Town Council - Regular Meeting

uh with three vehicles involved, four patients, everyone ended up okay. Uh it took us a couple of hours to get the roll backs in place to remove all the uh blockages. Uh I am happy to say that during the depth of the snowstorm, uh our uh firefighters on shift was with Cshift executed a successful cardiac save on a cardiac call in the middle of the night. uh with limited travel. One of our guys ended up riding in with an ambulance, but the patient made it in with a pulse and was back breathing. So, um it's been a very eventful time. We would just ask that everybody please, if you don't need to travel when we do have these slick roads, please stay home if at all possible. If you do have to travel, please allow extra space. Uh please drive defensively and avoid uh the backcountry roads, the narrow bridges. Uh, as always, if you do have a need uh with anything during inclement weather, you've got an emergency, our number is 911 and we will be glad to come and help in any way that we can. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Sam, for pitching.

Okay, the next uh item on the agenda is an evidentiary hearing. Uh this is something that oa uh o occurs occasionally in the town. uh we all of us have had some improved training. We've read a lot so and and uh hopefully we will do a little better job than we did trying it a couple of meetings ago. Um so uh we will begin that that process of the evidentiary hearing of special use permit case SUP 25001. Now, uh before we do that, I'd like to make some opening comments uh about this uh this particular special use uh case. Uh it is a request for an event center in the RS40 zoning district. I to help the public and this council, I'd like to offer comments that clearly uh help everyone understand the quasi judicial process which means the council must uh base its decision solely on competent, relevant and substantial evidence. This includes written materials submitted by the applicant and available on the town's website. Sworn testimony from the applicant or their representatives. Sworn testimony from others who can offer relevant facts. As part of this process, council must identify factual findings known as findings of fact and then determine whether the application of those meet the town's requirements for

event centers under section 30-1048 of the town ordinances as well as the general conditions for special use permits under section 30-302. These standards exist to ensure that any special use permit is compatible with the surrounding area which in this case is an R40 R-40 residential district. Council cannot base its decisions on our personal opinion or the opinion of those who speak tonight. We are limited to considering factual evidence that is competent, relevant, and substantial. and that that directly addresses our ordinance requirements. The testimony council may consider is also limited. Council may hear from the applicant, town staff, members of the public who can show standing, meaning they will suffer special damages or provide relevant facts and expert witnesses. All testimony is at the direction of councel guided by our town attorney, Mr. Thomas must be taken under oath and is legally binding. Because of these restrictions, we may not be able to hear from everyone who wishes to speak. Even so, the process is impartial and fully open to the public. If you do speak, whether it is in support or in opposition, please focus solely on facts and ordinance standards, not personal preferences. Council may only consider evidence tied directly to the relevant sections of our ordinances. After testimony concludes, council will have an opportunity to ask questions and deliberate. At the conclusion of

deliberation, council may approve, approve with conditions, deny, or continue the hearing to a date certain. There's some disclosures. Before beginning consideration of special use permit 25-01, I need to ask council a few required disclosure questions. Number one is about conflict of interest. Because the parties in this case are entitled to an impartial hearing, a council member may not participate if they have a fixed opinion on the outcome and financial interest in the outcome and have a close family bit family, business or other relationship with the applicant or an affected person. Does any council member have a conflict or believe they should recuse themselves? Mr. Greon,

no. Miss Snder, no. Mr. Mr. Stone, no. Miss Clark, no. And I don't either. The second issue is exparte communications. Please disclose any experte communications regarding this case, meaning any communication outside this hearing, including site visits, conversations with the applicant, staff, or members of the public. Do any council members have experte communications to disclose? Miss Clark. Um I've just had conversations with staff about the uh procedure of such a hearing. Um as well as general ordinance questions. That's it.

Mr. Stone. Um I've have visited the site and I've talked with staff about this and also I've received um phone calls from uh interested residents of which I only spoke about the procedures that we'll follow tonight. Miss Snyder, basically the same thing. Extensive conversations with staff. Um, and our meeting, our special called meeting the other day about the procedures and I've heard from a couple people and I've just said it's quasi judicial hearing. Uh, I have to save my comments till then. Mr. Greson,

I did receive an email that I read. This is the part. Uh, soon as I knew what it was about, I shut it down and deleted it. And uh like the others uh I have spoken with staff and we did have a training session the other day at a special called the meeting. Uh based on these disclosures, does any member of council wish to object Oh, excuse me. Uh does um Okay, so we've disclosed them. Uh based on these disclosures, does any member of council wish to object to another council member's participation? Mr. Griezen? No. No. No. No. And I don't either.

Mayor, if I may acquire Mr. Stone, you visited the property. Yes, sir. That visit create in your mind any fixed idea about the way you would vote on this matter? No, sir. Anybody else visit the property? Like same question. Thank you very much.

Okay. All right. I think we're now ready for the staff presentation. Uh but I believe the town clerk would want to swear in the staff uh for this uh this event you're about to give. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. I do.

Okay. Mr. Taylor, would you like to begin? Before you do, I just want to call We have two very long sessions, so I will call a brief break between the two to at least allow council to clear their heads if and anything else that uh they choose at that moment. But uh we'll start with Mr. Taylor.

Uh members of council and to the uh interested residents that are here, we have an application for a special use permit for an event center in the RS40 zoning district. The RS40 residential single family district. The RS40 is primarily intended to accommodate single family detached dwellings on large lots in areas without access to public water and wastewater services. The district is established to promote single family detached residents where environmental features, public service capacities or soil characteristics necessitate low very low density single family development. The overall gross density in RS40 areas will typically be one unit per acre or less. The property is located at the southwestern side of the intersection of Oakidge Road and Bunch Road addressed as 2524 Oakidge Road being an Oakidge Township, Guilford County Tax Parcel 163046. The parcel is approximately 3.16 acres. It is currently owned and this we just received an update on this so I need to disclose this. The uh F2 Homes LLC. The owners of that changed uh this property over to another LLC that they do own and that is called Hopson Taylor Investments LLC. This is still the same group of people, just a different LLC in their name. So, the new ownership is Hopsson Taylor Investments LLC. The property is located in the scenic

corridor overlay district and the Greensboro GW3 wershed overlay. Land use around the existing land use around this parcel is to the north. To the north is RS30 residential. To the northeast is uh limited business which those two businesses are Haircraft and the Oakidge Florest. To the south is RS40 residential. To the east is RS40 residential and to the west is RS40 residential. The requested land use would change this property with the if a special use permit is approved. This would become RS40SP event center. Recommendation of the Oakidge future land use plan identifies this area as residential and historic properties. The current structure that the uh property owners or the applicants uh wish to use for this is considered the Donnell Honeyut house is inventoried by the town of Oakidge as an important historical structure having significant influence on the town's history. The home is considered to be National Register eligible. As we know in within the town of Oakidge, public water and public sewer are not currently available. The fire protection for this would be provided by the Oakidge Fire Department and it's approximately 2.4 miles from the fire station. the existing uh transportation counts along uh Oakidge Road near this and this Oakidge this count was taken near the military academy was 7,174

trips per day. Currently, no improvements are required by NC DO, but that is currently those could change when uh a site plan is approved for this by the planning and zoning board, and those would then have to be reviewed by DOT for a driveway permit. The topography for this site is gently rolling. It is not in a regulated flood plane and no streams are located within that. And as I said earlier, this is part of the Greensboro uh watershed. The applicant has reached out by sent letters to nearby property owners on Oakidge Road, Bunch Road, and within the neighboring subdivisions and has also um did a in-person meeting with interested residents in that uh in that area. Staff recommendations. During consideration of a special use permit, the town council must determine that the following findings of fact have been satisfied based upon relevant and credible evidence presented during the hearing. And that is the completion of my staff report. I present that uh as my staff fact to the council.

Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor, has the applicant formally requested that its application be amended to reflect the change in ownership? Yes. Um, mayor, I'd prefer the council act on that presumably by approving that request to amend the substantively. I understand there's no change in the application. There was no change in the application, just a change in one LLC to the other. So, do we require a motion for that? I would like that to be on record. Yes, sir.

Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we accept u that the application um includes a new owner name change to Austin Taylor Investment LLC. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I.

All opposed? Okay. Any further uh things from staff? All right. We're now to the point where the applicant testimony and argument uh occurs. So, we'll turn to the applicant and his representatives to present evidence and legal arguments in support of this request for a special use permit. As a reminder, please focus on rel relevant aspects and standards from my town ordinances. Uh town now this a just a question uh or would we swear in just the applicant portion or anyone else at this point that wishes to speak? I defer to uh Madame Clerk, Miss Smith on this, but at least all persons speaking on behalf of the applicant and its witnesses could be sworn in as a group.

Okay. If we're to move the hearing along. Okay. I agree with that. All right. Let's uh let's have the applicant testimony and anybody speaking for the applicant come forward and so uh the town clerk can swear you in. If you'd raise your right hand, place your other hand on the Bible.

In the testimony you're about to give, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you, God. I do. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. I'd just like to briefly introduce myself. My name is Marsh Prrowse. I'm a North Carolina licensed attorney. I represent both the applicant and the current property owner, which is also now the applicant pursuant to the amendment that you just adopted. And um honestly, um I'm not sure where you want me um while I'm conducting the direct examination of my witnesses. So, uh sir, I'm sorry. Could you give me your name again?

Sure. The first name is Marsh, M A R S H, and the last name is Prrowse, P R A U S E. And could I have your address for the record? Sure. My office address is 380 Nullwood. That's spelled K N O L L W O D Street, Sweet 700, Winston Salem 27403. So, back to um do you do you just want me to ask the questions from back here or is there a microphone you would like me to use? Thank you s I sorry I don't want to put anyone out but

turn this on. Why don't you sit here and then your witnesses can come to the microphone if that's okay. I think that way everyone will hear better. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Thomas. Okay, Mr. Browse, you can proceed.

Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, as the applicant's first witness, I'd like to call Josh Fogle.

Good evening, sir. Could you confirm your name, please, for the record? Uh Joshua Fogle, 12 Heathro Court, Greensboro, North Carolina. And um Mr. Fogle, you're familiar with the property at issue with respect to this special use permit. Is that right? I am. Could you please describe for council your role with respect to the property and and your familiarity with the property?

Yeah, sure. So, uh first of all, thanks for having us tonight. Um, we as a group, as a ownership group with through our LLC, F2 Homes, purchased this property about 18 months ago, give or take. um from the Pedo family. Um and we took ownership with the idea that we would potentially be salvaging this landmark in Oakidge hopefully uh with the intent to use it for an event space. We've now, you know, proceeded down this path with the uh new ordinance and everything else and and uh we're now here as an applicant for the special use permit, which is hopefully the uh final step before we can finalize construction and and uh get this thing active.

Thank Thank you for that, Mr. Fogle. you uh talk a little bit about the transition from the uh original applicant F2 Homes to the current applicant based on the amendment that council voted in favor of just now.

Sure. Yeah. So, um obviously when when we first purchased this property with the intent of of the renovation and and the subsequent use as a as a uh event space. uh we weren't fully aware of all the ins and outs and what we would have to do with council. So um the reason of the transfer is because in the original entity that we purchased the property in, we used a bridge loan to you know give us about 12 to 18 months um for you know permitting and uh uh ordinance and special use permit approval. uh when we were uh I guess continued back in December, we had to transfer to uh a new entity in order to obtain a new bridge loan uh to be able to finalize this process so that we could then go um and get the construction loan to finalize the the reconstruction of the property. Is it the same persons involved in the ownership of both F2 Homes LLC and Hobson Taylor Investments LLC?

That is correct. Yes. And and you are here as an authorized representative of both of those LLC's. That is correct. Okay. Um, real quickly, describe for me the role of uh Mr. Greco, who who we're going to be calling as a witness here next uh with respect to your uh redevelopment of this historic property.

Yeah. So um myself and the other ownership um representative within the within the entity um are very much construction uh people. We do historic construction reconstruction. We are very active in um Irving Park and Greensboro properties like that that that have uh are you know historic reconstruction is very specialized and it's something that that we do very regularly. Um however when it comes to this type of environment and uh understanding ordinances and town councils and zoning um that's not really our specialty. So, uh, we reached out to Mr. Greco because this is something that he deals with routinely, um, and routinely within within Oakidge. So, we asked him to come in and help us out a little bit with with this side of things.

And, and so, just to confirm, he's authorized to testify this evening on behalf of the applicant in this. Absolutely. He's been uh handinhand with us from the beginning. So, um, and and just keeping in mind that one of the factors the council is considering in connection with this hearing relates to the compatibility and the harmony of the proposed use uh with respect to the context in which the property sits. Could you just briefly um summarize uh the the you the use uh you know event center um um talk a little bit about your plans and and what that means.

So this is a property um look we've we've done extensive research on this property going all the way back to the Donnell's uh who we have spoken with the Honeyuts who we have spoken with. Um, this house has always been a fixture in the community. Uh, it's been used in the past for things like, uh, catilian classes. It's been used for, uh, fundraising events for the military academy. Um, it has been used for, uh, you know, other community events. It's been a It's been a place through especially through the late 70s to, you know, early 2000s where where people congregated. I mean, this was a very um this was a very well-known property and and a a family uh a multitude of families who invited people in. Um, so with that, you know, when we say event space, what we mean is somewhere that the community can gather, the community can utilize. Um, we have lots of ideas, but also, you know, this is going to be a space that could be utilized for a multitude of of gatherings, events, parties, um, to the community's benefit. So, really, that's what we're looking to do. We're really looking to return it to to kind of the the focal point that it was previously and we hope can be for for the foreseeable future. Well, thank you for that. Uh just real quick, too, can you confirm that Hobson Taylor Investments LLC is willing to accept the role consistent with the amendment uh by council as the applicant for purposes of this su uh special use permit moving forward?

I can. Yes. Okay. Uh, no further questions, Mr. Mayor, for this witness. I don't know if there's any uh cross exam. We'll keep going. Keep uh keep going then. But Mr. Thomas, mayor, again, this is quasi judicial. You sit as judges. You have the right to question witnesses yourself. This is not like public hearing where you let everybody speak and then you all discuss it afterwards. Okay. council has completed his examination. He's effectively tendering the witness either to opposing party which we haven't seen and he said or uh to this council. So if you have any questions you can ask that.

Mr. Grayson, do you have any not at this moment? Yeah, I do. I have a few questions. Um so it's exciting that you're trying to care for this historic building. Uh how specifically in terms of materials and practices are you preserving for instance the historic exterior of the building?

Um we're we're doing what we can within reason, right? So uh it will go back to a wood exterior. Um you know wood and painted. Um we are doing what we can with uh maintain maintaining some of the materials that we've removed from the site to bring it back. There's some you know stone stairways that we're trying to bring back. Uh we have preserved a lot of the original brick that we would like to reuse. Um honestly I think uh well we we didn't go back to a cedar roof so uh that was something that was a little difficult but you know we are maintaining a lot of the chimney structures um and we've gone back with with you know higher end higher level materials copper flashing things like that to really try to you know preserve that historic aspect of it. Um, so yeah, we we're doing what we can for sure and we're even repurposing some of the outuildings to bring that to the interior to to you know maintain as much of that history as we can.

And um what are the proposed hours of operation on week nights and weekends and holidays? Uh we we will follow whatever the ordinance requires. I I would I would point to council on that. I'm not 100% sure what the uh what the ordinance states, but we will follow all of the uh ordinances requirements. You anticipate being open seven days a week? I I'm just curious. I honestly I think I don't think the ordinance speaks to that.

Yeah, I I think you know um with an event space or or anything where where people can utilize it, we will make it available seven days a week. Whether it gets used and is open, I think that's, you know, to be determined. And what's the what are the key changes you're making in the interior for instance? What are the what is the sort of the interior going to be like and what's its capacity plan to be?

Yeah, I believe again the ordinance speaks to this what what the capacity regul or the application speaks to this. Um uh the interiors remaining very similar to what was available. We are moving some walls around. We had some structural issues obviously when we bought it. The house was in very very bad shape. Um so we had some structural issues we had to address. Um so you know things like the plaster and lad that was originally the house was built with we are maintaining it to the extent we can. Um but you know uh the lit the house was literally falling down around the around the uh foundation when we bought it. So we're we're doing what we can but um the layout of the house is not changing significantly from what it was when it was built or at least what it was when we bought it. I I don't know what was done.

Well, I'll stop and if um if the others don't ask the additional questions I have, I'll tack on a few at the end. I don't want to dominate this. Miss Clark. Um yeah, I just had questions uh about you mentioned um in regards to harmony with the surrounding environment uh and your plans. You said you researched that been used for um various events in the past. Uh you said catillian fundraising. Um so I guess I'm just curious how if this was back before an event center designation existed. I'm not sure who'd give kind of clarification on that uh and or you know how that was accommodated. Do you know the details of how that was facilitated at the time? I

I can only tell you what I heard from you know the families that owned it previous. Okay.

Um which is again I don't know if I mean it's okay. So uh yeah. So we were told you know the the military academy used to be dry. Um, so they would have fundraising events and uh staff events at the house because they could serve alcohol. So um that was when the Panos owned it back between, you know, the late 70s and up until we purchased it, but really I think in until the late 90s or early 2000s. Um, uh, Mrs. Panedo was a Catillian coach, so she held uh catillian classes on premises. As far as whether that was authorized or zoned, I I really can't speak to that. Do

you have any idea of uh the capacity that was at these uh previous events? I don't I I'm sorry. Okay, Mr. Stone. Yep. Um so and I'm going to ask similar questions um about interior capacity. Uh it you're I'm not understanding the the number. Okay. How many people are allowed to be in that house when completed at one time? Uh I think I I'll have to let Mr. But I think there's other

we do plan to uh conduct examination of Mr. Greco about those kind of u technical issues. Yep. I will say it says 150 on the uh site plan. Yeah, I was going to say I I believe it's 150. Um you know I from from the capacity on the interior I mean it's a 4800 square foot house. So it's not uh as completed 40 4,500 square feet as completed. Uh I I don't think 150 is is going to be an issue. In fact, I think it probably could could hold more, but

So all levels of the home will be used for public gathering.

Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. The entire the entire home will be will be available for public access. Um and you had mentioned that um the family invited community in the past into their home and then you said that the community this would be a place where the community can gather. Uh that sounds rather vague to me. Do you mean that the general public will be able to gather or the community? uh the community and the general public. I mean, we will offer it. There is no there is no restriction into who could utilize the premises. Um so hopefully I mean look we we envision as owners um having community events right open to uh the residents of Oakidge and surrounding areas. I mean, we know right down the street there's uh a house that does that. There's art. They do, you know, art galleries and things like that. We we absolutely envision um inviting everybody in. You know, we we want this to be a place that the community can utilize.

Thank you. Um and I guess I have a question. So the the previous uses, do you know if that was hosted solely inside the building or outside the building or any I can't speak to that. No, I don't know. I also know it was a private residence at the time. So I would assume that it was somewhat limited in access. So I don't know if you can answer this or we wait for Mr. Greco. Uh I'm I'm more interested in uh the issues of noise and light uh pollution. Can you comment on that or will Mr. Greco cover that?

He'll be able to comment better, but like I said, we will we will be well within, you know, the bounds of the ordinance as written. Um there is noise and uh other restrictions within the ordinance. So back to you, Mr. Would you possibly have outdoor bands at night? Again, um there is the potential for yeah outdoor um entertainment, but again there are there are decibel level restrictions within the ordinance that we will that we will abide by. Yeah.

And um parking. So I think there are 34 or 38 parking spaces and the assumption is that you can have up to four people per car but I it's kind of tricky because not everybody travels for to a car. Often people go as couples. So how will you have an area for drop off by uh you know things like Uber where cars can turn around and make drop offs? I I didn't really see that in that parking lot.

Uh I mean, you know, you can see the parking the parking there. There's definitely ability to pull in, drop off, back out, and pull out. Um it is the, you know, the idea. Look, the the four per parking and the 150, you know, uh allowed guests is is just driven by numbers by by uh ordinance and restrictions and DOT and things like that, right? We are meeting all of those requirements and that is what's driving the the numbers at this point.

And you referred to the house down the road. Are you talking about Gay Gables in Somefield? No. Uh there's a house uh on Oakidge Road that I have seen uh have attended uh some different like art events and things like that. Are you talking about Oakhurst, a private residence or Maple? Oh, it is a private residence. Yeah, Oakurst. Okay. Okay. So, your your LLC would potentially host uh host your own events where you would invite the public. And are you familiar with Gay Gables in Somerfield? Absolutely.

Okay. So, I think they do that sort of thing. So, you're envisioning that, but you're also envisioning that uh if I want to hold a retirement party for my husband, I can rent it and do that. or if uh his daughter wants to get married, that sort of thing. Or if I have a meeting with a lot of people, absolutely my business, I can do that. So, it's a whole range of events. And at this point, you don't know how those events will break down. We we don't I mean we can look at other event spaces around uh Greensboro, Winston, Somefield, you know, we can get some ideas, but we can't really speak to how that will break down. No.

Have you um and and I know you've said you're going to comply with all of the uh noise and all those sorts of things, but are you anticipating having sort of usage roles, sorry, usage rules both to both to protect yourself, but also to protect the surrounding neighborhoods from folks who might want to do on street ping. Do you

Oh, yeah. No, obviously that's, you know, The special use permit gives us very clear guidelines of what we can and cannot do. And in order to maintain that special use permit, we have to follow those guidelines. So yes, we will have we will have on-site staff anytime there is a third party event, we will have on-site staff that will ensure those requirements. So, you will I don't know if you've done this already, but you will think through how you will deal with any complaints or any uh renters who don't follow the rules. You've got your on-site staff, but sometimes

staff onsite security. We we've we've

Yeah, we've there are there are uh absolutely uh based on size and and things like that of of different events. There are uh I would say uh certain sizes and things like that that would would require additional staff um potentially different staff. You know, if you're having a, I don't know, a corporate event with 20 people, you know, maybe a event coordinator is adequate. If you're having a wedding of 150 people, uh, you're going to require a little different staff and obviously if that's third party, that cost would be passed on, you know, things like that. Uh this is very I think um this is this is very regular for event spaces and and things like that throughout throughout Guilford County. So

yes, and we've learned about that as well, but this is on a larger scale.

Um do you have experience managing this sort of event center? personally, but we do have uh a staff that that is very familiar with the industry and um that would you know that that understands how this is all works and has has done it at other venues in the past. Um and that's who will be running the the venue portion. And how do you feel that this event center is in harmony with the surrounding RS40 neighborhood that to date has had no kind of commercial entity right near right inside of it?

Well, I you know, we've we've spoken to the neighbors. Um I we've had we've we've even you know, we had a sort of a yard sale out out there. I don't know if you all are aware of this, but um there was quite a bit of of historic memorabilia in the house and we invited the community in. We you know it was an active construction zone so we could only show so much but you know we we had lots of the community come through and discussed our plans and and everybody was was very supportive of it. They were excited about it. They like the idea of it. I I would say we had very uh zero detraction on the day. That doesn't mean there's not detractors, right? But, you know, there was we had probably over 200 people come through that uh that event and and had unbelievable support again to the the the descendants of the Donnell's and the Honeyuts and um neighbors. We've spoken to neighbors. Everybody seems somewhat I I don't know if excited is the right word, but definitely supportive.

Thank you. I have another question on the parking. So, you're figuring four times 38, you get your number. What if you only have two and a half people in a car and you have a sellout event, 150 capacity? Where are you going to put those cars? That would be that would 2 and a half times 38 would be 95. Well, you got to have uh first of all, the capacity is driven by the by the parking spaces. So, so

so the if and and the people who would have the space would understand the capacity. So, if they can't fit all the cars, then they will have to they would definitely have to have, you know, Uber or Lift or somebody like that. I just want to make sure we don't get parking on 150 and Botch Road. Yeah, I don't think I don't think it's legal to park on 150. So, I don't think I know, but I can see you know how parties go. Wait a minute. If I'm not mistaken, there's supposed to be for overflow. There's supposed to be a parking plan for overflow. You don't have a parking plan for overflow.

We have We have spoken with the churches down the street. We have spoken with the property owners across the street. Again, uh we're not going to enter it into any contracts until we actually know we have a special use permit, but there are property owners that have discussed like if if we needed to overflow and and shuttle that we could do it. But again, we're not right now. This is, you know, it's a it's a capacity versus parking space issue. We've limited our capacity to the parking spaces provided and and obviously like I said we have staff on hand. We are discussing with surrounding property owners overflow capacity um if there was the situation where there was other people but otherwise we just tell them that they need to go park somewhere else and get an Uber. It's it's it is how most places handle uh overflow parking for sure. Um, I had a question as well as far as the uh previous events you said were hosted there. Uh, and the interior, you said you were kind of leaving it generally how it was. Are there interior gathering spaces already set up for this kind of event?

