MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 21,2020  The Caswell County Board of Commissioners met in regular session at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 21, 2020. The meeting was held electronically using Zoom Webinar software. Members present: Rick McVey, Chairman, David J. Owen, Vice Chairman, William E. Carter, Nathaniel Hall, Jeremiah Jefferies, Steve Oestreicher, and N. Kent Williamson. Also present: Bryan Miller, County Manager, and Brian Ferrell, County Attorney. Ashley Kirby Powell,  Administrative Assistant, recorded the minutes.  WELCOME  MOMENT OF SILENTI PRAYER  Chairman McVey opened the meeting with ai moment of Silent Prayer.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  The Board of Commissioners and all guests int the attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLICHEARING SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 189TAYLORS COVE ROAD  SEMORA, N.C.  Vice Chairman Owen made a motion to sit as the Board of Adjustments for the setback variance request for 189 Taylors Cove Road, Semora, N.C., seconded by Commissioner Williamson. The Mr. Ferrell swore in Mr. Hoagland, County Planner. "Taffirm that the evidence that I shall give to the County Board of Adjustments on the referenced application shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, solaffirm.") Mr. Hoagland replied Iaffirm. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ia appreciate the opportunity to present before you this morning. The issue that wel have, and the reason: for the variance is; the applicant that is located at 189 Taylors Cove Road, Semora, Christina Widmark and Matthew Maron submitted plans to the Planning Department in June 2020. These plans were to add a garage to their existing dwelling. The thing that caught my attention was that the site plan for the garage would extend out to touch thej property line at the 201 Taylors Cove Road to the side and to touch the right of way line that abuts the road.. As you likely know the setbacks in thel Hyco Lake area are 15ft from the side property line and 30ft from the front property line. The reason this is an interesting situation is that the lot is sO small, it is roughly 9,000ft. Itis ai non- conforming lot. Int thel Hyco Lake area, lots can be as little as 20,000 square foot with the approval of thel Environmental Health Department. Since this lot is sO small it exists as a non- conforming lot. In cases when we. have ai non-conformity, Itypically look at. Article 7 oft the Caswell County UDO to make a determination. Article 7, section7.27 states; any structure used as as single family dwelling, may be maintained as non-conforming situation and maybe enlarged or replaced long as it does not create new non-conformities or increase the extent of non- conformities with respect to such matters as setbacks and parking requirements. Clearly this is an issue where there is a violation ofs setbacks all the way down to: zero since it would touch the lot  motion carried unanimously.    line. As a result, I rejected Ms. Widmark's site plan. Then she took the course of action to appeal Mr. Ferrell stated just to be clear this is an appeal to the zoning officer's determination and itisa variance appeal to allow the reduction oft the setback to zero on the front and side property lines. Chairman McVey questioned Mr. Hoagland; was the lot originally this size when the ordinance requiring setbacks as implemented. Mr. Hoagland stated; as far as I can tell, the lot has never changed size sincei it was created in 1965, and has been the same size ever since. The change in ordinances over the years, both creation oft the Hyco Lake. Zoning Ordinance and later the adoption of the UDO, is what has cast this into a non-conforming status. This is when wel havea problem with a development ofthis nature which would exacerbate the setbacks. Chairman McVey questioned; does this create al hardship. Mr. Ferrell stated; the applicant has the burden to prove to you whether or not it's a hardship, in this case, results in conditions that are particular to the property. Ift the Board sO inclines, it would be appropriate to hear from the Mr. Ferrell swore in Ms. Widmark; "Taffirm that the evidence that I shall give to the County Board of Adjustments on the referenced application shall be the truth and nothing but the truth sO Iaffirm." Ms. Widmark stated "I affirm."This does create al hardship. We originally purchased the home at 189 Taylors Cove for a vacation weekend home. Wej purchased it in. July 2018 and we: fell in love with our. lake house and would like it to be our permanent home. In order to do: sO wei need more space. Wel have been collecting antique cars and collectables for the last 35 years and we could really be disheartened if wel had to give it up. The garage would make it a livable space and we would be able to live there. We currently live inl Pittsboro, but we would rather be on Hyco Lake. Idid take the liberty oflooking into the property lines and the setbacks and I agree that the setbacks were set after the property was divided and thel house was built. Let me explain how thel house sits. That far end oft thel house is 43ft back from the road but the topography on that side oft the house is extremely steep and the only way to access that from the road would be where the shared well for the Daniels and Petry's is located. Ifwe go further down the road towards our front walk way then we: run into the septic. Therefore, wel looked at doing it on the other side oft thel house. The garage would start at 24ft back so; the: setback would be encouraged by 6ft. Then for the side setbacks we. readjusted the size and the drawing in order toi remain in the setbacks as much as we can, but still getting the garage we want. The side setback would be 10ft and due to the angle ofthe lot and thel house tapers in and gets smaller toward thel lake side and the back oft the garage, we are asking for 5ft from the front. We are willing to give up 13ft by 27ft ofd decking on the side of thel house sO we could build the garage Chairman McVey questioned Mr. Hoagland; do wel have an agreement from all adjoining property owners at this time. Mr. Hoagland replied I have not heard from any adjoining property owners. Mr. Ferrell stated as a technical matter the legislatures provided authority to preçede with Quasi-Judicial Hearings ini the electronic format. Int the case when the Planning Director sent out notices to the adjoining property owners ofthis hearing pursuant to the land use management and statel law he asked if anyone objected or wanted to participate in thel hearing.  