Tree Board - meeting_joint_regular

I would like to call the Monday, June 1st, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board to order. First, let's determine a quorum, if everybody could just sound off.

Kim Sandoval. Meg Fielding.

Ken Curtis. Richard Sayre.

Jennifer Marr. Okay. Seeing that there is a quorum, we will continue. This is a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing. The case number is APL 2026-0041, 225 Garmin Road. the planning and zoning board is requested to consider an appeal from josh martin the appellant on behalf of linda martin who's the property owner regarding an administrative zoning decision regarding violations of multiple sections of the town's unified development ordinance okay the next step would be swearing in

So, um, the next step I think would be for the town to call, indicate who their first witnesses and then swear that witness in.

Okay. I can't hear you. Okay. Does anyone have any conflicts of interest on the board regarding the situation?

No. Let's say for the record, I did go out to the site yesterday afternoon.

Okay. Do you want to recuse yourself?

No. I just wanted that our document said that we should say if we had been to the site, and even though that's habit in our other world, it's on the record. Okay. Very good.

There are no conflicts?

were sent in email to planning staff today?

Yeah, that was me.

Okay. Would you just disclose that information just so the applicants aware? Sure.

I think you got a copy of it. Yep.

I just want to clarify some terminology that was used. So I sent an email to Tyler as the planner, and he printed out a copy for the board, and I believe sent it to the client.

Okay. Is that satisfactory? Okay. So would you like to call your first witness? Would you want everyone to be sworn in at the same time that's planning on testifying? If that's your regular practice, sure.

Yeah. nine people so if you can come up to the front i have ron barber angela pardee linda martin josh martin david hanley andre dash sally johnson um todd hunsinger and rodney cobb and

And just so everyone's aware, I think the way we envision this is everyone's sworn in now. And then if, and when it's time for you to testify, you'll come up and you'll explain why you have standing to testify, right? If, if you come up and you say, I'm going to talk about why I like, you know, a baseball team, we're probably going to say, that's not what this is for. Um, so you'll get sworn in now and then you'll come up, explain why you have standing and the board will decide whether or not to allow you to testify to that effect. Okay. Yeah.

Thank you.

And before, quickly before we get started, are there any other matters that need to be heard either by the town or by the, um, the, uh, applicant prior to beginning?

Nothing.

Okay.

Tyler Hayowski, senior planner. Roughly four years.

I have. Yes, I do. Did you have a new operation with this owner? I did. OK. And there's a document that's titled Detachment 1. What is that? The deed for . And does it show that the owners of the property are Charles S. Martin and Linda Martin? Yes, it does.

And when did Ms. Martin acquire the property? June of 2006.

And this has the personal identification number of 0714027A? That's correct.

And that's the tax ID number that aligns with 225 . Is that correct? That is correct. Directing your attention to attachment 2A, what is that?

It's an aerial map showing the vicinity of 225 Garmin Road.

And what is the size of the parcel? Approximately 4.12 acres.

And what is it, what is it zoned?

Light industrial, L.I.

Thank you for your attention to exhibit 2B. What is that?

This is zoomed in aerial imagery taken in 2025 subject property.

And does the 2B accurately show some of the vehicles and trucks and conditions of property?

Yes, it does.

And you can add to the property? I add multiple times.

And observe the conditions, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. Now turning, you say, you testified that it is led industrial, is that correct? That's correct. What are the surrounding zoning classifications of the adjoining properties on the site?

A majority of them to the west, south, and to the east are zoned SF1, which is single family, low density, residential. And then to the northeast is CZLI, which is conditional setting light pressure.

And does attachment three, is that a map showing the zoning of not only this parcel, but the surrounding properties? That's correct. How many residential properties are adjacent or near this site for your work?

Adjacent or near? Adjacent. One, two, three, four that are directly adjacent.

And what is the town's future land use map designated as property in the surrounding area? And that's demonstrated in exhibit four. That's the future land use map.

Correct.

How many, turning your attention to attachment five, How many adjacent property owners are identified within 500 feet of 225 Garmin Road? 17. And were all adjacent property owners notified of this appeal hearing as required by non-criminal law? Yes, ma'am. And on the back page of attachment 17, is that a list of the property owners that the town sent this information to?

Attachment 17 or attachment? Yes, that's correct.

And what else did the county do in terms of notification? We also posted on our website that we were having a special hearing for this, as well as posted the sign out of the site. Due to it being far off of Garmin Road, we didn't think that the public would be able to notice it at the property location, so we put it at the nearest road intersection at Garmin Road and Holden Road Road.

And turning to the reason why we're here today, directing your attention to attachment six, what is that?

That is the first notice of violation.

And when was that sent and who was it addressed to?

It was sent on November 25th, 2025, that Ms. Linda Martin, although her late husband is on the first one, and then one was also sent to her son, the appellant, Josh Martin.

And did it list various violations?

Yes, it did. And when was compliance required by?

December 29th.

And did staff provide contact information and offer to meet with the property owner to discuss how to bring this property into compliance?

Yes, we did.

Directing your attention to. Attachment seven, what is that dated?

That's the final notice of violation dated for March 10th, 2025.

And why was that notice sent out?

It was sent out because when we did a re-inspection of the property, there were various violations that were still out of compliance.

And so did the property owner comply with the deadline of December 29th of 2025? No, they did not. 2024, I'm sorry. It was 2025. Oh, 2025, okay. No, they did not. And this notice gave the property owner until April 9th, 2026 to come into compliance.

That's correct.

And what penalties were disclosed if compliance was not achieved?

Uh, day one is $50. Day two is a hundred and then day three and every subsequent day is $300.

Did between the first notice and the final notice, did any of the violations change?

Uh, there was some clearing up, uh, on the south side of the property, uh, where there was a multitude of junk salvage vehicles based on the town standard. Uh, however, compliance still wasn't met.

Um, so in terms of the specific violations, um, what was the first violation that's noted on the final notice of violation?

It was regarding the type of permitted uses and unauthorized uses on the property.

Directing your attention to attachment seven. It has required action and then it has violation industrial use group and then a junk salvage yard. Is that the first?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. You were discussing the fact that the property just was not in compliance in general or?

It was not in compliance in a variety of manner, whether it be the uses such as the junk salvage yard based on the town's unified development ordinances definition. Others were in terms of site compliance with stormwater, vehicular surface areas, buffers, screening, things of that nature.

Taking each specific violation one by one. Um, can we start with the junk salvage yard? Um, is that permitted in light industrial zoning district?

No, it is not. It is only allowed through a conditional rezoning. So it's not permitted by right. It requires town council approval.

And is that stated in the code of ordinances?

Yes. It's in the table of permitted uses, uh, under five 10.0 1 0.

Is that in attachment a booklet?

Yes, that's correct.

On the third page, it has highlighted junk salvage yard.

Yes.

And is C next to it?

Yes. C is next to it, which requires a conditional approval.

Okay. Did the property owner obtain conditional approval to operate a junk salvage yard on this parcel?

No, they did not.

Turning your attention to attachment 9, is that the section of the Indian Trail ordinance that defines a junk salvage yard?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay, and that's section 1630.090, industrial use groups?

Yes, specifically item A.

And how is junk salvage yard defined?

An open area where waste or scrap materials are bought, sold, exchanged, stored, bailed, packed, disassembled, or handled, including but not limited to scrap iron and other metals, paper, rags, rubber tires, and bottles. A junk or salvage yard includes an auto wrecking yard but does not include waste-related uses or recycling facilities.

Based on your site observations, what conditions at 225 Garmin Road meet that definition?

Several, several inoperable vehicles stored on the property. And then where the semi-repair is occurring, there are also several semis that were disassembled in various capacities that were labeled as donors.

And you have photographs of these that we're going to go through in detail later, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, and then flipping back to attachment seven, which is the notice of violation. What is the next violation that's listed in this notice?

The next violation is section 4, 10 0 10, uh, abbreviated that a permit's required for all substantial changes in a building or clearing of land.

And did you or anyone on your staff check the union County permit portal for permits related to construction or land disturbances at this property?

Yes, we did, but no records were found.

Okay. And within the town of any trail records were any permits ever obtained?

No, they were not.

And then what is the next violation listed in your notice on page two of two at the top?

That's going to be a section 71 80 for outdoor storage and sales under section.

Um, under that section, where must outdoor storage be located? in areas on a site approved development plan and they must be outside of any buffer areas or building setbacks and did the planning staff ever receive from the applicant any sort of site development plan for this parcel no we have not and is so there's no site specific development plan that designates an area of the property for outdoor storage that's correct there's no plan Can you tell the board when you inspected the property what your inspection revealed about outdoor storage on the property?

