
be used io ollow proiects to quolify for quick odministrolive opprovol once they hove met specified
design ond developmenl crilerio.
Policy 8.5 Plonning ond development decisions thot will hove the effect of preserving more
nolurol oreos ond open spoce ond will provide for their ultimote interconnection ot county ond
regionol levels should be encouroged.
Policy 8.7 The County should support tronsportoiion improvemenis thot will seek to inierlink
new ond existing resideniiol, commerciol, ond recreotionol/heritoge tourism oreos.
Policy 8.8 The Counly should seek lond use decisions thot confinue to provide locolions for offordoble
housing while mointoining o choice in compotible housing lypes in communities within the county.
Policy 8.9 The County should octively porticipote in locol ond regionol efforts to educote the
community obout impocts of stormwoter dischorge on woterbodies ond whot efforts ore needed
to reduce stormwoler pollution.
Policy 8.10 The County should support locol ond regionol efforls in promoting the developmenl
of tronsportotion systems which provide ironsportotion choices, enhonce mobility, encouroge
economic developmenl, ond protect the monmode ond nolurol environments of lhe county ond
region.
Scenic Corridor Prolection Policies
Policy 9.1 The County should odopt speciol scenic corridor protection regulotions when
necessory ond oppropriote lo preserve ond enhonce lhe oppeoronce of roodwoys whose unique
quolities qnd nolurol feotures meril speciol considerotion or proteclion.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
CITIZEN CONCERN FORM
Randolph County Planning Department
204 East Academy Street . Asheboro NC 27203
Phone (336) 318-6555 o Fax (336) 318-6546
E-mail: planning@randolphcountync.gov
Name:
Address:
City, State, ZIP:
o€
/nL-6 c"-n ta (7 )z (-)\-
Rezoning request applicant name:?r I or(
Rezoning req
Concerns/comments:
uest location: fa, w Wnr rl i'ulJivi>oN Po,..1 *'16s9 tst Qs &
Jo*(-
Sr^hJi.ri.,orrt.-lt\ d"s\-.^- {*..c- l,,.\oo..*- a.C fac,,r..^ro..( \ il*.-fl
t
(^E 0I
rs{-1.rdli\,
\(/$**r.rd
r€f
a,r(r'(I
b ^r"'F *l(.o.,.J I
nl+^Vf Ll
A "< ALu t raed/k-r1-19siiy'&ufl- T
Thank you for pofticipdting in this meeting!
h ttp : // www. r o n d ol p h cou nty n c. gov
Phone: 3l/" 9( 3 f1V7 E-mail:
(
Date
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
CITIZEN CONCERN FORM
Randolph County Planning Department
204 East Academy Street . Asheboro NC 27203
Phone (336) 318-6555 . Fax (336) 318-6546
E-mail: planning@randolphcountync.gov
Name:
Address:t+3 6 ,Qi.o rrl C;"r1.(
City, State, ZIP:(
pnonez 33A- L79 - ? jlZ E-mait:
Rezoning request applicant name:
Rezoning request location:
0,f c on
sgJr.r.frO
6r
o
ir^{fi. .)o a"d #u^H;,hun, *Q, Build;^o sn:,)ler
r)a
,lrou te( D;+1, Ao ret'lr
J
) cl)or-
J
,,f, ll erorL l/,. ttolu. e{
FormaooA. Rezoniao /A.e 2oo acres uill m.on ono{7ri,t.J
l(o* !.11"--A g- n-tct
Signature Date
Thonk you for porticipoting in this meeting!