before thel Board of Adjustments.  applicant.  up against the side of the house to give that extra space.    Then Mr. Ferrell, questioned Mr. Hoagland; do you receive any feedback or reply. Mr. Hoagland replied no. Mr. Ferrell replied; neighbors may. have aj particular hardship from the application. Please raise your hand on the attendee list assuming not you can call again for public comment if you like as part ofthis hearing. Ifthel IT. department does not see any one asserting that they have any standing at this point. David Norris, I.T. Director stated that currently attendees cannot Ms. Widmark stated; Iwould like to add one more thing, Ijust want it to bel known that our neighbors, the Daniels, their dwelling next door sits at 22ft from the street now and their tobacco barn which is next to thel home sets 6ft from the front setback. Just so you have an: idea how the neighborhood looks, most oft the neighborhood was built prior to the setbacks being put inj place. So by adding this addition to the garage this will not change the look oft the neighborhood in anyway shape or form. Our home sets back now at 43ft from the road so, it is much further than the Daniel's home that is setting at 24ft and the tobacco barn is 6ft. Where the garage willl be over 24ft back from the center and ati its furthest point forward, ift that helps describe where it set Chairman McVey questioned when was the property most recently sold, before or after the setbacks where imposed. Mr. Hoagland replied; I would assume after, not sure when Ms. Widmark purchased the property. Ibelieve she stated sometime in 2018. Ms. Widmark replied; yes, 2018. Mr. Hoagland replied setbacks where enshrined in local ordinance in 2013 in the UDO. They were originally codified in 1966 in the original Hycol Lake Zoning Ordinance. Vice Chairman Owen questioned Ms. Widmark; in the original drawings that we: received, did you say you had made changes to the dimensions oft the garage. Ms. Widmark replied yes, the 10ft would be the side property setback and the front would be 24ft, at the point closest point to the street, and then would diminish down to the property line at the back end because of angle. Chairman McVey questioned; isi it still on the property line. Vice Chairman Owen replied yes. Commissioner Williamson questioned whose property is number three listed on the map. Vice Chairman Owen replied the Daniel's. Ms. Widmark replied; the Daniels, we have spoken a great length with them, we are friendly. Mr. Daniels gave us the ok on our boat dock that wel have rebuilt; he wasn'topposed toi it at all. We were originally talking to the Daniels about purchasing Commissioner Oestreicher stated that the drawings we. have show the garage actually is on the property line at two points. Ms. Widmark replied; correct. Commissioner Oestreicher questioned these have been modified now for your new proposal, or is this the new proposal that wel have in front of us now. Ms. Widmark replied no, they have been modified. We took it back 6ft to try to get further back in the setbacks. Commissioner Oestreicher questioned ift the garage is still sitting on the property line. Ms. Widmark replied yes, it touches the property line at the back end. We attached it to thel house and removed parts of the decking and down sized the garage from 36ft to 30ft. This would gain more frontage setbacks; originally it would fill the entire space and go to thej property line. We were able to look at the alternate plans and bring it up on the house and remove the deck and gained 61 to7ft. Commissioner Oestreicher questioned; ist this a single or  raise a hand, looking for a way to enable that.  with the rest oft the neighborhood.  land, but the option is not available at this time.  double garage. Ms. Widmark replied double.    Vice Chairman Owen questioned! Mr. Hoagland; where you aware oft this change. Mr. Hoagland replied no, thisi is the first time that Iam is hearing about this potential change in the site plans. Vice Chairman Owen questioned would we: not need to come back before thel Planner again where he could make his determination as to whether you approve it or disapprove it and bring it back to the Board. Mr. Ferrell replied from what he understands, that the applicant recognizing the dimensional issues and that we are discussing this morning has reduced thei intrusion on the front setback by some 6ft. From what he understands, the front corner is within 6ft oft the property line. Iti is less ofa violation. There is still ai need for a variance and the side still touches thej property line. Mr. Hoagland stated based on Ms. Widmark description the garage would be less of an intrusion, but most likely still in violation of the setbacks. Mr. Ferrell stated it is hard to visualize. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if you would like to continue this where you can seei it drawn down to scale size on a map you can, ifthis is helpful. The four findings that you're going tol be required to make when you vote on this matter. 1. You are going to havet to determine that a necessary hardship results from the strict application of the ordinance. 2. You are going to have to find that the hardship is from conditions that are particular to the property, such as location, size, and topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common in the neighborhood and the general public may not bet the basis for granting a variance. 3. That the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or property owners, in this case, the act of purchasing thej property with knowledge of circumstances that may exists justify granting a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. 