HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_1678Gaines said Kent Development purchased the property in 2005 from the school system at
a cost of $575,000. He said his client bought the property with the understanding the site would
be rezoned from RA. Mr. Gaines said the land use plan in 2005 recognized that the former
school site would be sold, and it would probably not be used for anything compatible with RA.
He said the plan also mentioned conditions that could be imposed to make it conducive to RA.
Gaines said Mr. Kent closed on the property in October, and the rezoning came up later. He said
the applicant did not purchase the site with the knowledge that Old Warren Drive access to the
western side would be prohibited. Gaines said that along with the initial purchase amount of
$575,000.00, his client had spent $150,000 for property improvements. He said that at the
rezoning meeting, four or five neighboring property owners spoke and "strenuously" objected to
the usage of Warren Drive. Mr. Gaines said the request was tabled, and it was suggested that Mr.
Kent work the problems out with the neighbors. Gaines said no one was being accused, but Mr.
Kent's property had suffered from the following: (1) a building was broken into on a number of
occasions, and this was on the Warren Road side (2) furniture had been crushed (3) numerous
windows broken (4) fire extinguishers were released from inside the building (5) messages in
large scrawl were written across the blackboards saying, "Get out. We don't want you here. Why
can't you understand that we don't want you here? Get out now, or else." Mr. Gaines said the
thermostat was turned wide open and ran up a $4,000 heating bill. He said the sheriff's
department was called on at least two occasions and had photos of the vandalism. Mr. Gaines
said these were some of the reasons as to why Mr. Kent agreed to the conditions.
Mr. Gaines said Warren Drive was actually on Mr. Kent's property, and the residents off
Old Warren Drive were actually driving on Mr. Kent's property to access their homes. He said
the deed from the school board indicated the property was subject to the right of way for the
residents to use Warren Drive. Mr. Gaines said the roadway appeared to have been there
"forever" and a permanent easement hadn't been located. He said in the early 1950s, the school
board recorded a plat, and the roadway was shown as a private roadway. Gaines said the former
principal, Mr. Fox, estimated 80 private vehicles transported children in -and -out via the roadway
when school was in session, plus there were delivery trucks and community events in the gym
whereby people drove on Old Warren Drive.
Gaines said his client wanted to use the building as a day care center and the gym as a
recreational building. He said it would cost $60,000 to build another road, and the sewer line
was on the property's backside. Mr. Gaines said the applicant wanted to withdraw the last
request, pertaining to the buffering, because a fence had now been erected.
Commissioner Johnson said that in most real estate transactions, the purchaser usually
made an offer contingent upon rezoning. He asked if the new roadway cost of $60,000 would be
the extent of the harm, should Old Warren Drive be disallowed for use.
Max Kent (owner of the property) said he wanted harmony with the neighbors. He said,
however, there was (1) a concrete company across the site that generated much dust (2) new
industry was locating on the highway everyday and (3) there was heavy construction occurring
with the highway widening and this would generate even more growth. Kent said he never felt
there would be a problem using a road that belonged to him. Mr. Kent said he couldn't figure out
why a new roadway should be built when one already existed. He said, "We don't mind the
neighbors using our road, so why should they mind us using the road that belongs to us?"
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Kent if he felt the previously imposed conditions had
been adequately complied with or satisfied.
Mr. Kent said he probably had "fallen a little short." He said a financial setback had
occurred when a state contract fell through. Kent said citations had been issued, but a fence and
trees were now on the site.
Edward Crew (opponent) said Old Warren Drive was not on Mr. Kent's property. He
said the landowners (off Old Warren Drive) owned the greatest portion of the road. In addition,
he said aerial photos shouldn't even be considered as legal documents. Crew said there wasn't a
recorded deed for the school to have right of way to the property. He said Mrs. Mary Warren
lived in the first house off Old Warren Drive, and she had lived there since the school started
operating -- even before it burned down in 1943. Crew said he owned what was referred to as the
"wood box," which was actually a cabin once occupied by Mrs. Warren. He said anyone that had