It was all over the place. There were several semi-trailers, disassembled trucks, tires, other various related wastes. construction dumpsters, marble slabs for our granite business, and a variety of other things that were found on the subject property. None of which were adhering to any sort of required landscape buffers for building setbacks.

Um, and directing your attention to attachment 11, which is under the tab, um, starting with attachment seven. Does it, is that the town's ordinance regarding accessory outdoor storage display or sales?

Yes, that is correct.

and what specific, besides the entire, right, they didn't submit a site-specific development plan, but you have highlighted certain sections of this ordinance. Why are those highlighted?

because those were areas that were missing during the initial site inspection. So they must be obviously on the site specific development plan. But like I said earlier, they must also meet building setbacks. So they have to be off the property line. And then depending on what the use is, so like the marble slabs that are on, or granite slabs that are at the property, they must be permanently located underneath the primary building canopy.

okay um can you back up a little bit because we haven't talked about marble slabs or anything like that how many different would you say users or types of uses are on this property at least five or six okay can you describe what those are like when you first drive up what do you notice uh to the left when you come in you wouldn't think it's part of the property uh since

There's a residential property in between when you get back to the main access, but there's an auto body shop initially. And then once you pass 303 Garmin Road and go into the property directly ahead into the south is where there's the semi truck repair as well as freight movement for hauling. Then as you go further to the north, that's when you get into the outdoor dumpster storage. There's also what would be classified as a contractor storage yard for road equipment and things of that nature, bulldozer or backhoe, trackhoe type things. You have the granite cutting business as well. And I think there's another auto body shop that's in there.

Is it your understanding that the property owners, Ms. Martin has various tenants that lease the property?

Yes, that's my understanding.

And how many tenants do you believe have businesses out there or at least the property?

At least five or six.

Okay. Now, flipping back to seven, the notice of violation, what is the fourth violation you listed in this notice?

It's section 1070.010 specifically regarding parking and loading area design.

And do you have section 1070.010, that specific ordinance listed in this booklet?

Yes, I do.

And that is attachment 12?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. So under general design standards for parking, what is required?

one of the main ones that we noticed out there was each parking and drive driving out will have the dimensions provided in section 1070 020 and all ada parking spaces will meet the requirements of chapter 1050. and was that specific ordinance requirement um complied with on this property no it was not and where are the where when you observed it were vehicles being parked Uh, everywhere on the site that there's gravel, which is pretty much the entirety of the site.

And how many vehicles would you say?

Don't quote me on that.

Okay.

Um, probably at least 40 between the semi trailer, uh, parking and then, uh, the other cars that were on site or other vehicles.

And are any of the parking spaces marked with striping or are there cones or drive aisles?

There's a makeshift drive aisle where the trucks have to get in and out. But outside of that, there's no visible markings on the property anywhere. Some cars are stacked in too deep. Same thing with the semi trailer spacing.

And it's so it's your testimony that the, the property does not comply with this town standards in terms of parking.

Yes, that's correct.

What is the next violation? I think we're on number six now.

Section 10 70.0 40 parking and loading area improvement standards.

And what section of the ordinance is that listed in? Is that under attachment 14?

Yes, that is under attachment 14.

And what is 1070.040 parking and loading area improvement standards paragraph A state?

All parking lots and vehicular use areas, i.e., parking, maneuvering, circulation, and loading areas must be graded and surfaced with asphalt or concrete that will protect against potholes, erosion, and dust. The planning director may authorize an exemption to this requirement for temporary parking associated with a special event or short-term seasonal activity.

And is any part of this property graded and surface with asphalt or concrete?

No, ma'am.

Okay. And are there potholes, erosion and dust in the gravel parking lot when you observed it?

Yes, there was.

And then there are some exceptions listed in that section. Do any of the exceptions apply to this property?

No, none of the exceptions apply to this property.

Is the next violation deal with landscape buffers?

Yes, it does.

And that section eight ten point zero four zero.

That is correct.

And is that ordinance listed as attachment 15?

Yes, it is.

Okay. Can you tell the board what is required for a landscape buffer yard?

So a buffer yard is required at the edge of a boundary of a parcel or development site that is adjacent to a less intensive land use. So commercial to residential, industrial to residential.

Okay. So this would qualify because the residential is less intensive.

Correct.

Okay. And is there a table that states what the buffer width is supposed to require?

Yes. Table 800 dash one. We have a buffer matrix that shows what the proposed lane use is on the left side and then what it's adjacent to. So we would classify junkyard salvage freight movement All of these things happening on the property as a group three land use adjacent to single family would be a 50 foot buffer.

And when you were out on the property, was there was there any buffer adjoining the single family residential?

Not to the east and not to the west. If you look on the aerials, you can tell that there is roughly a 20-foot buffer between them and the property adjacent to the south, southwest, that has remained existing. But that's about it.

Okay. And then right in front of it is the industrial conditional zoning parcel. Does that require any buffering?

In the event where there is no buffer required based on this section, then another section of the code kicks in where perimeter lot line landscaping would take effect. And that's a max of 10 feet.

So in order to come into compliance with the property owner, need to extend the buffer at least 30 feet on the one side and then a full 50 feet on the other three sides.

Correct.

And is the seventh violation deal with the fact that there was no approved or site development plan?

That is correct.

Okay. Turning your attention to attachment 16. Can you tell the board what is required in ordinance section 350.050 regarding site development plan?

There has to be a suitable site development plan that's approved by the planning director. Depending on what the plan is, sometimes it does need to go forward to planning and zoning board and town council. Okay.

And did that ever happen in this case?

No, it did not.

Did staff look to see, right, in the archives, was there any site development plan starting in 2006?

There was none that we could find. Okay.

Turning your attention to the eighth violation in your notice of violation, what is that regarding?

That's going to be UDO chapter 370 regarding site plan review, which ties in with the 350.050 site development plan.

Okay, so the fact is that there was no review because they never submitted a plan?

Correct.

Okay. Anything else you want to add about that?

Uh, the main reason for reviewing a site plan is to make sure that things are met by our current UDA as it relates to building setbacks, buffers, uh, the improvements that are supposed to occur.

Um, is the eighth violation. Does that deal with unauthorized impervious surface and stormwater detention?

Yes.

Okay. And what specifically was the violation?

Anything over 20,000 square foot of impervious surface, which the town views gravel as impervious surface, especially when it's in a vehicular area, since it is ground up and becomes almost cement like anything over 20,000 square foot requires a stormwater quality bond.

Okay. And where is that stated in the town ordinance?

It's going to be in Section 1370.010.

Is that attachment 18?

That's correct.

Okay. And for the record, can you read the highlighted section of 1370.010 stormwater detention?

Yes. The purpose of flood control detention requirements is to protect downstream properties from increased flooding due to upstream development. Development or redevelopment creating a total of 20,000 square feet or more of impervious surface shall be designed to control the peak discharge from the 2, 10, and 25-year, 24-hour storm events to pre-development levels. The emergency overflow and outlet works for any stormwater BMP shall be capable of safely passing a discharge with a minimum recurrence frequency as specified in the Town of Indian Trail Stormwater Design Manual. Development or redevelopment that proposes to use existing detention facilities shall comply with the requirements of this section 1370.

And do you have an opinion as to how much imperfect impervious gravel surface was added to the property without town authorization?

Based on the areas in our understanding, approximately 50,000 square feet.

Okay. And what stormwater compliance requirements are, um, triggered by that 50,000 square feet amount.

They'll have to have a storm water quality detention system that is designed by a North Carolina registered professional engineer.

And to your knowledge, has that ever occurred?

No, no.

It's not a card.

It has not occurred.

Okay. Okay. Flipping back to the middle of page one of two. I don't think that's numbered correctly in the violations. What is violation number nine? edo section 1470 050 nonconforming expansions and who has bears the burden of proving that a nonconforming status exists rather than a violation the property owner okay and did you include section 1470-050 expansions in this notebook yes i did and that is exhibits Attachment.

Should be attachment 22. 22.

Okay. And is attachment 22 the town's ordinance regarding nonconforming site aspects?

That is correct.

Okay. Can you talk a little about nonconformities and grandfathered status specifically Can a property be grandfathered in as legally non-conforming if it never had valid town approval to begin with?

If it didn't have valid town approval, not to my knowledge.

Okay. So what is your understanding of grandfathered status or a legal non-conforming property?

is for a property that at one time was legal in the eyes of the law based on any improvements that I had out there even from a use standpoint as well so the use was allowed in this district or or whatever the case may have been at the time and then over time laws change, ordinances change. But as long as that nonconforming use continues to operate and there aren't improvements made to the property, then it can continue in perpetuity.