4. You must find that the request for the variance, is consistent with the spirit purpose and is content oft the ordinance such that public safety is secure and substantial justice is achieved. Those are all the findings that you are required to make. Again id it is helpful for you tol have additional information before you make those findings you are certainly permitted to Commissioner Williamson questioned should the adjoining property owners be aj part of this to get their feedback. Mr. Ferrell stated it is not necessary, but maybe helpful for you tol hear from the adjoining property owners. There is nothing legally that would require them to come offera testimony or approval of the application, but Ithink you have heard from the applicant her interpretation from the conversations that was mentioned. All though the best evidence would be testimony from the adjoining neighbors there, is nothing requiring them to come in. You can certainly ask thel Planner to make contact ify you want to continue the meeting, ift they would be willing to participate in the continued hearing. Commissioner Williamson questioned ifthey could participate by letter. Mr. Ferrell replied generally speaking in a Qusia-Judical Hearing direct testimony is the preferred method of participation, but via phone or affidavit of general Chairman McVey questioned what the pleasure oft the Board is. Commissioner Oestreicher stated he would like to see ai revised drawing to: make this al little easier to understand. Also, he suggested ifl Ms. Widmark would consider a single car garage to get it off thej property line. He does not like to see any buildings on property lines, there are. lots of reasonsi it is generally prohibited. Vice Chairman Owen stated he agreed, he would like to seei it off the property lines. Commissioner Oestreicher motioned to recess until October 5, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., seconded by  continue this meeting until the next Board meeting.  emails would not be confident evidence.  Vice Chairman Owen. The motion carried unanimously.    PUBLIC COMMENTS  Dennis Kopec 145Lake Pointe Drive Yanceyville NC27379  Ilive on Farmers Lake and have been a resident of Caswell County for 12 years. I am also a100% disabled combat veteran. For years Ihave enjoyed viewing the lake from my porch as well as fishing from a boat. About 2 years ago I could no longer fish from a boat any longer. Thus Ihave enjoyed fishing from my shoreline. Ihope you can consider this when making your decision on whether to allow fishing from shore as well as launching kayaks and canoes from our properties. Iknow that there are other disabled residents and seniors who use the lake in this Please consider the following proposal for minimizing any erosion to the shoreline. Any request to launch kayaks and canoes from the shore could be made through the lake warden. The lake warden would in turn forward this request to Environmental Health. Thus, an onsite inspection could be done and a location on the property could be selected as to have the least impact on the environment. The county could charge a fee for both the inspection and the permit. If it is deemed that there are no appropriate locations on the portion of county land located in front of the homeowner's property, then the homeowner could use the next closest approved location. A County employee such as Donny Powell of environment Health Ithink that the above proposal would increase control for the lake warden as well as providing  manner.  could conduct the inspections. Donny is respected by everyone in the County. the county with ai revenue source all while eliminating conçerns over erosion.  Thank You for consideration in this matter!  Dennis Kopec Pat Warren 361 Main St Prospect Hill, NC 27314  On the September 8 Board of Commissioners' agenda there was a hastily included action item stating, "Repeal of the Environmental Impact Ordinance" (EIO). Considering the utmost importance and high impact of such an action item, it felt like a kick in the gut to the Caswell citizens who are tirelessly working to preserve Caswell's pristine environment. However, putting that aside, there are several points that deserve an expression of gratitude. Without expressed complaint, each board memiber accepted a vast number of calls and read numerous emails of appeal that the EIO: not be repealed. With wisdom, the Board agreed to delay the vote on the EIO at least until an environmentally protective ordinance is written and passed. For several months, the development of the Heavy Industrial Development Ordinance (HIDO) has been in consideration but had not yet been acted upon. Thank you for accelerating the    process of developing the HIDO and welcoming highly capable Caswell citizens as members of The Board listened to the citizens and delayed the vote to repeal the Environmental Impact Ordinance at least until the Heavy Industrial Development Ordinance is written and passed. It_is important that the Board continue to investigate vested rights and to retain the Environmental Impact Ordinance and Environmental Assessment (EA) as outlined in Chapter 14, Article III of the Code of Caswell County due to the vast amount of information these  the HIDO committee.  ordinances would provide.  Thank you for your service to Caswell County and its citizens.  Phil Barfield, Yanceyville, NC. Thank you to the Board of Commissioners for your actions to protect the health of the citizens and the environment of Caswell County by passing the moratorium on January 6th of this year and thank you for your letter to the Department of Environmental Quality on April 6th asking them to redress citizen concerns in their permitting process. Ib believe together, you and concerned citizens, have caused the Department of Air Quality to reexamine the pollutants from the proposed asphalt plants and to determine, in fact, the plants would cause harm by polluting our air up to four times the legal limits set by EPA through the Clean Air Act. This discovery resulted in the denial of the two air permit applications and thus temporarily halting the company's progress with the construction and operation of the two plants. Please note the State's reexamination came late in their permitting process after their review was accomplished and after they drafted their approval letter. So, this begs the question what else did they miss? There may be more impacts not discovered because they have not looked. This is why we need our Environmental Impact Ordinance. To quote the ordinance: "The intent of this article is to provide a mechanism for full disclosure of anticipated impacts of developments and to make such information publicly available sO that citizens of the county may have input into developmental issues before they become moot." The issue of the high pollutants was just about to become moot until the State reexamined the plants' emissions. Repealing our Environmental Impact Ordinance will place the entire environmental review at the State level and remove any local board involvement. The State may not evaluate the impacts our county considers important such as traffic, noise, safety, and socio- economic impacts. I request you not repeal the Environmental Impact Ordinance and you continue to require the company to provide you with a compliant Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). After all, the company has shown a willingness and obligation to meet the  ordinance by already submitting documents to meet the requirements.  