So, yeah, I mean it's a classic, you know, early 1900 style home. So, most of the house connects both upstairs and downstairs connects through. We are removing some wall like uh where there were French doors. We're making that an open partition. So you'll have a walkth through. Um uh similarly upstairs we're kind of taking very small bedrooms and turning it into you know a larger space. But um it's again it it it is how those houses were constructed. So, so I mean is there a event room like a gathering room or event room?

Yeah, we have a Sure. We have a larger event room. We have a smaller which we envision you know putting if you wanted a 50 person event you could put in there. We have a smaller kind of uh gathering space for what would be like corporate events things like that where you could fit maybe you know 20 people. Um there will be a kitchen. Um and then upstairs there's again uh multiple rooms where you could fit you know another again probably 100 people. You could easily fit more people than we will be allowed to have for the ordinance.

Did did I understand correctly and I want to put words in mouth. Did I understand correct said that if the attendance of an event exceeded the parking maximum, which is like 152 people, that you cap attendance? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. No, we're capped per the ordinance.

Any further questions? You're going to have someone at the door clicking off uh people coming in. Well, yeah. I mean, obviously if it's an event that would be of that size, I I I've envisioned very few events of that size, but if there were events of that size, my guess is that would be a wedding or something like that, then absolutely we would, you know, we first of all, we'd be arranging the tables, we'd be arranging the the place settings, we'd be arranging all of that. So, you know, uh many event many wedding venues, event spaces are are capped and yeah, we would monitor that monitor that for sure.

Um I did have a question. I'm not sure if it would go be directed towards you or staff. Um, so the the noise, so I'm referring to the uh section 301048 event center ordinance where it gives general requirements for event centers um not just for special use permits where it says noise, electronic amplified sound generated in conjunction with any event shall not be located within 100 ft of residentially zoned properties and not exceed 80 dB at any time. Do we know where that sound would be measured from? If that is measured at the speaker or at a certain distance or

that would be me measured from the adjacent property like if the resident if there's a resident and they were where the complaint is being made that resident can allow an officer on their property to measure those decibb from there and then also they can measure that from on site as well. I mean, I guess to ensure that let's say if there were an event to ensure that it was within that decel limit, I would imagine that there'd be perhaps staff on site or someone kind of managing that if there was amplified music. Usually from when I've been involved going back from the previous town I worked in when we had this uh type of thing. Usually what an officer would like to do instead of showing up on the site where the event is taken because usually that automatically somebody sees them coming and they turn the volume down and they don't have any evidence of what happened. So usually they'll come up to another property a measure from another property. So then they have evidence of such action and then that is their evidence they need to in this instance way our ordinance is written to shut that down.

So we follow the county ordinances on noise right? Well, on with this specific ordinance, we went a lot more restrictive where we made it actually nowhere else in our ordinance is there a place where a specific noise level is specified in decb, but they have also a a limit on what time at night. Is it 10? In the in their ordinance, it's 11:00. So, this is 9:00 for amplified music within this. Okay. So, the amplified events end at 9 p.m. and no outside activities conducted after 11 p.m.

Correct. So, Mr. Taylor, can you point me to a section of the ordinance that caps attendance that caps the uh the maximum number of people that could be on this property at one time for this?

Well, there's multiple things that one things that ways that it's capped. One is the limited amount of parking that was allowed within the parking specifications on this. That limited the amount of parking that could be put on site for this. And one of those is multiple factors. It limits the size of an event and it also limits the size of a parking area in a residential area next to in a with some type of use like this. But that cap

but what does but the things what determines your capacity is

the fire code is going to cap capacity within that house. And more than likely after experiencing with what we have with our own uh now with the farmhouse event center with that type of space uh in a historic house you're going to already be limited on multiple factors. One is the size of the space is number one, but there's also more things that they the building code looks at as far as like how the structure is up under those areas too. So if the structure is not built to support a certain weight, it cannot uh that would reduce capacity and more with this this being a historic house uh the chance of them there is no chance of them putting a 100 people within that house. It cannot

outside outside that is where that's where you get your cap capacity is with with them putting up a tent. And if you look at their site plan, they're limited on their tent size uh with an event like that. So you think that the fire department is going to limit the indoor capacity to more like a hundred? That would be up for the it wouldn't be the fire department. It' be the fire marshal for the fire marshal, right? Would that would for interior events would be limited. They they will set the fire marshall set the capacity on the interior of the house. I have another question.

So, do you uh think you would be open during the week for music outside? Uh during the Monday through Friday or Thursday? I I can't speak to that. I mean because I would be Well, I'm not going to say what that, but I just want to Yeah. I mean I I I really I really can't speak to that. I mean um outdoor events tend to take place on the weekends. I understand that. But yeah, but I mean we would again we would follow whatever restrictions are in place per the special use permit guidelines. Okay. Thank you.

Again, Mr. Taylor, I'm going to go back. Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but outside, if there's, let's pick a number. 100 people inside if that's what the fire marshall says the capacity is at for inside the house. How many people could be outside the house while those people are inside the house? That would there is no what would set that limit. If they had a tent set up outside, a large If they don't have a tent, they have

If they don't have a tent set up, then they're limited by the buffers and then that's where you follow the sound buffers and then um and all that and the sound the buffer of sound with that with the decibel levels. That does not just include uh music sound. That includes if it's a crowd making over 80 dB of noise that's counted too. So that justifies that too. So if I mean the people can't the crowd that is there cannot be screaming and hollering because that goes towards the decibel levels as well. That's limited on that. So it couldn't be you couldn't have a major rock concert there or any other type of large concert there because that decibel level is automatically eliminating that right there.

I understand that. But with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek we can but with but with the but with the crowd size they could have innumerable people outside. But but that's where with the parking and then with the uh I I do think when Mr. Greco speaks, he will address that. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you.

One final question. Uh does your LLC uh I assume there's one, but do your LLC's run any other event centers? Do our LLC's run any other? No. No, we do not. Thank you. Yep. Thank Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As our next witness, we'd like to call Mr. Greco to the stand.

Welcome back. Good evening, sir. If you could please state your full name and your business address for the record. My name is Bill Grio. I'm with Land Solutions. My address is PO Box 347 in Oakidge. I'm here tonight uh as a consultant to the applicant. Um Mr. Greco, could you summarize your professional background and credentials, please?

Uh quick summary as to uh special use permits. We have been in business in Oakidge since I think 97 approaching 97 98. uh have completed special use permitting uh on and off throughout that time. It's it's certainly not something that comes up every day, but uh we were part of the gardens at Gary Gables, which is Somefield, Somerfield Farms uh in Somerfield. And we recently completed a very very large facility uh project with a special use permit in Brown Summit. Do you have any professional licenses? Uh pls.

Can you explain what that stands for? Uh professional land surveyor. Thank you. Uh are you familiar with the development ordinance for the town of Oakidge? Yes, sir. Do you work with it on a regular basis? Weekly. Um do you consider yourself an expert with respect to the development of real property within the jurisdictional limits of the town of Oakidge? Yes. Have you worked on multiple structures and real estate developments within the boundaries of the town of Oakidge? I have. Yes. And again, that's for how long that you've been doing that?

Be the 29th year. So, moving beyond your general credentials, uh, and just if you you could briefly summarize your familiarity with this specific, uh, proposal. this proposal. As far as uh as far as myself, we've we've done this one completely in-house start to finish uh beginning with the text amendment uh following up with the site plan and the application and the uses developed there on. So, are you responsible for the development of the site plan for this? Yes.

And I call it a project. We we're talking about an application for a special use permit, but um talk a little bit about what you've done aside from the special use permit aspect of this if you could on this site. Yes.

Uh with with the design of any site, there are a number of factors to to take into consideration. There's all the natural factors with topography and waterheds and flood zones and those type of of issues. there's constructibility issues. Uh and then you certainly have uh volumes of regulations that must be analyzed to see if they're applicable to the site and if so, how can you make the site or the project uh meet that criteria?

Uh at this point, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to tender Mr. Greco as an expert witness in this proceeding based on his credentials and his his familiarity with this project and with the development ordinance. We'll be using him in that capacity, but also as a fact witness if that's acceptable. That's that's okay. Thank you. All right, Mr. Greco. Um I know you just heard the council ask a number of questions to Mr. Fogle. Um and maybe the the quickest way to to get into that I I know that that you have more familiarity with some of these issues on a technical level as far as what the code requires, what the uh development ordinance requires. Can you talk a little bit about the the the parking and traffic issues relating to the this uh spe special use permit application?

Yes sir, I can. So typically with the conditions for approval, um we have two sections. The first section speaks to some fairly basic items. The proposed use is represented by an S. in the column for the district in which it's located. Uh we can confirm that is true for this site. Uh the next item there is proposed conditions meter exceed meter exceed development standards found in article 9. So I'll paraphrase the ordinance from memory. I'm certain we have the ability to pull it up if we need to. Article nine regulations speak to signage, parking, landscaping, standards for individual uses, fences, and outdoor lighting. So, our plan has been submitted. Uh we certainly in house prior to submittal cross-cheed all those items. Uh your staff has done the same. So, with regards to those items and this site plan, uh there's a couple of things that that have been mentioned earlier that I'll circle back to and tie them to the ordinance. Um I'm going to start with amplified sound in addition to uh the discussion already had. There is a physical measurement that you can see on that site plan where amplified sound is permitted and where amplified sound is prohibited. Um, so that is in our ordinance and we've certainly represented that. So what that means in layman's terms is you can't have a guitar on the other side of that line or a drum or anything else or amplified sound of any type. So, in addition to your decibel levels, you've got these physical restrictions that can be confirmed by staff uh or by

any enforcement personnel who may be uh called out to confirm that the parking and the maximum attendance is confusing to understand, but I'll attempt to address that. the physical building itself. I think we've made it clear that the capacity inside the building is determined by the fire marshall. With any site plan, you have to do parking calculations based on your max attendance. So, in the bottom left of our site plan, we have declared our maximum attendance to be 150 people. As part of this process, assuming a special use permit is granted, that site plan is part and parcel of what you're approving. That goes on record. If there's ever an issue with enforcement in the future, your staff will pull that out and see what is the number that you're supposed to have at this site. With regards to overflow parking and a plan for for said parking, your ordinance provides that an overflow off-site parking plan may be prepared and must be reviewed by staff prior to any such event. So, if we had a sneaky suspicion that we're going to need more than the on-site parking, we will present to staff a plan which is typically involves shuttles uh traffic control in the form of folks in the the high viz uh that are standing out at the road directing cars in and out. Folks who we can stripe off a few spaces for that Uber to come in and make a quick loop and go back out. But if that

becomes a necessity, the ordinance prescribes how we are to prepare the plan, submit the plan, and what you guys responsibility as a town is to ensure at that review that our overflow parking uh plan meets your ordinance in all regards. But again, that that plan is very key to all of these things. Could I interject for one quick moment here? You're saying we um we being the the project, the the the operator of the facility, correct? Is that fair? Correct. Um

based on your familiarity with the development ordinance, is it your understanding that the special use permit, if issued, would be binding on a future owner if this facility were to be sold to another uh operator? That's correct. special use permits. Uh there's a couple of things worth mentioning in the ordinance. One, they are revocable. If in the future council has cause, you can certainly initiate proceedings to revoke a special use permit. Secondly, they do transfer with the property, not an individual entity or owner or company or anything of that nature.

Okay. Uh thank thank you for that. Um, if you could get back into the um, uh, I know you've talked a little bit about the parking and you've talked a little bit about the noise. Um, are there any other code issues that you've worked through in your development of the site plan to ensure that the uh, proposed event center will be consistent with the development ordinance. We typically work through these items as we are preparing plans and working with both staff and our our owners or clients. Uh this use as far as consistency with the purposes of the district, the district description, it speaks to low density development. That's certainly represented by that plan and that's true. Uh the district also allows a number of permitted uses. So they're either permitted by right, they're permitted with development standards, or it could be permitted with a special use permit, which is what we are doing here. So those uses could be such things as athletic fields, clubs, lodge, equestrian facilities, uh swimmer tennis club, and of course event centers. So compatibility uh is spelled out for us in the ordinance. Our permitted use table does not have incompatible uses within districts. Uh a poor example may be that you can't build a Walmart in a residential district. They're not compatible. That's been determined for us by our ordinance as amended. It's already compatible and therefore harmonious if it meets all of the conditions for your permitting process. Again, whether that's by right, whether

that's development standards or special use. If if the use is permitted, you're compatible. Harmony's determined by can you demonstrate that your site will be developed in accordance with all the applicable rules and regulations. if if I could just jump in real quick. Um, one of the requirements is that the proposed conditions meet or exceed the development standards found in article 9. And I know you you mentioned that briefly. Is it your testimony that that is the case with the subject permit application? In other words, that the proposed conditions meet or exceed the development standards found in article 9.

Correct. Everything on this site plan to my knowledge and conditions thereof meet or exceed uh ordinance requirements and no evidence has been presented to us by staff or any other party to say otherwise. Is it also your testimony that the proposed event center use in accordance with the special use permit that has been applied for is consistent with the purposes of the district and compatible surrounding uses based on your extensive experience with land development issues? We certainly believe that the the location and the character and the harmony of this use if developed as presented and permitted would be in harmony. Uh a number of items have already been touched on as far as preservation of of the structure. Uh we're not clearcutting the property and building a five-story glass and steel building. Again, poor example, but an example nonetheless. Uh there are landscape requirements that are very extensive. fencing, all of these things that fall into place. The scale and the architecture of the building will remain uh almost uh as it was and again proposing no new structures. Parking is deliberately placed beyond uh the front building line of the building to keep that internal. If you look at that site plan, we've tried to keep the uh the lawn space and the parking by design on purpose uh as tucked in, if you will, uh as possible. We don't have a an expansive bay of parking along uh Oakidge Road. We certainly don't have any event space or anything else uh pushed against adjacent property lines. We brought everything as as interior to the site as possible given existing conditions.

Um M also worth mentioning along those same lines, this request, this permit, this package, these conditions, we are not asking for any waiverss. We're not asking for any variances. We're not asking for any relief or reduction in standards whatsoever as it relates to the ordinance. Thank you for clarifying that. Um, have you considered whether the use um, if developed in accordance with a special use permit would not materially endanger the public health or safety uh, of of any persons here in the town of Oakidge?

Yes, sir. Public health and safety items as it relates to this type of of application and this site in particular. Uh some that come to mind would be uh those that are regulated by agencies other than Oakidge act as dictated in the ordinance. So, for example, uh Guilford County Environmental Health will certainly be involved with the permitting and approval and and oversight of septic of well. Uh NC DOT comes into play when it comes to uh a commercial driveway permit and the operation of that uh facility and that uh that parking. Guilford County, state of North Carolina, town of Oakidge. There are multiple regulatory items as dictated by ordinance. This site is essentially at step two of potentially moving forward. And on a going forward basis, all of the health and safety concerns are spelled out for us in the ordinance, what permit we have to have, uh, what agency we get that from. So, so to be clear, all of those other agencies and their regulations, they they apply despite the issuance of the special use permit. Is that fair? That that the all of those other rules still will apply to this uh development.

Correct. The special use permit in and of itself does not negate or supersede or reduce any public health, safety, and welfare requirements. Uh, so just to be clear, is it your testimony that this use pursuant to the special use permit will not materially endanger the public health or safety? That is correct. Yes. Um, and is it your testimony that the proposed use in accordance with the requested special use permit will meet all required conditions and specifications under applicable ordinances of the town of Oakidge?

That is correct. Um there there's another consideration here that that is required to be the subject of testimony and that is whether the use would substantially injure the value of adjoining or abudding properties. Um and and uh uh I' I'd just like your uh testimony please for the council on that topic.

My response to that would be twofold. The ordinance has built in through article 9 and other chapters uh safeguards to preserve protect uh adjacent properties. All of the things that we've been speaking about this evening with regards to setbacks and buffers and fencing and parking, all of that. The ordinance predetermines a lot of that which we comply with. Uh secondly, as we do with many projects, I am not a North Carolina licensed real estate appraiser. However, uh using publicly available tax data and some other information, we did take a look at similar sites, garden at Gay Gables being the most similar site, and we could not uncover any decrease in adjoining property owners as a result of that site coming into a operation. Nor could we at Somerfield Farms. Is is your testimony about that based in part on your knowledge of the site plan and the intentional decisions that were made in creating the site plan to ensure the lack of off-site negative impacts?

Correct. our site plan, our ordinance, and our design and our staff input. It all comes together to ensure that we are having the most minimal impact on our neighbors as possible in all categories, not just value or harmony or character. Would you personally feel okay living next door to this facility?

Absolutely. The um the ordinance also requires testimony concerning whether the location and the character of the use as an event center subject to the site plan that's been submitted and of course subject to the proposed special use permit would be in harmony. That's the word we've heard earlier tonight that it would be in harmony with the area and in general conformity with the uh development ordinances of the town of Oakidge. And based on your familiarity with the prevailing land uses and the development ordinance, could you uh testify about that uh that criteria that there would be harmony and uh conformity with the plan of development. So yes, again I think our ordinance is the number one tool to look at when we speak about harmony uh through the use of zoning districts, through the use of permitted uses within those districts. It simply doesn't allow things that aren't harmonious to exist in the same district. It also the ordinance adds layers of protection and additional regulation and additional scrutiny to any use within a district that needs such special attention. Uh and this is certainly one of those cases where we have additional the ordinance is essentially asking us questions. Do you meet this? Can you provide that? Uh this is a hard and fast rule. We create the site plan in accordance with that and of course staff uh reviews that and and any deficiencies they will note and and we'll adjust as needed. Uh conformity with uh our documented plans. Again, if we look at

this plan of development as proposed, this special use permit as proposed, it is in conformity with all of our processes and procedures necessary for the issuance of a special use permit and and it is the case I believe your testimony, but let's be be clear about this, your testimony is that this event center use is a use allowed as of right in residential zoning specifically by the development ordinance. Is that correct? It's a permitted use with special use permit, which is what we're here for. Which is what we're here for this evening.

Okay. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. At this time, I have no further questions for Mr. Greco. Council, it's time for us to ask Mr. Greco questions that he's I have a question. Yes, sir. from turning left on Bunch onto 150. Uh coming from the high school, how far would it be to the approximately to the parking entrance? I don't see that well anymore. If you can scroll down, I I could take a guess at it.

Not that far really. One, two, there's there's three numbers I can see there. Uh, if we can zoom in a little tighter. I can't I just can't see them. 100 yards. So, you got traffic coming from uh to the west on 150.

Oh, sorry. You got traffic going west on 150 towards Bunch and the site there. You got cars turning to the left and what 250 foot you could have a entrance into a parking lot. I mean during busy hours that could be a big problem.

Uh there's there's two things I would say to your statement. It could be a big problem. First and foremost, we would be required to get a commercial driveway permit from the North Carolina Department of Transportation. As part of their analysis, uh I have to meet them out there with my staff and we have to replicate that entrance on the ground. uh and they look at things such as speed limit, traffic count, and what we call site distances. At the conclusion of their analysis, they will dictate to us what is required to make that entrance safe on the state's road network. They could say, "Add a turn lane, widen the road, straighten the road, add a stoplight, add two stop lightss." There's no limit to NC DO's power to ensure that an entrance is safe. We don't have the answer to that today because we're not at that stage in the process, but there's certainly much more oversight and and we as part of the special use permit process. We're not in a position to include that analysis at this decision-making point other than to point out like I said it is regulated by uh what our ordinance dictates the authority to North Carolina Department of Transportation.

Okay. No further question. M Clark,

so I guess I could ask you to clarify on your point about the Harmony um saying that according to ordinance, the fact that the permitted use has a special use permit in RS40. You're saying that is indicative that it is in harmony with other RS40 zoning surrounding it. Is that right? Correct. The way permitted uses and a permitted use table are established and developed is you group things that are either harmonious by right and get along with each other and play well or you add some additional standards to that called development standards or you require a special use permit which is the highest level of scrutiny. If those permitted uses and permitted use tables were not in the ordinance, we would have no reason for districts. You could just apply for any use, you could come make your case why a sheets gas station would be okay in an RS40 district if we did not have these already grouped and arranged in such a way that you you can't put a dynamite factory uh next to a church. there there's certain standards to keep those uses that are in harmony within those districts.

Right. And so I guess based on my understanding it would be as you said um they group harmonies by right. So if I were looking at the table I would think that if something was granted as a right that would mean that the harmony with the surrounding area was by default. But since it says special use permit, that is something that we need to determine if it does harmonize with the surrounding area based on facts and criteria other than just the fact the ordinance says special use permit. It's

an additional layer of scrutiny. For example, in this case, in this site, in this use, an event center uh first and foremost in this district must be on three acres. Why does it need to be on three acres? because that's very unusual within an RS40 district to have lots of that size. So the all of the criteria in the ordinance elevates it, but it is still assuming you meet the criteria, assuming you're successful in obtaining your permit. You the question of harmony is answered at that point. Again, we're not asking for a waiver if I or a variance. If I was asking for a special use permit on a 1acre site and trying to convince council why the ordinance was wrong and it should go there, that's a different circumstance. We're not asking for any any relief on anything. And like I mentioned before, there are multiple uses available within the RS40 district. It's not a homogeneous district. there's commercial operations directly across the street from this uh and other uses that that any property owner could apply for.

Right. And so um you mentioned the additional requirements in the ordinance for special use permit uh RS40 or agricultural zoning. Um and those are some additional qualifications, but I guess it's my understanding that we have to it's two separate items. one is that it meets the ordinance where the section 30 1048 those are the ordinances that it meets. So basically saying in RS40 zoning it has to meet certain ordinances. Not only the general event center ordinances um but also these additional ones like you mentioned the minimum 3 acres but then in addition to meeting the ordinances the question of uh harmony with the surrounding area um and you know injure value and the other things that uh your attorney uh talked about. those are a separate um qualification to determine, right? So, I guess that's where I'm looking for if there's additional information about harmony with the area other than meeting the ordinances because I see that as kind of two separate uh requirements. I think the question of harmony could certainly be looked at. Us first and foremost and most importantly is the ordinance and the applicable regulations, rules, standards, this permit process. Secondly, council has to arrive at a findings of fact. And what you're seeking to find as a fact is will this use as presented and permitted be in harmony with the surroundings? As we are here this evening, again, we've heard nothing technically from staff. No one has

presented evidence to the contrary as to a specific item on this site plan or about this event center that would cause disharmony. So we have extensive landscaping requirements much more so than almost anywhere else any other district or use. We have fencing requirements. We have requirements on where and how loud outdoor activities can be conducted. We have requirements about parking. We have additional requirements if overflow parking is needed, we have to submit additional planning for that. We have the fact that a special use permit is revocable. So if we fall flat, we being the project team here, if we fall flat on our face in six months and we are proven to be disarmonious, this council and this town has every authority to say you no longer have a special use permit because you were disharmonous. disharmonious, tricky word, but everything is designed to enhance those standards and make sure it's not like if I were building any project that's permitted by right. I apply for a permit. I get it. There's no discussion. There's no talk. There's no debate. Staff checks boxes. I pay fees. I go about my way. All of this is designed to ensure that we can arrive at a harmonious site.

Okay. And so I guess again just uh to clarify my question um because I see that as the event center ordinance requirements are kind of the minimum standard that even if it were in a zoned area that allows event center by right, it would still have to meet those same criteria of uh noise, parking, um landscaping, all of that are kind of the minimums for event center regardless. this. So, I'm not sure that I could again tie that as a fact towards the harmonious um argument that we're looking for because those are required of properties by right as well and not a special use permit. Um it's just going to if you follow my train of thought that wouldn't necessarily grant a special use permit if it's required even by properties uh by right for event centers.

There's a difference in the permitting process if something is permitted by right. You don't have to have a special use permit.

Right. And so I guess that's why I'm asking if there's additional information towards the uh harmonious aspect because these are not just special use permit um characteristics. It would be safe to assume that this process of applying for this public hearing, this evidentiary hearing, uh, testimony this evening, all of that, uh, to be candid and not to bounce it right back to you. But that is the point of the special use permit is to double triple check staff input, testimony, council discussion the night of as we're doing now and the follow up on the back end on the special use permit being revokeable, which is unlike a use by right. You don't have any authority to go close down that McDonald's or that Wendy's or that Sherwin Williams. you can stop any operation that's operating with a special use permit,

right? Um, and so yeah, I guess uh the origin of a lot of the questions I think do relate to uh the harmony and you know with a special use permit uh I believe we are entitled to if there was a sticking point um we have the ability to impose certain conditions with special use permits. That is correct. Right. So, I guess that's more of a statement, not a question. Yeah, that No, that is correct. That's something I haven't pointed out. You can if you if you say to the property owner you would like to impose in a condition, that's that's up to you. Yeah. All right.