h tt p : // www. ro n d ol p h c o u n ty n c. g ov
Concerns/comments:
doP-s -nnl $, Far^rro",J
J
J
FARV 111700 Erzl lr //G-
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
CITIZEN CONCERN FORM
Randolph County Planning Department
204 East Academy Street. Asheboro NC 27203
Phone (335) 318-5555 o Fax (335) 318-5545
E-mail: planning@randolphcountync.gov
Name:5lara. /1,'/., //i"Address:
City, State, ZIP:
Phone,b41s Ll-13i1 E-mair ,1"
Rezoning request applicant name
27 2 2-r
t4
t 2 Cr'
t
Reroning request location :lul /;*n boa1
//,,2
, rnJlf 3
Concerns/comments:)0, ,,rrn , .,] '/ro'P { ) - t'r ri,- 7o lu,n a,,y't ,y a4, /,7 -1
,(ary C4a//2t€)o^ ^, l, ,rlzl;r,ritn roa,/t fr,r, t1 rT
,t/y't tt, s . z. l,/z/trt,Ieoryt ljal{q/,t l,r ,rnllur.)OA?)€/J.ls
i/f-or^ u', o I lld t"- L
7rt 7 7
,/ orr^ o{ lr.-//r, /rorrr,,/
lt'arv /;^llrl /; I auz\ r,trioJ thct/2412 ;,L
/
res io ir*y', /v o/t l/trn,
/// t
*rl ,or"l,-t For,^-,r/ 1*Jo)orf ;. lna LL
---T----7---------
-J ^Y af
t,/I //t a/L *)
i verlo,/-t4. t*, / ; lc A t rc tt elt
Date
Thank you for porticipoting in this meeting!
http ://ww w. ro n dol phcou ntync. gov
Sign ature
Name;
FfrR// UtoD REZoA/rle
5Zr-t/)Db)
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
CITIZEN CONCERN FORM
Randolph County Planning Department
204 East Academy Street . Asheboro NC 27203
Phone (335) 318-6555 r Fax (336) 318-5546
E-mail: pla nn ing@ randolphco u ntync.Bov
Address:tV/ f
City, state, ZIP:5 F 27r.0{
Phone: 13b - 62 b -0 3 33 th e c,ds,lls E q nr.r l, cotnE-mail:--------------- ------7
Rezoning request applicant name:,t/,qsa Dua t rrts
Rezoning request location: '.rr-". a/-/y'in^ /la:c 3 of, For,^noo1 ,o,//;u;t;.-,
t?frSs z-nfiFFt c 5Co n cer n s/com m ents:L
c.F 3/D6 t>oyh nPrnil9oD.
0 U/i fz Pt ot>syr!/,ql uss o F zfls7a/b lla mts
/{ ,Z;=a,n/t,la,,{pn t'brnt-t fipg slnfrZ/tg- /N
5 tr'r G CER t,/S D 2/E/A
c0 al 57r2/c-fl2 l/ Aort v tr)L-3 / Tr, rr /c- /0
:1tfiL kez5 1uD Bt /lrks,
Date
Thonk you lor porticipoting in this meeting!
hft p : //w ww. ra n dol phco u nty nc. gov
Si re
1
Mangum, Timothy V.
From:Julie Parrish <julie.h.parrish@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 6, 2019 1:12 AM
To:Planning DL
Subject:Proposed expansion to Farmwood Subdivision Comments
My name is Julie Parrish and I reside at 1391 McDaniel Dr, Asheboro, NC 27205. My home phone is 336-521-4949 and my email is Julie.H.Parrish@gmail.com
These comments are in reference to the Nash Duggins application to add an additional 27 lots to the west of Farmwood Ln/AllenCt, entitled Farmwood Phase 4. -My husband and I own a home and land within and bordering the Farmwood Subdivision. We have worked in
Federal Law Enforcement our whole lives and have invested our lifetime of savings into this property within Farmwood. Our main reasons for purchasing a home here was the upsale nature of the neighborhood, the quietness, and the streets that were used only by the residents. We are greatly concerned about this addition of 27 homes with much less square footage than the average of Farmwood and that it will decrease the value of our home, which is our main life investment. We would have never bought here if we thought smaller homes could
be built in this already well-established neighborhood called Farmwood .I feel like allowing homes to be built that are hundreds of square feet less than the average in Farmwood will certainly lower the value of the larger homes and they are not within keeping of the standards of compatibilty/comparability/similarity with the immediately surrounding neighborhoods of Farmwood and Oak Hollow.