When the property owner first got the property in 2006, do you know what use was on the property?

It was a chicken hatchery.

Okay. And is that allowed under the town judo?

We do not have that in our table of permitted uses, but it could likely fall in some sort of agricultural thing.

But if it was allowed in 2006, would it be allowed today if it was not expanded or changed?

Yes, that is correct.

And what evidence from the property owner is required to establish a nonconforming use? If you know what, what would you ask for if they say, oh, we're grandfathered in, we should be allowed to have a junkyard or a truck repair

I would have to see some sort of evidence either through like the property tax records or when they purchased the property showing that it was an existing use prior to the town changing their ordinance.

And has the property owner submitted any documentary evidence sufficient to establish that the current site conditions were lawfully established prior to the town's UDO requirements?

No.

Under Section 1470.050, what is triggered when a site with a nonconforming feature is expanded?

There has to be various site improvements that are made. Part of it is commensurate to the percentage of expansion that is occurring. So even if it's not a structural alteration, if it's the addition of outdoor storage areas or parking, they still have to meet certain requirements related to buffering, screening, things of that nature.

Okay. So where some towns say if it's a nonconforming use, you can expand at all, you can't change, you can't grow, right? You if your roof is leaking, you can put a new roof on but you can't expand your property at all. The town allows a certain percentage of expansion. Is that correct?

only related to some of the site improvements when it comes to like a building that's already encroaching into a setback or a buffer. No, we wouldn't allow that nonconforming aspect to be increased.

Okay. Assuming that there's there's no violations in terms of, you know, the property line encroachments, what by what What percentage is the property owner allowed to expand? Is that mentioned in the ordinance?

I know based on the percentage of the structure, then if they go like 75% or more, then they have a timeline in which they have to come into compliance with like the entire site. But if it's, you know, less than 75%, then it's going to be commensurate to the percentage of site improvements that they are doing on the property.

Do you have an opinion as to what percentage of this 225 Garmin Road, this property that the site expanded?

We said somewhere between 15 to 50%. just based on acreage that is being used even just for the outdoor storage component related to the semi truck repair and everything else on the site.

And what improvements would be required based on that expansion but were not made in this situation?

We would have reviewed the vehicular surface areas parking, loading, things of that nature. Any of the buffers that I mentioned earlier between residential uses, since what they're doing out there is a more intensive use. So if there's a change in use to a nonconforming site, then that's when things are starting to get triggered. If they expand.

And was the expansion, was that the last violation?

Yes, it was.

Okay. Um, directing your attention to attachment 23. What is that?

A, um, it's a historical aerial imagery from 2002 when the hatchery was still operational.

Okay. And what is attachment 24?

Attachment 24 is as of 2006, right after the Martins purchased the property.

And then attachment 25.

This is as of February of 2025. And this is where you can see that the property has considerably changed from what was the hatchery to what it's operating under now.

Comparing the 2025 imagery to the photographs you just showed us from earlier years, what changes to the site did you observe?

There was some sort of pond to the south corner. Whether or not it was actually operating as some sort of stormwater pond, I can't determine that. I'm not qualified for that. However, there has been the addition of the gravel impervious surface areas of 50,000 square feet. You can see where there used to be room between the operations and the residential properties, even through just like open buffer rather than landscaping. All of that has been removed in certain areas to the property line. They're storing stuff within just a couple feet. you can see where there was an expansion off the south side of the hatchery so like in the back right corner if you're pulling into the property that was also unpermitted and that one actually encroaches into the building setbacks and the buffer okay when you talk about the hatchery are you talking about the building that kind of has the brown roof right yes dead center okay And then there's warehousing and other buildings that were part of the operation originally to the north.

And do these aerial images support the conclusion that significant site development occurred after Miss Martin acquired the property in 2006? Yes. and directing your attention to attachment 27 are these um photos you took from your visit on december 8th of 2025 yes that is correct okay starting with um the first page can you just quickly um explain what these photos depict yeah this is uh looking towards the

I guess, southeast and southwest property boundary. There's a variety of semi-trailers that are being stored out there in what we classify as outdoor storage. And they're parked on unimproved gravel areas with potholes.

And then the next page.

This is looking at the main entrance in. This is also showing the extent of the gravel out there, as well as what they currently have for their dumpster enclosure slash refuge, refuse, and then their bathroom out there, which is a Porta John.

Is there any other bathroom facilities besides that Porta John?

I'll have to let the property owner speak to that. We didn't go inside the warehouses.

Okay. And then what is the next set of photograph show?

This is where we really get into the junk slash salvage yard. So you can see some of the trucks may be operational and there's others where there's just parts that were pulled from their quote unquote donor vehicles.

And just to reiterate, is a junk slash salvage yard permitted in light industrial?

not without conditional approval by town council.

Next set.

This is also just showing some of what's out there. Um, it was stacked two to three deep in certain areas.

Uh, are these vehicle parts or truck parts?

truck parts. You can see in the top photo, they have like a little makeshift carport canopy area that they can work on and pull parts off of. And then leftover parts are just stored out in the open.

And where is this in relation to where the residential properties are?

So this is going to be on that southern property line still and in the south or southeast corner. So the tree line directly behind in both of these photos, there's roughly 20 feet of buffer on that one property line before it gets to the adjacent residential property that's vacant.

And if it was permitted, it would need a minimum 50 buffer. But with conditional zoning that town council could say, you know, we require 100 feet or 200 feet.

That's correct.

Can you describe the next set of photos?

Yeah, this is just going to be another alternate view. The top photo is still looking towards that southern property line. The bottom photo is looking directly towards the east. And in the background of that bottom photo to the left, you can see a little bit of the makeshift carport that they built without permits as well. just want to keep going through all these photos and you just talk about them yeah here's a better view of what they built without permits so from a planning perspective obviously i mentioned earlier that they don't meet the building setbacks i think it's roughly like 16 to 20 feet off the rear property line which adjacent to residential requires 60 feet of building setbacks The hatchery that was in some of the other photos is only about 40 feet. And so that is allowed to stay as nonconforming as long as it doesn't expand. So they built this off the side of it. And not only from a building setback standpoint, but it also doesn't meet any of our architectural standards for non-residential properties. And this is just some different angles. And you can see in the bottom photo that hatchery in the background. With additional. Truck pieces hoods. And this is going to be a similar one for the top view. as you move to the bottom photo you heard me talk about the granite cutting business these are the slabs that are out there and then you can see the vehicles some of them avoid parking that are stacked too deep because they don't have room to park This is another view looking at the granite and towards some of the existing warehouses. Like I said, all the granite is currently uncovered. I know based on the state environmental permits, they're supposed to have either covering for it or they have to be inside. And you can see some of the potholes and the conditions of what's existing out there. This is still looking at the existing warehouses on both of these photos. As you can see, vehicles parked everywhere. They're impervious surface, rough condition. And so the trucks aren't just parked on the south side of the property, on the south side of the hatchery. There's also trucks that are parking on the other side, on the northeast side. And here in the bottom photo, the red dumpsters are some form of like rental dumpster service. There's no office. The guy just comes there with the truck, picks it up, takes it to where it needs to go, and then comes back after it's emptied. So there's no trash actually being stored in them, but it's still classified as outdoor storage for the dumpster containers. And here's another view of it in the top photo. Looking in the bottom photo, you can see other big box trucks and different things of that nature that are being stored on the site, enclosed trailers, you name it. So this is looking directly east at the property adjacent residential. So it would be in the background. And you can see that outdoor storage and vehicles is occurring right up to the line. These were inoperable vehicles located on that eastern property line right on the corner, right on the edge of the property. For reference, there, like I said, should be at least a 50 foot buffer right there. And this is looking at the northeast on the bottom photo with some of the contractor storage. Is looking at the North property line just behind some of the warehouses you can see salvage totaled vehicles. Shipping containers. The bottom photo shows the southeast portion of one of the existing warehouses. Top photo, once again, contractor storage yard for the road equipment or civil equipment. And then the bottom photo is taking another look at some of the existing warehouses. One thing that we noticed while we were out there, we're assuming based on them working on vehicles that this is some sort of oil or other mechanical fluid that was just out in the open on the ground.

And is that an environmental health concern?

Yes. Just looking east again, you can see the hatchery to the right in that upper photo with additional semi trailers being stored there. In the bottom photo, you can see how they're stacked one behind the other. And these are just photos showing the side of the existing condition of the hatchery, the former hatchery.

So as far as you know, the hatchery is not in use.