Yep. Um, maybe I misunderstood, but did you state that there was a maximum attendance on the site plan or Mr. Taylor, can you point to that

bottom left the there's a parking? I'm glad this is coming back up because this can I made a mistake earlier because um staff also just like council is when we're doing special use permits. It's not something that we do all the time and this is actually in my nine years here. This is the first one I've done. So what I forgot to mention when you do a special use permit um this plat will become ordinance with this site. So when they with the parking requirements on here and their capacity limit with that 150 they are by ordinance if this is approved limiting capacity to that by ordinance. So that will maximize that for this site and that's what I should have realized where I had the brain lapse earlier is that is this does become ordinance. So that's where when you look at um when on our official zoning map I have on our GIS system for this site. I would change this to RS40s and so that whoever looks at this will know there's a special use permit on this property and they'd have to refer to this plat as part of the not only the requirements that are governing it by the residential zoning district standards, but this is even governed further by this permit if approved.

Okay. Um there were comments made about the value of adjoining properties not being impacted. Um will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or rebudding properties. Um Mr. Grio, you your your testimony was that you noted studies that show this. Do you have any of those studies? Do you have any data?

I'll restate what I did what I said earlier. I am not a North Carolina licensed real estate appraiser. What I am capable of doing is looking at public record garden at Gary Gables is operating under special use permit just to the east of this on Oakidge Road. Same road. Very very similar project historic house. We looked at values. We see no decline in values from when that facility started. Property values surrounding it did not come down. Do you have that data? I do not. We can pull it up on the internet, I assume.

Um, a follow-up question. Do you have the data you're comparing to uh the Greg Gables property? Do you have data on their special use permit? What the conditions are for that special use permit?

I did that one. If you have a question, I might remember it. It's similar to this. Their parking is limited. uh their hours of operation are dictated by ordinance. There are similar noise restrictions uh within Somerfield and they do I believe uh that permit has evolved over the years. I think a little bit has tweaked but it's a very similar process. All all of Guilford County started from one development ordinance. All of the towns tweak and make small adjustments, but they don't take big swings at it. So, it's it's pretty similar.

Okay. See, I will say that if we were to use that as information to compare to this special use permit, I would want to see that the details of that permit to ensure that we were comparing apples to apples. Yeah. I'm not comparing the permits to the permits. I'm just saying from a value perspective. That's the closest thing we had to reach out to to say, did property values plummet based on public data in the area surrounding an event center operating with a special use permit? And the answer to that is no. The data does not show that. I don't have it with me tonight. You can pull it up.

Yeah. Yeah, I just mean, for example, if I haven't been to the other event center, um, but if the event center had a extra condition of, you know, no events past 300 p.m. and no, you know, no outside events, that would be just a I would want to make sure that the permits were comparable if we were saying we could use that as basis for um a finding of fact that it would not injure adjacent property values.

The permits are very comparable. We did uh receive, I believe, some waiverss on parking surface there. I think there's some gravel parking there um if I'm not mistaken, which is a lesser standard in my opinion than what we're applying for here. Uh one final question for me uh for now. Your statement was, and this isn't a quote, but if I understand it, that that the special use permit that we're discussing is already compatible and harmonious due to the permitted use table. Is that generally fair?

Okay. is not the question of the location and the character of use uh being in harmony with the area that is to be located in. Isn't the question of compatibility and harmony concerning the jurisdiction, which would be RS40, and the environment, which would be the neighborhood homes.

Read that question. Give me give me one second. It if the question of compatibility and harmony as listed in item number five that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan submitted is in harmony with the area in which is to be located and in general conformity with the plan development of the jurisdiction and environments. So the question is is the compatibility and the harmony for a special use permit not concerning itself with the permitted use table but with the jurisdiction that's listed here which would be RS40 and the environs which would be a residential neighborhood.

So it's both. And when we look at consistency with the purposes of the district, the purposes of the district are spelled out by the ordinance and that's that's easy to to track back and tie to the ordinance. Compatible with surrounding uses are compatible with its environs. The ordinance dictates certain standards, certain requirements, certain dimensions and landscaping and so forth and so on. The reason that those standards are there in part are to ensure compatibility with its environs. And then if we kind of look up from all of the minutia of the ordinance and we stand in the street in front of this property and we say what what is the environs here? So, commercial property directly across the street. Uh some other single family structures as you look to the east and to the west. Uh around this property are backyards of an RS40 developed subdivision. So, compatibility as I analyze it and look at it in this particular location, I see compatibility. I see commercial uses. It's on a major thorough affair. If a land owner was to go into the middle of 12 oaks and purchase four homes and say, "I know I now own four acres. I'd like to get a special use. I'm going to tear these houses down. I'm going I'm going to do a event center here." Number one, I wouldn't take the case. Uh it would meet some of the criteria and would be here in front of you, but those environs would be different. Wouldn't be on a thorough affair. you would be lined up with adjacent properties. So, I do believe it's compatible based on my experience with similar sites, based on my experience with developing other sites

throughout Oakidge. Can can I pose a question to I don't know if it's to the mayor or to the town clerk. I would like to hear from some of the other people who've come to speak here tonight and would we have the ability to call Mr. Grio back if necessary if we have further questions? Yes. Thank you. Have question Mr. No, I have no more questions for at this point. Question.

Mr. Mayor, I have no redirect and applicant rests at this point. Um um I do I do have a request for a fivem minute break which we will do right now and then come back. This is a long process and we need to hear from the people that uh have standing. So we'll come back. I got 10 minutes till I'm not back to start with Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Okay.

Can we come back to order, please? And we're now to the point where we'll get testimony from other parties with standing. I'll reference you back to the earlier the evening when I told you that me members of public who could show standing which is meaning they will suffer special damages or provide relevant facts can uh come forward. Uh the uh going to speak come forward be sworn. Yeah. Any anybody that is going to speak at this time needs to come forward and be sworn in by Miss uh Smith.

Smith. I had to go through all her names. Sandra Boot. Miss Boot.

Anybody? Anybody? Anybody that's going to speak as a party withstanding? No one else is going to speak on the special events center. Okay. Stand up. Come forward. Every anybody that's going to speak, come forward so you can be sworn in. I put my left hand and hold up my right. Just this. Yes. The special events center. just this uh just this nice lady here.

In the testimony you're about to give, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, help you God. I do. Good evening, members of the town council. My name is Fedra Loftess. I live with my husband and kids at 6619 Stonecraftoft Drive in the Ashton Park neighborhood. My property shares a direct boundary with the proposed project at 2524 Oakidge Road. I am appearing today as a party with legal standing representing a collective of neighbors, many of whom are here tonight who have signed the petition I am entering into the record as exhibit A. I ask that my evidentiary packet be entered to the official record. My testimony today is based on the failure of the applicant to provide competent material and substantial evidence as required by North Carolina law for a special use permit. Under the humble oil standard included in the packet as exhibit B, the burden of proof rests entirely on the applicant. If they have not proven with expert data that this site is safe and harmonious, the permit must be denied. I will first address environmental health. A review of the permit record in exhibit C reveals a troubling pattern of procedural avoidance. Work began in late 2024 without permits. When cited in January 2025, the

applicant filed strictly for residential upfits and that pattern has continued until this day. I'm going to object at this point because this is beyond the scope of the criteria that council is allowed to consider under North Carolina law and your development ordinance with respect to the special use permit. the past regulatory compliance. There's just my client was accused of proceeding without permits. That's not a factor that can be considered by the council. Is it a fact that can be considered if the same client had the same pattern at Gay Gables, which your client himself used as an example earlier in the evening? Ma'am, I'm not allowed to answer your question. I'm sorry. But does the council feel that would be relevant? I do want my objection noted for the record, and that's all I'm going to say.

Okay. Good. Mr. Thomas, do you want to give advice? Are are you making a motion to strike? I've heard it already. I just I don't want it to continue.

Council has indicated his objection is for the record and the witness should proceed. On November 20th, 2025, they secured septic approval for a six-bedroom residential remodel. But you cannot operate a 150 person commercial event center on a residential septic. Under 15A, NCAC18E, exhibit D. North Carolina law requires systems to be rated for waste strength according to use, not according to local zoning. Residential waste is low strength. a commercial venue with likely catering and alcohol surge loading produces high strength wastewater. By bypassing a change of use permit, the applicant has avoided the mandatory safety studies required to prove that our groundwater, which we all drink, will not be contaminated by an overloaded system. Furthermore, the commercial well setback rule in the Gil Guilford County well rules require that any well supply serving a commercial property is categorized as a shared well and must maintain a minimum 50 foot horizontal separation from any structure including decks. The current well according to this blueprint is well within 50 ft of the building. Additionally, according to the plans filed with the county, the addition of a large deck that changes the footprint of the house significantly will make the septic and well approvals out of compliance. I only state that to say that working underneath a residential permit and pouring money into that when you just have to switch it to commercial use later is showing a pattern. Of paramount concern to the neighbors is a disparity in water consumption and septic surge loading. To illustrate the impact on our community, I'm submitting sworn testimony from the Somerfield Board of Adjustment regarding the gardens at Grey

Gables. This venue located just miles away was specifically cited by the applicant, Mr. Greco, during our November 20th neighbor meeting as a previous project he worked on and used as an example for what we could expect. By the developer's own example, Gray Gables is the standard for this project. Therefore, the documented septic failures and noise disturbances at that site are a logical preview of what this neighborhood will face. According to the sworn testimony in the Somefield Board of Adjustment hearing in January 2016 exhibit F, regarding the Grey Gable special use permit, the venue faced significant septic surfacing and odor issues due to surge loading. In order to alleviate those issues, neighboring land had to be purchased. The initial problem that caused it, according to the town citations, were the septic system was rated for residential instead of commercial use. In our situation, when the site in question is smaller, the neighbors are closer, and there is no available land to acquire to fix such issues, there's no simple fix for capacity septic issues once they've started. We also haven't seen any proof of water study to prove that water runoff won't affect neighbors, which is required for disturbing more than one acre of land. It's also submitted on the plan. The lot will be significantly changed by adding a 38 car parking lot and so will the drainage situation. There's no room for error on this to avoid causing very significant quality of life and property value issues for those whose homes adjoin the site.

Going to object to the testimony about property values. There's no foundation and the witness hasn't offered any professional credentials. I'll get to it. That's that I would like to request the witness lay a foundation now if she's going to proceed in that direction. Mr. Thomas, you're home loan lenders won't approve a loan for a property that shows water issues from nearby properties and North Carolina residential property.

A minute. Could you stop a minute? I had question. council was saying that in order to provide evidence as to value would need to lay a foundation as to the uh uh it's basically an offering expert opinion and so the foundation is the basis for the expertise in order to allow opinion asist to fair market valuation. Okay, I I concur. Thank you. There's an objection by council. So, uh, by legal counsel. So, the town council is being asked to make a ruling on that. We're being asked to make a ruling on

whether the witness should proceed to offer that testimony or withdraw her point and continue with her testimony based on lack of professional. Help me out here. Sure. Sure. The witness is offering an expert opinion, which would be fine if she can demonstrate that she has the expertise and possesses the professional credentials to offer the opinion, but in general, expert testimony is not allowed from lay witnesses under the rules that govern this proceeding.

What I guess my question would be, sure, she's not a real estate agent um or an expert in land values. Do you have data included in this packet that can you just point us to that data for a second? Sure. Uh the form that every North Carolina resident if they're selling their house is required to submit under law uh the North Carolina residential property disclosure act exhibit K section F3 specifically requires by law home sellers to disclose issues with seepage on the property which can potentially greatly affect home value for adjoining neighbor. Sorry, what section of this are you in? Okay.

Okay. Okay. I will say at the risk of sounding unprofessional myself, uh, if you could when you're referring to a section, if you could give us a moment to get there. Yeah. Just absolutely. I know you're covering a lot of material here. I want to keep up. No, that's fine.

So, I'm sorry. I'm just seeing a blank form here. I'm not sure how that's data. I'm in section K. president of North Carolina is expected to submit this and answer. You have to go to the microphone. Sorry. I I mean I see what you're I see the microphone so I can hear you. You're saying

so I'm saying the president is every disclosure in that form was made by the state because it can affect property values and the selling of houses. And so if it's a for if it's an issue that's going to be caused by this business, how does it not affect someone who would have to then sell fill out that form and submit it only because of that business and how that would potentially push off future buyers, right? But we haven't established that this business isn't complying with these items.

Okay. I'm just showing a pattern because of a parallel business down the road that'd been submitted as evidence previously by the same developer for the same use on a larger property having these issues. I I don't all of which is hearsay and I'm objecting on that basis and I would agree. I think we should just move on from this. I don't I don't see the data the the standing for for that. That's my opinion council. I apologize. Okay.

Right. I think we would have to see it happen here and that would be cause for revocation. And I don't know if there's time for a quick question from Mr. Grio if he can answer quickly. Is is the septic and the foundation and everything else about this project up to commercial standards for this use? Bill Grio, PO Box 347, Oakidge. Uh, we are in we're missing facts here. Number one, we haven't applied for a well permit or a septic permit. When we do, if we do, both of those will be permitted, inspected, installed in accordance with commercial standards. We have designated an area as shown on our plan where we are proposing to put the septic. As to a well, we've indicated a wellhouse. If you're old enough, you will you will know that that's a structure over a well. We're required to show existing structures or structures that may be removed. So at this point in the process we have not applied for anything related to well or septic and again per our plan as submitted uh grading and erosion control permits are not required for this site. A permanent storm water device is also not required for this site.

Okay. Thank you. Uh while council is on a factf finding mission here to find facts in this matter uh in fairness to the witness, it might be best to let her finish her present. I apologize. Say f further questions if you have any uh of that nature for rebuttal. Thank you. Exhibit C shows the permits that are on record that have been filed for by the applicant. Sorry, one second while I recall where I am. Um,

in addition to the history, as of this afternoon, the property taxes for the property are delinquent according to Guilford County. I've attached this as exhibit M. The record shows a pattern. Objection. It's not a valid consideration for issuance of the special use. I agree. There's the record shows a pattern of acting first and asking for permission later. The enforceable conditions being proposed tonight will in practice be ignored, placing the burden of enforcements entirely on the neighbor. It's speculative. She's saying that she thinks in the future they're going to ignore the permit conditions. That's not fact-based testimony. It's speculation.

The development of this project requires precision and care. If we have issues with regulation this early in the process, what does that bode for in the future? I will at this point refer back to testimony earlier tonight. The applicant said that local churches have been contacted. I have spoken with the local churches. Nobody has been contacted about an off-site plan. Objection. He hearsay. Was it hearsay earlier then? I'm objecting at this point to it being

uh the previous social events mentioned earlier occurred before RS40 in our neighborhood was our neighborhood. All that land belonged to the farm in question. I don't think that that's relevant at this point. Um, when they met neighbors at the yard sale, they told us they were planning on moving into the house and possibly opening up a room or two for events like book clubs. That may have been part of why no one voiced objections. There was no mention of a 150 person event center. Irrelevant to the permit criteria objection. Um, and move to strike

also. So, I believe that under North Carolina law, harmony with the neighborhood doesn't mean that something is added to a RS40 area and allowed to be applied to. That means that it has to play nicely with the neighbors and not decrease their quality of life or their property values. If in the future there are issues with the septic, it will greatly harm our property values. Objection. Lack of foundation.

The developer in the meeting they held in November with the joining neighbors pointed to the gardens at Gay Gables in Somerfield as a successful model that he had assisted in developing. However, the neighbors of Grey Gables tell a different story. One of shaking windows and lost sleep. In the Summerfield Board of Adjustment hearings, which were filed as sworn testimony,

held July 27th, 2023, exhibit G, sworn testimony is not hearsay. Neighbors testified that the low frequency bass from outdoor speakers penetrated their homes even with high-end windows shut. They described the noise not as a sound, but as a physical vibration. Further public records from the event show neighbors 930 to,300 feet away could hear music indoors, windows closed, TV on, could not sleep or use outdoor spaces on their own property. At least 14 documented law enforcement calls for noise intoxication and disorderly conduct. Can I have a continuing objection, please, to hear to the extent these other services if it's sworn testimony? Yeah.

Question for Mr. Thomas. If it is uh from the record of the board of adjustment minutes. Um what people stated in that uh yes special use permit sworn testimony is that admissible of can't hear you. What would need to be presented in a certified form? Uh, this says town meeting record for Greg Gables, Noise Concerned, Board of Adjustments, Somerville, North Carolina, July 27, 2022, 6:30 p.m. Somerville District Community Center. How do we know that that's

would be for the board to determine if it appears to be competent in that regard? And and I I'm not trying to be difficult, but I do want to point out I don't have a copy of these documents. So I I have to heir on the side of assuming that it may not match up.

Thank you. I I would think that records from another town. We are a town. Greg Gables occupies over five acres far larger than this site. If those neighbors who are hundreds of feet away suffered through law enforcement calls for noise and intoxication. How can we expect harmony at this site just over half the size of Grey Gables where the nearest homes were only 100 ft away? I've included exhibit H, which is the Guilford GIS record of 2524 Oakidge Road. I've superimposed a 10,00t radius circle to show how many homes are located at a distance that is less than the distance cited for the Great Gables neighbors who complained about physical vibrations inside their homes. The conservative count of homes within that radius, sorry guys, is approximately 114. If the business is holding the same categories of events as Grey Gables, sponsored by the same developers as Grey Gables, following the same plans as Grey Gables, parties, weddings, and concerts, specifically bluegrass concerts were an example given to my neighbors and I in our meeting with Mr. Greco. That is a minimum of 114 homes that we can reasonably expect to have impact on their quality of life. To achieve harmony at 100 ft, the applicant would need an acoustic mitigation wall, not just a stand of trees. Since no professional acoustic study has been provided, the applicant has failed to meet the harmony requirement of section 30-1048. Section 30 1048 requires that event centers in RS40 districts provide adequate buffering and ensure that the use is compatible compatible with the

surrounding residential neighborhood. The applicant will likely argue that a vegetative buffer will mitigate the noise. This is scientifically inaccurate. According to the Federal Highway Administration studies and acoustic engineering standards, exhibit I, a row of trees must be at least 100 ft deep, solid, and evergreen to achieve even a five decel reduction, a difference barely perceptible to the human ear. On this 3acre lot, the applicant does not have the physical space to plant a 100 ft deep forest without eliminating their parking in the venue itself. 30 ft of trees in a privacy fence is a helpful visual screen, but not an acoustic one. It will do nothing to stop the low frequency base that, as we saw in the Great Gables case, vibrates the windows of homes 1,00 ft away.

Same objection.

Furthermore, the buffer that is on three sides of the property does nothing at all to prevent sound traveling from the venue to houses on the other side of the property. At this point, I'll refer back to exhibit H. Under the North Carolina Residential Property Disclosure Act, Exhibit Exhibit K, every one of those 114 homes will be legally required to disclose the proximity of this commercial nuisance to future buyers. The question specifically asks, thank you. Is there any noise, odor, smoke, etc. from commercial, industrial, or military military sources that affect the property? In the case of an event center with frequent outdoor concerts, DJs, and loud parties, the answer would be yes. There isn't this isn't just about one neighbor. This is about the quiet enjoyment and property values of an entire quadrant of Oakidge. The David count Davidson County Broadcasting Case Exhibit N established the impact on neighboring property values is a legitimate basis for denial if the applicant has not provided an expert study to the contrary. They have not.

Is that exhibit N? Yeah, I don't think I have an exhibit N. Oh, sorry. Oh, that one got left out. Sorry.

Yep. Ignore that one. Um, section 301048B requires primary access from a thoroughare, but the safety findings of a special use permit requires that the use doesn't materially endanger public safety. Oakidge's own strategic vision plan, exhibit J, cites the intersection of Oakidge Road and Bunch Road as a high accident location. The applicant plans for a 38 car parking lot, which means we can expect at least that amount of vehicles attempting to navigate a known dangerous intersection in a high intensity surge for events during at least evening hours. I'll note here that they don't seem to have imposed any limits beyond the 11 p.m. limits. I didn't hear anything about them volunteering a time that they would start or that they would do any restrictions in the evening like Greg Gables does. Um and so anyway, it doesn't include the extra complications from potential shuttles operating between the venue and off-site areas or events where alcohol may be served. Without a traffic impact analysis, the applicant has provided zero evidence to prove this won't exacerbate an existing safety crisis. According to NC do studies cited by the town in exhibit J, this intersection is a high accident location specifically prone to rear end and left turn collisions. Adding a 150 person venue at this exact hazardous point is practically guaranteeing disaster.

Objection. foundation. Most guests will be visitors unfamiliar with our narrow roads. Many will same objection under the I don't think that that's true. They specifically said that they would be accepting people from all over the area. We can't assume that those people would be intimately familiar with Oakidge's roads before they show up for an event. They specifically said it wasn't going to be only for town people. This is argument, not testimony. That's a problem and I object to that as well.

Under the Peter Silly president, the council cannot ignore the material danger of adding mass assembly traffic to a residential collector street that the town itself has flagged for safety issues. Finally, we will discuss harmony with harmony within the existing neighborhood. Oakidge Development Code section 30-1048 requires strict objective standards for event centers in RS40 districts. These include adequate lot size of at least three acres, effective buffering from nearby homes, realistic parking capacity, enforcable limits on noise, lighting, and oper hours of operation. None of the people who purchased homes within this area had an expectation that a nearby small residential lot would become a high-capacity event center with an entailing sound the entailing sound and disruption. The florist and barber shop businesses across the street not in the RS40 district I might note add no practical traffic, water, septic or sound impacts their neighbors. This business however certainly will. My neighbors and I are not against any business on that site at all. Everyone I spoke to liked the idea of a coffee shop, bed and breakfast, or even a town library.

Objection to the hearsay.

We appreciate that the developers have made an effort to use the existing structure. However, this specific proposed business is too high capacity and disruptive to be a good neighbor to existing homes so close by. But with a 38 car parking lot and 158 plus attendees for loud events run as frequently as possible to quote the developer in his meeting with us and often late into the evening. This site is simply either too small to realistically work for the state application or the plan is too large. Harmony requires the maintenance of privacy on a 3acre lot surrounded by highway and homes a few feet away. There's no way to prevent 150 guests, many of whom will likely be consuming alcohol from I asked specifically in the meeting if alcohol would be served and they said

I can't argue with you. I just need to note my objection. Okay. So, I just continue. Unless Mr. Mayor tells you not to.

Okay. um from wandering across the property line and admire my neighbors yards. Even with the addition of a privacy fence, the small lot size allows no buffer or sidewalk or overflow for crowds of 150 people from either the private homes or more concerningly the highway right next door. Buffers and fencing are a nod towards the issues and we appreciate that. But the only enforceable plans to make sure the standards are enforced include calling the sheriff and relying on them and neighbors to use decibel meters and call tow trucks. As of right now, abuing neighbors can hear regular conversations and all construction sounds from the property. These sounds regularly carry down the street to neighbors many houses away. No acoustic modeling exists that demonstrates that amplified sound can meet ordinance limits of less than 80 dB. When music and crowds are a regular occurrence at the property, enforcement of this limit will be unrealistic. It does not fit the character of the residential neighborhood in which these events will be held. If we can hear two people having a conversation, how will it be when we can hear 150 people and a band? The on-site parking plan for 38 vehicles assumes four adults per vehicle and excludes vendors and staff. I find this to be a very optimistic assum assumption. I understand that the off-site arrangements are to be secured per event, but I have concerns about the numbers that we reach before that's even required. 38 vehicles for 150 people seems that the parking lot would run out of space long before all attendees would arrive. Two adults per car is a more realistic assumption. With no additional buffer areas nearby, we are concerned that attendees will attempt to park on our streets, thus adding to this traffic and safety issues. I'll note that I didn't hear any mitigation

for when that might happen. I didn't hear a plan that addressed how would they keep people from parking on neighboring streets. I know they're not allowed to, but having someone stand in your own parking lot with a reflective vest is not a plan to keep them from parking on someone else's street. and the burden that it's going to place on local law enforcement. When I specifically asked what would we have to do to enforce this, the bur burden was placed on us as neighbors. They said the plan is that we would have to call to co tow trucks and we'd have to call the sheriff. I don't think that's a good business plan. Objection hearsay

and also personal opinion not not factual. We are effectively being asked to surrender the privacy and security of our own homes to accommodate the applicant's profit margins. This does not maintain the harmony of Oakidge, nor the harmony of the quiet established neighborhood our families chose for its peace and safety. Section 30-1048 requires this council to find that the use will be in harmony with the neighborhood. I asked the council to consider this sworn testimony from the Somefield Board of Adjustment case BOA012023 regarding Gay Gables exhibit L, the very venue the applicant uses as a model. Gay Gab Gable's neighbors testified under oath that guests and photographers repeatedly trespassed onto private property using neighboring yards as restrooms and destroyed the privacy of nearby families.

Have to object to the hearsay. Ray Gables is over five acres with neighbors on larger lots and they still couldn't control guest behavior. This applicant is proposing the same number of guests on only 3.16 acres with neighbors a mere 100 ft away. If Greg Gables cannot contain its guests and noise to the point of requiring multiple police responses, then putting this same use on a much smaller site that is right next door to us is an invitation for law enforcement to become a permanent fixture in our neighborhood. This clearly fails the public safety and harmony harmony findings required for a special use permit. To summarize, the applicant has provided a residential grade plan for a commercial grade problem. Action.