-The developer has stated that he does not intend to have another entrance to the proposed 27 lots and I feel like this is a huge impact to not only those living on McDaniel Dr., but to those living on Farmwood Lane. It does not seem right to take roads that were designed for the subdivision with cul-de-sacs and widen/improve them to meet NC DOT Standards so that a road can be used as a thoroughfare and a main road to a develpment that is not equal to the present Farmwood Subdivision.
-This past winter we had a tree down right across the entrance to Farmwood and basically it stopped all traffic in and out of the subdivision until it could be removed. This is a dangerous situation to only have ONE entrance and egress to the whole neighborhood, and adding 27 more homes almost doubles the number of families lving behind one entrance. I really feel like there's going to be alot more construction and daily traffic
with the addition of 27 more homes and a separate entrance is a small price to pay for the saftey and convenience of 27 new homes along with the 47 current homes. Fire, and Emergency Services would be much more efficient with a separate entrance and current residents would not have to be impacted by the potential long term construction traffic, and the general/daily traffic of 27 more homes.
-The present entrance to Farmwood is not at a great location on 49 as it's on the top of a hill and you have to be really careful puling out of Farmwood. If a separate entrance was constructed off 49, south of the present one, it would actually have much more line of sight for traffic coming off and on 49 into Farmwood. The developer has said, "it's too expensive to construct another entrance" and my feeling are that should just be a part of the development costs and I'm sure it will be recouped with the sales of each lot and provide for the safety of all.
-Also, the developer is proposing to burn the debris from the lot preparations. I am totally against this as the other Farmwood Residents were required to dispose of or bury their lot clearing, construction debris, etc. Some of the reasons I feel this is inappropriate are: the lots are very close to many Farmwood homes and this neighborhood is without fire hydrants, the closest responding fire department is miles away, the project
2
could be stretched out years and we do not want to smell smoke all the time. Many folks in our neighborhood are retirees and burning puts alot of particulates in the air, lowers air quality and makes it difficult for some to
breathe. The best and most courteous measures are those that impact neighbors the least. Please do not allow
burning this close to our unprotected homes. -Probably the thing that bothers me the most is the fact that we have heard it more than once from folks that work closely with the Planning Office that this is a 'done deal' that the approval 'will happen' and there's
nothing we as local residents can do about it, mainly becasue the county sees it as economically
advantageous. This hurts deeply because I do not want to believe that. I want to believe that in Randolph County we have Planning, Zoning, Development Professionals that are here to serve everyone and listen to all concerned to enable them to make wise and fair decisions instead of being swayed by politics or money.
-Please assure that all the appropriate folks receive a copy of my comments prior to the Public Meeting on Sept.
10th, 2019. I would appreciate a reply to these comments that they have been received and forwarded to the appropriate personnel. Many thanks to each of you that will read these comments and take them into consideration.
Sincerely,
Julie Hopkins Parrish
North Carolina Randolph County Protective Covenants
SKP Rentals, LLC, the owner in fee simple and developer of the real property now duly platted, as________________, which said plat is now recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of
Randolph County, North Carolina, in Plat Book___, Page, ____ hereby makes the following declaration as to limitations, restrictions and uses to which all lots in said subdivision may be put, hereby specifying that said declaration shall constitute covenants to run with the lots in said subdivision and shall be binding
on all parties, corporations, and all persons or firms claiming under them and for the benefit of a limitations upon all future owners of lots in said subdivision. This declaration of restrictions is designated for the purpose of keeping said lots in said subdivision desirable, uniform and suitable in architectural design, and to insure the use of said lots for attractive residential purposes only, to prevent nuisances, to prevent the impairment of the attractiveness of the property, to maintain the desired tone of the community, and thereby to secure to each residential lot owner th4e full benefit and enjoyment of his home with no greater restriction upon the free and undisturbed use of his site than is necessary to insure the same advantages to the other site owners. Anything tending to detract from the attractiveness and value of the property for the residence purposes will not be permitted. The Protective Covenants are as herein specified: 1. All lavatories and/or toilets shall be built indoors and connected with outside septic tank until such time as a sewer system shall be maintained, at which time the
purchaser, his successors or assigns, agrees to connect said premises therewith without delay.
