HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_0538Bryan described the three lots by referring to a plat. He said the property was
lot 24, and towards the back of the property, were lots 33 and 34. Bryan said the
boundary lines might change; however, because a request had been made to the owner
to "add a slice of land on the left."
Kathleen Hatchett said she was speaking on behalf of neighbors and residents in
the Fort Dobbs community who were concerned and even opposed to the funding of the
request. Hatchett said others would have attended the meeting; however, they were told
the request would be deleted from the agenda. She said there were concerns about the
tremendous traffic, noise, waste and even a proposal for road changes if the plan was
successful. Hatchett asked what would happen to the money that had already been
collected, if the project did not occur. She said the board members of the Alliance
could not adequately answer questions about the finances. Hatchett said she had
concerns when a state government, that had over a billion dollars in debt, along with a
county, that was divided over school expenditures, could decide that pouring money
into the project was a top concern. Mrs. Hatchett said that even if a fort were built on
the site, it would be a likeness from another state and not the original. She said that as
far as a museum, there was nothing to be housed in it. Hatchett said that in reference to
musket balls being found on the site, these could be found on any land in the county and
they were not indicators of a French & Indian War site. Mrs. Hatchett said she loved
history, but she also loved her home. She said her ancestors had fought in wars dating
back to the American Revolution and they did so to protect their land. She said now,
the Fort Dobbs project could take her property's protection away. Hatchett said, "I love
history, but what I don't like is someone using other people's respect and patriotic
fervor to access their pocketbooks for something that isn't what they thought it was
going to be" She also said, "History should be truth itself, and I hope you will truly
investigate the claims made by the Alliance in their efforts to secure what they so desire
and put it up against what is fact, what is reasonable, and what is fiscally responsible."
traffic.
Commissioner Robertson asked Mrs. Hatchett if her main concern was the
Hatchett said there were concerns over several matters.
Commissioner Williams asked Mrs. Hatchett if she had attended any of the
Alliance meetings.
Hatchett said she had attended some of the meetings. She said some of her
questions were answered, but some were not.
Louanne Watts, another resident in the community, stated that she supported
everything said by Mrs. Hatchett. She suggested that a decision on the request be
postponed, due to the citizens not being informed about the project. Watts questioned
some of the figures the Alliance had used in trying to promote its economic and
educational value. She said the Alliance had said 5,182 people had visited the site last
year, but the members neglected to say this consisted of mostly two groups. She said
the boy scouts accounted for about 1,500 of the visitors, and a group from Iredell
Memorial Hospital totaled about 1,500.
Chairman Tice said the request had been discussed at the briefing session, and it
was mentioned a special meeting might be held in the next few days due to the Alliance
needing to submit its state grant application by January 28.
Commissioner Johnson said a piece of property was only a buffer is there wasn't
anything built upon it. He said if something were built on it, then another neighbor was
next to it.
Bryan said the Alliance was trying to be extremely careful, archaeologically
speaking, and there were only two construction projects. He said one was the fort and
the other would be the officers' quarters. Bryan acknowledged, however, that in the