They have provided no expert traffic data to rebut the town's own accident history at this intersection. They have no expert noise mitigation plan for neighbors 100 ft away. The proposed capacity is too high for the site to fit in with the neighborhood. This particular business plan is completely out of harmony with the residential neighborhood that's nestled within. Objection to the reference to a business plan. It has nothing to do with the special use criteria.

This particular application or not the status of the enterprise. This particular application for a special use permit is completely out of harmony with the residential neighborhood that is nestled within. The burden is not on us to prove that it's a nuisance. The burden is on them to prove that it isn't because they have failed to provide competent material evidence on these points. There's no choice but to deny this special use permit. Our clean water safety and our homes are the very things you were elected to protect. Thank you for your time, for your care towards your fellow Oakidge neighbors, and for your efforts. I'd like to remind everyone that Mr. Greco himself said that you this required the highest level of scrutiny from the town and I agree with that.

May I request crossexamination, Mr. Mayor? Um, let me ask Mr. Thomas. Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you. Um, good evening, Miss Loftess. Um, you said that you represent a number of people here who held their hands up. Yes. In what capacity or We are all part of the Ashton Park neighborhood. We're part of the collective agreement for that neighborhood. Is there a structure for the neighborhood? Is there a nonprofit organization? HOA. Yeah. And are you uh in a position of authority within that HOA? Yes. Which is what? That I've been elected to represent our concerns here tonight.

So there was an election for a spokesperson to speak tonight. Well, there is as submitted a the signatures of everyone except for three houses in our neighborhood because those people don't seem to be there. Do you have some sort of documentation of the election that occurred at exhibit A? So you're you're referring to the petition. Yeah. I'm referring specifically to your authority to stand up and speak for these people. When I came and spoke to the town, I was told that I had standing to represent my neighbors concerns in this hearing. Do you possess a law license, ma'am?

No. Do you possess an appraiser's license? No. Do you possess a commercial real estate broker's license? No. Do you possess any professional license? No. Not an engineer. I'm a software engineer. No. Sorry. But that fair enough. I respect that, but that's not what I was talking about. Um I know it all requires precision.

So So I just I want to be clear because this a record is being made of all this. You're not saying that you legally represent anyone else here but yourself. I represent myself and as far as the town recognized when they told me that I was allowed to bring my concerns for my neighbors for the neighborhood that I live in according to the letters that we received. And I was granted standing. Other than that, I I understand and I'm not trying to say that you didn't get the impression you got, but I just want to make sure that these folks have not appointed you as their attorney. In fact, for instance,

no, I don't even appoint myself as attorney in fact. Well, okay. Is it your testimony that a TI a transportation impact study was required in connection with this permit application? Yes. So, so, so your testimony is that this project is not exempt from a TIS. Well, according to the standards that the state has already met with, let's see, and I know that you're an expert in North Carolina law, so you'll understand that the Hudson Oil Board, that town's residents who argued against the special use permit were only representing themselves.

That's that's a different issue. I'm respectfully trying to understand if you are telling the council that my clients had to perform a a transportation impact study in order to proceed with this. I'm just I all I'm telling the town council is what North Carolina law has stated. They're free to make whatever determination that they want. Right. We respect their role as a decision maker. Yeah. I'm trying to clarify what you said because I got the impression you were you were testifying to them that that a transportation impact study was required. And I'm asking you if you know if in fact that is the case or not. Is it the case? You're the expert here under North Carolina law. I'm not here to testify. That's that's the thing. My job is to ask questions. Okay. To make things clear. Sure.

And to me it's not clear if you were saying that a TIS was required, a transportation impact study was required. Okay. Was is was that your intent to say that to to represent that to the council? I'm not trying to practice law without a law. No, this isn't a legal thing. This is just this is actually perhaps more of an engineering thing and Mr. Greco could speak to it. But so so so you're not saying for a fact that a TIS is required for this project. That's not your according to my beliefs and my research. I do believe that it was. Okay. What about an acoustic modeling uh study?

If there's a specific requirement for it, I'm not required to prove that they aren't a nuisance under North Carolina law. They are. this is the requirement that they are meant to me meet that they won't be 80 dB outside that where's the proof that they're meeting that they can't prove in the future that they're going to meet that standard they have to show that they can meet it I would love to have a conversation with you about this but this isn't the appropriate time what what I'm trying to understand is okay again because my clients are entitled to to not have council get bad information and given this is a quasi judicial hearing and what's your stating is supposed to be factual.

Okay. Not your opinion. Are you stating as a fact that an acoustic modeling study is required for this special use permit to be issued? Yes. And what is your basis for stating that as a matter of fact? Looking at what the North Carolina laws state can you give me a citation to the North Carolina law that you're referring to? Yeah. The humble oil standard in exhibit B. If you'd like to read through it, you can. It requires that the applicant provides expert data to prove their side. That's a procedural issue. I'm saying on a substantive level. Well, that was a procedure.

Is there anything Let me Let me ask this way. Is there anything in the code of ordinances of the town of Oakidge that mandates that the applicant for a special use permit under these circumstances perform an acoustic modeling study? there's a requirement that they will have to prove that they can meet the acoustic requirements to be able to have this permit. Didn't answer my question, but I'm ready to move on. Um, as a matter of fact, I have no further questions for you, ma'am. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, it's time for councel to uh ask Miss Loft his uh questions. I'll start with Mr. Greece. No questions,

Miss Clark. I guess to what extent do you have factual information related to Gray Gables? I know I guess some things you spoke uh as fact as far as the property size um and also the capacity for that is larger um than this proposed special use permit. Do you have more information about the uh conditions of their special use permit or what their max capacity is or kind of details so that we can make sure we're making accurate comparison? Um it lists on their own website that they have 1450 people events. Um they aren't allowed to have evening events during the week. They are allowed to have events until I believe 9:30 p.m. was when they were allowed according to the special use permit. Um, but they had been found in violation of that. And all of those things are verifiable through the Somerfield town minutes and records.

Yeah. I guess just um I I guess it's more statements. So yeah, no further questions on that. Cider, I I understand the comparisons you're making. I'm a little uncomfortable with the comparisons being seen as predictive of what's going to happen here. Okay.

But I also wonder if uh these the problems at Gray Gables, they may I mean there's a whole history there. They may have started in a different place. They may now be in compliance. Maybe Mr. Grio can tell us that later. But I'm I the the um the issue of the sound concerns me. Um, and to some extent I think you've provided some data on that again for a different location. I I'm a little troubled whether that is a factual basis when the applicant because the applicant knows we can shut them down.

That was the case with Gray Gables as well. And actually that's something that if you look at the meeting notes for Grey Gables town meetings, they were continuously in violation and the town wouldn't shut them down. That's because they also had a revocable special use permit. Oakidge has a great uh reputation for enforcing, right? I know that's absolutely okay. Thank you. No more questions. Appreciate all your work, Mr. Stone. Uh, no questions of this person. Thank you though.

Do I get to to ask questions of the town council regarding the special use permit? No, that's not correct. That would not Okay. We've we've kind of undergone a rapid fire of information. I know it's pretty substantial, right? We're absorbing. That's fine. Um, actually, this is the paired down version. So,

well, that's that's good news because we're we're well well into a long evening just with this one issue. Um, are we allowed to uh ask questions of Mr. Greco um in the interim if we don't currently have a question? A rebuttal. I think that would be part of a rebuttal period after the this witness has finished and any other witnesses to be presented by the with persons withstanding. Could we go back to her with questions afterwards and ask further questions? Yes, ma'am. Okay. I'm glad to call Mr. Greco as a rebuttal witness, which will give you an opportunity to ask questions, too.

Mr. Prow, I'm sorry. Could you Mr. Prow, could you get a little closer to your microphone? I just was saying I do plan to call Mr. Greco as a rebuttal witness. I wanted council to know that they would have another crack at him. Okay. My question is we're not going to answer questions about Gray Gables, are we? Because it's irrelevant to this. We're not Gray Gables. That's That'll be during discussion later. It's for us. Make sure we know. Okay. I got no further questions. I have no further questions rebuttal.

Thank you. You know if we have more questions. Thank you. That's fine.

Rebuttal. Are you going to call M? You indicated you were going to call Mr. I'm glad to, but I the the opposition I need confirmation that they that there are no further witnesses uh that they're going to call in their case and chief. As I understood, she was representing all of those people. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Well, before we do that, I have to see if there are other witnesses or experts uh or expert testimony that needs to be presented. Sandra. Okay. Okay.

So, now to you, sir. Mr. Greo, will you please come back to the stand?

Thank you. Yes, sir. I believe this will be your your last time up tonight. Um, did you just hear uh the um um statements that Miss Loftess offered to council? Yes, sir. I did. Um, in the interest of time, I'm going to focus on a couple of things and ask you if you could comment uh by way of rebuttal on on on them. Um, can can you comment on the uh the the fact that a a a transportation impact study has not been prepared

as part of the special use permit application and proceeding that we're at this evening? A traffic impact study or analysis is not required to be submitted with this package. And is that based on criteria in the development ordinance? It is. Uh once we apply for a driveway permit from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, at their discretion, they can determine whether or not they want one. And and if they were to instruct that uh a study is required, uh would the applicant engage in that study?

Absolutely. It would be a requirement for them to process the permit. And bear in mind, a special use permit in and of itself, the issuance of such is in no way a guarantee that any other regulatory or permittable item will be approved. Whether that's well, septic, building permit, driveway permit, uh certificate of occupancy, operational permits, those are all future considerations. And is that the case with well and septic issues as well?

Correct. Um the well and septic would have to be permitted. The second document uh should this be approved tonight is that site plan that you see that's been submitted. That's what the Guilford County Environmental Health Department will base their load data on their sole analysis, their sampling, so forth, so on. There is absolutely uh to be clear, nothing before us this evening, number one, related to well and septic permitting. And secondly, uh, just as a conversation point, we're not legally allowed by rule to to try to reuse an old well or a a residential septic system in this case.

You heard multiple references to acoustic modeling studies. I'd like to ask based on your expertise um and your significant experience with the development ordinance here, are you aware of any requirement anywhere in that ordinance for the conduct of an acoustic modeling study or even what that would entail uh in connection with this specially use permit application? specific to the town of Oakidge development ordinance. I am not aware of any requirement anywhere within that ordinance for an acoustic model analysis and acoustic study of any kind. I would expand that to say currently our staff is probably working in roughly 10 to 18 different jurisdictions working in different ordinances. I'm not familiar with with that acoustic modeling term or process anywhere that I've worked. Never never experienced it.

Um, at at this point, I'm going to turn uh Mr. Greco over to uh councel for questions. And council, no questions.

Right, Miss Snder? Um just as a point of interest and fact I guess has Gray Ga Gardens at Gray Gables uh upped their game to comply with the or uh with the terms of the special use permit since this board of adjustment meeting in 2023 to your knowledge. In response to your question, currently the gardens at Gray Gables is not one of my clients. Okay.

We do not have an active project underway with them and I can't speak to other than observationally they seem to still be open. So perhaps uh complaints were raised uh hearings were held and remedies were provided allowing them to stay open. But I I have no firsthand knowledge of of that other than it seems to still be open.

Is it your um is it your understanding that enforcement of for instance the parking restrictions would be the responsibility of the LLC and its staff or of the neighbors? Uh nowhere in our ordinance is enforcement authority granted to uh anyone other than very specific individuals. Be that a code enforcement officer, be that an official or design of the

Okay, let me rephrase that. Would it be my understanding from Mr. uh Vogel's uh testimony earlier was that they would make sure that uh sorry I'm getting tired that those who use the facility would comply and that if they didn't comply that they would deal with them through their staff. Is that your understanding? My understanding of this particular site is they have seasoned professionals who are experienced in these types of operations. And to kind of supplement his testimony earlier, they're self-p policing. So any event that's projected for more than more capacity in terms of parking spaces than what's provided, it's incumbent upon the the owner operator to have in place that overflow parking plan that we have discussed during an event. It's incumbent upon that operator to periodically look is is anybody there's no ordinance or regulation or policy to prevent stupid. So can somebody pull up and and try to park on the side of 150? Absolutely. Uh but operationally, which is not what we're discussing tonight, but yes, they have staff. They monitor. They have a backup plan and they monitor throughout events to the conclusion and including once an event's over with to make sure everyone's gotten home safely. Is this car supposed to be, you know, is everybody out?

Thank you,

Mr. Greco. On the parking, since we're talking about that, um I heard the same thing from Mr. Fogle. Um, but is it my understanding that the that the town staff would approve a parking plan in advance of individual events? In other words, if the applicant believed that instead of 38 vehicles, 39 were going to show up that they would come to the town and present a parking plan prior to that specific event. It's incumbent upon the owner operator to ensure that if they believe an event is going to create overflow parking, the ordinance provides a mechanism for an overflow parking plan which must be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the event. So, it's not an exact science. If if I'm having a meeting of my friends, I don't have many friends, so I don't need 38 parking spaces. Um, another event perhaps, uh, you know, again, back to the owner operator, they need to to constantly be evaluating their parking to ensure they have overflow in place.

And what ensures that they do that? enforcement mechanism. The ordinance is give and take. It tells you you must make an application. It tells you you must do this, you should do that. It uses the word shall. The ordinance also says if you fail to do those things, these could be the consequences if if that makes sense. Thank you. Okay, great.

Did you want to add something, Mr. Taylor? Um just to add I think some of the enforcement mechanism is within the special use permitting process within itself is that if they don't comply and with the requirements set up or any additional requirements this board may add to the special use permit the and complaints are received. the town council can bring up this special use permit again and revoke it. So that's the that's the key here with this is that the permit itself is revocable. And so you if there's somebody wanting to do this, you would think they would I mean for me it would be the captain obvious that you would want to make sure you're staying in compliance uh to keep your permit. Um, go ahead.

Yeah. So, while Mr. Greco's up here, um, your earlier testimony was that, um, forgive me, it may have been Mr. Fogle. Um, that, uh, the applicant sent letters to a number of nearby property owners um, as part of getting ready to meet with neighbors and such. Is that correct? That's correct. that was conducted by our office staff as we typically do with with any matter for a public hearing. Uh we in addition to whatever notice the town sends, uh our staff sends out the own uh town's gracious enough to to usually allow us the use of this space. Uh

do we have a copy of that letter? I do not. Um was there a presentation at this meeting? There was discussion uh presentation if you will sort of an open the way I conduct those uh you know here's our plan here's the ordinance gobbledegook here's the uh plain English version of it ask questions draw on the plan take it home with you u that's in a nutshell it's very informal though there weren't any presentations or handouts other than what we have in our packet it was less detailed than your packet but it was the gist of the the program.

We usually have a visual. So, it was a a reasonably developed site plan uh looking like that, but we don't have a copy of that. That's that's what you use. Correct. Okay. Correct. Okay. Anything else from council? No. No. Um quick question just to clarify. I think I might have asked before, but it is uh getting late. Um, did you clarify that the septic and well once you applied for that it would be commercial uh use at this site?

Yes, ma'am. Once we we're jumping nine steps ahead, but but when when or if we apply for the well and septic permits for this site, it is it is identified as commercial and Guilford County Environmental Health will apply commercial standards to that. there is no choice to to reduce the standards or we have no input in that. It's there's residential systems and there's commercial systems. Okay,

final question then. It Mr. Fogle testified that uh what's the name here? Um, oh, uh, that Austin Taylor Investment LLC does not run any other event center. So, the Gray Gables conversation, how what's the connection for purposes of this, the people that have testified, where's the connection between Gray Gables and this SUP? I believe the only connection that I have made was within regard to property values and compatibility with surroundings.

So you don't have any you you don't work in any capacity serve in any capacity in the past or currently with Greg Ables? I have in the past. Yes. Okay. But not currently. Not currently. You know, I'm currently not on retainer or any other way with forestry systems or guarding Greg Gables. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further questions from Mr. Greco? No. Thank you. Thank you all,

Mayor. It'd be appropriate to ask Miss Loftess if she has any questions by way of cross-examination for either of the witnesses for the applicant. M um Mr. Thomas before that can I ask one additional question of uh uh Mr.

Fogle Mr. F, you had testified that earlier um that during your meeting with the public that you didn't have any push back. There wasn't any um anyone openly opposed to this. The evidence presented from um Loftus

uh Moftus shows a pet. Thank you. a petition, Ashton Park resident petition against special use permit and it's got approximately 35 plus residents. Um, that's contrary to what you told us. Can you I only testified to the uh to the yard sale that we had. I was not in attendance for Mr. Greco's meeting. So, this wasn't during the meeting with the neighborhood?

No. All All I was in attendance for was the yard sale where we had many conversations with many neighbors. Uh we were pretty explicit that we were having going to do an event space and nobody nobody uh expressed any concern at that at that uh time. But I was not at Mr. Greco's meeting with the neighborhoods. So, it's not your testimony that you spoke with neighbors. You don't know that?

I did speak with neighbors. We did speak with neighbors at the yard sale. That was a separate event from Mr. Greco's event. Uh when we spoke at the yard sale, we discussed our plans. We had ren uh renderings of what we were doing. We actually had this site plan. And again, there was, you know, it was very informal conversations. Have you spoken to them formally? I have not spoken with any of the neighbors formally. No, Mr. Greco had that uh had that meeting and I was not in attendance. And thank you. Uh and so finally, Mr. Dr. How many people were in attendance in the meeting that you held?

I believe seven, not including myself. So, do we have the names of those that attended? Do we know that? Do not. That meeting is not required by documentation, so forth, so on. It's not required as part of our ordinance or part of our process. It's just the contact be made. Well, I understand that, but you offered it up as evidence. Agreed. I I do not have a list of names. No. Nor do I have uh minutes. Thank you, sir. I have a question for Mr. Grayson. Just a quick one.

All right. So, was this uh petition submitted to the to uh the LLC or Mr. Greco or anybody or is this just just for us to look at? Were you asking me? Yes. Could you please repeat your question? This petition that we have that has, I don't know, 50 signatures, 40, whatever it is, did y'all send that to the lawyer, LLC, or anybody, or is that just for us to look at? Oh, I submitted it to every neighbor. No, I'm not I'm talking about the owner who's trying to do this venue. No. Why would I submit it to them? And if I would have submitted it to an LLC, it would be void. now asking you the question.

No, no, no. I mean, I'm just saying if it's all changed hands now, but um No. I just brought that here to show neighborhood sentiment for people who would be affected by this. I was just asking the question. No, no, no, no, no. I mean, I'm I'm sorry. I'm not trying.

Um and he's right. There were seven of us that attended the meeting. The only people who were invited were people whose property was adjoining. And so that's why there were only seven people to offer commentary at the meeting that we had with Mr. Greco. Um, and I know that I'm speaking here, but other people here could verify that they were told that a family would be living in the house at the yard sale. That covers my question. Okay. No other questions for me. Crossexamine. Would you like to uh ask questions and cross-examine the

I would applicant? Yeah, I'd love to. Um, so part of the application for a special use permit is there's the opportunity for the applicant to add extra conditions on their own to show goodwill towards the neighborhood. So, for example, would you be willing to limit the amounts of people that show up besides what maybe the fire marshall says or what a parking lot requirement because I don't quite understand the parking lot requirement. If you're allowed to make overflow plans, doesn't that mean that it would be more than 150 people if that's the only determiner? If it's every human

you need to just confine yourself to a question that can be answered. Would you be willing to add a limit of say 75 people or further limits to hours of operation since you're moving into an area with families with children who go to school to say maybe on week nights you're willing to end events earlier or agree not to have outdoor music or make sure that the events are only held indoors. I have to object to the form of that question.

Okay. In what way? How how do I restate it so that it counts as a question? Compound times five. Okay. It's more than one question. Would you be willing to add limits to how many people are able to attend events? Limits are already established with this plan. It's 150 maximum attendees. Right. I'm we're not willing to reduce that. Are you willing to not have outdoor music during week nights? No. Are you willing to have quiet hours start earlier on week nights?

We will conduct operations, hours of operation, business hours in accordance with what the ordinance permits. Are you willing to um say that events will move indoors earlier on week nights to exist more in harmony with the neighborhood? It's overly broad and no a book club meeting outdoors in the spring or summer or fall in lawn chairs. We're not going to take that off the table with an overly broad restriction. I wouldn't know how to phrase it to offer it. Would you try?

No. Um, would you be willing to say that the hard limit is 150 and that you would keep track of that? I think we've already established that as a hard limit and I think that we have established the enforcement mechanisms to monitor uh attendance maximum attendance as does the fire marshall by the way.

Are you planning on filing permits in the future for expanded outdoor lighting? All lighting proposed for this site is shown on our site plan as part of our lighting plan. It has been evaluated by staff and is in compliance with the town's lighting ordinance. Are you planning on using a tent in the outdoor area for events? I'll just decline to answer that one. has no basis for the special use permit or the we have it I don't remember what words I said on again I don't see as well as I used to outdoor uh lawn space or event space what I call it

temporary season

outdoor event lawn area temporary uh and seasonal we don't have plans for a structure in that location that would require permitting. Certain tents and canopies do require permitting. We're proposing nothing of the sort. Are you willing to have a limit to large events per week? Or if you were booked for 150 person events, seven days a week, would that be allowed by your business plan?

Objection. That's extremely speculative into the future and and I can't answer. Would you have a limit to how many events you hold per week? No. I have no further questions. Does council have questions from his office? Further questions? No.

Thank you, Grayson. Thank you. I'm sorry. Am I not I can't hear very well. So, yeah. Thank you. I was speaking to them. Thank you. Thank you.

Time to request any further parties to come forward if not to uh close the matter except for legal arguments. Are there any further parties uh withstanding that want to make any comments? Please come forward and be sworn in.

Are you are are you raising your hand? Okay. I'm not sure. Come forward and state your name. Hey and and address. Wait, you can't ask questions. You can only provide testimony. Facts in this matter. I I just got questions. Okay. Sorry, gentlemen. Okay. Okay, we're ready to deliberate. I can't hear you, Mr. Thomas.

Sorry. If there are no if there's no further testimony to be received, you should invite legal arguments uh to close the matter before council discusses this. what we've been doing. Well, you've heard them. If there any further legal arguments, council, are there you want to make a a closing statement?

I I think it'll be pretty unpopular if I do much along those lines. I'd just like to remind the council of the standard, which is material, competent, substantial evidence that's factual and f based on firsthand knowledge. Also, uh Mr. Greco was tendered and accepted as an expert witness. He is he gets more latitude as an expert. He can offer you opinions. He is the only person who testified who has that ability at the in this proceeding. There no other experts qualified. So I you know I certainly respect Miss Loftess for standing up and and representing her neighbors like even though that may not she's not a legal representative and I really uh was trying to be as respectful as I could with my objections. I want to make that clear and I, you know, I want her to understand that I respect her for it. But, um, I I I also just want to point out to council,

Mr. Prow, I'm sorry, is your microphone turned on? Uh, the green light is on, so Okay. You might need to get a little closer.

Yeah. Um, I I do want to point out, uh, you know, there are some questions about the petition and whether it was provided and when. And I I do want to note that there's no dates on any of these signatures. Um um generally the the petitions to be legally admissible in evidence that signatures would have to be notorized or there would have to be some corroboration and it's not I'm not trying to cast dispersions on this. It's just I want to offer that as as legal argument to you. Um beyond that I would just ask you to consider particularly Mr. Greco's testimony about the details um and about the the nature of this request. they they are asking for a privilege that you can revoke. And I just want to remind you that that's the that's what we're working with here. That's why this is called a special use permit. Um, it you you know you it some people may think that's an ugly word, but instead my client is respectfully giving you the ability at any time to put them out of business in exchange for the privilege of bringing this amenity to a to a site where it belongs and that preserves a historic structure. And so that's all I have to say at this time. Thank you very much,

Mr. Mayor. I would request a 10-minute break. We're going on three hours and 10 minutes right now. Can we have a three minute break so that we don't go so long? Let's compromise. Seven minutes. Seven minute break. Yeah. Let's Let's try Let's try for five minutes. Okay.

Sorry. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

We are I believe Mr. Thomas, we're at a point where we've had questions from council and we've had responses and rebuttals of the parties. So now we're it's time to for the council to deliberate uh as discussion uh council Mr. Mayor. Yes, wherever that's coming from.

Sean, plan director for town of Oakidge. I need to make a correction to something I said earlier because one of the things that I referenced when it was talking about sound uh specifically that it would be overall sound would be regulated at 80 dB that is only actually specific within that special use permit section to amplified sound on that. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for the correction Mr. T. Okay. So council will begin its deliberations. As we discuss this matter, I ask that council members focus on relevant evidence and facts citing in each case the applicable sections of our ordinances. This ensures a fair process and provides a clear foundation for our final motion. Right. Who would like to begin? Well, I'll start us out by saying that this is a very significant house in Oakidge and that providing historic homes with a new use is one of the best ways to preserve them in perpetuity. So, I think that's a and the fact that they are retaining historic materials um and that it's National Register eligible are facts that I think we should consider.

