HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_1099 (2)ability for the public to trust what the zoning staff says. When we go there and rely
on what they say -- that we be able to do what they've said we could do. I
respectfully request that the commission grant this petition, rezone this small parcel of
property to straight R-20 -- without condition. That will leave untouched the vast
majority of the property and will be the right thing to do. As a procedural matter, I
would respectfully submit some documents that I would like to be made a part of the
record. That being the planning staff report to which I just referred to, as well as a
copy of the purchase contract that my client entered into, a copy of a letter
communicated to the Department of Transportation about their subdivision plans, a
copy of the agendas for September 21 and 19 for the Subdivision Review Committees,
two settlement statements wherein its reflected that they purchased this property, two
deeds that reflect that they purchased this property, a map recorded at the Iredell
Register of Deeds, Book 48, Page 63 of the plat which the planning and zoning office
approved, and an inspections job card indicating there were at least three different
inspections done on improvements which were made on this property before we were
told that we had to stop."
Brent Warren (opposition) said he resided in the East Monbo community and
had participated in the original petition to have the property rezoned with the 40,000
lot size. He said the community took the action in 1997, and the proactive approach
was taken to preserve the rural integrity of the community. Warren said it was a
"huge" undertaking -- maybe the largest nonowner petition in the county -- and it was
not an easy, or simple thing to do. He said, however, the residents thought it was
important enough at that time to look ahead, and it was something that needed to be
addressed. He said the purpose was to prevent a high-density development and to
maintain lower -density developments. Mr. Warren said the residents did everything
needing to be done, and the process was "by the book." He said the current situation
was regrettable, but it wasn't the community's fault. Warren said the property was on
the edge, as Mr. Palmer's attorney had indicated, but it wouldn't be fair to the
residents near the development. (He said his property was actually in the upper
section of the area, and he wouldn't be as affected as the others on the edge.) Warren
said Mr. Palmer's attorney had mentioned the public's trust and following procedure,
but he noted that in 1997, the residents had also followed the procedure and that
public trust went both ways. Mr. Warren said he felt the commissioners should rule in
favor of the community, and this would be a truer measure of upholding the public's
trust. He said it was hoped the board of commissioners would vote the same as the
planning board, and deny the request. (Mr. Warren noted that he was not related to
Planning Supervisor Steve Warren.)
Jane Jennings Getsinger (opposition) said she was a part of the 1997 group
involved in the nonowner petition. She said that even now, the community was
looking towards the future due to an effort to obtain a "scenic route designation" for
their road. In addition, she said covenants were being reviewed with the Land Trust
organization, and they were taking the approach that the four -mile stretch to the lake
and Duke Power State Park was an amenity for the area. She said it was known that
high-density developments would occur in Troutman, especially at Exit 45, and the
this neighborhood was looking towards the future for everyone.
No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Tice adjourned the hearing.
Commissioner Robertson asked Attorney Pope about land purchases and who
had the responsibility to find out the zoning designation for the property.
Attorney Pope said the buyer would have some obligation to find out what
could be done on the property. He said the question was, "Can you rely on the public
record?" He said that when a person was told by public officials what could be done
and money was spent relying on that information, then the question was, "Should you
be able to rely on that?"
Robertson asked if the seller was required to find out if the property would be
suitable for the purchaser's intended purpose.