Correct. It's not in use for hatchery uses. This is looking behind the hatchery. towards the eastern property line. Once again, there's about 40 foot of separation between the side of the building on the bottom photo to the left side, which is the property line. And there should be at least a 50 foot buffer there. You know, when you have existing conditions such as a building on the site, we would work with you around those buffers. but that's what would be required. And as you can see, you know, additional car parts, other materials, things just being stored all over the place. This is looking inside the hatchery, uh, in the top photo. And you can see that they're using it for additional storage of, uh, miscellaneous car parts and other things. The bottom photo is as you are exiting the truck maneuvering area. And to the left, you can see where they've expanded onto what was or what is a residential property. So on the top photo, if you look to the right, You can see what is an older barn. And a year, year and a half ago, this used to be a pasture that still has a horse there.

There is a horse there?

There is a horse. It's on an adjacent property, 303 Garmin. But the employees park here for the trucking business so they can get their trucks out.

This is the condition of the road.

Garmin Road is a private road. And so they access through a non-exclusive ingress-egress easement that's been plotted and recorded with the registered deeds. This is heading around the curve. In the clearing in the background, that's as you would head towards Old Monroe Road. This is what would be the, I guess, frontage along Garmin Road. They have one of their signs up for Martin Warehousing and Storage. And you can see one of our code enforcement officers, Ronnie Cobb, he was on site with me for both visits. There's vehicles parked all over the place during this site visit. not only on the subject property, but also encroaching onto the adjacent property that was mentioned earlier that zoned conditional zoning light industrial. And then what we would still classify as junk or salvage yards. The bottom photo shows those cars that I mentioned earlier that are encroaching onto the adjacent property as well as a dumpster. And so just for context, specifically on the top photo, There's multiple non-conforming aspects to the site, one of which are these existing buildings that are used for warehousing and storage are built right on the northern property line. There's no setbacks in between them or anything like that. So the building that you see on the right side in the top photo, everything to the left of it is on someone else's property.

And did you revisit the site in preparation for this hearing on May 20th and 2026 and take some additional photographs?

Yes, I did.

Okay. And were any of the site conditions improved or any of these violations resolved?

There were partially some of the violations that were... addressed a little bit. So this is looking at the same area in this top photo. You can see the building in the background and all the vehicles that were parked over to the left that were encroaching on the other property as well as the dumpster enclosure. Those have been removed. So that was that was one aspect that had been fixed. And then this is looking at the southeast portion of the property. There had been some improvements to cleaning and clearing, but not to a point that would resolve or mitigate any of the violations that are outstanding.

So of the eight or nine violations, were any of them in to your satisfaction? Fixed?

No, none of them were fixed. And so you can see this was one of the first photos or photo areas that I had taken on the December 2025 visit. And so you can see where they've done some clearing in that back corner. But there's other areas that still have car parts everywhere. And we did notice on the site visit, it wasn't included in a violation, but a makeshift trench that was added at the southern property line, I'm assuming to convey water off the property.

but that's not something you sent a notice of violation for at this point.

Correct. Any stormwater should occur as part of Chapter 1370 regarding the stormwater detention, which this would fall under either way. And this is an example in the bottom photo shown right now where the existing property line is on the eastern side to the left. And you know how how close things are still being parked up against it as storage areas. there were cars that were on that Eastern property line that were just relocated inside of the, uh, hatchery area. And that's all on my site visit photos.

Okay. And in order to prepare the staff report for this board, did you also have a timeline in your notes that's marked as attachment 29?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. Can you tell the board when the town first became aware of the extent of the violations at 225 Garmin Road?

extended violations we became aware in june of 2025 we had a request for uh zoning inquiry for like a verification letter for wholesale vehicles with no outdoor storage at the specific property and then that's when we looked at the aerials and saw how much the property had expanded and what was actually going on out there

And before issuing the first notice of violation, did staff attempt to coordinate with the property owner to address the violations informally?

Yes. Rodney Cobb, one of our code enforcement officers, he's out in town, he's everywhere. And he actually ran into Josh Martin, the applicant offsite and mentioned that he needed to reach out to planning staff regarding the various violations.

And did that happen between September 23rd and November 4th with multiple calls to attempt to schedule a meeting?

There were multiple phone calls back and forth. However, a meeting was not set during that time.

After the first notice of violation was sent, did the property owners contact the town and attempt to set up meetings to discuss?

Yes, they did at the beginning of December.

Okay. And do you know how many meetings you had or staff had?

We had three separate meetings. One was on site with the tenant when we did the initial site visit and the photos that you saw. We also met with the property owners on December 11th and the planning conference room. And then we met with the tenants and code enforcement as well. Uh, Todd Hunsinger, our engineering director, uh, and an adjacent property owner, uh, that the parking was encroached over onto the residential property on December 18th.

Okay. So December 8th, 11th and 18th, um, you all met with the property owners.

The only one that we met with the property owners on was December 11th. Uh, the property owners weren't in attendance on December 8th, but the tenant was.

And the 18th was a future landowner.

The 18th is the was the current tenant who was potentially going to be a future landowner.

And so at some point with this was this property under contract for sale?

Yes, it was after meeting with the property owners as well as the tenants. who had a majority of the outstanding violations. There was discussion about the potential sale of the property so the tenant could take it through site plan review and actually formally redevelop the site and meet all of our standards.

And was the town hopeful that that was a way to bring the property into compliance?

Yes, it was.

Okay. And did the property ever close? Did that sale close?

No, it was due to close on February 27th. However, we received an email on March 6th from the property owner stating that the sale did not go through and that the tenant would be vacating the property when their lease was expired.

And is that why staff then decided to send the final notice of violation on March 10th of 2026? Yes, that's correct. And just to be clear, as of the date of this hearing, June 1st, have any of these violations been corrected?

No, they have not.

Did you also include in this packet as attachment 30 the applicants application?

Yes, I did.

And what is your understanding as to their appeal?

Can you reframe that question?

Have you reviewed attachment 31?

Yes, yes. They are wanting or hoping to receive some alleviation from the requirements based on attachment 31, the appellant statement. They're emphasizing that the property has been in longstanding continuous use prior to the current ordinance requirements, that many of the conditions in question qualify as grandfathered uses, including gravel areas, buffers, pond, storage areas, and vehicular areas. And so they provided documentation and I guess what will be attachment 32 as evidence where applicable and they have taken steps to address or mitigate any outstanding concerns. Based on these factors, the applicant respectfully requests that all violations be dismissed or resolved favorably.

Okay. And as we discussed earlier, who bears the burden of proving a grandfathered nonconforming status?

The property owner.

Okay. And has the property owner submitted any documentary evidence, any zoning permits, any approvals to show that they were, these uses other than the chicken hatchery were lawful at one time?

No, they have not. The only evidence submitted was attachment 32.

And does the historical imagery from 2002 and 2006 support the claim that the gravel areas, storage areas and vehicular conditions were present before significant expansion occurred?

For a portion of the property, yes, staff would be willing to understand that. But even in the calculation of the additional impervious areas of 50,000 square foot, we took that into account so that the 50,000 square feet is for areas outside of what was already existing.

And even if some of the pre-existing uses could qualify as nonconforming, does UDO section 1470-050 still require compliance for improvements when a non-conforming site has been expanded?

Yes, that's correct.

And are you requesting that this board uphold the town's decision regarding the notice of violation?

Yes, I am.

I don't have any further questions. We just move to introduce exhibits one through 31.

Any objections? Is the evidence moved to be introduced? All right. So now the applicant or homeowner, if you have any questions for the witness, you may set step up to the podium. Otherwise, turn it over to the board to see if they have any questions for the witness. Okay, anyone on the board have questions for the witness?

I have a question. This was addressed elsewhere, but I just wanted to have it on the record. What is the purpose of the the fines and the violation notices and all that? What is your end goal here?

Compliance. So we would like to see the property brought back to where it was preexisting or to bring it into compliance with current codes. So whether that means get with an engineer to submit, uh, site plans that are showing paved vehicular surface areas and a stormwater detention system and buffers being maintained. We'll go that route, and we'll gladly work with the applicant on that. Otherwise, it needs to go back to where it was before the expansion occurred.

And your intent is not to make money on this deal?

No. So repeat what you would consider. You mentioned the buffers, the stormwater.

Yeah, so you have the buffers, the stormwater, you'll have the driveways, so any like vehicular surface areas, parking, maneuverability, loading facilities, they need to meet current code as they have expanded. And then either way, the junkyard slash salvage yard use has to go unless they go through a conditional rezoning which would then go back to y'all under a separate hat and would ultimately go to town council for approval. Even then, with the conditional rezoning, you still have a site-specific plan showing where areas are going to be laid out and how things are going to occur, where they're requesting any kind of reprieve from certain sections of the UDO.