Okay. How does that relate to the ordinance, Ann? I'm sorry. Uh, thank you. Uh, the the preservation, this is a residential house that's being repurposed for commercial use by by which preserves it. And by preserving it, it is preserving the residential connections to the community and is therefore in that sense in in that aspect in harmony with the residential area. Mr. Mayor, um again, I I uh commend the use of the uh order worksheet that's in your packet. Yeah.

And that you start with number one and and go item to item in inviting uh from council a discussion as to each point. The purpose of it being to determine if there's one or more facts which support the required statutory findings. That is the best and most uh effective way to get through the task before you. The first item is simply a preliminary determination that the application was complete because sometimes it turns out the applications in these matters is not complete. But uh you might want to defer to staff on that. If it is, you can uh find that and move on to the uh statutory findings.

Are you referencing the the uh the one that's He's looking at this one. So, the application was submitted and let me make sure I'm there. Uh do we believe it's complete? That's this right. Okay. All right. So, it looks complete to me. Sean, do you agree that the application is complete? As far as the staff review, yes. Okay. Okay. Yes. I would say the finding of fact on that is that we find it to be complete uh based on the fact that we have in our evidence the completed special use permit application.

Right. All right. Anybody else? Okay. Then number two use number two is that the use will or will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan submitted. This conclusion is based on sworn testimony and evidence submitted during the evidentiary hearing which shows the following. We've heard so much.

Yeah. I I would like to offer up that uh Mr. Greco's comments um that other entities will regulate public health and safety that such as the board of health and NC do uh and others would be um evidence that it will not materially endanger public health or safety. And uh and I will add that that was what I heard was that would be done based on commercial use and not residential use. So that would you accept that Mr. Stone? Oh well we're just talking about it. I don't but yes I do. Well we're trying to make it through these things. So that's a finding of fact.

Yeah. So offering that that extra Yeah. So development it is based on commercial development uh standards rather than residential. I know this is a cumbersome process. Sorry. I know this is a cumbersome process, but you're doing the right thing and discussing it and then when that discussion seems to be over to essentially reiterate it as a motion that you can vote on so that the board can vote yes or no. At that point, we can say it meets one, two, three and not four or whatever.

Well, you or or in the first one and then go on to the second one. But you can not try to do all of them at one time. Do them one at a time. That's the way to get through this in an effective way. So So let let me let me help out here then. I would make a motion right side um that having heard the evidence and arguments presented in the evidentiary hearing that item number one, a written application uh was submitted and is complete in all respects as evidenced by the uh copies that are presented to town council in our packet of information and by the town staff.

Well, that that's fine. Again, it's kind of in the negative on that first one that I if it's submitted and nobody questions it completeness and staff is saying it was complete, then you're good to go. Okay? Uh the board's good to go because if not, somebody would have pointed out some incompleteness and you would stop there. So that's uh if that's the motion, then you should vote it was a complete application just for the record. Make that as a second. Third. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. Was there any further discussion on that or do we want to move forward? Move. So all in favor? I. Okay.

Okay. Now uh as to the first of the statutory findings that is the one as as Mr. Stone was saying was quoting the use will or will not materially endanger public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan submitted. So again, do you have one or more facts that either support that or ne negative that and then that that fact or fact should be the basis for your next motion for that one finding.

So as Mr. Stone just pointed out, the expert witness testified that other entities will regulate public health and safety and we have a great record of that in Guilford County, I would add. And that is the finding effect for number two. And I move that we accept that finding effect. And may go ahead because you're gonna ask the same thing as I am. Go ahead. And and that would be done to commercial standards. To commercial standards. Yes. So that's the motion. Second. Second. I wait a minute, Mr. Gre. Any further discussion? Okay. The motion's been made and seconded. Um so all in favor say

I. I. All right. Based on that you go on to the next statutory finding. Okay. The use for which the special use permit is sought does or does not meet all required conditions and specifications. Um, I'd like to say that uh the evidence of the plat as well as the uh ordinances um that the use meets the required conditions and specifications um just based on the the evidence. Um you can look at the the plat submitted

compared to the site plan. Okay. site plan. Um, as compared to what are the ordinance numbers? Um, as compared to uh section 30 1048 event center um the required requirements. Okay. Any other I agree. Did you Was that a motion?

Um uh yes. I guess I make a motion that we um accept as a a finding of fact that the special use permit meets all required conditions and specifications based on sworn testimony testimony and evidence submitted during the evidentiary hearing which shows that the uh site plan is in compliance with ordinance uh section 30-1048 for event center. All right. Uh motion's been made. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Motion's been made and second. Is there further discussion?

And to be clear again, uh Councilwoman Clark, the in saying compliance with 30-1048, that's subsections A through H. In other words, all the criteria in that are shown in the site plan. Yes. Okay. Just to clarify, that's that's what we're saying there. Well, but it the site plan does not show it doesn't address on street parking. Aren't we talking about B1 through 4? Um section 30-1048 event center A through H.

Okay, we're talking about all of those. Just as a point of order, does that mean we cannot if we approve all of those, can we not uh ask for conditions on say the hours of operation because that's included here? I thought we were just uh accepting the um required conditions which are uh Councilwoman Schneider uh hours of operation are are subsection F, but you the council can impose additional on top of that

additional requirements. That's correct. So, as I'm hearing what Councilwoman Clark said, the submitted site plan basically meets these minimum requirements or shows compliance with minimum requirements, that still leads to the council when it gets to it, which you haven't got to yet. If you otherwise approve this, you can still add additional requirements. Well, and it's if it's all of these things A through H, it's the site plan and the sworn testimony. Correct. Okay. Would that also would that be acceptable, Councilwoman Clark?

Yes, I sworn testimony to adhere to all of those ordinance requirements of the witnesses for the applicant. Yes. So, let me clarify. Mr. Thomas is then is is this the point where the council may add additional um restrictions or is this at a later point? Typically that's after you've gone through the statutory findings. Yes sir. And found one or more facts to support each one that provisionally then you're going to grant this. But you feel there are additional requirements understood

necessary. That's where you add those at the end just for clar to make sure it's clear that the statutory findings have been met but council might go on to add others other requirements. Okay. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor and somebody seconded it. Okay. And someone seconded it. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. No further discussion. All in favor say I. I. I.

Okay. In four, the use will or will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abuing property or the use is a or the use is a public necessity. This is based on sworn testimony and evidence submitted during the evidentiary hearing which shows the following. Well, it's not a public necessity, but it was not presented as such. Correct. Does anyone have findings of fact that show it will or would not injure the value, right?

I don't think so. Could we pause on this one and go to the next one perhaps? Or I don't know. We have to order. We we heard I think we heard opinions on this matter. I'm not sure we heard data on this matter.

Um I would suggest that um parts of Orma operate uh Maple Glade operates sometimes as an event center. uh even Oakhurst sometimes hosts special events. Um and property values have not been injured by this clearly in this area. I'm not sure I accept the premise that this particular the Honeyut Donnell Honeyut house hosted special events in the past. I think those were community gatherings in a home which is really more like ochre. So I'm not sure what's relevant here.

Yeah. Um, here's my sticking point on this one is that you're right, an we didn't get any evidence from either side. You know, there's no data. I don't want to put the the residents at a disadvantage, but based on the special use permit, um, a real estate agent or an appraiser should have come here with with data. But by the same respect, um, with all due respect to Mr. Griico, um, I don't have any evidence that it, you know, it won't, uh, from from either side. So, I'm struggling with this one is that, um, where's our information to be able to make a decision?

I guess I have a thought on this. the actual we're looking at Michael's thing, but when you look at the actual text, I guess this is in the staff recommendations, we do not have any evidence that the use will substantially injure the value of adjoining or abudding property. In other words, we have no evidence that it will endanger property values. So, I think I can attest to that as a fact because we haven't heard any evidence that it will. And I make that motion.

Um I guess real quick I do want to um make a question. In the the evidence provided um by the opposition, it was uh exhibit K. Um sorry, property disclosure. I don't exhibit K, the North Carolina Residential Property Disclosure Act. Uh the form So looking on this, I mean this is a a form that people have to fill out. Um and it does say is there any noise etc etc from commercial etc sources that affect the property? Would this be considered a commercial use?

It's commercial. Yes. Very good point. Um

so you're saying that is a factor in uh as Fedra as Miss Loft has said it is a factor but it is potentially a factor but it is not evidence that it will currently uh damage property values. I guess just where it says any noise from commercial sources, technically any noise if it allows up to 80 dB measured at a neighboring property would be noise from a commercial source. Um, so you could potentially see that as a finding of fact that an abuing property to the commercial source would have to disclose that noise came from that commercial source. Now, we could consider that a finding of fact. Would we be able to determine if that definitely would or would not impact the property value

or let me offer I think it's a stretch. Well, I I don't know that it's a stretch, but I think that the issue becomes one of um that if additional restrictions or conditions were put on, would we mitigate that? So while noise from a commercial entity would, it depends on what that noise level is. And that's one of the things that we have the opportunity to to address,

right? But we don't know. I think this is a difficult situation because they they are going to possibly host weddings, but they're not definite. I mean, we don't know anything about what they're going to do yet. There is no evidence that they're going to I guess to clarify, we're kind of summarizing our findings of fact. And so, we could at least put a finding of fact is that we were presented that someone would have to disclose that. Okay. with um so that's a fact that we found in relation to this item, but then would that finding effect support an impact on property value? Not necessarily.

Right. Not necessarily. So, we've heard two things. We did hear that it has to be disclosed. noise would have to be disclosed. But we also heard no um we heard no evidence that it will the event center will substantially injure the value of a joining or a budding property and that's what um on the staff recommendations Michael presents it as a will or will not but all we have to do is say that we don't have any evidence that it will that it will substantially injure. I mean, we don't have any evidence, right, that it will substantially injure. I don't know how we can do this without real estate data.

Well, and so I guess as far as um our duty here, we're supposed to find facts and I guess Mr. Thomas could maybe clarify this. We have I guess two parts. We're supposed to one identify and kind of agree on our findings of fact. Correct. And then at that point then we decide what those facts um make conclusions from those facts on each of these points. Right. Right.

So is there value in stating what facts we found but then having the conclusion that maybe we did not find evidence to support a negative impact on property value. Well, no. The way this is done, again, the this legislation's been on the books a long time, but they they use the term findings of fact. Those findings of fact are conclusions. Your legislature calls things sometimes the way lawyers would not. But each one of these is actually a conclusion reached based on one or more facts supporting it. That's why and I've simply organized the statute this way um so that you can do it systematically and find one or more facts that support each one which is required to grant the special use permit. Now, as to this matter uh of the uh impact on property values, I have I have to say in my experience that's usually a matter of expert testimony,

which we did not have. Mr. Grio said he qualified what he said and saying he was not he was not giving expert testimony outside his areas of expertise. He was commenting on what he said were publicly available tax values and that type of thing, but he was not qualified to give nor was he giving an opinion on value. In other words, the impact of this proposed use special use permit on surrounding properties.

So, Mr. Thomas, let me ask a question then to move this forward. If The finding is that based on sworn testimony and evidence submitted or the lack of evidence submitted that the town council cannot make a reasonable judgment due to the lack of evidence. That is correct. And then we can move on to the next point. You can or you can stop there. Okay. up to the council. So,

or you and you can either say denied or you can if you thought there was a reason you should leave this open for additional evidence, you can continue this hearing to be concluded and reopen at another time to receive evidence specifically. if you thought it could be shown either way on on the impact on values. But if you thought that was opportunity already given and not availed of, then you should uh you could go ahead and ultimately deny this application for lack of evidence on that point. Look, it's not our fault that to the information we got tonight.

So, we should go on that. It's not the council's responsibility to make the case. Right. Right. That's correct. So that that would be my motion on number four. Um that the use and I'm going to go off the text here. The use, yes,

will or will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or budding property was not evidence was not presented during sworn testimony of the evidentiary hearing to show the fact that it either would or would not. Boy, that just sounds ugly. I'm sorry, but we could only do what we were dealing with.

I I I do think that both sides made an effort at this. So, Mr. Grio said that he had looked at property values around Gay Gables and around Somefield Farms. And I think if we look with our eyes around Somefield Farms, we can see that those are some of the most expensive homes in Somefield. So there is de facto evidence that it hasn't affected property values around Summerfield Farms. I would think I would love to see that, but I'm not sure. I don't know about Greg Gables. It's a little harder to tell. It's a much more mixed neighborhood.

Yeah. And I'm trying to avoid the Gray Gables conversation alto together. Uh what I'm stating is that no evidence on either side was presented that would allow the town council to make a decision on item number four. Well, I can I interject or do or can I interject with something to provide to provide this is just a minute, Mr. D. One last thing. I think this is the one area where Grey Gables and Somerfield Farm are relevant because they are other nearby event centers. Go ahead.

As far as evidence that was presented tonight, there's evidence that was presented on the current condition of the house when it was purchased. And there's and this was a dilapidated structure that needed major renovation work. And that we do know the value of what that purchase price was even though that was not presented tonight. What is that post value of this renovated structure even with its use going to be if if it was any use and what is that impact going to have on the neighboring properties too? because that plays into this because the current situation could be argued that the current to what it was previously decreased values because it was a dilapidated property.

A great point. It's No, it's not that that was not entered into evidence. But that was but the but the renovation part is a I'm sorry. It was that was not pro I don't have that data in front of me. And that's what it's an evidentiary hearing. We should see the data in front of us. Not our job to go out and get the data at this point. Mr. Stone's com motion and comments are consistent with this body's task which is to make its uh findings based on the evidence in this hearing. Right. Okay. So

my motion still stands. We did hear in sworn testimony from Mr. Fogle that the house was in terrible shape. It was falling down and we also live here and we know that. Okay. I guess we're all So, we still have a motion uh that Mr. Stone made. I do not believe we have a second. Did I get a second? I can't remember what the motion was.

All right. So the motion is that uh item number four, the use will or will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abuing properties. Um based on sworn testimony, uh there was no evidence submitted during the evidentiary hearing to support either will or will not substantially injure. So what does that mean? you grow. That means that that means that that we did not have the evidence to approve number four. I'm I'm fine with it. I don't have any evidence. Do we have a second?

Are you seconding it? That was a motion. Second. We have a motion and a second. Comments. Comments. Any further? I I I don't think I quite agree with that. So, okay. Are you saying that the motion is that we don't have evidence to support that the use will not injure adjoining properties? That's correct. Or or will we have evidence that it will or will not Well, but we're looking for evidence if it will not because it says for the findings. It says will or will not, right? But I'm saying the uh

we don't it says the special use permit shall be granted when each of the following findings facts have been made by town council that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or budding property. Right. And we and so we don't have finding a fact that the use will not substantially injure correct or will increase. Right. But I'm saying we're looking for finding a fact that it will not and we technically don't have finding a fact to support that it will not. Right. Agree with that.

I don't quite agree with that because I think be because we don't have any evidence that it will val devalue other properties. I think we can say that it will not. Well, but just because you don't have evidence to the contrary doesn't mean you can assume it will not. So it basically we're looking for it says that the use will not substantially injure saying the following findings of facts have been made that the use will not subst that the use will not substantially injure right

because we don't know. Well, I would say that we do have a fact that the property is being significantly improved from its former state. How about noise? Does that affect to the neighbors? The the noise is a contrary possibly issue, but we don't have really a connection. We don't have the data on the noise. We don't have the hard data to support. We don't have data. So yeah, I'll just say I I make a motion that we have not found findings of fact to support that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining a budding property or that the use is a public necessity. I'm sorry. Did we already had a motion and a second?

I've already had a motion. We have a second it's just she's clarifying my motion basically. Well, do you accept the declaration? Yes, I I'll accept the the restated motion. So, can we have another Can we resay it, guys? I don't even know where we're at. Yes. I'd like to make a motion that we have not found facts that support that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or budding property or that the use is a public necessity. Second, discussion further discussion and again that's based on the lack of presentation of evidence. Right. Right. Yes. Based on the lack of the lack of evidence presented

between what you and Councilman Stone were saying. That's what you that's what the motion is, right? Yes. That you're you simply haven't heard the evidence that supports either way. Yes. Okay. Okay. Are you Well, let's just vote. Let's vote. But you were a minute ago you were Yeah. No, I don't I don't agree. So, I'm a nay. But the motion will still prevail if everybody else says I. All right. I All right. Then uh there's a motion and a second. Uh all in favor of the motion say I. I. I. All oppose say nay. Nay. And I'm sorry for being grouchy. It's okay. You're fired. We're used to it.

That was Mayor Mayor Horton. The Mayor Horton. the uh again because the statute requires all of the four statutory finds to be made. Once you've reached a negative on any of them, you can stop. You can complete your analysis and go on to the uh remaining finding about harmony. But again, the action on that will not allow you either way to grant the special use permit tonight. Right. So then it's up to you to decide how you want to handle this procedurally. If you want to simply deny it or continue it for additional evidence and decide later, it's up to you.

Yeah, I'd like to continue for the record. I'd like to continue. See what if we could continue for the record. Okay. Finish the last one. Okay. And are you continuing it to hear specific evidence such as not not continue uh what's a not not continue the hearing but uh the meeting keep talking. Yes. Wants to continue with the rest of the worksheet. Yes. Yes. And for the record. Okay.

All right. Go ahead. Thank So number five, the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan submitted will or will not be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and is or is not in general conformity with the plan of development of the jurisdiction and its environments. This is based on sworn testimony and evidence support submitted during the evidentiary hearing which shows the the following. So, one fact I would uh move that be added to this is that the historic home is being renovated by um an experienced historic uh construction firm and will thereby add to the the character and harmony of the area in which it is located which is a residential area. There may be other facts to add to this but that is an important fact.

Is there other historic structures in that area adjacent to it which would uh very close by? Yes. How far the military academy? Uh well no closer than that. Sandra, what's the closest historic structure to I'm sorry I didn't hear Mr. Grayson. What's the closest historic structure to the Honey? I mean I don't think it matters. It's a residential home and it has been in a state of dilapidation and it's being brought up to where it will be in harmony with other beautiful homes in that area and adds the historic character that's we find all over Oakidge in many different spots, not just our historic.

And I would agree that bringing it up to any standard, it would be an improvement over its current condition. So I I think Ann's right on that. One of ones the finding of fact uh staff testified um that the Oakidge land use plan identifies this area as residential. Yeah. And that the testimony of Mr. Grio states that the proposed um special use permit is in harmony and compatible with the permitted use table. But there's no evidence that has been offered to show compatibility or harmony to the RS40 neighborhood.

I agree. I don't think it's in harmony with the neighborhood.

Yeah, I I would like to add to that. Um in uh I guess it's a finding of fact the ordinance section 30-1048 event center says that it is required um to be permitted in the uh go-m general office-med intensity district GB general b business district SC shopping center district and pi public and institutional district. Um so where those uh zonings exist, the event center would be required to be allowed. Um it has been deemed in harmony in those areas and it would still have all of the requirements uh the minimum requirements that have been met by the applicant. Um however in this scenario uh it is RS40 residential so it requires a special use permit where we do take into account the environment and the surrounding areas are um what was it based on staff summary it is uh existing land use is to the north is RS30 residential northeast is LB limited business south is RS40 residential, east is RS40 residential and west is RS40 residential. Um so in order to be in harmony with those other zonings that they also do not uh by ordinance allow by default an event center. Um, I don't think that the minimum requirements I don't think that meeting the minimum requirements would enable the uh use here to be in harmony with the surrounding area. Um, and we have based on sworn testimony

uh that they do not uh they would not want to apply special conditions in consideration of that. um they intend to follow the the minimum requirements of event center. So I don't think it'd be in harmony with the surrounding area.

I would say that you just convinced me that it is in harmony because there are mixed uses and this would simply be another mixed use with the added benefit of a historic residence being preserved. But the other adjacent uses are limited business which also does not allow an event center. I think the issue is that this is a a commercial 40

commercial and it's near some commercial and it's near some residential and it kind of marries uh per the testimony we've heard it marries the uh pres preservation of a residence with uh buffers preserving existing landscaping uh creating buffers from the residential area which is the important thing they don't need a buffer from the limited business. But I would argue then that you just convinced me that it is consistent. I disagree. You know that to play music every night, seven days a week. Well, that's it is not in harmony with the the the neighborhood. So, the noise is a different issue.

I mean, there's kids that go to school during the year, right? So, and it is not in harmony with anything. Would there be hours that you think would be make it more appropriate that we could uh impose as a condition?

And I think that's that's a good point is that if we thought that it was in compliance or or in harmony or incompatible, then we could talk about additional conditions as far as noise or capacities or things like that. But let's get to the the crux of it. Either it is or it isn't because the next thing would be that we start looking at do we want to uh require additional conditions. Yeah.

So to to the point I is that the testimony was that that it was compatible and and harmonious with the permitted use table. this that's not the spirit or intent of the process. It's is it compatible and in harmony with the jurisdiction which is RS40 and its environs which is the neighborhood homes. So it it fails on that but it is also right next to limited business but okay but that does not allow either. Let's use the limited business because that was one of the points that I was going to bring up as evidence.

But it's a mitigating factor is what I'm saying. But agreed. But one of the evidence that were presented by staff is that Northeast limited business is there. It's Haircraft and it's Oakidge Florist.

They do their businesses inside during Monday. Well, I don't know if they do seven day a week or not, but it's the the the traffic, the the noise, the uh conditions are exceedingly different, not compatible with a event center. They're entirely different types of businesses. So, that it's not even harmonious with the limited businesses that are somewhat adjacent to the area. Okay. To me, the only thing is harmony is it's a house.

Yeah. Well, and so yeah, I mean basically my my point was hypothetically if we were looking at a RS40 zoning surrounded by uh you know GO-m or GB or SC, we would say that the RS40 or I guess I would draw a conclusion that the RS40 uh being used as an event center may be more harmonious in that environment. But in this scenario, since none of these surrounding areas allow event center either, it's not harmonious. And you know, you talk about maybe some conditions, but we have testimony that they would not consider um certain things like, you know, no outdoor music, quiet earlier, um would not consider uh being what is it? Indoor earlier on week nights. Well, I think we haven't asked those questions. I think those were asked by someone else. I I'm not sure.

Well, he gave testimony that he would not consider that though, right? But he was Well, and it's basically the I see it as the use if developed according to the plan submitted and in their plan submitted in the application and in testimony. They said that they would not consider certain conditions. I think it's not harmonious with the That's correct. But they they did say, and I think we're sort of straying, they did say they would comply with all of the conditions

for the event center, all the decibel levels, the hours, everything. And they did testify that under oath and they said that they have a professional events manager that they're going to have on staff. I'm I'm trying to make the other case here because I don't want us to run through this and stomp all over this and um not be correct in our judgment, not be defensible in our judgment. And I think Gohead

I I think it is correct even though I think earlier Mr. Griico was making a circular argument, but it is also correct that a special use permit for this use is allowed in RS40 and we have to be able to consider that they might be able to comply in such a way as to make it harmonious. Well, it's basically saying it's designation as a special use permit required basically says depending on the certain scenario it may or may not be harmonious. Um, and in this scenario I believe that it is not harmonious.

Right. And to the point the the applicant could offer whatever conditions to make it harmonious and compatible with the area. They have not. And we're at a point where it's we're not asking for any. We're just looking at number five and asking is it or is it not in harmony and compatible with the area? Would we we need to ask it of the applicant in order for them to consider it?

And would this council be in favor of limiting the hours of operation uh Monday through Wednesday? you know, typical school nights where nobody's out late or Sunday through Wednesday to 900 pm, for instance.

So, so let me give you here's where I think we're at is we need to make a motion on number five and it's either up or down and then that will tell us where we need to go next. If the applicant wants to come back to this town council with a modified plan, they've heard all of the issues that we have. Then they may be able to bring something that the neighborhood and the town council would go, "Yeah, that sounds pretty compatible and that sounds like something we would want." I just don't think you should have music on Monday through Thursday.

Well, that's the thing. I don't think that's up for us to determine the conditions right now because that's again they could offer up that condition. I think we just need to to look at

let's let me try this. I make a motion that the location character of the use if developed according to the plan will not be in harmony with the area in which it is located and is not in general conformity with the plan of development of jurisdiction and its environs. This is based on sworn testimony and evidence submitted during the evidentiary hearing which shows the following. That staff has testified that the Oakidge land use plan identifies this area as residential. That it is not in harmony with adjacent businesses as submitted by staff and it is not compatible or in harmony with the RS40 neighborhood. Saka.

Yes, I would add uh based on the findings of fact also that um as submitted it follows the minimum requirements requirements of an event center restate that. Uh it additional evidence that the plan submitted only meets the minimum requirements of an event center. um which you know would not meet the standard of being in harmony with the surrounding area. So that the evidence yikes

that the evidence presented meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance but does it but is not in harmony or compatibility with the adjacent RS40 neighborhood. Yeah. Mr. Stone, did you not make a motion? I did. Yeah, but I'm adding that one. I'm just adding that one in there. I forgot again. I'm sorry. Yeah, sorry. I think that's not defensible. If it meets the minimum, if if you're going to say it meets the minimum requirements, that's all that is required by the ordinance. That's not accurate.