2. Not more than one residence may be built on any one lot. 3. No manufacturing or commercial enterprise, or enterprises of any kind shall be
maintained upon any of the lots in said subdivision, nor shall said lots in any way be used for other than strictly residential purposes. 4. No nuisance, or offensive, noisy, or illegal calling or transaction shall be done, suffered, or permitted upon the lands in said subdivision, nor shall any lot or part of said subdivision be used or occupied injuriously to affect the use, occupation, or value of the
adjoining or adjacent premises for residence purposes, or the neighborhood wherein said premises are situated. No livery stable, barn or stable whatsoever or public garage or
filling station, shall or will be erected or suffered or permitted to be erected on any part of the lands of this subdivision.
5. No horse, cow, hog, goat or similar animal shall be kept or maintained on said property or any portion thereof, nor shall any chicken yard be maintained thereon. 6. No billboards, sign boards or unsightly objects of any kind shall be maintained on said lands in this subdivision or any part thereof with the exception of a sign “For Sale” or “For Rent,” which sign shall not exceed 2 feet by 3 feet, except development signs. 7. Nothing but a single, private dwelling or residence designed for the occupancy of one family, shall be erected on any lot in this subdivision, nor shall said premises be used for any purpose other than residential purposes; no condominiums will be permitted; no mobile homes will be permitted and no modular home will be permitted.
8. No trailer, basement, tent shack, garage, barn or other outbuilding erected on this tract shall at any time be used as a residence, temporarily or permanently, nor shall any structure of a temporary character be used as a residence; no unsightly garbage cans will
be permitted. 9. No junk cars will be permitted upon any of the lands in this subdivision.
10. Any residence erected in the subdivision shall contain a minimum of 1700 square feet of heated living area exclusive of garage, porch, or carport areas: Two copies of the proposed building plan shall be submitted to the developers who shall enter approval or rejection of one copy of the building plans and shall return same to lot owner within ten (10) business days of delivery to developer. Developers shall keep one (1) copy of the plans for their records and for the purposes of determining if the building is accomplished according to the approved plans. No changes or alterations to the plan may be made without written approval of one of the developers. No residence shall be erected without the written approval of the developers; provided however, that the requirement of this Paragraph 10, with respect to approval of building plans, shall cease when all lots in said subdivision have residences constructed thereon. 11. Detached garages for use appurtenant to the dwelling are permitted, provided that
said garages are constructed of brick, framing or other materials comparable to that used in the dwelling, and provided specifically that no tin or metal garages shall be permitted.
12. No outbuilding shall be allowed on the premises unless permitted by the developers.
13. All fuel oil tanks shall be buried and be beneath the surface of the ground. 14. No landowners in the tract shall maintain any offensive or dangerous pets. 15. Th developers reserve the right to subject the real property in this subdivision to a contract with the appropriate power Company for the installation of overhead electric
cables and/or the installation of street lighting, which may require a continuing monthly payment to said power Company by the owner of each building lot in the amount to be
determined and charged by said company. All electric service to each house must be installed underground.