Different question. The preexisting buildings, the former chicken hatchery and the other buildings that were there existing in 2006, are they structurally sound? The pictures are showing that it looked like they could use some some work.

I am not an expert in any kind of building code or anything like that, so I cannot speak to that.

Anyone else?

One more. When we talk about returning it potentially to previous, like basically rewinding it to 2006 and getting it under those standards, what kind of, regardless of what, as you talk about, you're not in it, the fines are not what's most important, what do y'all consider would be a potentially reasonable timeline

I mean, we're looking at June 1st right now. The initial conversation occurred on September 23rd. Depends on what your definition of reasonable is. What we've ran into in the past based on trying not to assess fines or whatever the case may be, depending on what the situation entailed, is as a town we have certain statutes of limitations for enforcement. and so if it gets outside of those statutes of limitations then we we can't touch those areas okay if site plans were submitted does that stop the clock in terms of fines accruing that would be up to the director who just stepped out If in good faith, we know that they are working with somebody and they have an engineer that's reaching out to us and in contact every week, every other week, giving us an update of what's going on, asking questions. Yes, we have seen that in the past. but they still have to be working towards compliance for the other items. So, you know, have to be removing things out of buffers, have to be removing the junk salvage yard, things of that nature.

So you'd be looking for progress?

Yeah, but progress is a very loose term. You know, we were asked by the applicant what progress entails. And what we had seen in the past is if we give that one initial thing of what progress is, then that's the bare minimum that they are doing, nothing more, nothing less throughout the course. At the end of the day, we want to see compliance for one way or another. So I don't know that we can bring it back to a 2006 hatchery based on statute of limitations, but there are still things that can be done to bring it back into relative compliance based on what we're legally allowed to do.

Okay, understood.

I'm sorry. You are going to be able to come up and give a statement or testify. So the way it's going to work is if you have questions for the witness, you can do that. The town will finish presenting their evidence. And then you'll have an opportunity to present your own evidence. For the for the witness. Okay.

Please come up to the microphone.

Yeah. And he's already been sworn in. Is that right? You've already been sworn in? Well, you're asking the question, so it doesn't.

One of the things that I would like to say, though, is in 2006, It wasn't a hatchery. It was purchased as a working warehouse. I just wanted to, you know, so that was my question. Like, you know, I don't know where you guys got that information that it was a hatchery, but it wasn't.

The only other evidence from the town would be are you asking at the end of all of this that the board adopt your proposed findings of fact that's listed in your staff report one through 13? Yes, I am. I don't have any other questions.

No further questions from the board.

No, no.

All right. Mr. or Mrs. Martin, if you all have folks that you would like to call or if you'd like to come up and make statements on your own behalf, it's your opportunity here to present evidence. and if you could anyone that's coming up just please state your name before you start talking just so we have it for the record thank you so that would be this this list these are the folks that signed up and each of them so please state your name first josh and are you either the applicant or the homeowner okay Any objection to Mr. Martin providing testimony or evidence from the town?

Okay.

Please speak into the microphone. Just holding it doesn't work. You have to speak into it.

What I'd like to, I guess the timeline I'd like to address first. We were notified. There were multiple conversations and then the The actual sale of the property came up. And we were told not to do anything until the sale of the property. So we didn't. I mean, just talking about the timeline, it made me feel like we weren't doing anything out there. And we weren't told to do anything until the sale went through. Unfortunately, it didn't go through. And then the very next day, we reached out. to tell them that it wouldn't go through or wasn't going through and what we needed to do to show progress. And then we had a meeting and they came out there and it was my mother. Yeah, and then I think another individual and the tenant with the trucking company. And they told us to show progress by that date and You know, there was three things to clean up the outside of the property with the trucking company, remove cars on the eastern side, and then at the front of the property, remove those cars. I removed those cars and put them in the building. They said out of sight, out of mind, you know, so that was one thing I did and removed the cars from the front of the property. And I mean, it might not look like much, but picking up all that stuff that Andre did out there, that was a lot. Because there's a lot out there. With that being said, what's going to happen in our eyes is not conforming to all this other stuff. It was going back to 2006, I guess is what everybody's saying. you know, kind of draw back what had gone on out there. So, you know, that's why I was talking to Rodney and everybody saying that we were just going to, you know, the trucking company was going to leave. We just had to come up with a firm date for him to move that operation. It's not a small operation. And that's really what we're, you know, waiting on to do. Because once he finds another place to go, the majority of our problems are going to be done. Then we just have to conform to the impervious surface, the gravel. We've got to come up with how much gravel needs to be removed and either hauled off or used on other sections of the parking lot. So yeah, that's the plan for us, is not to do all this stormwater retention. And it's to just go back to the way it was. That's why I keep saying the... The grandfather, I mean, I don't know much about it, but ripped down that little lean-to that was built without a permit. That's what we were told to do, to remove that, remove the gravel, and no longer have the trucking company there. And then we'd be fine. And that's what we plan on doing. We just got to come up with a date. So that's really all I had. You got anything? That's everything you've got? Yeah.

Does the town have any cross-examination?

How many tenants are out there?

Five.

The trucking company, when is the lease set to expire?

It expired last month.

And how much does that tenant pay per month?

I couldn't tell you. $5,500.

If the lease expired yesterday, what action, if any, have you taken to get him removed from the property? Have you sent him notice?

So when we did talk about the sale of the property and when it fell through, we did notify that we weren't going to renew his lease because that was what we were told, that he can't be there. So we notified him. I don't know the exact date, but it was shortly after the sale fell through.

And you had an opportunity to see all the various photographs that the town introduced. Um, okay. So there's the trucking company who are the four other tenants.

There's a guy up front that does, um, like body work, barnyard customs, uh, granite guy.

Okay. Let's go one by one. Um, So, I mean, is your plan for that the body work barnyard customs to stay on the property that.

Yes. I mean, everybody keeps saying that it was a hatchery in 2006. It was not. It was bought as a working warehouse. It had tenants in it like Altel was out there. They stored their stuff. There was two iron workers out there. You can look at your own pictures from 2006. He's got he had big forklifts with steel. that was parked outside. He had his semi trucks that were parked out there. I don't know if you want to pull those up. No.

When did that tenant start leasing property?

That tenant was there prior to 2006. It was bought with him in there. The iron worker?

OK, and how much does he pay per month?

The iron worker is not there anymore.

OK, so so. The truck trucking company that should be ending the iron worker, he's gone, are his materials gone?

No, so it's like somebody rents an apartment and then they move out, you re-rent the apartment. That's how it was done.

Who's there now in his space?

In his space? The one space would be the granite company.

Okay. And you heard Tyler's testimony about the granite company, that it can't be stored out there without being covered.

And I've had conversations with the state saying that we need to cover it. And then that's when I got with Rodney saying, hey, you know, she's telling me I got to cover it. Do I need a permit to put up something to cover it? Can I just put a carport? And we actually had that discussion when he came out and took the picture showing progress or whatever. And he told me not to do anything until he got back with me talking to Tyler about putting up possible coverings for it.

Okay. And you understand now being here today that anything you do, anything you build out there, anything you store, you need a site specific development plan and you need to need to comply with the town ordinances as they exist today. OK. And you're prepared to do that.

Comply now.

Right.

Well, I mean, I don't I don't know what you mean by that. I'm talking about taking it back to 2006, like see all that stuff that's outside right there, all that iron stuff. I mean it left, but it's in the same place as the, the, uh, the other outside storage. So, I mean, are you saying that since he left with the iron work that we have somebody else put a different type of material there, we can't do that anymore.

Well, what documents do you have or what evidence do you have that that was allowed in 2006? Just because you did it in 2006 does not mean it was legal or performing.

Yeah, I didn't do it. I mean, it was bought that way. So, I mean, you think that when you buy something and it's being done.

But you didn't ask for any zoning permits?

I didn't know you needed zoning permits. I mean, it was when they first called me and were talking about it was with the gravel and stuff. And he was like, you put some gravel out there. And I was like, yeah, we were filling in holes. And I did that. That was the first of my knowledge that you can grab one property.

And who's the third tenant?

So I said Barnyard Customs, you got the granite guy. There's a like a ceiling agent. He just he just does like under crawl space ceiling.

Okay, he doesn't do that at your property.

No, he just, yeah, there's a room and he just stores his stuff there. Okay. And then there's a DJ that stores sound equipment. That's it.

Okay. And where do they store their equipment?

