HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_1098Attorney Mark Childers, representing Pinecrest Land Developers, then spoke
and made the following remarks:
"This will be a friendly, quick, and cost effective way for everybody to resolve
a substantial error in regards to the planning staff. The staff has been absolutely
forthright in acknowledging that a staff error has led to the problem. The staff is to be
commended for their integrity and professionalism in acknowledging the error. Given
the volume of work the planning staff handles, it's unusual this type of situation
hasn't come up before. In August of 2005, Pinecrest entered into a contract to
purchase eight acres at a cost of $140,000.00, contingent -- expressly in the contract --
it was required as a precondition of Pinecrest's obligation to buy the property that
Pinecrest be able to put 14 buildable lots on the property. That was set as a
precondition of closing, and Pinecrest set about conducting its due diligence before it
closed by participating in the ordinary course as it is required by law to do -- to
consult with the planning department, engage their expertise and their knowledge of
the zoning rules and regulations, and to gather from them through the review and
comment process, their approval on behalf of the county for Pinecrest's proposed use
of the property. In September, the Department of Transportation was contacted
regarding their approval. In September 21, 2005 under the new business agenda for
the Iredell County Subdivision Committee, we submitted our preliminary plat. On
October 19, 2005, in the ordinary course of the required legal procedure, we submitted
to the Iredell County Subdivision Review Committee our final plat which was in fact
approved at that time to construct 13 lots -- not 14 -- but 13. The reason for the
difference was because of the heightened acreage requirements brought about by the
watershed regulations, which you all are familiar with. Based upon our having gone
through that process and obtaining the county's approval, Pinecrest bought this
property. On November 16, 2005, two separate closings occurred at $70,000 each.
They spent $140,000 that, quite honestly, and under the terms of the contract they
would not have spent, but for the approval of the county planning staff acknowledging
that what they proposed to do was in fact lawful and could be done. Since that time,
Pinecrest has marketed lots, and it has continued to engage in its site design work. It
has in fact, entered into three contracts, started building a house -- put down a slab for
a house -- and was bringing it out of the ground and moving on with the contract. It
had to buy one of these lots, when it became aware of the fact that this was an issue,
and the work has now stopped. It has lost three buyers because of what has happened.
With that said, we are not in the controversy business. We are in the business of
building homes and trying to seek an appropriate business -like -way to resolve
problems. We are not here to rattle swords and talk about what we are going to do —
or what if. But, what we want to try to do, and we believe this is a perfect scenario to
really create the proverbial, but so hard to find, win-win situation for everybody
involved here. By simply giving us the benefit of what we thought we had -- what we
spent a large sum of capital believing we had -- by giving us the straight R-20 zoning
on a small, eight -point -some -odd -acre of property. Less than one percent, I might
add, of the entire R-20 CUD District, on the very edge of that R-20 CUD District, so it
is a very minimal way to resolve the problem. It won't reconfigure in any drastic way
that conditional use district. It's right on the edge and adjacent to other RA property
and we believe that if the commission were to allow our rezoning petition, this is a
respectful, graceful, and friendly way to resolve a serious problem. We are required
by law to go to the planning department when we do things with our land in this
county, and we are entitled, I would submit, to rely on what they tell us. Now, I don't
know whether you all have seen or whether it's a part of your packet of information
regarding the planning staff report. On this (staff report), they indicate that what
happened was the subdivision department's computer was not activated in some
manner with the GIS layer that indicates the existence of the conditional use in this
area. It was believed by the zoning and planning folks, and my clients, that the zoning
was a straight R-20 without conditions. Now that's a mistake -- nobody meant for
that to happen. Nobody is a bad person for having this to happen, but this is the real
world. I think it's appropriate that folks have to own up to their mistakes and accept
responsibility for things. They are only human, they're very busy, and it's
commendable what they've acknowledged to this point. I think that it's appropriate
for the county to be good stewards of the county's funds, as well as to create some