The harmoniousness is part of the minimum requirements. But I I'm just Yeah, I guess I guess maybe I could clarify the finding effect or Okay. As we had testimony, the testimony was attempting to say that meeting the minimum requirements proved harmony with the surrounding environment. I I see what you're saying. No. And we would say that what she's saying is is that that meeting the permitted use table is the minimum requirement that you're talking about. Yeah. I tell you what, it I've made my motion and I'm Go ahead. Yeah, because I guess my I'm not going to modify it.

Yeah, correction. Yeah, it's already been already been seconded. Okay. Can we have a vote? No, we still need to discuss. Oh, I don't need discussion. I I just can't. Did you restate the motion? Yeah.

Um, yeah, I'll restate the motion. um that the location and character of use if developed according to the plan will not be in harmony with the area in which it is located and is not in general conformity with the plan of development of the jurisdiction and environs. This is based on sworn testimony and evidence submitted during the evidentiary hearing which shows the following that staff testify that the Oakidge land use plan identifies this area as residential. staff um submitted that it is uh I'm sorry that it is not in harmony with adjacent businesses as submitted by the staff report and it is not compatible or in harmony with the adjacent RS40 neighborhood.

And I guess that's my issue where it says the staff report said it's not in harmony. Um, I wouldn't say that the staff report said it's not in harmony. That's true. It It is not in harmony with adjacent businesses that was submitted by staff. It's not that's not a claim of staff. They just submitted the businesses that were adjacent and the event center is not in harmony with a flower shop or a nail or a hair salon. When y'all figured that out, let us know. Yes. So we can vote on Well, I'm ready to And so then then continue back to the neighborhood.

I don't even know what you That was it. Okay. I heard the businesses, but I didn't hear the rest of the neighborhood. I'm sorry. Can't I can't hear you. What are you saying? I said I didn't necessarily hear the comments about the RS40 neighbors. Right. That was the third point is that it is not compatible or in harmony with the existing RS40 neighborhood. But a contrary fact is that SUP this this uh special use permit is allowed in RS40. It may be allowed but that does just because it's allowed doesn't mean that it's necessarily I know but okay

but but if you go back to 301048 there were the B it talks about it has three acres uh it is along major thoroughare in accordance with the town thoroughare and collector street plan parcels with multiple street frontages shall only use the thorough affair as a driveway entrance in violation of any of these standards may result in revocation of the special use permit. So, and that's point number three is that it meets the required conditions and specifications. We're talking about where we have to determine based on evidence if it's in harmony with the surrounding area.

Right. The RS40, right, part of Yes. Because a special use permit, it has a higher standard versus just the minimum require. Those minimum requirements are met by any any scenario. We're talking about this specific one for isn't in harmony with the RS40. Are you talking about noise? Are you talking about I mean I think we need a fact to support that. You you you're claiming it's not in harmony, but what in what way is it not in harmony? You you speak into your microphone

there. That's correct. You always need for each one of these, you need one or more facts that support the conclusory language. and you're using the conclusionary language of not being in harmony and not uh in general conformity, but you need one or more facts that say why this SUP application uh does not reach that level. Gotcha. Yeah. And I would say

because the the the zoning for this that created this was our was a finding that subject to an SCP, an acceptable SCP application, the special events zoning is compatible with the surrounding area again and and complies with the comprehensive plan. is comports with the comprehensive plan subject to the SCP making the specific proposed use special use center in harmony compatible so forth. So you need one or more facts or the absence of something not shown that supports your conclusory language.

So that would they say they're not willing to change or the open hours opening they're not willing to do. I'm sorry, Mr. Grayson. Could you Thank you. I didn't want you to hear me. But I would assume the hour operation, the music that makes it not in harmony. I'm not saying the house is not in harmony. It is in harmony, right? Yeah. And it meets all the guidelines, the three acres for special use. It's the music. It's the hours they're not willing to And I would ask, is that enough, Mr. Thomas? That's a fact. You need one or more facts. one make your motion on the fact

yeah I I guess I'll list the facts as facts there are no other zonings surrounding the property that allow event center so it's not consistent that way um I don't think that Mr. Thomas that's not

allows it

please talk in your micro The zoning that created Special Event Center was a finding of generally speaking of compatibility and comporting with the comprehensive plan, being reasonable in the public interest if granted a special use permit based on a specific submission. Unlike uses of right RS40, no other thing said you can build a house subject to the development standards. You don't need to ask anybody anything else. But for a special event center, you got to get an SUP in Oakidge. And that SUP has to meet these statutory criteria,

right? All right. And I guess my point is that it's not surrounded by other areas of zoning that allow event center. So based on the fact that it's surrounded by RS40 and limited business that do not allow that. Well, we only need one fact. So let me provide go with the music. Yeah. A joint. Well, I don't need to. That's all we need. So based on the fact that it's surrounded by residential, the plan as submitted and the sworn testimony that they would not consider modifications to be in harmony with the surroundings such as, you know, no outdoor events or no outdoor implied music.

That leads us to that it's not in harmony. Don't let the grass grow. Mr. Thomas, is the one sufficient? The one that condition or

you you need one fact or more uh that either supports a finding of in favor of the conclusion or negates it. Negative is is negative to that. You you need one or more for each one of these, but it has to be a fact, not a conclusion. Oh. So, yeah, they they said testimony, sworn testimony that they would not consider a reduced maximum capacity. They would not consider no outdoor music and they would not consider being quiet earlier. Okay. So, it sounds like we have a motion. Are you the motion?

Those are that is factual testimony. Can you somebody do the motion if it's what you're satisfied with? I mean, I think we beat it around enough. Yep. Okay. So, it's Do you want to offer this one? You got it. Sure.

Uh, I make a motion that the uh location and character of use uh if developed according to the plan submitted will not be in harmony with the area in which it is be located and is not in general conformity with the plan of development of the jurisdiction and its environs. This is based on sworn testimony and evidence submitted during the evidential year hearing which shows the following. um that the current land use is residential. Surrounding it um is residential and limited business. And in sworn testimony, the applicant uh would not consider reduced maximum occup occupancy and would not consider no outra music and would not consider uh being quieter earlier.

Uh different operating hours. Yes. How does the occupancy have anything to do with it? I don't understand how the occupancy has anything to do with this motion or that well 150 people outside is noise potential things to be more harmonious with the residential area. I just don't think you know the capacity of it it's 150. We'll take that off. Let's just go. Okay, that was a motion. Second motion. Clark, did you agree to remove that uh occupancy? Sure.

Would would you restate that just the the latter part the applicant said would not consider well and actually I guess I don't really want to remove that actually um because I think that is just leave it in because that that could be a special condition of saying you know hey 20 people that is not they said they would not consider that allowable Michael the 150 in there saying that they would not consider a reduced occupancy. The occupancy is 150 on the on our uh design. Well, okay. Okay. They they wouldn't they wouldn't consider always sounds like it's your best. Yeah. I mean I mean I've been trying to tell y'all this. I mean my guy in terms of this conclusion.

Every time you add something to it, it just we're not getting on this. There's Okay, but we have a motion and a second. Yeah, suppose I'm going to look. Is there further discussion? I I just think this leaves out a lot of relevant facts. The preservation of the home, the uh sworn testimony that they're going to comply with all the terms of the text amendment, and this concerns me. We have a second. Yeah, it was seconded. We're in discussion now. And I have a I'm finished.

Well, I you know I I think Ed's points are well well taken that uh that you've made the motion, you found the facts, but you've left some of the things that were agreed to before. I mean clearly at this point we're going to be the um I mean I believe they should be added as they that was the starting point and then we ended up with the u the issues about noise and compatibility with the neighborhood. I just don't see how the historical house has anything to do with it. We're going on facts here. It is a historical house but that's being renovated.

But it's fine but that has nothing to do with this. We're looking for a fact. One fact. To me, it's all about the noise and the hours. That's all it's It'll be a great house. Yeah. It says the use of it, not the look of it. I call the question. Okay. So, we I'm not sure that means we have to vote because we've been talking about this for a long time. Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second and we had further discussion. The questions been called. Uh all in favor say I. I. I. I. All oppose say nay.

Nay. Nay. All right. So we I guess that was three to two. Sandra. So Mr. Thomas what and so at this point four of the five or I'm sorry number four and number five have failed. Yeah. So therefore they can come back to us. Therefore on the basis of

you cannot grant the permit tonight based on this evidentary showing. Uh again based on my experience and usage and custom. You have a choice simply to deny this and thank everybody for coming. You can, if you feel like this is a salvageable permit and want to hear more evidence from the two sides to make a decision at a renewed hearing, you can do that. You don't have to. You can simply deny the permit and the applicant can try again. That would be continuing it to a date certain.

That would be continuing it to a date certain for that purpose. We would only have to hear that part of it, right? You can you can restrict the hearing to that part. I mean, I would I'm fine with them coming back to us with operating hours that are different. Well, they could choose to come back. We don't if they want to come back. If we continue it, we're making them come back, right? Well, you we're granting the opportunity and if the parties don't avail themselves of it, then it would die from lack of further evidence. But, uh, that's that's up to you discount. Even if we reject it, they can come back and apply again, right? They can. But we would have to go through the whole thing again. Yes.

And we would I mean, there's a couple things we're hung up about. We can hear that. Let them come back if they want to. Well, the I think that the point is is that if we push this to a date certain, well, they can decline to come back. Right. That's right. Right. Right. They can say they've had enough. But my my concern is is if I don't want to go through this again. Lord knows I don't want to go through this again. But you're not throw it down.

Yeah, I know. Uh but the thing about it is um there were other conditions that I would like to discuss with the applicant. But I guess we could do that if we continue this to a date certain. And if you do, as I I use the word salvageable for a situation that otherwise could simply go to a denial at this point. If you if you're of that mind, then yes, you can confine a further hearing to spe the specific two conclusions that uh evidence did not support tonight. And you can also invite additional special conditions, which if those two are found in favor of the applicant, you'd still want to consider special conditions is what I'm hearing.

But because this is a quasi judicial hearing, can't do that outside the hearing. Yeah. So, we can't even say the neighbors need to talk with the applicant and y'all come up with a plan. This is our plan. That should be the instruction to the parties. Yes. And but the parties having gotten having heard that they're being given that opportunity should know what they're expected that's correct

to present whether in opposition or in support and be prepared to come back within the hearing process in the hearing not before but in the hearing with uh that additional evidence for this council. So based on that guidance, I would like to move that we continue this hearing to consider uh the last two criteria about the value of effects on value of adjoining or abuing property and the harmoniousness with the surrounding area uh at our April 9th meeting. And

and I would add I'd certainly make sure and I'm sure this is your assumption that all members will be at that meeting. You would not want to resume this. All members of council you mean? Yeah. All members of this board that you would not want to even with a bear quorum is still you want to make sure everybody dependent on everyone's attendance at that meeting. All the decision makers are still present for the next session. Agree. I have a question. If we continue this um and we want to hear on those points, at what point would the special use permit application be a reapplication? Like we're not necessarily looking for additional evidence.

Re that would evidence might need to change. Well, after you've denied the application, it wouldn't be a relication until you've denied this application. Well, so that's my point. We're not really lacking evidence at this point, especially for number five. The current application is not in harmony. Well, we're asking them to present. We're offering them the opportunity to convince us on those final four on number four.

That was a split vote, remember? And I think that's appropriate to a split vote that we give them the opportunity to convince us and we give the other side the opportunity to convince us and that we consider uh con additional conditions at that time as well. I I realize that a majority of this council may want to simply deny this outright and if you want to do it, let's do it. I don't think that's the right decision. I think we need to consider these last two matters very very carefully. I agree that we didn't have a lot of evidence on number four. Uh I think we disagree a little bit on number five, but I also think that more we could have a more productive conversation with the applicant being given another opportunity to go through this on a smaller scale. Yeah, I don't know.

And my only concern is is that again because it's quasi judicial is that somehow we have to address the compatibility and the harmony and we can't do that but we can't have we can't instruct folks to do that either. And so that they've heard our concerns though and that gives them because right now we don't really want to open it up to them to like we can't really open this back up but they can have the opportunity to address our concerns that they have heard at length

and there's no restriction for the applicant and the neighbors to speak. That's not exparte. They're not decision makers. So they can meet together. So I guess I have a question. It says the plan submitted. Yeah, I mean technically that's right. So at what point would they have to at what point would it be considered a new application? Like let's say they deny it, right? Then we would have to go through the whole process over again or we could take an hour and get it over with. Yeah. Hear hear me out. Um I'm trying to

Yeah. So basically, since we did have evidence to support number five that is currently not in harmony, I feel like the current application should be rejected. And in order to be in harmony, it would have to be a new application with new voluntary conditions that the applicant came up with. Or they could I I made a motion. Is there a second on my motion? Second.

Thank you. And and just to address Councilman Clark briefly, that's not strictly true because again, if they bring in new evidence, that's more evidence than you had tonight. That's additional evidence. So you wouldn't be plowing over the same ground. I would agree with you that that would be fruitless because you've already you you've effectively weighed the evidence tonight and found shortcomings in those two areas. So the res the purpose of a continued hearing and a resumed hearing is to bring in not argue over the same thing but bring in new facts, new factual material that would possibly give you the chance to approve it or further uh back up the opponents.

And I guess my question is are they able to change their site plan without it being a new application? Oh no, not in my opinion. That's my changed on the site plan. There might be some to make it more harmonious. There might be some changes to site plan. You know, I want to site plan only going around and around to listen to two items. It's not that hard. It doesn't mean we have to approve it at the next one. My god. Let's move on. We have a motion. Yes, we have a motion and a second. And it was seconded. Well, is the April date certain? cuz I'm not certain that I will be at that April date. You will or will not?

I'm not sure that I will. Okay, the April uh 9th date. And if uh Councilwoman Clark isn't available, then we would uh do it on the May 7th date. And so this would be looking at the same site plan in a few months. Although I would make an argument, Mr. Thomas, when we look at HPC applications, which is also quasi judicial, we get elevations, we get materials and all sorts of stuff. And if they come back, if they they hear us say that simply isn't compatible with the design standards, they can come back to us and say, "Oh, we're going to change the gr the bricks from being pink to being brown."

And that would be like changing the site plan. So, I don't want to rule that out. I don't want to say that they can't change anything. Uh but I've amended my motion to say uh those two dates. Let's call the question here. Well, so that was my I guess question was I want to save time too. So I don't want to come back in a few months to see the same site plan. It doesn't seem you know that was my initial reaction. Sean, what do you think as do you was would modification of the site plan result in a new application or necessitate

not under those like if they're just coming back with those two standards and there's things within that with a harmonious part of it. If that's part of they have to amend their site plan to make it more harmonious. I don't see that as a problem doing that. All right. Well, I would defer to our planner on that then. Okay. So, as long Okay, then as long as they could amend the site plan potentially to make it more harmonious, then I'm fine with continuing to Okay. So, we have a What was the motion? My god. April 9th or May? Okay. I forgot. All right. It's been 10 minutes. So, and this is I I think I think there needs to be one one date that you continue it to and if

if we council Clark is not available, then you continue it again. Okay. Okay. April 9th then. Well, thank you. And then they may just to be sure. I would rather get this I think the applicant would probably rather get this done with and I think if you're there we do it. If you're not we we continue it to May and we would let them know as soon as we knew in advance like as soon as you know. Okay. Yep. Thank you. April 9th. April 9th. Let's vote. All in favor? I I I. Any nays? No. Five to one. Take another break.

Yeah. Well, I think we all need to Thank you, folks. I think we need to move officially to continue the next public hearing to the April meeting, don't we? What? I mean, we can't just go home now. Why not? No, we have I mean we have a public hearing that we announced that we have to make a motion to continue it to a date certain if we're not going to hold it, but we're going to hold it. We're going to hold it now. Yeah. Well, I'm going to make a motion that we continue it to the April 9th meeting because no, everyone's been waiting. Everyone's been waiting for hours. So, let's just All right. Well, in the meantime, we're going to take a short break to clear

Oh, no. Five minutes. Yeah. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. All right.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Hey everybody.

Heat.

All righty. That that took 20 and a half hours to get through number seven. Um, we're now on the agenda at a public hearing and uh the public hearing is about a trail easement closing since I'm looking to uh Bill and Mr. Thomas. But coming back and stepping back from evidentiary hearing to public hearing, I can suggest that for those in favor of this closing, they have 20 minutes. And for those opposed, they have 20 minutes. And then there'll be five minutes of rebuttal for each. So, we're kind of back to something that's more familiar to us and we can proceed from that standpoint. So, uh let me shall we get to the uh staff report? Uh would that be Mr. Taylor

to provide the staff report?

Uh we have a request for us tonight to close a public trail easement along the western boundary of the Ashford subdivision. the developer of the Asheford Asheford subdivision, Green Horse LLC and its representatives were requested to voluntarily grant the town of Oakidge a trail easement within the Ashford subdivision. Members of the planning and zoning board made this request during the subdivision approval process for the subdivision. Greenhorse LLC voluntarily granted to the town of Oakidge an 8ft public trail easement along the western portion of the Ashford subdivision. Land use plan recommendation policy 2.2.2 two and lower density areas where sidewalks are not practical. Alternative pedestrian accommodations such as trails, greenways, etc. should be incorporated into neighborhood design and should be used as linkages between neighborhoods whether or not vehicular connections are available. Planning and zoning board recommendation addressing comprehensive land use plan consistency and other appropriate matters. Motion to recommend to the town council to deny the request to remove the public trail use easement in the Ashford subdivision. This motion to deny was made by Patty Passleroo, seconded by Patrick Fiorentino, and the vote was 62 six to zero in favor to deny the request to remove the easement.

So we So again, so this this uh request is to deny. So those are in favor of the motion of the denial should speak now for 20 minutes.

I'm sorry. What we have before us is a a public hearing on the resolution of intent that a majority of council approved to close the trail easement. So the question is whether that's going to be voted in the affirmative or negative. So, if you want to think of it in terms of pro and con, the pro are people in favor of the closing and vacating of the easement. The the con or negative would be those against closing or vacating this easement because that's the statutory process.

Okay. And and I think that's uh that's sort of what you said. That's kind of what I thought I was saying, but maybe I was saying it incorrectly. I'm sure you were. I'm not sure, but uh I'm not sure of anything right now. But so the beginning thing would be those folks that are for closing

closing it. That's right. The So, do we have any We got 20 minutes for those that do we have people that want to speak for closing uh the easement? Yes, sir. State your name. Come forward. State your name. You'll have three and I'm looking to Sandra to see if she's got her her gong over there to uh but you'll have three minutes to speak. You state your name. No, there's no timing on individual comments, just on the 20 minutes. On the 20 minutes. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. All right. Good evening. My name is Chris Sheret. I uh live in Asheford neighborhood, lot 16, 7785 Polar Drive.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I wanted to focus on two issues tonight. Liability and the design reality of this trail seemingly deadending inside of our neighborhood. First, liability. I'm currently involved in an ongoing homeowner related liability dispute tied to property conditions. I won't go into any details tonight, but it has made it me very aware of how quickly situations can turn into long, expensive, and stressful legal matters. Even when you believe you've done everything right, once risk is introduced, you lose control of over how it unfolds. In this case, the trail easement physically runs through privatelyowned residential lots. Homeowners remained land owners. While the town may and uh the mountain to sea trail committee may intend to maintain or manage the trail, to my knowledge, there has been no clear explanation provided uh to the affected homeowners about liability protections, admnification or how risk is allocated if someone is injured or property is impacted. Without that clarity, the risk does not disappear. it simply becomes uncertain and shared. Second, the design issue. The trail does not function as a true connector. It ends at Polar Drive in Asheford. That makes our neighborhood the destination rather than part of a continuous network. A dead-end trail inside of a residential community increases wandering, offtrail use, and unintended interactions within the neighborhood. all of which simply amplify safety and liability concerns. To be clear, we're not opposed to trails or connectivity.

We support these goals. Our concern is whether these uh specific alignment makes sense as a public trail given uh the impacts on the homeowners in the area and the lack of design defined protections and the dead-end design. Regardless of how an is easement exists on paper, council has the discretion over whether how it is activated. We respectfully ask you to close this easement and explore alternatives that achieve trail goals without placing disproportionate risk on one neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration tonight.

Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak on this to close? State your name and address.

My name is Jennifer Yates. I live at 6805 Brennan Way in Asheford subdivision. My husband and I moved from Greensboro to Oakidge last April. We chose Oakidge over neighboring areas for various reasons, including the options of neighborhoods featuring large lots with privacy, natural spaces, and growing business community, as well as just to escape the busyiness of Greensboro. I feel strongly about this, so excuse me while I try to get my words together. We ultimately chose a home in the Ashford subdivision. There are currently eight homeowners and the ninth homeowner's custom home is almost completed and the 10th homeowner has purchased a lot to start building in the near future. In July, after some personal research, I discovered the issues surrounding the public trail easement located in our neighborhood. Had we been made aware of this issue prior to purchasing our home, it honestly would have impacted our decision. And I'm not sure that we would be here, but I'm here now on behalf of my family and the other neighborhoods in a other neighbors in Asheford community to ask that this easement be closed for several reasons. First off, the planned trail layout is inconsistent with other public trails. It just makes no logical sense. It's only 8t wide where other trails are much wider, flow through common areas are built into the developments. This trail runs behind multiple homes in both Bear Creek and Ashford subdivisions through a tree preservation over drainage easements. I'm sure there have been ideas brought up to how to make this build buildable trail despite these obstacles. As a resident, I have not been approached of how that would happen. I haven't been shown any other alternative options as well. So, the biggest issue that I do have and my fellow neighbors is the path dead ends in our neighborhood. Like Chris said, we're a destination. We're not connecting. But yet, Bandaraa Farms is going to be right down the street that we're going to have hikers coming through our neighborhood, through our

front yards, through the front road, through our yards to get to Bandair Farms. So, that leads me to my second point, safety and privacy for our families. Again, we moved from Greensboro to Oakidge for privacy, space, and to get away from the busyiness. Since there is no connecting trail out of our neighborhood, this would lead to the increased flow of public traffic, which would be walking directly alongside our private properties and parking in our community. This creates ongoing privacy and safety concerns and would ultimately change how we homeowners utilize our outdoor spaces. This isn't the same as having a new neighbor behind us or beside us that we get to know them on a day-to-day basis. These are people, new faces every day coming through our neighborhood. While we support the public trail system and the benefits it has to offer, this particular easement places an unfair burden on all the Asheford homeowners and Bear Creek homeowners, not just where the lot touches or is on their land. We are new to neighbor new to Oakidge and it's disappointing that we have chose to invest here and are having to be concerned with increased traffic and safety in our own neighborhood. Removal of this easement wouldn't set a dangerous precedent for future easements. I think this situation would allow the process of adding future public easements to neighborhoods be analyzed more closely and carefully with full consideration given to the communities that they directly involve, not just to meet town goals. And in response to other various statements made in favor of this trail, this is not a community asset that benefits everyone, especially the community it greatly affects doesn't even want it. Thank you.

Anyone else? State your name and your address.

Gary Eubanks, 6908 Tully Court. Um, we were the first family to build in Asheford and we were literally twothirds through before we even heard about a easement trail. Um, as Chris and Miss Yates said, uh, it's a trail to nowhere. Well, it's also not a trail to anywhere because it starts in a creek. Um, and if they ever develop it more, they got to build a bridge. And I'm not sure, and we'll probably hear later, they say no trees will be affected. Well, if anybody's walked on that trail, trees will be affected. And there's a tree preservation. Is there a size limit to what trees are protected or what's not protected? Or is all trees protected? If it is, no trail can go there unless they're climbing trees. Um, and then I just want to say on a personal note, I was at the planning uh the zoning planning zoning and it was about as a biased meeting that I've ever been in. Um, and with anything when you're dealing with elected officials, you're going to pick the people that represent you the best. So that's why some people may not be here now and some new people are because you picked the people that you want to represent you and uh thank you for your time and we do love Oakidge.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we have one gentleman coming. Good evening almost. Good morning. Kevin Brea, 6819 Koala Drive, Bear Creek. I'm also the Bear Creek HOA president. I appreciate what you've done. Tell me your name. Kevin Brea. B R E Ka.