In the big building.

Okay.

Yeah, that's 19,000 square foot. It's just, it was all broke up into... rooms when it was purchased in 2006 and it was rented as individual spots.

And did you dig a trench on the property or do you know if you someone did to change the flow of water?

We that pond right there. If you go back. So it When we had our first initial meeting here, they said that that was a stormwater retention pond, and I told them that it wasn't. It was there when we purchased the place, but there was a letter given by the town or somebody. It had a seal on it. When my parents first bought the place, it said it could be removed and used for land use. So that's what we had done there.

You removed the pond? Okay. And you understand now under the town's stormwater ordinance and regulations, any time you add impervious surface, you need permission from the town. And what are you paying right now as your stormwater fee?

I couldn't tell you.

Is it based on the calculations in 2006 and not the impervious surface area today?

I couldn't tell you.

I don't have anything further.

Does anyone on the board have questions for Mr. Martin?

Is there a dumpster business that was mentioned? Is that one of the businesses too? Okay, just to make sure.

This picture that's up here right now where the trench was dug lower than the fence line, what was that done for?

I couldn't tell you. I didn't dig it.

Has the trucking company moved out? I know they're at least expired.

No, so that's when I go back to saying they had to give us a date. We all were out there talking, and... It was before we showed progress, and he was like, you know, they got to get out. And I was like, well, how much time are we going to give them to get out? It's 30 days to move an operation like that. If you had a place to move it to, he wouldn't be renting from me. And so we wanted to come up with a date. You know, is it 30 days, 60 days, 90 days? What? You know, that's the only thing we were doing. But 100%, he's going to be moving. We're not going to be.

Well, when did you inform him that his lease was expiring May 31st?

So that was right after the sale fell through. I don't know the exact date.

So March of more than 30 days before his lease expired. Mm-hmm. So it's not a surprise to him that he needs to move out?

No. I mean, we all had that conversation. Those pictures, I mean, I think it looks a whole lot worse up there than what it really does, but he's been moving some stuff. I've talked to him, and he has been looking for a place. I mean, you just can't go out and get yourself in the same situation here. You've got to make sure you, I guess, find a piece of property that can –

you can do that on you know well i understand just moving the the things that will move on their own that's going to take a little while the other junk and i'll call it what it is because it is just junk that's going to take a while too because that's a lot of junk there well i mean i i got faith in him he's got a bunch of trucks you know they can haul that stuff i mean i i

yeah i mean he has enough empty trailers there he should be able to load it up and go within a week or two the junk you're talking about i don't know if he can come up here and speak to it like he's in the business to fix his own truck so those are like usable parts you know those axles and stuff it doesn't matter about being outside you know i was a mechanic in the marine corps like he uses all that stuff to fix his trucks and it's just sitting outside. I mean, it is, you know, not the prettiest thing in the world, but one man's junk, he's another man's treasure. I mean, he uses that stuff to fix his trucks. So he's going to have to find a place for it, not just take it to the scrap yard because he could be losing a bunch of money.

Yeah.

I've been to salvage yards and made use of theirs, but those are specific places that are allowed to have those things. And If you're not a junk salvage yard, you can't have that sort of collection, even if you are going to use it. The question that I would have is, okay, when is all this? I understand you want to get it cleaned up and okay, that's great, but we can't give you forever and a day to get it done. Yeah. And it's your property, and if somebody is there rent-free, because you told them your lease is up, you should be putting some pressure on them.

And that's what I was talking to them about. I don't want to be that way to them, but it was pretty much like our livelihood, I was describing, is in jeopardy. And I hate to strong-arm or put pressure on somebody, but if I have to go to... file eviction because he's not gone, and then speed the process up there. I mean, we'll do that. I don't want to. I don't think that's the right thing to do.

Well, sometimes you have to light a fire under somebody.

Yeah, I understand. But I still, you know, I just don't feel right doing it. But if I'm told I have to do it, then I will before we spend $9,000 a month in fines. You know what I mean? I don't know if we could, I don't know who we talk to about getting some kind of agreement to see what we can do to have him find a spot, what kind of timeline. You know, I don't know. But we—I guess that is an option to move forward with.

I have a question. So it looks like the first contact was made in September, but then—and then multiple attempts were made to reach you all, but not until December did they hear back. How come there was no response in that three-month timeframe?

From what I can understand is it was under contract and we weren't told to do anything, is that correct? I can tell you this right now, I for sure have just not answered the phone because I'm dodging people. I've always said, hey, I'm gonna do whatever we can to get this taken care of. I'm never trying to dodge people.

Okay. And then I think just to clarify a question earlier from the attorney, the you had stated that you were in touch about the granite and you know, what can you put over it to address that? And I think what the attorney was trying to clarify was that you understand that anything new that you put on the property does have to conform. Yes.

And that's why I talked to Rodney and said, hey, you know, what do I need to do? Because I don't want to go put up a carport or It's just something to cover it and then be in the same situation with that. And he told me just to hold tight. He's going to get with Tyler and they were going to say the next set of things that I had to accomplish to show progress.

Okay. With the exception of the trucking company moving out, how long would you anticipate or would you need to come into conform into compliance?

Um, so the trucking company is going to be like the majority of it. I mean, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the trucking company is probably 85, 75. That's, you know what I mean? So as soon as that happened, I mean, we could go out there and you could tell me everything else that I need to do. Um, just, just so I'm under your understanding when that happens, Then, and this is what I've kept saying the whole time to them, is we would just need to tear down the building that was built, or lane two, whatever it is, move the gravel, and what was the third thing? Cover the granite. Yeah, cover the granite.

Parking. The parking. The parking.

Well, yeah.

So going back to the stormwater retention pond, do you have any evidence to show that you were told that it was OK to remove that?

Yes, we have. We gave it. We gave it to the towns in here.

OK, Tyler, you have that.

Is that something you want to section as evidence? Any, any objections from the town? Yeah, probably take a look at it.

That that was given in at the time of the sale of the property in 2006.

That's something that conforms to the the town's regulations about stormwater.

If I may read it, since there's only one copy, it's dated June 30th of 1997. The letterhead is USDA NRCS, United States Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources, Conservation Services, 604 Lancaster Avenue in Monroe. And it's directed to Pruitt Garmin at 4825 Pioneer Lane Dear sir, this is to provide information about the small waste storage pond utilized while your property in Indian trail was used for a hatchery for chickens. This waste pond is regulated by the ag portion of NC's 200 legislation with nitrogen being the limited nutrient. No hazardous material or heavy metals are a part of the Effluent and typical disposal consists of application to pasture or crop land at agronomic rates. Analysis of the effluent in 1995 showed or a tenth pound of nitrogen per 1000 gallons. In the event of closure of the hatchery, the waste pond must be maintained or removed. Typical closure of the waste pond would consist of removal of all the effluent and application to pasture or cropland by irrigation or tanker. After waste removal, the storage pond can be turned into a fresh water pond or filled for other land use. Sincerely, Phil Laundermilk, District Conservationist, Monroe Field Office.

Okay, no, I don't need to see it.

Is this your only copy? You can have it. Okay.

That's our only one, sorry.

Do you have any objection to this being entered into evidence? No. Okay.

Okay, so how does the removal, Tyler, how does the removal of that pond add to the stormwater issues in that area?

When I had conversations with Todd about this initially, he had the same understanding that it was not a stormwater detention pond. That's the first I've actually seen of this letter. So I don't have issues with the pond itself being filled in with pervious material, but it's all of the additional gravel that has been added on top of it since with vehicles driving over it that has created the need for stormwater detention. Does that answer your question?

Yes. How long has the trucking company been a tenant with you? So about 2014? So you would have seen how they were adding to the spreading of area with the pieces of cars and all of the things that he uses. Did you speak with him at any point in time about more appropriate storage or anything like that?

When that pond was taken out, I couldn't even tell you how long ago it was. It was just flat land, and he had started with a few dump trucks and then needed more land. And that's where another, like I don't want to say issue, but a disagreement. The gravel that was added would be that pond. If you see in that picture right there, it's got trailers right there. You come in the driveway and then directly to the right, you see those trailers right there. That right there. So that was a hard gravel surface coming in where those trailers were parking. And then going down the chicken barn, right there where your hand is that had some gravel it's just grass was growing up in it and on the other side of the chicken barn right probably a little bit further down right not that that far probably about a little bit further than that but that that was gravel all in there um just grass had been growing on it because nobody had been parking on it um so i don't know what the square footage is for what we actually put and i don't know what you guys were saying was the 50 000 so that's I mean, I give you, we did put gravel on top of that pond, but there was a lot of gravel out there already.