16. There shall be no cement or cinder blocks visible in any home or building erected on any lot. 17. All houses shall be built at least 60 feet from the front property line and at least 10 feet from the side property line. 18. All dwellings erected on said premises shall have full foundation walls. The above restrictions are placed on the property and lots hereinabove specified and set forth as a part of the general scheme or plan of development for the benefit of all owners of property hereinabove specified and said covenants are and shall be binding upon all present and future owners of said land, their successors, heirs and assigns, and shall be covenants running with the land, binding on all future owners of said property. These
covenants shall be effective until _____________________ This the ____ day of ______, ______
SKP Rentals, LLC by
________________________________________ (SEAL) Member/ Manager
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY
I, ____________________, a Notary Public of said County and State, certify that __________________,
personally came before me this day and acknowledged that he as Member Manager of SKP Rentals,
LLC, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing on behalf of SKP Rentals, LLC.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this the _______ day of _________, 2009.
____________________________________
Notary Public
____________________________________
Typed Name of Notary
My Commission Expires: __________
Page 1 of 6 8/26/2019 Development Impact Analysis
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS County of Randolph, North Carolina Department of Planning & Development 204 E Academy Street, Asheboro, NC 27203 (336) 318-6555
Development policies outlined in the Randolph County Growth Management Plan are specifically designed to encourage long term planning among property owners, developers and County government. The Development Impact Analysis is a key component of this Plan and its use will increase public awareness of the relationship of growth, rural environmental impacts and the capacity
of local government to provide adequate public facilities based on future land use demands.
PRELIMINARY PLAT NAME Plat name and section: Farmwood Phase 4
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Owner of Record: Developer: Name: Terry Charles Vuncannon Name: Nash Duggins Address: 221 Myrtle Ln Address: 3092 Old NC Hwy 49 City, ST ZIP: Myrtle Beach, SC 29572 City, ST ZIP: Asheboro, NC 27205 E-mail: E-mail: nash.duggins@gmail.com Phone: Phone: 336 382-6327 Representative: Engineer/Surveyor: Name: Nash Duggins Name: H Mack Summer, Jr., PE Address: 3092 Old NC Hwy 49 Address: P O Box 968 City, ST ZIP: Asheboro, NC 27205 City, ST ZIP: Asheboro, NC 27204 E-mail: nash.duggins@gmail.com E-mail: mack@asheboro.com Phone: 336 382-6327 Phone: 336 328-0902
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Parcel: 7639187958 Acreage: 200.05 acres Growth Management Area: Secondary Growth Area Township: Cedar Grove Fire District: Westside Existing Zoning: RA, RR Existing conditions:
WATERWAY DESCRIPTION Does the site contain any streams or rivers? Yes Stream name: Taylors Creek Does the site contain any flood zone area? Yes Approximate acreage: 45.03 acres Does the site lie within a watershed? No Watershed: N/A Does the site contain wetlands? Yes Type: Freshwater forested/shrub wetland Other comments:
Page 2 of 6 8/26/2019 Development Impact Analysis
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(If appropriate, attach a letter outlining in detail, the scope of the request.)
Plat name and section: Farmwood Phase 4 Subdivision type: Site built Requested zoning: CVOE-CD Total acreage of development: 60.88 acres Total number of building lots: 25 Minimum housing size: 1,750 sq. ft. Total acreage of proposed open space (if applicable): 0.00 acres Total road frontage of proposed development: 4,124.75 ft. Average frontage of lots: 164.99 ft. Width of lot with smallest amount of road frontage: 50.00 ft. Width of lot with greatest amount of road frontage: 343.66 ft. Is the 1:4 ratio maintained for Rural Growth Areas? N/A Property is currently being used as: Residential Commercial Industrial Farming Leased hunting Vacant Other Features unique to this property: Ravines Hills Mountains Rights-of-way Easements Cemeteries Other
UTILITIES IMPACT Water source: Individual well Sewer source: Septic system Electrical source: Underground (If the electrical service cannot be underground, the developer must provide a letter From the utility provider stating reasons why utilities cannot be underground.) The distance, location and provider of the nearest public water and sewer source.