Gay Pleasant    12681 Painter Road, Prospect Hill Dear Commissioners,  Thank you very much for listening to the numerous community members who contacted you earlier this month out of concern that the Caswell Environmental Impact Ordinance might be We appreciate your taking decisive action toward crafting a reasonable and effective high impact development ordinance, one which would protect our clean environment and support desirable growth, while ensuring a good measure of local control over future development in Caswell  removed without a better plan inj place beforehand.  County. Sincerely, Gay Pleasant  To the Caswell County Board of Commissioners:  My name is Mimi Logothetis, Ilive at 9501 NC highway 861 Ni in Cedar Grove, NC. Iwant to thank you all for listening to all ofus who wrote, called and commented arguing against the repeal of the Environmental Impact Ordinance. If for one, am veryl heartened to know that you heard us, and delayed the repeal oft the only ordinance on thel books currently which can inform factually and categorically the governing body and the citizens of Caswell County of environmental impacts and assessments of prospective industry. This ordinance is ai necessary gatekeeper of] protection against polluting industry, Iwould: hope that it remains inj place even once ai more aggressive and permanent Heavy Industrial Development Ordinance is put inj place. Ithink the two can work hand inl hand to continue to safeguard our air, water, soil and rural way oflife while allowing Caswell to progress in forward thinking avenues and revenue streams. We as concerned citizens are fighting at the statel level to oppose permitting of polluting industries attempting to gain access and disturb our peaceful, clean communities, in Caswell, Northern Orange, Person and. Alamance Counties and in doing sO, we ask you to help us, at thel local level. Iurge you to stay strong and resolute and do all you can in your positions toj protect Caswell for  the: future. Thank you. Respectfully, Mimi  Dear Commissioners,  Ihavereviewed the letter from Fox Rothschild dated July 27, 2020. Their concluding opinion is that Carolina Sunrock does have vested rights and permit choice and they should be allowed to begin construction IF they are successful in completing all the required State permits and county You will recall the Protect Caswell Chapter ofl BREDL submitted a letter on "vested: rights" to you on June 6, 2020. The opinion of that letter which was based on documentation from the UNC School ofGovernment was that Carolina Sunrock did not have vested rights on the Burlington North proposed facility. Other letters from "Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights  approvals.    Under Law" and "Calhoun Bhella & Seacrest" have stated similar opinions. Therefore, multiple Iti is a fact that Fox Rothschild had a copy oft the June 61 Protect Caswell vested rights letter. Why were none oft thel key points from the Protect Caswell letter addressed? Why are there no arguments ini the Fox Rothschild letter explaining why the UNC School of Government documentation would not apply? Until this is answered, Iand many citizens do not consider this Isent a letter to Mr. Miller and Mr. McVey on Sept 8, 2020 with the full details ofn my disagreements with the Fox Rothschild opinion on vested rights. I will attach a copy forj public Fox Rothschild should either be required to complete the job by answering the. June 61 Protest Caswell letter as they were. hired to do, or wei need a second outside opinion.  opinions of"no vested rights".  matter closed. The county owes the citizens a complete assessment.  record. Sincerely, Scott Oakley  Sept 8, 2020  To: County Manager Bryan Miller, Chairman Rick McVey  From: Scott Oakley Mr. Miller: and Chairman McVey,  Subject: Fox Rothschild! letter datedJ July 27, 2020 ande contents releted to "vested rights" Ihave reviewedt thel letter from Fox Rothschild dated. July: 27, 2020 andy would like to offer feedback oni its opinions. Your willr recall Isubmittedal letter on" "vested rights" toy you and the County onJ June 6, 2020 with the opinion that Carolina Sunrock does not have vestedr rights ont the Burlington North proposed! facility, Therefore, any ordinances changes which occur prior tot thee endo oft the moratorium would apply and this would mean Carolina! Sunrock does not! have "permit choice". Other! letters from' "Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law" and "Permit choice" isa critical point of debate., As youa are probably aware, If Carolina Sunrock has vested rights thent ther moratorlum would nota apply toc currently unpermitted projectsi in* Anderson: and Prospect Hil. Therefore, any new ordinances passed during the such as al HIDO would nota apply tot theA Anderson and Prospecti Hill facitities. Ini the Rox Rothschild! letter, Mr. Terrell's opinion is that Carolina Sunrock doeshave vested rights and permit choicei ift they ares successfuli in getting allt ther required permits and county approvals, they canp proceed with construction. Mr. Terrell's letter did not directly argue thes vestedr rights points inn my! letter. lemailed hims separately: asking why, but nor response thus far. Here: aret thel key points! would likey you to bea aware ofc ont thist topic where disagree with Fox Rothschildi letter, (page 4( (V., B.)E Expenditures! in Good Faith Reliance on Govemment information). One oft thel key points int that Sunrock made' "substantial expenditures" priort tot ther moratorium's enactmenti and' "these expenditures were ing goodf faith rellance upont thes goverment-contimed: absence of localz zoning approvals to develop the plants". Also, onp page 6, paragraph 4thel letters states "Carolina! Sunrock proceeded toe expend substantial funds ing good faith rellance upon the County's writtena affirmationt that noz zoning Itisi Indisputable that Caswell Countys did not have County wide zoning and att the time Sunrock purchased the! landi for the twos sites and began the State air quality permitting process. Itis alsoi indisputable that Sunrock requested and eventually recelveda a: zoning consistency determination: about the Burlington! North site on October 23, 2019 from Bryan Miller. In Mr. Miller's letter to Diane Rupprecht ont thet topic ofz zoning consistency hea alsoi includedr reference tot the Unlfied Development Ordinance: andt that the County was contemplating zoning. 