Forest Hills to vote on ETJ motion Oct. 22

By Rose Hooper

With a vote on ridgetop-to-ridgetop ETJ a possibility during the meeting, two out-of-town developers came to talk about "the financial clock ticking" on their projects.

The clock was also ticking at the University Inn when an office employee turned out the lights and shut the doors at 10:15 p.m., forcing the council to recess its meeting until 7 p.m. Monday, Oct. 22.

Just before recessing, board member Larry Kolenbrander made a motion to adopt the ETJ as proposed, excluding Lyle Wilson subdivision, defined as Area I. He further made a motion to exclude two tracts of property where developments are planned, one owned by James Epley and one by James Hooper "if they voluntarily petition to annex within four months." If they fail to do so, rather than their property automatically falling under ETJ, Kolenbrander proposed that the next action be at the discretion of the village council.

"That gives us a chance to work together, rather than just vote something up or down," Kolenbrander said. However, no second and no action came forth on his motion before the board was forced to recess.

Hooper, a South Carolina resident, presented details of his 13-acre development called Cox Center located at the intersection of N.C. 107 and North Country Club Road. The development is proposed to include a hotel and conference center, a center pavilion with retail/commercial and office space, an apartment/condominium complex with 60 units, restaurant with outdoor seating, center park with a pond, grocery store and perhaps, a gas station.

Jim Dukes, owner of Dukes Planning and Environmental and a consultant on the project, explained that the Cox Center would "incorporate Smart Growth and Greenway Community initiatives."

It will include a "walking community with sidewalks, open space and parks," Dukes said. "It will give Cullowhee a sense of place by applying planned architectural standards, which will provide visually-pleasing designs and streetscapes."

The Cox Center will also provide needed regional amenities to facilitate the inevitable growth of Western Carolina University, Dukes said, such as the Millennial Campus and the new Center for Performing Arts.

Dukes said the center, eight months in the planning, would be adversely impacted by Forest Hills' ETJ, which only allows for single-family dwellings on lots of at least 2 acres.

Another developer, James Epley of Charlotte, said his building project will include a 144-unit apartment complex called Catamount Hollow and will be built on 20 acres "where the silos are now," between North and South Country Club drives.

"It's an $8 million investment, and my financial clock is ticking," Epley told the board. "We've discussed ETJ for the past two years, but only tonight do the two of you show up," planning board member John Adams said. "Why is that?"

Epley said that he had only purchased the property a year ago and was unaware of the pending ETJ until he received a notification by mail last month. Hooper said he had been working with the county to get the necessary permitting.

"You want to have a say about our property actions, but you don't want us to have a say about yours," Adams told them. "Your developments will greatly impact our property."

"It is disconcerting to me that you already have your plans laid out and haven't talked with the village council yet," said Forest Hills only mayoral candidate Jim Davis. (Elections are scheduled for November). "It's a good thing we have ETJ on the table tonight. Otherwise, when would we have learned of your developments?"

Both Epley and Hooper requested their properties be removed from ETJ.

"Don't look at ETJ as our way of trying to stop you," Adams said to Hooper and Epley. "We already have apartments in the area - Summit and Valhalla - so I don't see that more apartments would be out of line."

"The way I see it," Dukes said, "is there are four options. Option 1 is that the village council could vote against ETJ. Option 2 would be for the council to table the ETJ vote, review tonight's new information and provide definite zoning ordinances for the ETJ boundary. Option 3 would be to approve ETJ, excluding our parcels. Option 4 would be if the council approves ETJ that option will result in immediate legal action, which would rule in our favor."

"What about an ETJ would initiate immediate legal action?" council member Harold Williford asked. "There's been a precedent set in this state," Dukes said.

"But an ETJ and zoning restrictions are separate issues," Williford said.

"I don't like being pressured or told that if the village votes in ETJ that you plan a lawsuit," Davis told Dukes.

"We have a vested interest here," Epley said. "Your whole idea in imposing an ETJ is to maintain property values. That's what we are trying to do, too. I think it is hypocritical of the board to reduce our property values by imposing an ETJ."

Village attorney Jay Coward told Epley and Hooper that if they felt they had a vested interest to continue, they could go to Superior Court. "But you would have to sue the village to do that," Coward said.

Epley asked Coward if they would be "grandfathered in" if they began construction before an ETJ was enacted. Coward said they would not be.

"So, theoretically, we could spend our time and money and begin developing, and we could still be shot down. Right?" Dukes asked.

"Right," Coward replied.

Kolenbrander's compromise was to go ahead and enact the ETJ but allow Epley and Hooper to submit a petition for annexation within four months. If they did not, the property would not automatically revert to ETJ. Instead, the village council would have the discretion of what action to take.

"It opens up dialogue at the table for all of us," Kolenbrander said. "That way we can plan together and that is what is needed."

"Our issue here is not control, but land use planning," Williford added.

"It's hard for the village to do any long-range planning when we don't know about developments until the ground is ready to be broken," said Adams.

"As long as there is mutual understanding, we can amicably discuss this at the same table. James and I are willing to come to the table and work with you, but what about other large land development?" Epley said.

"We have 16 to 20 property owners who own 5 or more acres. If we put in ETJ, they will have to come to the table and talk with us," Kolenbrander said.

Citing a petition signed by 10 residents of Lyle Wilson subdivision, Williford proposed that area be excluded from the ETJ.

"I don't think that area will impact the village as far as land use planning. These residents spoke out at the public hearing and they are here in force tonight to let us know they are opposed. I think we should honor their request to be excluded," Williford said.

In presenting the petition from subdivision residents on Freedom Drive, Albert Wilson told the council, "I've lived here 58 years. I don't think the village can offer us anything, and I don't think we can offer anything to the village."

Kolenbrander then made a motion for an amendment to also exclude Hooper and Epley's property. "We should vote on the issue Oct. 22," said Mayor Irene Hooper. "We recessed for a special reason - the ETJ issue - and that is the only issue we will take up that evening."

The meeting will be at the University Inn, she said.

Back to Archive: 10/04/01.