Minutes - 19850312 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

038 The following people were sworn in for public comment: Amos Umstead, Samuel Holton, Carl Walters, Charley Bunipass, Peggy Bauer, Jeff Hale, Margaret Umstead. Amos Umstead, a resident of Craig Road, stated there were already two mobile home parks in the vicinity and he felt there was no need for another one. He expressed concerns with the increase in traffic, pollution and trash and he also had a concern that non whites might be excluded from the development. Commissioner Marshall asked if Mr. Umstead was objecting in regard to public health, safety and welfare. Umstead responded yes but he noted also that he was concerned with discrimination. Samuel Holton, owner of 65 acres across the street from this proposed development, expressed concerns with destruction of property, the dumping of trash, destruction of roads by trail bikes, thefts, etc. He has spent money to have his property cleaned up and the dumping of trash and destruction of property continues. He felt this would be a "slum" on the edge of Willowhaven and that a more desirable residential area could be developed. Planning Board member Wilson inquired of Mr. Holton if his point was that this development would be a threat to the value of his property and Mr. Holton responded that that was his number one concern and, secondly, he was addressing his perception of the welfare of the community. Planning Board member Yuhasz inquired of Mr. Holton what evidence he had that this development would be worse or contribute more problems than if it were developed as a single-family development with the higher density permitted in terms of numbers of units. Mr. Holton responded that the evi- dence was, he supposed, his opinion. His perception was the mobile home parks have more impact on public health, safety and welfare than other developments. Commissioner Willhoit asked the County Attorney for clarification on the question of the impact on the value of property and specifically if an appraiser's opinion is needed to certify the question of property value. Gledhill responded that one may consider as evidence the testimony of the property owner's opinion as to the value/impact on his own property. There would still be the question of how much weight to be assigned to the testimony. Gledhill continued that what he had heard was somewhat speculative, particularly in the context that this same property could be subdivided into 40,000 sq. foot lots and mobile homes could be placed on these lots. He had not heard anything that says that this proposal would effect the value more than subdivision into individual lots. He suggested experts would need to address the question of value. Planning Board member Kizer noted that given that this development was being discussed under the terms of the Special Use Permit, then the burden of proof shifts to the opposition regarding documented evidence and substantiated opinion.