Anything further from the board? All right. Mr. Martin, do you all have any other witnesses that you would like to present? Do you want to talk? Sir, if you could please state your name.

Yes, sir. My name is Andre Deschenko, and I'm the owner of the ASD, which is a tenant at 225 Down Road.

Okay.

Can you speak closer into the microphone? Yes, ma'am. Is that microphone on? Okay.

Okay, I don't see that name here.

Ah, okay.

Okay, thank you.

One second, sir. Any objection from the town? Go ahead.

So at this point, I just wanted to pretty much make things clear. And I'm guessing I'm the biggest problem out there. So I'm not asking for anything. I know one thing, that I will never make the same mistake I made doing things without actually getting a proper permit or going through proper channels. To to expand the business even if I'm some on somebody's property so Lack of knowledge that's for sure Lesson learned so at this point all I'm asking is I guess give me some time to relocate because I We don't have an option as of right now. We're working on it. The business reached to the certain point where it's not that easy to move it anywhere. It's a fairly large operation. And I wanted to bring up that we're servicing several areas in Union County, so we're working with Union County landfill pretty much. So we're servicing them at the landfill. We're providing a lot of aggregates to concrete companies around here. We're doing container freight and precast materials. So all of that is a pretty decent operation. We have about 50 plus employees that's with the company. It's not going to be that easy to move that operation from one location to another. First of all, I have to find a location that would be permanent for that use. That's all I'm asking at this point. It was a surprise for me to actually hear this as do not do anything before the sale. I don't know where it's coming from because I just don't really see how it could be put out like that. What if I purchase the land and it's not going to be approved for what I'm doing? by the town. So I feel like it's it's a red flag there. But again, I did my research from now on. I will not do that mistake again. As of right now, we're working That's in regards to relocating the business. We're working with the city of Stallings building a building in one of the business parks there. And just to make it clear how long it took us just to get to a clearing process and get the permits for all of that, it took us almost three years. So that's from the time we purchased the land to the time where they're doing a final review of the project. So I'm not saying that it will take me three years to relocate the business, but it will not take me two months to actually do it. It's definitely going to take longer than that. So that's all I have.

Any questions from the town?

Yes. When did you first start renting the property out there?

Um, as it was said, uh, probably 10 years ago, 10, 10, 12 years ago.

Okay. And of the 4.12 acre parcel, how much of that was in your lease agreement or what, what size I started only with two trucks.

Yes. Um, but as I was growing, um, it's not like I was doing anything out there without a permission.

So, but who gave you permission delay?

Well, I was given permission by the property owner.

By the property owner. Okay. Not the town.

No, ma'am. Okay.

I don't have anything further.

Mr. Martin, do you have any questions for the witness? Okay. Anyone on the board have questions? I should ask Mrs. Martin. I'm sorry. Do you have questions? Anyone on the board?

No. I have a question on the I understand it takes a while to find a new place, especially where to store that many vehicles and all that. However, the extra parts and pieces that you have sitting there. I also know that depending upon where you move, that may or may not be allowed, just depending on you know because you're going to show up with this stuff and they may say okay or maybe not I don't know but while you are waiting for the new place to move to what can you do with these remnants of vehicles that is just

scattered about here. Could you use the word junk? That's fine. It's not the junk to me, but it is a work in progress. I can guarantee you that it might not look like that we're doing anything, but we are. And as Josh was saying, Yes, we are building some of that equipment that we're using, and that's why some of the parts are there. But even though it is, we do have a value in that junk, but I am willing to get rid of it and scrap it just to become in compliance and maybe earn an extension that I'm asking. So if I need to get rid of it and scrap it, I will do so. And it will not look like that the way it is right now. Well, which is we scrapped a lot of it for that same reason, just to make the property look a lot better. But we will continue working on it and get rid of all of it. And it will be only vehicles or the trucks that we're using on the road to provide services to the customers.

Have you started to look for a new location?

Yes, ma'am, I did. And again, it's not that easy just to... We are tractor-trailers. So just to explain why it's not easy is because we're a lot larger than other companies. Let's say if it's a dump truck, it's a smaller vehicle. We're a lot longer, and we just need a lot more space. So we're sitting at probably 40-something trucks. And the trailers that you guys see, that's not a trailer that we're not using. It's the trailers that we're switching back and forth to provide services to customers. A lot of the trailers, they're not there. As I was mentioning, we have a large operation in Denver, North Carolina, so we have 26 trailers that's sitting at customer's yard that we're not bringing to Garmin, just simply because there is not enough space. We have container freight that's sitting at the Westinghouse in Charlotte that we're not bringing back to Garmin because there's not enough space and there's 15 containers there. All the trailers that's in Union County and Union County Landfill, I mean there's 20 something trailers out there too that we're not bringing to Garmin. So there's only, most of the time it's only the trailers that don't need to be at customers, or there's no room at customers, we bring them back to guard. So, yeah, we're just a lot larger, and we need a lot more space to operate.

So your lease expired, was it yesterday on May 31st? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Were you anticipating that the lease was going to be renewed or if you were wondering about it, why didn't you start looking for another place earlier?

no ma'am i knew that the lease is expiring and we uh we spoke with josh about that but we were waiting for this meeting or any sort of meeting with town to ask for extension but i briefly spoke with uh josh about that extension and uh at one point uh tyler and mr rodney was there pretty much we spoke about that and i i was telling them that i do need extension to relocate. And I did mention that it's not going to take me two weeks. It's not going to take you two months. It might take me six months to actually get it done.

That's the minimum.

Were you the tenant that had the property under contract to buy?

Yes, ma'am.

And did it fall through because I'm just guessing, did the property not appraise for what you had it under contract for to be quite honest?

Yes.

And did you have any other negotiations with the, the Martins to purchase it for what it actually appraised for?

I mean, I made the attempt, but I mean, everyone has their own value of things. And I mean, I wasn't it wasn't successful.

All right. Mr. Martin, do you have any any other witnesses you'd like to call? All right. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that contends that they have standing who would like to testify or present evidence of some kind?

Yes, ma'am.

Yes. If you could just come up, tell us your name, and explain to us the basis. She needs a microphone. I think the microphone's right here on the table. And explain to us the basis of your standing.

My name is Angela Pardee and I'm owner of the property that's labeled Zero Garmin Road. It's 18.317 acres of land due south to southwest of the property that we're discussing. And my family's owned that for 24 years. It's currently held in an LLC called Union Pioneer LLC. That's different from a historical owner that was named Watts Pioneer. It's not related, but just to avoid confusion.

Thank you, and I'm sorry, just very briefly, any objection from the town of, any objection, Mr. Martin, of her providing testimony? Does the board have any issue with her providing testimony? No. All right, please proceed, ma'am.

All right, I'm speaking as a person standing based on stormwater. We have a unique situation on my land. It's adjacent to this property. It's downstream. It's down downhill. And in addition to that, we have two ponds at the property just right at the property line. And so we're in jeopardy of that stormwater. On top of that, though, And we got the land surveyed in December of 25, and we were walking the perimeter of the survey and found this trench.

This is what you're seeing now.

This is a view from my side looking up. It's zoomed in, so it shows the cut roots and the fence segment removed. But this worried me quite a lot.

knowing that the water was diverting into my land and into the lower pond.

And what I was most concerned about is just not knowing what contaminants from this property, what pollutants might be getting in there, what erosion might occur, what water disturbance might occur. I just had so many questions. I was so concerned about it. And I didn't know, really, I didn't know at the time about these violations or the impervious surface that's been identified. But I was concerned enough about this, this one piece of evidence. So I consulted an environmental engineering firm, and that's my second piece of evidence is their report. but I'm not an expert in environmental engineering, so I brought him here to review those findings for you just to clarify and to explain to everyone what the significance of that is for us. So in summary, I would just request that the owners and the town work together and resolve that trench, the drainage trench and also in context with stormwater mitigation. And in addition to that, I would request this stormwater not be minimized because it's really significant to the surrounding owners and to the downstream properties. So the longer it's delayed, the more risk we are at for our property. So I really request attention to that. Should I get the engineer to come up next or how do you want to do it?

I have a question. Sure. Have you seen an increase in the water problems on your property over the last year, two years, three years? At what point did you find that things had changed?

There's a lot of issues with the water in our property. The two ponds have changed in size. You can outline the upper pond. You can probably see that on Google Earth or the photographs that you have. Again, water flow into the ponds is another problem. It can attract beavers, and so we have beavers in there now, and it's just a lot of focus that we wanna do on the ponds themselves, but the stormwater issue is certainly something to address to start with that. But the report will go into a bit about the turbidity and stuff entering the ponds as well.

