12.10.25 BOA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9 Draft 1 2 Cy Stober: Repeat the PIN please. 3 4 Kyle Myers: 9850-09-9116. 1 ask the question purely because in the application, there's a map, and it 5 appears as though Dodson Knoll Road is on the property of 9850-09-9116. 6 7 Cy Stober: That's correct. 8 9 Kyle Myers: So, Sylvia Strack owns the road. That's, I want to just make sure that I understood that. 10 11 Cy Stober: To clarify,there are three properties that have Dodson Knoll Road on the property;the subject 12 property of the application, property with PIN 9850-19-1715 owned by the Robin Davidson 13 Trustee, and the property you just inquired about. Thank you. 14 15 Leon Meyers: All right. Let's see if we can keep moving forward here. Any other questions. 16 17 Beth Bronson: No. 18 19 Leon Meyers: Then, a motion will be an order to approve organize standing for Ms. Lormand as a participant 20 in this case. While Board members are thinking about that, Mr. Hornik had something to say. 21 22 Beth Bronson: Yes. 23 24 Kevin Hornik: Good evening, everyone. Before you all take a vote on this- 25 26 Leon Meyers: Identify yourself. 27 28 Kevin Hornik: Sorry. My name is Kevin Hornik. I'm an attorney with the Brough Law Firm in Chapel Hill. 29 I'm here this evening on behalf of the applicants. You all may have received, and tell me if 30 you haven't, but we submitted a memorandum of law on the standing issue. I think it does 31 address some of the questions that the Board has been discussing. First, with respect to the 32 easement issue here. There is a statute that would confer standing on the owner of an interest 33 in the property that is the subject of the Board's decision. That interest could be an easement 34 interest. However, I want to make clear that the easement, neither Dodson Knoll Road nor Hi 35 Mar Lane are the subject property in this case. The property, the portion of the property on 36 which this use presently exists is not located within the easement area from either of these 37 easements, and so we would argue that the existence of these easements is irrelevant to the 38 Board's decision as none of these folks' own property that is the subject of the special-use 39 permit. In other words, none of these folks own an interest in property which will, which is 40 being used for the care facility use itself. They certainly own an interest in property that folks 41 cross over to access the care facility, but they do not own property that is the subject of the 42 special-use permit application itself and;therefore, by statute,they do not have standing under 43 that particular standard. Now, I think, as James mentioned, there's a second standing, well, 44 there are several standing statutes, but the most relevant one typically is the special damages 45 standard. Again, this is outlined in the memorandum of law, but I'll cut to the chase here. 46 There are kind of two important points when considering the special damages standard. The 47 first is so the special damages need to be distinct from the neighborhood or the rest of the 48 community. I think you've heard from Ms. Lormand, and I think you will hear from the others, 49 but they are all talking about generally the same damages, an increase in traffic over Dodson 50 Knoll Road, and then kind of the general related effects of that and of what they argue as a 9