1 assume it was and oversight that the EIO wasr notr mentioned. along with itsr requirements fora an There Is no argument that" "substantial expenditure" under Common Law cane establish vested rights. However, the following criteria has been outlined byt the UNC: School of Government anda appeart tor me to conflict witht the Fox Rothschild opinion. Cost ofp purchasing thel land does not count ass substantial expenditure nor does money spent inj preparation for applications. Substantial expenditure must bea after permit approval and dependent ont thep permit approval.  "Calhoun Bhella & Seacrest" haves stated similar opinions.  his opinion.  existed, there were nou user restrictions."  EA, EIS, FONSI, etc.    Sept 8, 2020  Substantial expenditure can only occur following valid government. approval and the minor site work whichl has been done is not considered: substantial for large scale  project such as these. Thisv wouldi lead ust tot the following questions: Did Sunrock have "valid government approval"? Dids Sunrock have "permit approval"?  linterpret the Fox Rothschild letter has establishing government-confirmed absence of localz zoning" as the! basis for "validg government. approval". Ift thati is ana accurate representation, that would: seem to conflict witht the UNC: School of Governments description of valid "Validg governmentol approval. An owner must obtain an affirmative governmental actiond concerning the property or project. This could be a conditional use permit, a subdivision plat approval, at building permit, or some others site-specific. affirmative action by thel localg government. This Is more than merely relying on the general zoning Fox Rothschild letter (Page 4(V., B.)Expendituresi in Good Faith Reliance on Government information). Ont thet topic of "permits" thel letters states' "More specifically, Carolina Sunrock.. obtained driveway permits, stormwater permits, conducted extensive site planning and civil engineering studies, spill contalnment plans and other studies necessary top proceed through statel level review or to obtain! local or state permits that were outside of or This appears tob be combining activities from multiple sites into a single conclusion for all sites. Vested rights must! be ane evaluation ona as site by sitel basis. Int the Fox Rothschild letter,! cannot determine which specific permits for eachs site were received priort tot the moratorium which established "permit approval". Fore example, lami familiar thata a' "driveway permit" was receivedf for the Burlington North site, but certainlya a driveway permit does not establish vested rights for the entire project. Further explanation! isr needed from Mr. Terrell to consider ont this Fox Rothschlld letter (Page 4(V., C.)Government: Permit Not Required to Obtain Vested Rights). Int thiss section the NCS Supreme Court Case, Inl Re Campsites Unlimited, 287/ N.C.493, 215 S.E.2d7 73 (1975) is useda as ac comparison to claimy vested rights. labviously hadt lok lookt this up tor review the case andi it's ruling. Itisr my opiniont that the Campsites Unlimited case isa poor comparison tot the Sunrock vested rights evaluation. The Campsites case: seems very straight forward, and would: agree with the ruling that Campsites had vestedr rights simply because significant construction hadc occurred prior to ordinance changes taking place. Here are: some "lusi indisputable that prior ta 16Aprits 1973 there wos do zoning ordinonce ord other) low in elfecti which prohibited the development and use o!t the property of Campsies as proposedby kitis equoily imdisputoble that at least three months priors tot the enoctment a! the county zoning ordinance, Compsites purchased thes property, for the purpose ofo developing Itas now propesed ond immediately began its MtemAstridevelyment with the Intent to developt the entire troct as rapidly as possible, 50 as tot toke advantage oft the springs andi summer market for thes sole oft the contemplotedcomp sites  government: approval.  district ora advisory zoning"  were to be obtained inp processes parallel to statel level permitting."  topic.  excerpts from what! found, and) will follow with comments,    Sept 8, 2020  ltis fikewise hdisputabie hhat extensive work on the propenty itself, including the engineering and stoking ofr roods and lots, the cuttings and cearing oftrees and the proding and opening of roods, ocuredthrouphour: several weeks prior to the enoctment of thes ordinance andi was stilll ing progress when the ordinance was enacted and thaty for the purchase of the lond. Engineering. legal work, and the above mentioned ronstruction work on the property isel, Compsites expended, ore obligotedi itsel to expend, inexcesso ofs 5250,000 Nothingi int the recorde of the hearing before the oordo/Adjustmens suggests that att the time Campsites embarkedupont this project mode these expenditures and undertook these contractuale obtigations, ony specific proposal) for a: zoning ordinance hod been reported tot thet County Roard of Commissioners: by the Plonning Boord, had been publicizedb by thes county orhod atherwise beeni brought tos the attention of Compsites or ofi is president. Mr Darnley." Mnorder tos ocquire a vestedright toc corty ans such nonconforming use ofhis land, is nor essentalt thot they permits holder complete the construction: oft the bullding and actually commence: such use ofR before the revocation oft the permit. whether such revocation be by thes enactent ofoz zoning ordingnce ord otherwise. To ocquire: such vested) property right ttiss Sulficient that. prior tot the revocotion oft the, permit ore enoctment oft thez zoning ordinance and with the requisite good, faith, he makea substantlal begining of coristrtiction Grd inaur whevein sabisamtilepense inr my opinion, comparing the two proposedi facilities to the Campsite case is' "apples to oranges". As stated previously, iti isi indisputable that Caswell County did not have County wide zoning at thet time Sunrock purchased the land for the two sites and begant thes State permitting process. Specific tot the Burlington Norths slte andi ins stark contrast to the Campsites case, other than a driveway, theret has been no development: activity on this site. The Campsite casei is highly basedo on' "substantial beginning of construction". No such thing has occurred ate either Sincer most of thet focust from thel Fox Rothschild letter! has been ont the EIO discussion, wanted tos speak tot the vestedr rightst topic. IfMr. Terrell wouldH have addressedi the: specific points from my letter which were all basedo on UNC Schople ofG Government documentation,' would ber more open to accepting his opinions. At this point, we eitherr needi further explanationi from Mr. Terrell ora as second opinian.  