First, my thanks to you all. It is late. You've done a lot of your service today and we appreciate it. Looking back at the calendar, it's been two and a half years. So, I want to speak to community and I want to speak to Good Trails. as to community. All 22 23 homes, excuse me, of Bear Creek since the inception of learning about this after it had been already put in place all spoke both in petitions, both in meetings, both in meeting and visiting with some of you and all efforts to try and express the concerns. And that community stands again in my walking from house to house the same message. It doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense. It's a bad trail. Why would they put this here? As much as we like trails, this doesn't make sense. So, the community of Bear Creek again speaks to there's a better way. There's good trails out there and we do love trails. So, each person here who speaks for trails, we speak with you. But we can't speak for a bad trail. We can't speak for a trail that does impact our community. If you walk up that trail line, the first thing you're going to come across on the date that I heard about it is that one of my neighbors had just put up a children's swing set not long before that. There's no barrier. There's no protection and there's no guarantee. There's no guarantee anywhere. But there's no wisdom in opening up to a public area, an open area of your backyard for someone to just keep walking on through. You may say, "Well, that's speculating whether it's dangerous." Danger is a thing that you don't create unnecessarily. This trail creates danger unnecessarily, not only physically, but also to the community because now you don't know who you've just entered to this access. And well said, it is not a pass through, it is an end point right in the middle of the neighborhood. The danger that also comes not just to every parent looking out their window to making sure who is that group of people walking by because

the next house you get is to another neighbor who had just put in a pool. That trail is approximately 40 feet from the pool. There's no privacy. There's no community. When there's a bad trail, what that trail also then does is when you come to the place where you have to walk out, stepping over what is really a waterway, you have anyone who wants to park their car can park them wherever in this neighborhood or has an intention to drive in or out goes down one of two streets either into Bear Creek on Koala or into Asheford on Asheford. So, you have vehicles driving down into this community to this point. I want to tell you about another neighbor. He has four sons. As you come into the community in Bear Creek off of uh Brook Pank Road on the right side, come to the first corner. He's got a beautiful home, nice open area, playground. He's got four boys playing all sorts of games, all sorts of activities all day long. No need for a fence. As he testified here previously, if I have to deal with cars coming and going to this trail, I have to put up a fence. This trail is creating disunityity. This is not a good trail. You would not want this in your backyard. It's not about not in my backyard. It's about not in anybody's backyard.

Mr. Brea, I'm sorry. I need you to address the council and and that way I can hear you as well cuz when you turn around, I can't hear you. I'm sorry about that.

That's okay. It is about making sure the community has a place where there is a good sense of this is good for what we all should have access, safety, privacy, an ability to interact, where we're not put in a position of these people will come through and you'll figure out a way to deal with it. No trail should be based on that kind of premise. This trail is about the things that all people have come forth with, their safety, their home, their interests. As I previously presented in one of our petitions two years ago, it's changed a little bit, but it's still the same number. 40 children just in Bear Creek. At the time, 30 of them were under 18. About eight of them were off to college. Now, you still have a young community, an important thing to have in any Oakidge community. the ability for everyone to know that you can walk the dog, you can come your your kids can go on bike rides and your neighborhoods can be in a fashion a place where you know where you are. Others coming know where they are but people feel coming off a trail that's come from any number of places. Don't actually even know where they've come into. They just am houses. That's not how the community is built. We'd love to keep building our community but we ask you that you don't do it this way. Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like Yes, sir.

Jonathan Deline, 7796 Polar Drive, Oakidge, North Carolina. It's hard to follow Kevin. He's pretty much summed it up well, but you've heard from me before. I really appreciate you staying late and hearing us out and um you know, your service that you do for the town and all of us, especially at these uh late hours. I just want to um just reiterate again that uh you know there is a we're pro everybody likes trails. We want you to keep pursuing trails in Oakidge. That's absolutely true. There's a better way. There's a better trail. There's a better and it's not this one. Um 8 foot wide for all the reasons, safety, etc. I challenge you to go back out there and just walk that little 8ft strip. There's going to be some trees that have to come out of there. I don't know how you get around that thing and it's going to go against tree preservation, etc. Um, but I think the biggest thing is is, you know, we've elected you as officials. Um, and we we we want to be heard and it's not just not in our backyard. It's let's come together. We could have done this a lot earlier in the process, I think. Um, and like my wife always tells me, it's never too late to do the right thing. If we if we work together, we can find a better trail than this and it can be a great trail that we can all enjoy. And I think if you listen as elected officials to those who've voted for you and beyond the the very neighborhoods that are here represented tonight are not wanting this particular branch and they're all saying there's a better way. So I just want to encourage us to continue to work together and find that uh the right path through here that that's actually a fun fun trail to uh walk on and uh doesn't doesn't have all those other issues that Kevin just brought up around safety and dumping into the middle of nowhere and all the different things we've been saying for a while. So, just thanks again for your time and hearing this tonight. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak, I guess, for the closure of this trip? We still have a minute or two or what's the almost six minutes. All right. But there's no one else. So we could move on and close this and then look for the uh group that would um speak for keeping the trail. So who would be first? Ah a familiar and it's it's almost three minutes.

I was going to say good morning but I'm not there yet. Right. Not quite.

Um Ann Steel. I'm the chair of the Oakidge Mountains Sea Trail Committee. I live at 8927 Grove Park Drive. Council members, I'm requesting that you take the advice of your appointed board of planning and zoning who voted unanimously on January 22nd to keep the Asheford easement. There are many benefits of trails in a community from what I've heard over the past three years and um tonight even. No one disputes or argues that opinion. I would like to remind us all of why we should not remove this valuable asset from our town. This stretch of land provides opportunity for friends to connect, strangers to meet, and for stress and anxiety to be released. There are numerous mental and physical benefits to being out among nature. This easement provides folks with a place to safely be among trees and wildlife. It provides a place for people to take a deep breath and feel their shoulders relax. It provides a place for people to connect on the trail. It provides a pathway for people to get to others without getting in their car. Plans in Oakidge have been to find a way to join neighborhoods, to bring people together. Having easements is what makes that possible. Hikers are out to experience the joys of walking outside among nature. They are there because they appreciate it and want it to continue to be available to them. The MST committee has worked diligently to plan and build trails in Oakidge to connect parks, neighborhoods, and trails. If this easement is removed, it will undermine the time, effort, and energy of many people who have worked hard to establish the trails available in our community. I would also like to mention that if you own property, there's a line where it stops and it becomes another person's property. You do not get to decide what your adjacent property owner does with their land.

Thank you for your time. Please keep the Asheford easement in place. Thank you. Come forward and state your name and address. Sir,

mayor and council. I'm Jim Kinnman, 8502 Hollow River Court. I believe council member Lindseay Clark should recuse herself from this vote. Under 160D-109, a member cannot participate in a quasi judicial or legislative decision where there's a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact. Miss Clark has publicly characterized the easement as a detriment to her property. Therefore, its removal constitutes a direct financial benefit to her. Furthermore, because she's acting as her own counsel in opposition to town regarding this easement, she's the sole active litigant. Closing the easement would relieve her of the costs and burden of the lawsuit. One cannot be both the judge and the plaintiff. If she does not recuse, council should vote to recuse her under 168-75. Failure to do so violates the expectation of an impartial review and agrieves every resident of Oakidge. To vacate this easement under 168-299, you must find that the closure is not contrary to the public interest. That finding is impossible to find. Trails are foundational to Oakidge, documented in our 1998 incorporation vision, the 2006 parks plan, and the 2013 and 2021 pedestrian plan. For 29 28 years, our citizens have consistently ranked trails as a top priority. To find that this closure isn't contrary to the public interest, you would have to find that the pedestrian plan is now suddenly irre irrelevant. You cannot hold two contradictory public interests at the same time. The argument that privacy justifies disclosure is a private concern. The word private, not a public one. Using private desire for seclusion to extinguish a public public property right is by definition contrary to the public interest. Some may argue this

trail isn't feasible yet. However, NCGS1 136-96 provides a clear 15-year window for the public to open and use a dedicated right of way. The state recognizes that building trails networks requires long-term planning. To vacate this asset before that statutory window has even closed is a direct violation of the public trust and the intent of North Carolina law. This easement is a vested public asset with tangible value. We do not give away town equipment for free. We should not give away town land rights to satisfy a private complaintant. If the council accepts privacy as a valid reason to vacate an easement, you're effectively granting a private gift of public land value to any homeowner who asks. As a former council member and mayor, I know that council holds these easements in trust for all citizens. I'm submitting these comments to the official record. If this council chooses to a private interest over 28 years of documented public policy, I believe this provides a strong basis for judicial review. I urge you to protect the town assets and the public's trust. Thank you,

Mr. Einrod. Adrian Eron, 5679 Timberway, Oakidge. Um, I couldn't agree anymore with Mr. Kinnman's remarks. So, they overlap much of mine. So, given the fact that we are at 12:03 a.m., I will amend mine to just kind of hit some points um that I thought might complement what was already stated just prior. Um trails I'm sorry, thank you.

Oh, uh trails offer both walks walk walkability and proximity um which significantly increases property values. Um this is backed by strong empirical evidence. Uh research shows that trails increase property values from 2 to 20% more in the premium neighborhoods which is where Oakidge would more follow. Uh this is proved by um just trying to skip ahead here to save us. Um Headwater Economics analyzed over 130 plus independent studies. Uh this is backed by Zillow, Redfin, National Association of Realtors. All of these show immense value to trails. Um, with that stated, I also was not able to attend last uh meeting, but I uh completely echo that uh the fact that Councilwoman Clark has not recused herself is a complete uh egregious effort uh to not um to to be voting on this, which she has active litigation. Uh and for some of the comments that I've heard prior speaking for, we haven't heard about trails or what option we have. There's active litigation by Mrs. Clark, that can't be discussed. That can't be planned. MST can't move that ball forward while litigation's ongoing. MST has already stated multiple times they're ready to do fencing, landscaping, barriers, whatever is necessary to make the trails accommodatable. That can't happen with act, excuse me, active litigation. That's why you haven't heard anything more about, well, what will we do here? Um so um to again to condense down I'll give you just a personal um piece from my experience. I created a trail in my neighborhood. My backyard backs up to Beaver Creek and our neighborhood kids come in and go through that. It kind of connects up to Mr. Stone's uh property and my son kind of helped forge that a bit. I grew up in Greensboro. I moved here as well. Um I'm my property backed up in the Guilford College Woods.

We were at that we moved to that residence when I was one year old. That has massive trails. In fact, we helped build more trails and being a corner lot, it went all the way down our side and all the way across the back completely through that. Um, constant people walking dogs, but it was amazing. I rode my bike through there. It's trails aren't, you know, this criminal activity. Trails invite community. That's why it increases property value. And the idea that the town would give this away to me is just outrageous. Trails need planning. I hear, "Oh, this is just short. It's a connector. It's only 8t." I made trails that are 4 feet and people walked and biked and everything on that. 8t is more than ample. Plus, it needs long-term planning. Yes, it's not connecting somewhere else now, but if we simply cut off a trail because it doesn't make sense today, well, that planning in 101 15 years doesn't mean anything. Um, I think others might have to speak, so I'll just go and end my comments here. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next, state your name and address.

Yes, John Chipman, 1686 Deer Run Court, Oakidge. And thank you, mayor and councel. Um, better put these on. The decision for the council is whether a lawful land use decision can be reversed based on claims of privacy tied to proximity. This vote raises serious due process concerns. For more than two years, objections to this land use were raised through town processes and legal filings by nearby residents, including si a sitting council member whose property is directly affected and whose active legal filings related to this matter. Those objections repeated here tonight assert impacts to safety, liability, home values, and privacy, which did not result in the land use removal being overturned. Most recently, the planning and zoning board again reviewed the matter and unanimous unanimously recommended retraining the trail as recorded. What is different tonight is who may be voting. The potential deciding vote may be cast by a council member who is personally affected by this land use decision and who is actively involved in a related legal action. Whether or not the interest is narrowly construed as financial as the council member has suggested is raises it raises real questions about impartiality which is a constitutional requirement for land use decisions. At the same time, privacy is being cited as the main justification under state law. Privacy protects against intentional intrusion into places like the interior of a home or an enclosed backyard. A public betrayal approved by through established land use processes does not meet that standard. Proximity alone does not is not a privacy violation. What remains is not a legal privacy issue, but discomfort with proximity. If this land use decision is reversed tonight, it sets the precedent that personal proximity, especially when held by an elected official with active litigation, can drive outcomes under the label of privacy that invites conflict of interest challenges, appeals, and

costly litigation, and puts other public land uses at risk. So, my request tonight is straightforward. Defer this vote tonight. Direct the town attorney to provide the council's legal guidance on the procedural and conflict questions in a form that can be made public to the extent permitted by law and obtain independent outside counsel if needed to fully assess due process and partiality risk before any final action. Please do not set precedent that you and we may spend years and taxpayer dollars defending. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please state your name and provide your address. Um, I had good evening, but it's good morning now, I guess. Yes, it is.

Um, my name is Stephanie Frell and I live at 5839 Billet Road in Oakidge. I'm here tonight as a member of the Oakidge Mountains of the Sea Trail Committee and as a concerned citizen of Oakidge to ask you to vote to keep the Asheford Trail easement open. I really had a hard time formulating exactly what I wanted to say. After all, we've been talking about the Asheford Trail Easement for more than two years. What's left to say? After two years of meetings, discussions, phone calls, brainstorming, and research on a 867.28 foot long trail easement. Two plus years and 867 ft have taught me a lot. I'd like to share a little bit of what I've learned for you to consider as you think about your vote tonight. First, misinformation can be weaponized to fit your need if you don't want something because people oftentimes believe fear over fact. Early on, we were told that the reason that the easement could not remain open was because trails brought crime, litter, danger, and strangers with ill intent to neighborhoods. Children would not be safe if the public trail was built nearby. Home values would suffer and people would have a difficult time reselling property near a trail. With many miles of of trails in Oakidge and no reports of incidents, I had a hard time wrapping my head around this. And research proved that this was indeed false. Home values actually go up with access to trails. Perhaps that's why even today the marketing materials for the Ashford subdivision tout its proximity to the MST as a benefit. The personal benefits of trails are numerous and research shows that people want trails in their community. It turns out people want a place to walk that's not a paved sidewalk. They want the ability to connect with nature and they want connectivity with other neighborhoods, parks, and town facilities. People who use trails aren't criminals or evildoers. They're families. They're your neighbors. They're groups of friends out to get fresh air. There are people like the members of the Bear Creek neighborhood who said many times, "We don't have a problem with trails. We support trails. We really do like trails. We just don't want them in our backyard." And so, you can add the acronym NIBY to the list of things I've learned, not in my backyard. Second,

even with more than five years on the MSC committee and many days spent learning about trail construction from Mr. Joel Deon, I was reminded that trails don't have to be built on flat ground and you can build trails around trees. We were told that the Ashford trilies could be closed because a trail could not be built on this 867 foot piece of land in Oakidge. Terrain was too challenging and sizable trees needed to be cut down to accommodate the trail. However, that too is false. It's true that the terrain is more varied than other trails in Oakidge, but it can accommodate a trail. And no, trees would not have to be removed in the process. Trail easements become easements because they are not necessarily the most desired land for development. The topography of the area is not an issue. And it is in fact quite like the trail easement behind the Pimberly development. I learned that when in doubt, blame the process. If you don't like the answer about not closing the easement, blame the process for putting that easement in place and the people who managed it. This has been a really hard one because it's brought into question the integrity and pref professionalism of the Oakidge Town staff who I hold in high regard. Planning and Zoning recently again voted that all processes needed to be put needed to put this easement in place were followed as required and that the easement should not be closed again. Yet that's not enough. An ongoing and potentially costly court case filed by one of our very town council members remains open. And the biggest thing I've learned, it's maybe not trail related, but it's definitely important and everyone in this room should remember elections matter. the people who make decisions for our town. Our small town of 7,000 people have a lot of responsibility. If they choose to operate with questionable ethics, vengeance, or a personal agenda, we will all lose. And if someone runs a campaign on a platform of change, you should probably clarify if they mean change that is good for the whole community or a privileged few. More than ever, the aftertrail easement is an important part of the future of the trail network of Oakidge. During the past two years, while there was the ongoing meetings, discussions, and brainstorming about this 867 feet of trail, the MST committee, staff, and others did not sit idle. On the north end of the Ashford

ement, trails have been completed behind the Pimberly and Carriage Cove subdivisions on trail easements provided by developers. Three scouts achieved their Eagle Scout ranks thanks to the bridges they built on these trails. A trail head with parking lot, a parking lot has been built, and we're looking forward to a grand opening in the spring. To the south of the Ashford easement, the ground has finally been broken on Vandera and construction is ongoing with a tentative opening in November of this year. Two years ago, we were told the easement should be closed because it was a trail to nowhere. The Ashford ement trail easement is now above all a vital link needed between the new Pimberly Carriage Cove Trails and the Bandaraa Farm Trails to which Oakidge has made a considerable in investment after years of planning and for and forward strategic thinking from past town leadership and many trail work days. man by fleet of volunteers. The reality of a walkable town is coming to fruition. Your vote tonight will be a potential gamecher. If you vote to close the trail easement, you're telling developers that it will cost them greatly to incorporate trails and developments. You're telling community members that trails don't have a place in Oakidge and that the interest of an outspoken few outweigh the good of the many and that if you don't like something, compromise is not an option anymore. Costly litigation, ill will, misinformation, and mudslinging is the new way to go. Does this mean that we are headed towards a future where citizens will jump to file a lawsuit if they don't like what someone's doing on their property? Should Mr. Thomas prepare to defend the town in a case filed by a citizen to stop the annoying sound of pickle ball games? Or what will happen if a park neighbor files suit against the town to stop evening baseball games at the park because the lights are too bright? These are ridiculous examples, but are we far away from that in the future? The Oakidge trail effort has been an excellent community builder for our town and it's so satisfying to see people out enjoying the trails and hearing how much they enjoy them. Personally speaking, the MST committee work has been some of the most rewarding projects that I have ever been involved in. It's one of the town's best features and has brought us accolades from local, regional, and state organizations who are impressed with the effort that we've put into the trails and the benefits it's brought us. Please

think about what you've learned over the last two years and consider the big picture as you were voting tonight and vote to keep the trash for Ashford Trail easement all 867.28 ft of it open. Thank you. Next

I just kind of assumed uh council tonight Martha Pitman 8018 Foggelman Road here in Oakidge. Uh, tonight it's a little different. Tonight I'm speaking as a representative of the Friends of the Mountains to Sea Trail board of directors. The Friends, as we refer to ourselves, is a nonprofit organization with thousands of members that support our North Carolina flagship state trail in communities across the state. While the MST is a long-d distanceance trail that crosses North Carolina from the Great Smoky Mountains to the Outer Banks, nearly all users are local residents enjoying the trail as a safe outdoor space for exercising or connecting with nature. Many hikers are families exploring together without tablets and cell phones. Oakidge has embraced the MST and has been a strong and active partner as we continue our work moving more miles off the roadways and onto more welcoming trails and pathways. The current and future success of the MST or any trail is dependent on the understanding that public access easements are just that they are permanent. land owners, the state, municipalities, individual volunteers, and many other partners who invest their time and resources into a trail must have confidence that their work will stand in perpetuity. We are concerned that removing this legally established public trail easement will set a bad precedent and could create an existential danger to future trail efforts to establish viable and long-term routes. We look forward to future opportunities to work with Oakidge to build trails and community

connections. Thank you. Anyone else to speak? Okay, come forward, please. Hello everyone. I know it's very very late. Um, sorry. No, it's very very early. Wanted wanted to let Mayor Harton know that we have about a minute and a half left.

Great. My name is Holly Stewart. I'm also at 1686 Deer Run Court in Oakidge. I've lived here 28 years and uh my family takes great advantage of all of the trails here. In fact, I have two Eagle Scouts who've um contributed to the community, including along the MST. Um I agree with everything um that's just been said in the last 19 minutes. Um I'd like to add a couple of things. I believe this vote should be deferred. I think there are larger issues here than just the closure of a single trail easement. But if the council proceeds with this vote, this is what I ask. Um, I would like this to be clearly stated and recorded in the meeting minutes in any written decision. One, whether councilwoman Clark or the council at large was advised by the town attorney regarding recusal, and if so, what is the substance of that advice? The specific statutory or legal authority relied upon to justify her participation despite the pending personal administrative action. Three, the factual findings supporting elimination of the easement, including evidence demonstrating harm that outweighs the public benefit. Four, how the council determined that this action does not constitute preferential treatment to a sitting member. Five, how the council distinguished this easement from other public easements in Oakidge so as to avoid setting a precedent, which others have spoken to, that places those easements also at risk. And I'd also like to know each council member's individual vote and stated rationale. Thank you.

Okay, we now have uh five minutes for rebuttal and the first would be the group that would want to uh close the trails, this trail, this Ashford trail easement. Jonathan Deline 77796 Polar Drive Oakidge in asking you to close this trail. I'd like to make a couple uh rebuttal comments. Number one is this idea of recusing uh Mrs. Clark I think is uh you can't do that. Uh the reason you can't do that is because um she ran very publicly on the fact that this trail needed to be removed and it's the wrong trail. And that's what we're here to say tonight. Yes, we're all for trails in general. We want this one removed and we want to find a better way and we want to stop wasting time and we want to find a better trail together. We think that's more productive. She ran on that cause. There are many raise the hands from Asheford. All the Asheford folks are here along with Bear Creek. This is not just a Bear Creek problem. This is a complete connecting neighborhoods problem. The neighborhood that you're talking about doesn't want to be connected with this trail. They want another trail. Not this one. This is the wrong trail, wrong spot, too small, too crappy, too running down trees. You're going to have to take down trees. You can't physically do it. It's a It's a problem of physics. If you try to walk through there and not take down trees and make a trail, you you need to walk it. So, um I would just highly encourage um this this town council to vote to remove this trail. And no, Lindsay should not be recused for the simple fact that not just these folks here tonight, but hundreds of people voted on what she ran publicly for and their voices matter and they shouldn't be marginalized and moved to the side tonight to the there's many people I know that don't even live anywhere near just like these folks do

here that are saying that's the wrong trail that dumps out into a neighborhood. That doesn't make any sense. Why doesn't that go down the creek? Why doesn't it this? Why doesn't that? That needs to go. Who's going to get us there? Who's going to get rid of that? who's going to get us to the right trails. That's what they voted for and that's why Lindsay is setting up there. She should not be recused because she represents all those voices and that decision happened at election time and I would say it's happened over two years for a couple elections. And so that's what I wanted to just rebuttal. Next and we have what couple minutes

Kevin Brea 6819 Koala Drive. I want to address that which I appreciate the passion that we've heard by way of our representatives for mountain to see both in Oakidge and also on the full board as friends of mountain to see and the question raised of is this a bad precedence. I would suggest that the first question of asking is it a bad precedence is how is this trail going when it was incepted? Was it incepted the way that you would like every trail to be incepted? And when it was incepted, were people informed the way you'd like people to be informed? And when concern was raised and issues were raised, did it not create real concern about, wow, we have not just people who have a privacy interest, but an actual safety interest and a very sound logistical interest? You're bringing vehicles right into this town in this neighborhood in two different communities, and you're trying to say this is for the community for the purpose of precedence. The real question is, are you doing the right thing by continuing to fight, continuing to press on for these 800 and some feet at the discord of 43 different homes in just one community? Is this a precedence you want when it's true that there's been evidence of or indications of litigation? you have an 800 foot driving collection of lawsuits that have either been threatened or or are in uh in actuality. I would say that's the precedence that you should all say this has been a bad idea not done in the way it should have been and we don't pursue bad ideas. The worst precedence would be to continue a thing that shouldn't be. The best precedence would be to fix the thing that should not have been put in this place anyway. I suggest that precedence is remove this trail.

Anybody else that wants to speak for the closure? And how much time do we have, Sandra? About a minute. One minute.

Hello. I live in um Elizabeth Lee 6903 toy court. I'm lot eight. So I'm actually directly impacted by this easement. I am not sure if any of you have been to my backyard, but I have young children which are age eight, 11, and 13. They do play outside and I do I met my numerous neighbors on the road while we were walking the dogs and I tell my kids do not play wooded area because it's very dangerous. My son during um Snow's time, he was sledding and then he actually went against the wood um the branch and he actually cut inside and I had to take him to the hospital and that that was my child and I'm telling my child my children not to go wooded area and if strangers or people in other neighbors or my neighbors would to walk in the trail. I'm not sure if I will be protected, if my property will be protected, if who if there were be out there, how are we going to seek help? I think that's something that we need to consider that. Thank you.

Okay, we have five minutes of rebuttal for uh those people that want to maintain this trail easement. Okay. Sir, uh, good evening. Good evening. Um, my name is Mike Kimmel. I'm at 5601 Taniard Court in Oakidge. And I think as I was listening to the other rebuttal about that their argument represents the people. I have to kind of remind the council that that this same argument went before the planning and zoning committee. Now, the planning and zoning committee are represented by people, citizens of Oakidge, volunteers of Oakidge. They have no They're totally impartial. These are Oakidge people representing the people. And I think in reality that group of volunteers represent a far greater group of Oakidge residents than that small group right there. And they saw that what was being asked was not what they wanted. and they unanimously unanimously and this is twice now unanimously denied it.

