* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:04] OKAY, WE GOOD? YES, SIR. OKAY. WE'D LIKE TO CALL THE ORDER [I. CALL TO ORDER] THE THURSDAY, AUGUST 24TH, 2025, MEETING OF THE CITY NEWBURG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND FIRST, WE'D LIKE A WE'D ROLL CALL, PLEASE. YES, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBER SANDRA GRAY HERE. BOARD MEMBER, EXCUSE ME, VICE CHAIRMAN ERIC THOMPSON. HERE, BOARD MEMBER KATHLEEN MARTY. HERE. CHAIRMAN TIM TABER HERE, BOARD MEMBER TRE FERGUSON. AND LET THE RECORD SHOW HE'S ABSENT. BOARD MEMBER LESLIE ALLEN HERE, BOARD MEMBER RYAN LANDY. AND LET THE RECORD SHOW HE'S ABSENT. BOARD MEMBER ASHLEY HOWELL HERE. BOARD MEMBER BARBARA SAMPSON HERE. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO HAVE A CALL. YEAH. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. UH, THIS TIME WE'D LIKE TO GIVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE. I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ALLEGIANCE TO OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. [IV. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS] IF SO, TONIGHT WE'VE GOT AN APPELLATE HEARING AND I'VE GOT SOME REMARKS TO MAKE AND I'M GONNA READ FROM THE SHEET. AND I'VE ALSO ASKED JAMIE TO STEP IN A TIME OR TWO AS WE GO THROUGH THIS SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF THE PROCESS. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A BIG CROWD, UM, BUT STILL PLEASE TRY TO, UH, RESPECT EVERYBODY AND CELL PHONES OFF AND KEEP CONVERSATION TO MINIMUM SO WE CAN ALL HEAR. SO THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING WHICH PROCEEDS VERY SIMILAR TO A COURT HEARING. WE ASK THAT YOU RESPECT EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE AND DO NOT ENGAGE IN DISORDERLY OUTBURSTS OR ANY DISRUPTION. IF THIS TAKES PLACE, YOU MAY BE ASKED TO LEAVE OR BE ESCORTED OUT BY AN OFFICER. WE WILL CALL THE SPEAKERS UP FOR THE PODIUM TO SPEAK BECAUSE THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING RECORDED. THIS EVENING HEARING IS AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE NEWBURN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO APPROVE OR DENY A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THIS APPEAL IS IN THE NATURE OF, PLEASE HELP ME, SIR. SHE ALREADY, YEAH. THANK YOU. MEETING THE HEARING IS A REVIEW OF THE H PC'S DECISION BASED ON THE RECORD OF CASE. THE APPELLATE HAS FILED AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE HPC APPROVING, THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 0 3 EAST FRONT STREET. THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OWNED BY CRAVEN COUNTY. CRAVEN COUNTY HAS FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR LACK OF STANDING. THE FIRST PORTION OF THE HEARING WILL BE FOCUSED ON, ON THE ISSUE OF STANDING. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, JENNY? NOT THAT I CAN THINK OF AT THIS MOMENT, NO, SIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO NEXT, WE'D LIKE TO SWEAR IN ALL THE PRESENTERS, SO EVERYBODY WHO WILL SPEAK, PLEASE STAND UP. AND DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? I DO DO, YEAH. THANK YOU. [V. DECISION(S)] SO PRIOR TO STARTING WITH THE APPELLATE HEARING, WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS TWO DECISIONS WE MADE AT THE LAST MEETING. UM, THE FIRST ONE IN REFERENCE TO CENTENARY COMMERCIAL. AND WE DO HAVE THE DOCUMENTS HERE, UM, OF WHAT WE APPROVED. UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION IN REFERENCE TO THOSE DOCUMENTS? NO. DONE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT AS WRITTEN? WE ACCEPTING BOTH OF THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY. JUST ONE AT A TIME. ONE AT A TIME. AND I, I THINK THE FIRST ONE ACTUALLY HAD A CONDITION. YES. AND, AND THE CONDITION IS LISTED. UM, SO NO, JUST, JUST ONE AT A TIME. SO THE FIRST ONE IS JUST ARY COMMERCIAL. IF EVERYBODY HAS ADMITTED TO READ BACK THROUGH, IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. 