location, solsee no valid comparisoni int the cases.  Sincerely, Scott Oakley  To All it may concern:  As an owner of property on S.R. Farmer Lake, Ir respectfully request that you support our ability to fish from the shore and launch kayaks from the shore as it abuts our property. Please vote "YES" to protect fishing and launching kayaks from shore by lake homeowners and property owners on Monday, September 21, and on any other amendments that would affect this issue. In our Lake Pointe: neighborhood on S.R. Farmer. Lake, we all place a high value on nature and sportsmanship, and want toj pass that love toi the next generation and share it with visitors to our homes. We were attracted to the neighborhood primarily because of the beauty ofS.R. Farmer Lake. We are sO grateful tol be able to live on this beautiful, pristine lake and treasure it. We trust our elected representatives share this all-American value and will further legislation to protect  sportsmanship and al love oft the great outdoors.    We are tax-payers in Caswell county, we purchase valid lake permits, and we encourage everyone in our community to abide by all ofS.R. Farmer Lake rules and: regulations. Wewould willingly abidel by extrai rules you deem important, such as no storing kayaks in the buffer zone. Please feel free to contact me ify you have any questions or need any information.  Respectfully yours, Rita and Bill Deck Lot11, Lake Pointe Drive 7829: Beech Forest Rd. Lewisville, N.C. 27023336-945-5422  To Chairman McVey and the Caswell County Commissioners  On behalf of the Town Council and myself I am writing this letter to be read in your Public Our main concern is with the affect these rule changes will have on the water quality of] Farmer Lake. Farmer Lake is the sole water supply for Yanceyville and the areas of the County we serve. Water quality is not only a water safety issuel but also an economic issue. As water quality degrades, treatment costs increase in order to achieve safe and quality water for consumers. This also means water bills would: rise to reflect thei increased treatment costs. Increased activity at the shoreline will increase erosion from county land, as the county owns to the high water mark. One of the DENR rules for this class of water supply is minimal bodily contact with the surface water. Ifyou allow increased activities on the lake, not only will that contact increase, but safety issues will arise from things like persons on the lake before/after hours, improper safety  Comment portion of your meeting.  equipment etc. There seem to be some liability issues as well.  The Council, and I, do encourage that no changes be made to Farmer Lake Rules.  Thank You, Alvin W. Foster Mayor, Town ofYanceyville Dear Commissioner McVey,  Asa an owner of property on S.R. Farmer Lake, I respectfully request that you support our ability to fish from the shore and launch kayaks from the shore as it abuts our property. Please vote "yes" to protect fishing and launching kayaks from shore by lake homeowners and property owners on Monday September 21, and on any other amendments that would affect this issue. In our Lake Pointe neighborhood on S.R. Farmer Lake, we all place a high value on nature and sportsmanship, and want to pass that love to the next generation and share it with visitors to our homes. We were attracted to the neighborhood primarily because of the beauty of S.R. Farmer Lake. We are sO grateful to be able to live on this beautiful, pristine lake and treasure it. We trust    our elected representatives share this all-American value and will further legislation to protect We are tax-payers in Caswell County, we purchase valid lake permits, and we encourage everyone in our community to abidel by all ofS.R. Farmer Lake rules and regulations. We would willingly abide by extra rules you deem important, such as: no storing kayaks in the buffer zone. Please feel free to contact me: ify you have any questions or need any information.  sportsmanship and al love oft the great outdoors.  Respectfully yours, Bill Conrad  Treasurer, Lake Pointe HOA email - rasure.pioadmmalcon cell# #-336.459.9629  Lake life @ S.R. Farmer. Lake Caswell County NC  Elin Claggett, Ph.D 108 Jaye Lane, Providence, NC Submitted 9/18/2020  Everyone makes mistakes. The problem arises when these mistakes are repeated and no one is held accountable. Iasked the following questions of my Commissioners at the last Board of County Commissioner meeting on Sept. gth and followed up with email to the County Manager and Commissioners. Not one acknowledgement or reply except 5 notices that Co. Oestreicher' scounty email could not be delivered. Last meeting, he demanded this to be fixed. As our county's leaders, you either know the answers and do not want to answer, or you don't know the answer and don't care about wasted tax dollars, or you don't want the public to know. SoIwill repeat my request for public information and accountability: 1.1 How much was paid for the "White Space Project" discussed in October, 2016? The Library renovation has been completed and no antenna has been placed, sO how much money was reimbursed to the county for this failed project? Who in the Caswell Co. government is held 2. In April 2020, you voted to allocate $24,000 for an assessment of Caswell Co. internet as required for a grant application. 5 months later, has this money been spent? Ifso, what are the results? Has the grant application been submitted and what is the deadline? Who in the Caswell Co. government is held accountable to provide follow-up of this internet assessment & grant 3. In May 2019, N.C. Growing Rural Economies with Access to Technology (GREAT) program provided matching grants to internet service providers, including Open Broadband, LLC in Caswell Co. How much funding went to this Caswell Co. internet provider? Who in the Caswell Co. government takes responsibility for monitoring these funds and failed project?  accountable for this project update and management of funds?  application status?    4. Commissioners approved $880,000 for 16 temporary classrooms at BYHS over 2 years, including one to be converted to a Field House. The Governor announçed that students could attend school 5 days/week beginning October 4th. Are these classrooms ready and available for use? Ifnot, when will costs be pro-rated and/or reimbursed towards this project's budget? This is at taxpayer expense of almost a million dollar. Hopefully, your discussion as noted on today's On additional inquiry: Who'sresponsible for responding to this request for public information?  