So I I just want you guys to keep in mind that what's been recommended to you is coming from people from Oakidge from the people of Oakidge are giving you this recommendation to deny it. Thank you. Thank you. Any next?

I'm Joel Deon. I live 6101 Gwyned Road, Somefield. Now, I'm the volunteer mountain to sea trail task force leader. That means that I help design the trails in the properties that the town has provided for the committee. I helped to provide the tools and I trained the workers. Uh some points that I'd throw out that haven't been said much is that across the state a whole lot of residential advertising for new developments tout the fact that the mountain sea trail goes through their area. Somehow they don't have the fear that I've heard tonight. uh when two years ago it was being discussed some of the fears came out and I remember one of the ladies saying that uh she checked the violence on the trail and 15 years ago in Pennsylvania a woman was killed. Well that's a true that's definitely true but that's a pretty low incident rate. Um when we also put the uh trail on hiatus, it was hoped that with the community there would be a better alternative developed. But rather than working together with the people in that side of town to help us get across to Somefield, which would they're ready to go. We have the opportunity to go through Somefield and get to Bandaraa Farms, but this area is stopping the whole show and I don't see any opportunity to go around it other than walking on roads. So, how would you like to walk on Bunch Road to get to

Bandara around those curves? It's dangerous and we're trying to get stuff off of the road. Now, I can give you a couple positives if you believe me. Last time we had um Mr. Ralph speak, he has a trail the trail that goes behind his house closer than any of these other houses and then goes down the side of his house. And he talked about how his family with two young children loved the trail. You can go back and check the records on that. Recently, I was doing some repair work on the Headwaters Trail beside Riverside. And you all all know the uh the expensive houses that reside there. The trail was there before most of the houses. And so we had a little bit of of a uh erosion problem coming off one of the yards. I turned around, it was due to his sprinkler system on a brand new yard. So I went up and talked to him and he said, "Gosh, I sure am glad you came up. Uh we love the trail." His open back porch is uh less than 20 yards from the physical trail and there is absolutely nothing between the trail and his house. The house when I checked on it was first being built was a $ 1.5 million house. He was gregarious about it. We love it. And by the way, can I make a donation to the trail committee? I have never ever heard that sentence made. So, a lot of people love the trail.

Thank you. We've had the discussion or the uh the representation from those that want to close the trail, those that uh want to keep the Ashford Trail and the rebuttals for each. So, we're boy um we're ready to um discuss it. Close the public hearing.

We need to uh close the public hearing. Sorry. As everyone says, whether it's your perspective of being being uh late or early. I think it's early. Um but I'll now close the public hearing. Council, I invite you to consider the materials we received and statements made during the public hearings. Council, are there questions? Yes. Mr. Thomas, is there any reason or law that says Miss Clark should recuse herself? Uh, in my opinion, no. This is a legislative decision and I believe she is required to participate and vote. So, if she's here tonight, she has to vote

being physically present. Yes, sir. If she does not vote, what does that count as? An affirmative vote. Okay. Um, another question. Mr. Thomas, you and I discussed this before the meeting, and I believe we discussed it one other time, but maybe not. Rule number 28 in our rules of procedure says that if a member doesn't recuse themselves, another member of the board, if a someone believes they have a financial interest, can make a motion that the person be recused. That is correct.

Thank you. So, with that in mind, I move that Councilwoman Lindseay Clark be recused from voting on the matter at hand due to her financial interest as follows. her own claims both verbally and in writing over the past year that the development of the Ashford Trail will negatively impact her home, the costs she has incurred to file her lawsuits regarding this easement and appeal them to our board of adjustment. the cost of her own time, which I assume to be worth a bare minimum of at least $50 an hour and estimate to total at least 200 hours over the past two and a half years for a total of at least $15,000. Pursuing the site developer and several builders, other efforts of which there is public record that she is engaged in. Uh oh. number of filings, materials, emails, phone calls, petition signatures, all of which she is engaged in while serving as her own attorney and seeking to garner public support. Also, as was stated here tonight, she ran publicly on this issue, a campaign that cost approximately $1,000. Finally, her excusal recusal from this matter would also align with our code of ethics, which requires that we as public officials be independent, impartial, and responsible to the best interests of our community, not seeking our own personal gain or interests, and to avoid even the appearance of impropriy are all requirements that go to the heart of this motion. Second. So, we have a motion. It's been seconded. Is there further discussion?

Okay, we have a motion. It's been seconded. Uh, all in favor of the motion say I. I. I. All opposed to the motion say nay. Nay. Okay. Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we close, vacate, and remove the easement located at the western lines of lot 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the Asheford subdivision, currently referred to as the Asheford easement. Second. There's a second a motion. Is there discussion?

Yes. As I would like to note um along with the public input from this hearing, I have summarized some considerations that I've weighed as well. These are specific considerations for this easement as it relates to our town's development plans. The closure is not contrary to public interest because the closure does not conflict with the strate strategic plan policy 1.3.1 to develop trails as required by ordinance as this easement is not required by ordinance. The closure does not conflict with land use policy 4.2. 2.3 to support the recommendations of the Oakidge Pedestrian Plan. The Oakidge Pedestrian Plan recommends on page 28, quote, that trail easements continue to be acquired through the subdivision process where proposed trail is located in the town of Oakidge. End quote. This segment is not represented on the pedestrian plan and does not connect to any other public trails or easement. The closure does not conflict with strategic plan policy 1.3.2 to develop trails that connect neighborhoods to parks. The Oakidge Pedestrian Plan recommends a policy on page 38 to quote accommodate future trail development where greenways or conservation areas are proposed or within half a mile of parks or schools end quote. This easement and surrounding neighborhoods are not within half a mile of parks or schools and the easement does not connect to any greenways or conservation areas. The land use plan policy 2.2.2 specifies trail should be incorporated into neighborhood design. The easement was not presented on the preliminary plat and therefore not incorporated into the design. The land use plan policy 4.2.2 seeks public engagement and involvement in the planning of trails. This was not done prior to establishing this easement with no ordinances addressing trails in RS40 zoning. Ordinance section 30-539 for planned unit development zoning and ordinance section 30-562 for rural preservation district zoning provide design standards that trails must be located within a minimum easement width of 20 ft wide and only

trails shown on the future land use plan or pedestrian plan must be public. This easement is only 8t wide and is marked public but not included in the future land use plan or pedestrian plan. And I would also like to note that as far as public input in the hearing, uh, no adjacent land owners opposed the closing. So again, I believe it's not contrary to public interest.

Is your motion to adopt the draft order closing, vacating, and removing from dedication a street or public alley contained in the council's packet tonight? Yes, sir. And part of uh my comments were to specifically reference the order. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good. Do you have any further comments?

So, we have u before us uh the closing of an easement. Um there is an order uh that goes to this that speaks to the heart of the legality of it and the process that we that got us to this point. And I'd like to read this. um the order closing, vacating, and removing from dedication a street or public alley, which in this case is an easement. Whereas on January 12th, 2026, the duly noticed special meeting the town council of the town village pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 168-299 adopted resolution R2026-2 noticing the public of its intent to close, vacate, and remove from the dedication the public trail easement contained in the Ashford subdivision dedicated to the public in the final plat thereof uh and accepted by the town of Oakidge upon recordation of said plat. that under the Oakidge development ordinance and as more fully described below and such public trail easement constitute a public alley for the purposes of said statute and pursuant to the said resolution of intent notice was published at a hearing that would be held concerning the petition on February the 5th 2026 at 7 p.m. during the regular meeting of the Oakidge Town Council at the town hall located at 8315 Limble Road. Uh the resolution was published once a week for four successive weeks prior to the hearing. A copy thereof was sent by certified mail to all the owners of properties adjoining the street or alley uh as shown in the county tax records and a notice of the closing and public hearing shall prominently was prominently posted in at least two places along the streets or alley. At the said public hearing after the inquiry by the mayor, all interested persons were provided with the opportunity to be heard on the proposed closing and after all interested persons were heard. It appeared to the satisfaction to this council that the removal of said street

or public alley from dedication is not contrary to the public interest and that no individual owning property in the vicinity of said street or public alley will be deprived of any reasonable means of ingress egress to his or her property. Now therefore be it ordered that the following described street or public alley is hereby closed vacated and removed from the dedication of the public use that being certain 8 foot wide public trail easement running along the parallel with the western lines of lots 6 8 9 and 10 of the Ashford subdivision for a distance of 867.2 two feet more or less per plat approval approved for record by the town of Oakidge on 24th August 2023 and recorded on the 25th of August 2023 in plat book page 213 page 42 of the Gilford County registry

yer comments

um so I'll start by saying this easement was legally added added. This is a this is a tool, a technique of adding easements for trails through subdivisions that's used throughout the state. The League of Municipalities did research for me on this. This is a great way to get trails and it is the preferred way because it doesn't use taxpayer dollars. It's donated. This this easement is worth money because it's about 16th of an acre, 870 feet times 8t wide. So, this is legal. Even Mr. Stone has uh agreed with residents who claimed that it was legal. So, we're talking about public versus private interests. I disagree. I don't know. I don't know how uh Councilwoman Clark is reading our strategic plan, our land use plan, our pedestrian plan, all of our plans because all of them, and I'm not going to go through all of the quotes, are specifically prioritized trail connections, including connections between neighborhoods. This trail has incredible potential of connecting to the Peberly and Carriage Cove trails that are about to be opened and are just absolutely beautiful and have a trail head parking place already in place. So, this is not I don't know. I'm I'm sorry that folks in the neighborhoods don't know about this, but uh Miss Clark has known about this. We know about this. I've put it out on Facebook a lot. This is going to connect. Now, it doesn't have to connect tomorrow. It may take five years to plan this. It may take two, it may take nine months. Uh, tree preservation areas mean that you can't take out mature trees, which is what is it over 8 in something like that. There there's a that's how it's defined.

We've talked about how these are very desirable uh and our parks and recreational areas and trails. For many of us, it's what brought us here. So, all of these plans, they don't just guide decisions, they define what the public interest actually is here in Oakidge. And I have heard nothing that even remotely convinces me that removing this trail is in the public interest. It would not. The public interest is defined by these plans that are created by elected officials with extensive public input and some of the tra some of the documents com completed completely by volunteers with only oversight from council. So, what I see, and I've said this on online, is that the removal of this easement would serve the political interests and misinformation that I'm sorry that neighborhoods I talked to three people in your neighborhood today and yesterday who said, "Oh my gosh, I didn't know that. Oh, I don't have a problem with this trail." I have a feeling if more people were listening and thinking about this and looking at the facts, there wouldn't be all this divisive upset caused by misinformation as has been pointed out. But at its core, this issue has also become personal, I believe, for Councilwoman Clark and that also runs counter to the public interest. And this is that brings up the idea of privacy. There is no right to privacy. you you don't have a right to privacy on land that you don't own. My understanding is that we get to control what goes on our this is what property rights are. This is the conservative understanding of property rights. You get to control what's on your property. We all live near public roads and many of us live near public

sidewalks and public trails. No one has a right to privacy from all of these public thoroughares and there is no specific distance required. the proximity argument that was raised earlier. In this case, the trail is in the woods. That's a natural privacy screen. In addition, the town has repeatedly offered subsidies to further screen backyards from the trail. Dollars for landscaping or to contribute to a fence to add additional privacy to create additional comfort for residents affected. I talked to our town manager about that today. This kind of mitigation has worked beautifully. In one case, we approved it and then the owner of the property said, "Oh my gosh, we don't need that. We love this trail." Three little boys and right next to the headarters trail, our offers to provide additional standing, additional screenings still stand were were promptly declined by Miss Clark and Mr. Deline, but they still stand to everyone who's affected by this. So, the other part of this is it's not I realize that a lot of you think you don't want this trail or don't want this trail. I shouldn't say you think you don't, but you're not the only people who are ever going to live in those homes or in those neighborhoods. You're not the only people who have a vested interest in that trail. I think what we've heard tonight is that there are people across Oakidge and I've gotten voluminous emails all over here uh saying please don't give up this easement. This is a public use. It's for everyone. It's not it's not just for your neighborhood. Many people near as we've heard near live near the headarters trail who have discovered that they love it. The trail

easement is a financial estimate financial e asset that's been estimated at being valued around $20,000. Keeping this valuable asset is clearly in the public interest. We have supposedly conservative council members wanting to give away town assets. Would we do this with a used truck or anything else? Would we simply give it up? I'm not even sure our finance officer is falling asleep. I'm sorry. could support this.

So in the end, the question is, should individual preferences and political stances outweigh the clear public interest of a community asset that benefits all residents? I don't think so. Thank you, Mr. Greece. Well, we do give away the Redman for free to certain groups. So So I'm just saying we do give away stuff. That's use of a facility, not same thing. Capital asset. So, we did give away taxpayer money. Thank you.

Okay, it's my turn. Uh, two years ago, as a new council member, I expressed my opinion that the town of Oakidge should not give up a town asset, the Ashford Easement. After listening to the discussion that night, I was given the impression by the Bear Creek HOA that there was a high possibility that an alternative route could be located. That night, there seemed to be willingness by Bear Creek to work with Oakidge Trails Committee uh toward the goal uh toward that goal, and the Bear Creek citizens asked for a 10-year period to execute. I did not nor did any of the other council members feel that we could grant the tenure request since it was beyond the term of the council. However, I thought that if progress was being made uh to to find this alternative trail that was stated uh that at least three of us that were new to council would be here and uh would vote to extend the work scope by another two years during the next council. this one uh possibly providing 40% of the time requested by Bear Creek residents. At that time, I voted with Mr. Greece and Mr. Stone to provide that first two-year period. Unfortunately, no progress has been made on an alternative easement during the past two years. I bring this up because during the past few weeks, I have attended the uh PNZ board meeting, the trails committee meeting by Zoom, and have read through the collected legal documents related to the current lawsuit filed by Miss Clark against the town. During the PNZ session, a gentleman from Bear Creek and uh who's with us tonight uh again brought up uh that there was a better al alternative pathway that could be explored with people in Somefield if only the Ashford easement was dropped. I sat wondering why the people in Beay

Creek had not explored that opportunity during the past two years. I thought at the very least if a better pathway existed, it would at the minimum uh or it would at least minimize the use of the Ashford easement in question. During the Zoom meeting, I discussed this issue with the trails committee. They told me that they had stopped working on that project because they feared interfering with the current lawsuit. So, no progress has been made pursuing an alternative pathway. During the trails committee's in call, the members expressed their concerns, which you've heard tonight, that the public benefits of the trails neighborhood connectivity, improve public health, quality of life, and the alignment with long-term strategic goals of the town were being substituted by the personal concerns of a member of town council. In addition, they were concerned that removing the ash easement would set a precedent that could undermine future trail planning and development. I share these concerns. While attending the recent PNZ public hearing, I watched the debate and the deliber del deliberation by the PNZ board who unanimously decided to recommend that the town keep the Ashford easement. It was stated that this was the third time that the Ashford easement case had been reviewed by PNZ or the board of adjustment. each time resulting in a unanimous decision that their recommendation to town council should be to not remove the Asheford easement. One board member commented that the only thing that was different in this last review was the membership of town council had changed. In their final comments, the board chair emphasized the planning board charge is to ensure full and impartial compliance with the town's ordinances and a future land plan and not to revisit past decisions based upon changing political and personal

considerations. I agree with the PNZ board chair statement. Since the PNZ open hearing, I've reread the many legal documents associated with the current lawsuit. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but my in my review, I think the town of Oakidge has a strong case and would win in court while maintaining the Ashford easement. So, for these reasons, I support maintaining the Ashford emanating the asset of the town in court if necessary. Okay. So, any

one last addition, I can't remember if I said this, but the planning and zoning board, their job is to be impartial. and the suggestion that they were anything but. They are not handpicked by council. They are volunteers who come forward from the community and they do not always agree. Certainly not always with me and certainly not even with each other. So, uh I just want to clear their name on that count. Thank you, Mr. Niner.

And I will just add to that that this isn't about the PNZ. They performed their task professionally and they voted it on the technical aspects of the matter and we all have the greatest respect for their service on planning and zoning. It's not about P&Z. I agree. So, can we vote? Yep. Well, I think we have a motion and I forgot what the motion was. It was very long. You read it. Do not read it again. It was the current order.

It was the current order. So we have a motion and and Mr. Stone read it completely to order closing, vacating, and removing from dedication a street or public alley. Uh we all have that in our packets. So do you want to re I don't want you to read the state the whole thing, but it's been read, but you have the second still. Yeah. Already. Okay. So we have a we have a motion and second. Uh all in favor of the motion say I. I. I. All oppose say no. Nay. No. No.

Nay. No. Whatever. Okay. So, three to two. So, that concludes the public hearing. We're now at the public comment period. I think most everybody has gone, but if there's anybody uh that desires to make a another public comment or community organizations exist, here comes Mr. Kinnaman. So, this is a community update. Okay. Uh Jim Kman,

please keep your voices down. We're still in session. We are still in session. Excuse me. Please exit if you're going to talk. We're still in session. We wish to give them a moment to exit. Oh yeah, but exit quietly. Mr. Kaman, you could continue.

Jim Kinnman 8502 Hollow River Court. I represent the Oakidge Lions Club. I just want to make people aware that as we do every year, the Oakidge Lions Club offers a scholarship to any student that attends school in any form in the Northwest area of Guilford. That could be either Northwest High School, uh, Orma privately, uh, private school, or even homeschooled. So, all you have to do is, uh, the easiest thing is to go on the Northwest High School website. They will have the application and you can support it. And as always, there's a blood drive coming up Monday. If you can give blood, please do. Is it Monday? Is it? It is this coming Monday. Every even month. Second Monday of every even month at the at the Methodist Church. Monday. Okay.

So, thanks. Okay. So, we're at the town manager report. Mr. Mr. Bruce, let's go. Town manager report. This may be the first thing I've said all night. Um, uh, four committee appointments this evening. I can read them all and you can choose to do them individually or at once. Um, appointment of Angie Bird as a regular member of PNZ. Reappoint of John Jenkins to the finance committee. Appointment of Todd Dean as a regular member of the finance committee and appointment of Alan Shepard as a regular member of the finance committee. I move that we make all these appointments. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. All in favor? Say I. I.

I. Okay. Monthly financial update. M. Would you prefer to defer your financial or would you prefer to Can you do it in three minutes? Everybody received a copy of the report. Everyone has them. have read it. The finance office, please come up and come on. Well, we we we we are shaking Sam and he's done double duty tonight. So, everyone received a copy of the financial report. Everyone received a copy of the finance officer state uh the financial statements. Yes.

Um basically, we got money in the bank, the bills are paid. Uh you can see the results of the taxes that were collected this last month. Uh we did receive uh an ABC distribution of about $92,000 which was well well uh better than expected. That's pretty much everything. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I move that we accept the financial officer's report as presented. Second. Uh there's been a motion and a second. All in favor? I I thank you.

Committee reports. We may have one or two committee reports. Um, I know that water has been provided, water, uh, advisory committee has been provided to council. Uh, Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of other reports that were given to me during the meeting that I can distribute to council later. Yes, please. Uh, we do have certain members of of committees. So, uh, Adrian, uh, or go through the list. I will start bounce to the sea. We'll do bounce to the sea first. No, mounts to sea. We'll go through the list. Are you She doesn't. She Okay. No. That's okay. We don't

Well, please come do it quickly if you can. Jim, we'll get to you in a minute. Uh Stephanie Frell, 5839 Billet Road. The Mounts to Sea Trail Committee met last Tuesday by Zoom. Um, we had a workday scheduled for next Wednesday, but I just received an email that it's too wet and that will be cancelled. The next workday will be um a Saturday and everyone will receive an email and then the next MST committee meeting will be February 24th. Thank you. Wonderful job. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. I I don't believe conservation easement is here. Special events is not here. Tree board, Mr. Gentlemen,

Jim Kim 8502 Hal River Court tree board did meet today. Uh the main thing we're looking into is uh taking a look at next month. We're going to take a look at the master plan for Heritage Farm Park and try to identify areas where uh tree plantings would be appropriate. We're also looking into expanding the u a memorial tree program where people can pay to plant a tree in memory of someone. Uh and then the other thing is we did look at the plan for the plantings around the water tower. Uh John Jen uh John had a mentioned that maybe the average vitamin that was recommended there may be another alternative that's a little more deer resistant and also we're looking at which I learned was a great term that he called dedication syndrome that the plantings may actually be too dense uh and actually you might want to spread them out a little bit more because in five years they'll be a little bit more grown in. Uh sometimes there's the urge to make it look dedication ready when it really should be a little more sparse sparsely. So that's what we're working on. Thank you for your report.

Thank you. Next, it would be parks and wreck.

Adrian Eron, parks and wreck. Uh the parks and recck met on January 15th in person and by Zoom. Uh there was a vote uh for the uh chair and co-chair was elected as the chair. John Branding as our vice chair. Um we reviewed and approved the uh 2026 special events committee calendar. Uh we reviewed and approved uh created a new 2026 capital improvements and projects for recommendation to town council. Um Brock updated that they are short on park staff and there's postings for full-time and part-time staff. Uh the spring sports will be starting soon. So there's planning and preparation for that with uh the park staff. ROA has used 27,000 during the fall sports uh which accounting to a rebate of $21,000 to ROA uh for the July through December period. Uh heritage charm park update. Uh the drainage issues are being addressed and expected that to be completed by the end of May. Uh sport fields are to be fixed uh by mid July. That includes leveling and grading. Uh Revington Reeds uh is currently scoping the phase 2 project for HFP. Uh we decided uh discussed and decided to discontinue the usage of the food trailer at the Music in the Park events. Uh several reasons, but uh this will now open us up to being able to include hamburger food trucks uh at that event. Um and we are also notifying um other Oakidge Town groups uh about the availability of that trailer. Um and our intent is to kind of monitor that usage to see if uh there might be a recommendation to sell the trailer if there's no other usage from other groups. Uh the Northwest uh Gford Women's Club uh did present and requested a continuation of the uh farmhouse community center fee waiver that they were granted in 2025. Uh there was a majority consensus to allow this uh for the uh unused for events into the 2026 year. Um these are during non-week and non- peak rental times. Um so that grant uh that request was approved. Um that did lead to a discussion on fee

waiverss and existing rental policies. Um so if council was able to provide any guidance on how they would like those to kind of proceed. Um I did uh discuss uh with my my vote chair um as well that um you know uh we needed to create a proposed guideline something to uh make sure we're crafting and using a fair and consistent fee waiver approval. Um and I volunteered to create such an outline and if town council has any kind of recommendations for that. Uh, one of the questions, for example, that was raised and there didn't seem to be a great consensus on is are these town rentals designed to generate revenue? Uh, so that was a question that was un unanswerable at that moment. Um, farmhouse community center update. Uh, there were five rentals by the first uh 15 days in January. Uh, there has not been any marketing efforts uh to date uh on that. Um, these are just coming in from uh in the community. Um, one of the reasons for not marketing it is parking is uh is really the only noted issue. Uh, obviously the the parking doesn't uh there's not immediate parking for enough to really kind of accommodate that event. Um, the park entrance master plan uh was discussed. Oh, I'm almost done. Uh, Duke's installed the last uh 12 poles with the final walkthrough was done in January. Uh, last two items, music in the park, four of the six bands have been booked for 2026. We have June 13th and October 10th still open. Uh but we're considering dropping the October event uh due to so many other conflicting events during that time period and it is the lowest attendance event. And last item, music on the lawn at the farmhouse community center. Uh the first event will be May 31st uh and then following by June 28th. Thank you.

Thank you, Adrian. Uh finance committee is not active yet. Uh water has advisory was provided. I don't know if we got anything from historic preservation, planning and zoning. No. Uh, board of adjustments. No. Okay. So, we're now at public comments. Do we have any further public comments? I mean, Mr. Einro,

Adrien Ekenro, 5679 Timberway, Oakidge. Um, as an Oakidge resident, I'm just going to say do better. Okay, that's that's pretty much it. Um, Councilwoman Clark, you ran on maybe consolidating committees, eliminating committees. I know there's also coming up for the the vote again. Uh, as far as recording events, I think you might get your wish. Um, there needs to be greater reach from this council to the committees. When you have committees voting in unison for items and then you go completely against that, you need to reach out and really speak with those committees. You either need to give them more guidance and clearance on what you're expecting from them or you need to respect their decisions more. So that's what I mean by when I say do better. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further public comments? So we're now to council comments. Mrs. Mrs. Clark. Um good morning. Good night. Thank you everyone for saying okay Mr. Stone. No Mr. agree. That's a quick one. We were elected by the people, so we have the final decisions. Our butts on the line. So when we make our decisions, we think we make the right ones. Thank you. No comment.

I have about 35 points I'd like to uh but I'll save them for the March meeting. That's what I'm doing. So, uh, so I will now see if anybody wants to make a motion to adjourn this. Oh, let's take it. And, uh, we got a, it sounds like we had a motion and a second. Second. Uh, all in favor say I.

I. Heat