Service type Distance Location Provider
Public water 2.09 miles Tot Hill Farm Rd City of Asheboro
Public sewer 0.69 miles NC Hwy 49 S City of Asheboro
Page 3 of 6 8/26/2019 Development Impact Analysis
PUBLIC EDUCATION IMPACT (Provided by Board of Education) School system: Randolph County Schools
School impacted Grade
level DPI Capacity Current
membership Impact Farmer Elementary K-5 541 299 6 Southwest Middle 6-8 619 540 3 Southwest High 9-12 970 864 2 Uwharrie Ridge 6-12 732 439 Current mobile classrooms present:
School Number of mobile classrooms Farmer Elementary Southwest Middle Southwest High Uwharrie Ridge Current traffic assessment: School Traffic assessment Farmer Elementary Good Southwest Middle Congested Southwest High Congested Uwharrie Ridge School construction plans:
School Construction plans Farmer Elementary n/a Southwest Middle n/a Southwest High n/a Uwharrie Ridge
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IMPACT (Provided by NCDOT) Road(s) directly accessed by development
Road name Speed limit Average daily traffic count Farmwood Ln 55 mph 114 Condition of the road accessed by the development: Good Characteristics of road(s) directly accessed by development: Paved Curves Graveled Blind spot(s) Single lane Intersection(s) Bridge(s) Hill(s)
Page 4 of 6 8/26/2019 Development Impact Analysis
The proposed development with 25 lots will generate an additional 150 total vehicle trips per day. Is the ADT count greater than 4,000 which would require a turning lane? No
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS (Within One mile of proposal) Housing patterns in subdivisions:
Subdivision Type Number of lots Average acreage Bernard & Lois Joyce Site built 2 2.49 Bingham, Holder & Ferree Site built 5 23.85 Cable Creek Hills Site built 47 1.51 Cedar Grove Woods Site built 19 3.14 Dot Lambeth Mobile home 4 1.02 Farmwood Site built 55 2.01 Glenn Rush Estates Site built 4 9.12 Gopher Woods Estate Site built 24 0.60 Granite Ridge n/a 1 1.76 Jesse & Jacquelyn Varner Site built 5 1.96 Keyauee Hills Site built 20 1.15 Larry McKenzier Site built 12 0.41 Meadowdale Acres Site built 28 1.07 Nora Hoover Site built 4 3.18 Oak Hollow West Site built 118 1.93 Old Forest Site built 11 1.23 Ridge Manor Estates Site built 7 0.88 Ross Voncannon Estate Site built 13 3.06 S A Lowe, Jr Site built 10 0.93 Samuel & Janet Hunt n/a 1 19.96 Vernon & Kurney Poole Site built 12 3.73 Westbriar Estates Site built 11 1.74 Willow Oaks Site built 5 7.27 Winding Woods Site built 24 1.04 Windingwood Development Site built 34 1.15 Wood Bluff Site built 19 1.15 Total number of site built homes .......................................................................................................................................... 541 Average square footage of site built homes ................................................................................................. 1,744.49 sq. ft. Largest site built home by square footage .................................................................................................... 4,003.00 sq. ft. Smallest site built home by square footage .................................................................................................... 448.00 sq. ft. Total number of mobile homes ................................................................................................................................................. 33 Percentage of site built homes ...................................................................................................................................... 94.25 %
Page 5 of 6 8/26/2019 Development Impact Analysis
Percentage of mobile homes ............................................................................................................................................. 5.75 % Total number of acres ...........................................................................................................................................3,769.69 acres Average acreage .............................................................................................................................................................. 4.69 acres Total acreage in tax-deferred farms ................................................................................................................... 985.54 acres Community Land Uses Commercial Farming Forestry Industrial Residential Church facilities Other: Special Community Districts Airport Overlay District Cluster Subdivision Overlay District E-1 Districts Rural Lot Subdivision Overlay District Rural Business Overlay District Industrial Overlay District Scenic Corridor Overlay District Commercial Environmental Overlay District Voluntary Agricultural District Conventional Subdivision Overlay District Unique Rural Land Uses in the Community HLPC Landmark/Cultural Heritage Site National Historic Landmark National Forest Natural Heritage Designated Sites Trailway as part of the County Greenway Plan Youth Camp(s)