agenda will answer these questions.  Thank you.  TEMPORARY CLASROOM BUILDING FINALCONSTRUCTION: PROJECT REPORT Chairman McVey opened the floor tol Bill Powell. Mr. Powell presented the report to1 thel Board.  KOALAISU  TEMPORARY  CLASSROOM BUILDING FINAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPORT  BARTLETT YANCEY SEWIOR HIGH SCHOOL    TEMPORARY CLASSROOM BLDG.  PROJECT FACTS  Total Temporary Classroom Project budgeted amount January 27,2020 Quality Construction Contract signed February 27,2020 Quality Construction start date  $1,057,852  December 2,2019 Quality Construction Contract. Amount $1,033,000  August 14,2020 Project Substantial Completion Certificate of Occupancy August 17,2020 BYSHS Teachers moved in and teaching students  Today  Punchlist is in progress  OverallByHSCampusd duringconstruction  TOTAL BYSHS CAMPUS BUILDING HAS 70 CLASSROOMS, RESTROOMS MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STORAGE  BYHST TempararyC Classrombuilcing between Baseball, Softball8 Football    An"OnTime and' "On Budget" Project  Project was complered-OnTime"  Completed on time even thought there was a wet spring. Material deliveries were at times delayed due to COVID issues. Project was completed" "Within the Project Budget" Construction contract was completed without overruns V Video Cameras, intercom speakers & paging IncludingWireless access points, IPI Phones, data switches. Included one-time costs to avoid future yearly maintenance expenses  Construction contingency" was utilized so the building could safely be used as a classroom facility. Before the old BYSHS 100 building was demolished, many components were salvaged and reused. ie. Added slope to trench drains, to minimize drain clogs; Added fencing HVAC units to avoid vandalism; Removed large rocks to minimize weekly mowing & edging expense.  BYSHS REPLACEMENT RENOVATIONS PROJECT INITIAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPORT  KORLATSO  AND  BARTLETT YANCEY SEIOR HIGH  SCHOOL    REPLACEMENT & RENOVATIONS  PROJECT FACTS  Project budgeted amount  $29,123,510 $23,250,685  May 5,2020 Project Bid Date June 16,2020 USDA Loan Closing  June 16,2020 CTWilson Construction Contract Signed June 19,2020 Notice to Proceed & work start date  August 2,2021 Schedule Milestone Completion ofTwo-Story Building - August 1,2022 Schedule Milestone -Total Project Completion  Oamimscmpaayemadn  TOTAL BYSHS CAMPUS INITIAL PHASE: TWO-STORY BUILDING DOES NOT INCLUDE: THE NEW KITCHEN/CAFE EXISTING DINING RENOVATIONS  Temporary Main Office    STARTUP JUNE 19,2020 BUILDING ABATEMENT AND DEMOLITION  LOADING RECYCLED MATERIALS  MID-AUGUST BUILDING PAD PREPARATION  PREPARING FIRST FOOTINGS    PROJECT SITE AERIAL PICTURE  SEPT.3,2020 CTWILSON,INC.  For an Efficient and Fast Project Startup  Beforea a shoveli is in the ground. : Architect, County and! School: District have al lot ofa advance planning Architect has plans to draw,codes to meet, and specifications to detail County must secure: agency approvals, fundingloans.contracts: andi inner agency agreements School District has to plan moves, notj just moving furniture,but) keeping operational systems running All these were handled smoothly and expeditiously ..from al May Sth Bid toa a June 19th Contractor start date After the project starts, decisions must be made quickly tol keep the project on schedule and within budget The Architect is moving product submittals as fast as possible so materials can be on site when needed The Contractor must flagi issues ahead oft the time needed to allow for proper answers Unforeseen: situations, such as the unsuitable soils in some areas, were identified: and solutions were given All items are being! handled efficiently to date as the entire building team's goali is to complete the project on  time & within budget    BARTLETTIANCE SENIORI WICHS SCNOBL  APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA  Vice Chairman Owen made a motion to approve the September 21, 2020 agenda, seconded by  Commissioner Williamson. The motion carried unanimously.  APPROVALOFTHES CONSENT AGENDA  September 8. 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes  Commissioner Williamson made ai motion to approve the consent agenda, seconded by  Commissioner Jefferies. The motion carried unanimously.  APPROVALOFF RESOLUTION DELAYING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF Al REAPPRAISAL Chairman McVey opened the floor to Thomas Bernard, Tax Director of Caswell County. Mr. Bernard stated that he came before the Board with ai resolution that delays the effective date tof the revaluation to. January 1, due to the fact that the Tax Departments sales ratio is coming ini for the first quarter oft the year from January 1, 2020-May 1, 2020 at 98%-99%. With this little bit of fluctuation he did not see the need for the county to spend $200,000.00 for ai revaluation. Commissioner Hall questioned could you explain the sales ratio. Mr. Bernard replied that the sales ratio is based ont the number of sales that are completed in Caswell County. We submit that information to the Department of Revenue and they give us the ratio. The sales are in line with the values we. have in the books. Commissioner Hall questioned how many sales has there been this year. Mr. Bernard replied for the first quarter, 40 sales. The normal sales vary from 80-160  OF PROPERTY IN CASWELL COUNTY  per year.    Commissioner Oestreicher questioned was that revaluation include in thel budget. Mr. Miller replied the amount to conduct a revaluation isi included in every budget. We appropriate $40,000.00 a year, over a 4-year period tol have the revaluation completed. An increase in the tax valuation would: result ini increased tax receipts. The increase in revenue was not included in the Vice Chairman Owen moved to approve the resolution delaying the date oft the appraisal of property in Caswell County until January 1,2021, seconded by Commissioner W. Carter. The  budget.  motion carried unanimously.  APPOINTMENTS TOBOARDS AND COMMITTEES  ABC Board Tony Mitchell  Agricultural. Advisory. Board Lucas Bernard Kin Watlington Board of Health Amanda Everett  Gunn Memorial Library Advisory Board  Mark Hughes  Juvenile Crime Prevention Advisory Council  Brenda Day Aisha Gwen  Commissioner. Jefferies motioned to approve all members, seconded by Vice Chairman Owen. SECOND READING-AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24. ARTICLEIIL SECTION 24-640F THE CODE OF CASWELL COUNTY.NORTH CAROLINA Commissioner Hall stated at aj previous meeting there was an ordinance change submitted by Commissioner S. Carter allowing fishing and launching small boats around Farmer Lake. This  The: motion carried unanimously.    