0 0 3 0 1 3 DASH 2 0 2 5 WITH CONDITION AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD AT OUR LAST MEETING. SO WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND THAT. [00:05:01] SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIED. SO THE SECOND ONE IS IN REFERENCE TO THE CRAVEN COUNTY NATURE PARK, ALSO AT THE LAST MEETING, UM, THAT WE DISCUSSED AND WE APPROVED. UM, BUT WE HAVE A MINUTE IF Y'ALL HAVEN'T ALREADY, PLEASE LOOK THROUGH AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS IN ACCORDANCES. WHAT WE'VE AGREED UPON AT THE LAST MEETING. MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I VOTE OR I MOVE THAT WE VOTE TO APPROVE THE CRAVEN COUNTY NATURE PARK, UH, SUP 0 0 3 0 2 6 DASH 2 0 2 5 AS DOCUMENTED IN OUR PACKAGE. SO WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? A SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSIONS? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. [VI. APPEAL APPLICATION – DETERMINATION OF STANDING] SO IN REFERENCE TO OUR NEXT, UM, APPEAL APPLICATION, UH, THIS IS 4 0 3 EAST FRONT STREET, B-R-D-A-D-J DASH 0 0 3 0 7 4 DASH 2 0 2 5. UM, KENDRICK, ARE YOU ABLE TO COME FORWARD AND MAKE A PRESENTATION? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND TO THE BOARD. AND THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN FOR OFFICER RE THAT OUT. UH, THAT'S STATED. THIS IS THE APPEAL FOR THE 4 0 3 EAST FRONT STREET, AND THIS IS SPECIFIC TO THE DETERMINATION OF STANDING. THE REQUEST SUMMARY HERE. THE APPELLATE PARTY IS MR. MATTHEW HALTON AND THE OWNER IS CRAVEN COUNTY. THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS EIGHT DASH 0 0 2 DASH B BOY DASH 1 79. AND THE ZONING DISTRICT HERE IS COMMERCIAL TWO OR C DASH TWO. AND CURRENTLY JUST FOR THE BOARD'S REFERENCE, THIS IS GENERAL STATUTE ONE 60 D DASH 1402. UM, ESSENTIALLY, UH, SPECIFIC TO SUBSECTION C, THIS IS, UH, A DICTATION OF STANDING AND ESSENTIALLY HOW THE STATE'S LEGISLATURE LOOKS AT SAID STANDING, UM, IS MORE OR LESS THE REFERENCE POINT FOR YOU ALL. JUST TO REVIEW, UH, WASN'T GONNA GO INTO DETAIL, BUT I CAN REFER BACK TO THIS AT ANY TIME THE BOARD WANTS TO, UH, REFERENCE IT OR LOOK AT IT ONCE YOU KNOW FURTHER IN TERMS OF JUST TRYING TO PROCESS THE INFORMATION. AND IF THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I KNOW THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT TO GO THROUGH AS FAR AS FOR THE POWERPOINT, BUT I'LL ACCEPT QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, UM, IF NECESSARY PERTAINING TO THE ITEM. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR KENDRICK? WE GOOD? OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. AND SO, SINCE CRAVEN COUNTY FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS, WE WE'LL HEAR FROM CRAVEN COUNTY FIRST, AND I'M ASSUMING MR. GRADY, YOU COME FORWARD AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND REPRESENT. UH, YES, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS, UH, ARI GRADY. I'M AT, I AM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR CRAVEN COUNTY. MY ADDRESS IS 2203 HEADING BARBARA DRIVE, HERE IN THE CITY, 2 8 5 6 2. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, UH, OF THE BOARD. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD THIS EVENING IS STANDING AND IT'S THE STANDING OF THE APPELLANT TO BRING THE APPEAL THAT'S AT ISSUE THIS EVENING. BRIEFLY ON THE HISTORY OF THE CASE, AT THE FEBRUARY MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WAS APPROVED IN FAVOR OF CRAVEN COUNTY FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE SUDAN, SHRINERS BUILDING, WHICH IS LITERALLY AROUND THE CORNER AND DOWN A BLOCK. UM, THE APPELLANT, MR. HOWTON TIMELY FILED HIS APPEAL, AND THAT BRINGS US HERE THIS EVENING. UH, NOT LONG AFTER HE FILED HIS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CRAVEN COUNTY, I FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS, AGAIN, BASED ON STANDING AND AGAIN, BASED SPECIFICALLY ON THE STATUTE, UH, THAT'S STILL PROJECTED IN FRONT OF YOU, UH, THIS EVENING, ONE 60 D DASH 1402, UH, C AND IT'S ACTUALLY SUBSECTION TWO AND APPEAL MAY BE BROUGHT BY ANY OTHER PERSON WHO WILL SUFFER SPECIAL DAMAGES AS THE RESULT OF THE DECISION BEING APPEALED. IE AS A RESULT OF THE COA IS ISSUED BY THE HPC IN [00:10:01] FEBRUARY. STANDING AS A GENERAL MATTER, IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM. IT IS THE LEGAL RIGHT OF A PERSON OR PARTY. TO PARTICIPATE IN A, IN A CONTESTED CASE, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER. UM, YOU CAN'T BE A STRANGER TO THE CASE, AS THE LAW SAYS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE, UH, SOME CONNECTION TO THE SUBSTANCE, SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE. THE