|
60 Draft
<br /> 1 Cy Stober: None that Mr. Hornick didn't already cover. There's three. That, which were already discussed.
<br /> 2
<br /> 3 Kevin Hornik: And I'll just reiterate— I'm sorry, I was trying to pull— I'm making a mess of this. I was trying to pull
<br /> 4 up the definition. The other two frontage-related definitions are building frontage, which is not
<br /> 5 applicable here because the LIDO regulation at issue doesn't discuss that a building must have
<br /> 6 frontage; it discusses the special use. Which as we already talked about refers to the care facility
<br /> 7 on the entire property. The other is tenant frontage, and again, we're not talking about a tenant at
<br /> 8 the property. We're talking about the lot frontage, which is the definition that I provided to you, is
<br /> 9 lot-line frontage. So, that is the most applicable definition provided by the LIDO. I think as James
<br /> 10 mentioned— I'll kind of get lawyerly, I guess, on you, but what North Carolina law says is that
<br /> 11 where there's ambiguity or uncertainty with respect to a statutory term or a term set out in an
<br /> 12 ordinance, you apply the canons of statutory interpretation, one of which is reading the regulation
<br /> 13 in pari materia, which means, again, I don't speak Latin, or I think I maybe spoke Latin when I was
<br /> 14 like 13 in eighth grade or whatever, but best I can recall it generally means kind of read in context
<br /> 15 with the entire document. So, the only definition that really relates to the subject matter at issue
<br /> 16 that's provided by the LIDO itself is this lot-line frontage definition. That lot-line frontage definition
<br /> 17 contemplates that a right of way could be, a private right of way or easement, could satisfy that
<br /> 18 requirement for lot frontage on a public state-maintained road.
<br /> 19
<br /> 20 Beth Bronson: Now again, I guess the, I think the question comes down to the condition of that special use permit
<br /> 21 clearly specifying that Jubilee, the organization itself, be involved in that agreement to maintain the
<br /> 22 easement.
<br /> 23
<br /> 24 Kevin Hornik: Well, I'm not sure that the board can, by law, require that the applicant—again because none of
<br /> 25 the other people are bound by this board's determination, I don't think you can impose a condition
<br /> 26 that requires us to enter into some other private agreement with individuals who are not a party to
<br /> 27 this. What I can say is that there are, and you've seen them, existing access and maintenance
<br /> 28 agreements that do obligate the applicant to share in the maintenance of the road. I can tell you
<br /> 29 that there are ongoing negotiations regarding changes to that. I don't think that it's relevant to this
<br /> 30 board's consideration, nor do I think it could be binding, but the applicant has committed to provide,
<br /> 31 to pay for 95 percent of the cost of the road maintenance. Kind of the rest of the terms of that
<br /> 32 agreement still need to be ironed out, but the fact is is that right now, as it stands, the applicant is
<br /> 33 responsible in equal share with all of the other property owners under this agreement to maintain
<br /> 34 the road. We are working on a separate private agreement related to changing the terms and
<br /> 35 apportioning that road maintenance cost. But again, I mention that just, I suppose, to satisfy the
<br /> 36 board to the extent that there are questions about the applicant's maintenance responsibility for the
<br /> 37 road. Not that that's, again, relevant, or applicable to any of the review criteria.
<br /> 38
<br /> 39 Leon Meyers: Good. All right. I want to try to, we need to make a decision about where to go from here. We're 2
<br /> 40 minutes and 15 seconds away from 10:30. Do I have a motion to extend the meeting time?
<br /> 41
<br /> 42 Beth Bronson: Make a motion to extend the meeting time.
<br /> 43
<br /> 44 Jeff Scott: I would not second that. I think we've—you know, it's 10:30 now. It's been a long week for me,
<br /> 45 and, you know, we don't seem to be any closer to even closing the public session, that's just my
<br /> 46 two cents here.
<br /> 47
<br /> 48 Kyle Myers: Are you prepared to make a motion otherwise?
<br /> 49
<br /> 60
<br />
|