morning during public comments we. heard 5-6 comments regarding this matter. This is brought back to the Board today; ifit does not receive unanimous rulings it has to be brought back fora Commissioner W. Carter made a motion to deny adopting the ordinance amendment; with a vote Commissioner Hall stated that he wanted to make a comment that this morning wel heard 5-6 public comments from residents ofFarmer Lake. Many oft them expressed they were: for the ordinance change. Hel believes those that expressed their support have some: reasonable ideas and thoughts about why this should be done. He also recalled several months ago when this came up, wel had members oft the Farmer Lake Board come before the Board and they were against this. They mentioned at that time that the Board voted unanimously not to support these ordinance changes. He finds it interesting that the Board would vote unanimously not supporting the changes and wel have members thel Home Owners Association submitting public comments that they support the change. He wants to go on record as noting that there is some discrepancy here in what was said by the Farmer Lake Board and what we are hearing from thel Home Owners Commissioner Williamson questioned who sits on the Farmer. Lake Board. Mr. Miller replied Russell Watlington, Charlie King, Jerry Sykes, and Vinnie Beggarly. Commissioner Williamson questioned is there any members of the Home Owners Association. Mr. Miller replied yes. Vice  second reading.  of2-5 with Commissioner Jefferies and Hall voting no.  Association.  Chairman Owen stated there are: 3i ifhei isi not mistaken.  APPROVAL OF LEGISLATIVE GOALS SUEMISSIONTOTHE: NCACC  The following goals where submitted by:  Commissioner Owen  1- Seek legislation, funding, and other efforts to expand broadband/ fiber to all NC residents 2- Support provision ofs state resources to help counties provide essentiall health services, 3- Support increased levels ofs state funding and staffing of Cooperative Extension services. 1. Affordable Broadband/High Speed Internet available to everyone in Rural (Caswell 2. Higher Quality teaching standards, with greater emphasis on thel basics (Reading,  especially rural unserved and underserved areas. especially ini the area ofbehavioral health.  Commissioner Oestreicher County) Counties Writing, Math)  3. Prohibit politically biased teacher input 4. Repeal use of"Common Core" educational programs 6. Increase State DOT funding for improving Rural County roads  5. Reduce Mandated Programs/Policies that increase costs with no supporting State funding 7. Increase support forl Rural County New Business Development Programs and Projects    After al brief discussion Commissioner W Carter: made ai motion to forward thel Legislative Goals to thel NCACC, seconded by Vice Chairman Owen. The motion carried unanimously.  RECESS  At10:46 a.m. the Board took al briefrecess.  CALLED TO ORDER  At 10:52 a.m. Chairman McVey called the meeting back to order.  ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES CONTRACT (SOFTWARE)  Mr. Miller brought before thel Board a contract with Tyler Technologies for $52,760.00 this contract amount isi included in the 2020-2021 Budget. This software will allow Environmental Health to create on site records for food and lodging inspections and it would: interface with the State's Environmental Health Data Base. This will prevent duplication ofwork by staff and save time; the State Division of Public Health is strongly encouraging this. This is not the first contract that the county has had with Tyler Technologies and they have agreed to make all Commissioner Oestreicher question ifiti interfaced with the other software packages that were recently installed. Mr. Miller replied, no, it does not interface with the tax and finance software. Commissioner Oestreicher questioned ifthe County attorney had reviewed the contract. Mr. Commissioner Williamson questioned had this contract been approved by thel Board ofHealth. Commissioner Hall motioned to approve the Environmental Health Services Contract with Tyler Technologies, seconded by Commissioner Williamson. The motion carried unanimously.  necessary changes that they made in the last contract with the county.  Ferrell replied yes. Mr. Miller replied yes.  COVID-I9UPDATE  Mrs. Eastwood stated that the total number of cases in the county now are currently 319, there is currently an outbreak at thel Dan River Work Farm, where 65 people are currently in isolation. They have not mandated that staff be tested it is up to the Department ofl Public Safety of Prisons. The Caswell County Health Department! has offered to test staffifthey would like. There are currently no new cases at the Caswell House prior to their outbreak. There are a couple ofresidents at the Brian Center who have tested positive, and cluster at an area church. The Health Department has some flu shots available, but are currently awaiting a shipment oft more.  HEAVY INDUSTRIALI DEVELOPMENTORDINANCE    COUNTY MANAGERS UPDATES  Mr. Miller stated that earlier this morning he sent out a draft for the Board toi review. The committee that was formed would like to request more time from the Board to work on this ordinance to provide sufficient time and thought input into this and bring it back at the next  Board meeting. Covid-19Spendng Update  Mr. Miller presented the Board with the COVID-19 spending's and stated that this information  will bej posted on the Caswell County Website.  Solid Waste Convenience Center Site on Highway 119 rezoning for Hyco Lake Area Mr. Miller stated that after taking a second look at what needs to occur to make this a valid Solid Waste Convenience Center Site we are looking at amending Article 5 and 6. He is currently working with Mr. Ferrell, Mathew Hoagland, Planner and are, going to present this changes at the  next Planning Board Meeting.  COMMISSIONER COMMENTS  Vice Chairman Owen suggested moving the meetings back to the Historic Court House, but still  keep using Zoom for people who cannot attend.  ANNOUNCEMENTS AND UPCOMING EVENTS  There were: no announcements and upcoming events.  ADJOURNMENT  Commissioner W. Carter made ai motion at 11:12 a.m. to adjourn the September 21, 2020 meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Owen. The motion carried unanimously.