So was that trench there, did it appear suddenly?

Well, the first time that I noticed it was in December of 25, walking the perimeter after the survey. But it is in the back corner. It's right here. It's going from that parking lot that you've seen. And it's in the area where the pond used to be. And so it's back in that back corner.

I think you've sort of got it.

You've got a marker close to it right there. But that's when I first noticed it. So I don't, and you can't tell for sure on Google Earth, but you can see the cut roots still.

How long have you had the property for?

24 years.

Was that trench there prior? No. Okay.

I don't know at what point it occurred, but it wasn't there in the beginning.

All right, thank you.

Does town have any questions? Mr. Martin, do you have any questions for this witness? All right. I think you indicated you have an engineer that you'd like to, and you all, he's been sworn in as well, correct? Okay. Okay.

My name is David Hanley. I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of North Carolina. I work for Hanley Environmental, and I'm here on behalf of the southern property owner that Angela just mentioned. I can go ahead and kind of give a quick summary of this assessment. So as Angela mentioned, the southwestern adjoining property is down gradient topographically. So stormwater from 225 Garmin Road flows down toward the site. And we've discussed the trench that you've seen, what we've found. We were asked to do an evaluation of this from the adjoining property. So we did that in February of this year and are summarizing this report in March of this year. In general, I think the findings are that my opinion is that the stormwater flow from the adjoining property onto the property, the Southwest is having a negative impact on the ponds on that property, primarily in terms of sedimentation into the pond, so the discharge of sediment that's originating from the neighboring property. So we performed a site visit in February during a rain event to see conditions during that time, and what we observed was that even during this, it was a relatively minor rain event, a total of about 0.1 inches. We observed flow from this trench that was originating from the adjoining property, which then traveled down and into the pond on the neighboring property. The water was observed to be turbid. It was brown or tan in color, which suggests that it's carrying significant amount of sediment. And in the location where it discharges into the pond, we found that it was visibly more turbid. You could see that the sediment was accumulating and originating from this trench and passing into the pond. We did collect a sample of the water that was discharging into the pond, analyzed it for a few different things and the results showed that the total suspended solids, which is a measure of the amount of sediment that's in the water that was discharging into the pond, was 85 milligrams per liter, which is a moderate to high concentration. We compared it to a benchmark value of 100, which if a site has a stormwater permit from the state, that's typical. That's often used as a benchmark where above that may be considered a violation where they'd have to take some action to address it. So during this relatively minor rain event, we were at 85, which is somewhat elevated. Let's see, I think that in the context of The history of the site next door, the 225 Garmin Road property, as we've discussed and we've seen that it has been developed over time since up till about 2008, there was a pond there which was subsequently filled in that pond, whether or not it served as a stormwater pond would serve to prevent runoff, whether or not it was intended to be a stormwater pond would serve to prevent runoff and then Over time, especially since 2020, looking at aerial photos, the amount of impervious surface increased significantly, which is going to significantly increase the amount of runoff that's going to flow down towards the south. Since that trench has been cut, it's all being funneled into one conveyance. This is not like an engineered stormwater discharge or conveyance. It's a trench that's been cut, and so it's carrying sediment and any contaminants. We saw photos earlier of some potentially oil, some discolored puddle on the property. That type of thing is going to flow with stormwater onto the adjoining property into the pond. And so the purpose of having the development plan as things expand that that requirement for stormwater infrastructure is to specifically prevent situations like this. You know, the stormwater, the ordinance, the UDO describes the stormwater management permits. The objective is that all developments will be constructed and maintains that adjacent properties are not unreasonably burdened with surface waters as a result of such developments. And I think that's what we're seeing here. that because that didn't occur, it's my opinion that we're being negatively impacted on the neighboring property. So that's, yeah, that's my statement.

Any questions from the town?

Do you have an opinion as to what remediation or mitigation or what specifically I know you weren't hired to do that, but what the Martins, the owners of 225 Garmin Road can do to fix this problem?

I think if this were to go through a formal site development approval process, they would be asked to install stormwater infrastructure or something, probably along the lines of a stormwater detention basin. which would prevent the uncontrolled discharge of stormwater that we're seeing here. So like a basin where most of the stormwater from the impervious surface would be funneled and channeled to, which would then allow the sediment to settle out. It may, depending on the type, allow the stormwater to infiltrate into the ground, which helps to naturally filter out contaminants and that kind of thing. I do have concerns. There was discussion about restoring conditions back to 2006. Even if that's done, it would need to be done in a way that would need to be ensured to be protected from a stormwater standpoint. If you're taking up this impervious surface that has to be revegetated to prevent further runoff, things like this trench would need to be addressed to prevent that from channeling the flow as a conveyance onto the neighboring property. Um, in 2006, there was a pond on the site, which may have served in some sense as a stormwater, uh, stormwater pond that helped prevent, uh, runoff off the site.

Um, why don't you chat with the town engineer and ask the question on behalf of him okay and quickly mr martin do you have any questions anyone on the board

I do. So if this trench that was looks like is relatively recent because it doesn't have a whole lot of vegetation growing on it, although that could be because there's a lot of runoff to keep it from growing anyway, if that was filled in. because that's obviously not natural. That was a manmade ditch cut through that dirt. If that was filled back in, would that make a difference at least today? And especially having the rains that we had Saturday, I'm sure that was a river going through there.

I think it could help to prevent run off onto this neighboring property, it wouldn't be necessarily a long-term solution. I'm sure it would lead to either flooding on the 225 property or just causing that to run off in another direction somewhere. So yeah, it might help this issue, but it wouldn't be a permanent solution.

Mr. Hanley, I know you've talked about the oil in the adjoining property, but can you go over some of the points that Waypoint Analytical brought up, maybe in a little bit of detail for those of us that aren't as familiar with the chemical compounds?

Talk about the analytical results? Correct. Sure.

You mentioned the specific, hold on a second, I'm looking for the term. You talked about the suspended solids, but in flipping through, I just noticed the oil and grease was also pointed out in the analysis. Can you give us some context for that, please?

We analyzed for three different constituents and the reason we chose these was because these are often what's required on a stormwater permit from the state of North Carolina. There are many different things you can analyze for. The results, the first one we analyzed was pH, which is just a measure of If it's out of range, it can indicate different, stormwater may be impacted by different types of things or chemicals. The result of pH was 7.1 standard units, which is within the typical range for stormwater. So that didn't raise an alarm related to that specifically. I talked about total suspended solids, TSS, which is a measure of the The amount of sediment, that's probably the primary concern here when you're looking at impacts to the pond, where over time that's going to have a significant mass of sediment that ends up in that pond and results in infilling. Finally, we analyzed oil and grease, which something like runoff from residual, if you have a junkyard or a salvage yard where you get It rains, and if there's exposed oily parts, that'll run off. You might see that in stormwater. During this event, for this sample we collected, the oil and grease was not detected at a concentration above the detection limits. So there was no significant oil and grease impacts in the sample we collected. I'll note it can vary based on what's going on at a given time, based on the conditions of the rain event. This was a very minor rain event. You could have much more water flow in a more significant rain event.

Anything further?

Do you have an opinion as to a temporary fix?

I mean, I do think filling in the channel or the trench that's been cut would help prevent or reduce runoff into the neighboring pond and onto this property. So that would be a temporary fix. I think that would cause issues at two 25 Garmin road, at least, um, to do that. I don't know that there's a great temporary. Well, a couple of things that you can do, um, are erosion control devices that can be installed. If you have a location like this trench, um, whether it's a silt fence, probably a silt fence by itself, wouldn't, wouldn't hold up to the amount of water that's flowing through, but there are different things that you can do. in terms of their hay bales, for example. There's straw wattles, which are similar to hay bales, that help filter out sediment at an outfall. So that could be a good something like that. I think you could have an engineer look at it and come up with a solution as a temporary fix to put that in while a more permanent solution is coming in. So now that I'm talking about it and thinking about it, I think that's probably a better better temporary solution than filling in the trench itself in the near term.

And do you have an opinion as to whether or not this would qualify, um, as an illicit discharge per the town stroke mortar ordinance?

I haven't reviewed that enough to give an opinion on that. I don't know.

I have nothing further. Oh, one more question. Um, do you know whether or not there was a fence removed where the ditch was?

It looked to me, I believe there was a gate at that location that was opened.

I don't have anything further.

Ms. Pardee, would you like to enter these materials into evidence that you presented? Any objections from the town? Any objections, Mr. Martin? All right. Thank you, sir.

Would you like to call a five-minute recess?

Okay.