AGRICULTURAL IMPACT (Within One mile of proposal) Adjoining farm properties:
• n/a
Are all well minimum setback lines noted on plat? N/A
Tax-deferred farm properties
Property owner Parcel ID Location David Harold and Edith B Briles 7629395690 R1193; S David Harold and Edith B Briles 7629799971 Old Hwy 49; S Harold J and Geraldine B Brubaker 7730267991 R1326; S Deeded Access Harold J and Geraldine B Brubaker 7730271673 R1326; S Deeded Access Harold J and Geraldine B Brubaker 7730173823 R1326; Both Peter H Chong 7629633177 R1163; R49 William Nash and Allacin Martin Duggins 7730222028 R1193; N Benjamin J Frazier 7639247564 R1199; W No Rd Frtg Jane L Gallimore 7720704739 R1193; R1107 Roger L and Ann B Greene Life Estate 7720751971 R1348; No Rd Frtg
Page 6 of 6 8/26/2019 Development Impact Analysis
Property owner Parcel ID Location Betty H Hunt 7720843553 R1319; W Mark L Hunt Trustee 7730523255 W Lloyd Bingham; Tr2 Emogene W Jarrell Life Estate 7629915087 James C & Emogene Jarrell; Tr2 Dorothy L Lambeth 7720938281 R1319; E Dorothy L Lambeth 7720949732 R1319; E No Rd Frtg Max R Lanier 7720606831 R1193; R1107 Michael Ray and Dana Lanier 7720823757 R1319; W Michael Ray and Nancy S Lanier Trustee 7720625828 R1318; Both Cliff H Loflin 7629822458 R1163; N No Rd Frtg Cliff H Loflin 7629932833 R49; S Cliff H Loflin 7639141732 R49; S Sue Ellen and James D Lowe 7730248894 R1320; W Jerry Thomas McDowell 7720408540 Jerry T McDowell; Tr2 Lonnie R and Shirley K Saunders 7730061458 R1326; S No Rd Frtg Mark W and Brenda L Walker 7730701343 R1163; E Mark W and Brenda L Walker 7730715684 R1161; W Deeded Access Jasper C Winslow 7629754711 R49; N Jasper C and Joann S Winslow 7629659616 R49; N
Farm operations that begin after the development of a major residential subdivision must abide by
the 100 ft. waste setback rule on the farm property.
OTHER MATERIALS SUBMITTED Buffer site plan Land Clearing Debris Plan Open Space Uses and maintenance agreements, if applicable Proposed deed restrictions Soil analysis Soil erosion plan, storm water management plan, etc. Other:
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
CONSISTENCY WORKSHEET
Rezoning Request #2019-00001680
Consistency statements are applicable to both map and text amendments. 1. Is the request consistent with the Growth Management Plan? 2. Is the request consistent with any other adopted plan? 3. Is the request consistent with the requested zoning district? Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 153A-341 and 342, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the proposed zoning district map amendments to CVOE-CD –
Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive – Conditional District as described in the application are consistent with the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan for the following reasons: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
REASONABLENESS WORKSHEET
Rezoning Request #2019-00001680
Reasonableness statements should focus on spot zoning claims. Explain why the decision is reasonable and in the public interest. Property location: ..................................................................................................................... NC Hwy 49 S Proposed use of property: ...................................................................... 25-lot site built subdivision Growth Management Plan area: .................................................................. Secondary Growth Area
1. Size of the tract in relationship to surrounding properties. 2. Is the proposal compatible with the Growth Management Plan? 3. Is the proposal compatible with the Growth Management Plan map? 4. Is there a benefit to the owner at the expense of the neighbors? 5. How does the proposed use compare to existing uses? Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 153A-341 and 342, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the proposed zoning district map amendments to CVOE-CD –
Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive – Conditional District as described in the application are reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________