FACTS, THE PARTIES THAT ARE ALREADY INVOLVED, YOU SEE STANDING THROUGHOUT THE LEGAL SYSTEM. UM, IT IS IN HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF CASES. AND THE STANDARDS FOR STANDING IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE OR IN ANY PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTER VARIES. IT'S NOT THE SAME STANDARD FROM A LAND USE CASE AS IT MIGHT BE FOR A PERSONAL INJURY CASE, AS IT MIGHT BE FOR A BREACH OF CONTRACT CASE. WE ARE FORTUNATE IN NORTH CAROLINA THAT THE APPELLATE COURTS OF THIS STATE HAVE SET OUT THE RULES OF THE ROAD VERY QUICKLY. UH, VERY CLEARLY WE KNOW WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR STANDING IN A LAND USE CASE IN THIS, UH, JURISDICTION. UM, YOU'LL HEAR TONIGHT ABOUT CASES AND INVOLVING THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT AND THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT AND ELECTIONS LAW. THOSE CASES ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY DEAL WITH STANDING IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT STANDING IN THE LAND USE CONTEXT THIS EVENING. UM, CRAVEN COUNTY'S ARGUMENT, UH, IS BASED REALLY ON TWO FACTORS. THE FIRST IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE STANDING. UM, THERE WAS AN EMAIL THAT WE OBTAINED THROUGH A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST THAT WAS ATTACHED BOTH TO THE MOTION THAT WE FILED ON BEHALF OF CRAVEN COUNTY. AND IT WAS ALSO ATTACHED, UH, TO THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW THAT WE FILED EARLIER IN THE WEEK. AND IN THAT, UH, EMAIL, THE APPELLANT STATED TO ALDERMAN RICK KRILL AS A MEMBER, WITHOUT STANDING DURING THE HEARING, I WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE OPINION OR TESTIMONY DURING THE MEETING. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD IN THE LAND USE CONTEXT, YOU EITHER HAVE STANDING OR YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T HAVE STANDING FOR ONE PART OF THE PROCEEDING AND NO STANDING FOR THE NEXT PART. IF YOU HAVE STANDING FOR THE DEPOSIT JUDICIAL PROCEEDING BEFORE THE HPC YOU HAVE STANDING TONIGHT. SO BY ADMITTING LACK OF STANDING BEFORE THE HPC, THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE STANDING THIS EVENING. UM, THE ARGUMENT COULD VERY WELL END THERE. IT'S, UH, PRETTY, UM, DIRECT AND PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. BUT IN THE EVENT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO DELVE INTO THE SUBSTANCE, SUBSTANCE OF STANDING, LET'S PRETEND THAT THE ADMISSION DIDN'T OCCUR. WOULD THE APPELLANT STILL HAVE STANDING? AND THE ANSWER IS A PRETTY RESOUNDING AND CLEAR NO BECAUSE OF THE FACTORS THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA APPELLATE COURTS HAVE SET FORTH. AND THERE ARE TWO, TWO PRIMARY FACTORS THAT ISSUE THIS EVENING. THE CASES HAVE BEEN CITED AMPLY IN THE MEMORANDUM WALL THAT, THAT I PROVIDED, UH, EARLIER IN THE WEEK. BUT THE FIRST FACTOR IS PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PERMIT. IE DO YOU OWN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY OR NEAR THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY OR IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY? IF YOU DO, YOU'VE MET THE FIRST FACTOR OF STANDING. I SUBMIT TO YOU IN THIS CASE THAT BASED ON THE BASE OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL, HE LIVES IN RIVERSIDE, WHICH ACCORDING TO MAPQUEST, AT LEAST ON TUESDAY, WAS 1.2 MILES AWAY, UH, FROM THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY. IT IS, UM, IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH STANDING BASED ON THE PROXIMITY FACTOR AS A MATTER OF GEOGRAPHY. UM, THE CASES TALK ABOUT ADJACENT PROPERTIES, PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET, PROPERTIES IN THE GENERAL VICINITY, BUT SOMEONE THAT LIVES OR OWNS PROPERTY OVER A MILE AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PERMIT SIMPLY CANNOT ESTABLISH STANDING AS A MATTER OF GEOGRAPHY. IF, UM, THERE'S ANOTHER FACTOR AT PLAY HERE THAT REALLY GOES ADDITIONALLY TO THE HEART OF STANDING AND THAT WOULD BE SPECIAL DAMAGES. AND THE CONCEPT IS CAPTURED, UH, IN THE STATUTE, UH, ONE 60 D, 1402 [00:15:01] CC TWO. THAT'S A MOUTHFUL EVEN FOR A LAWYER. SO, UM, SPECIAL DAMAGES ARE DEFINED BY THE COURTS OF THIS STATE AS A ECONOMIC LOSS TO SPECIFIC REAL ESTATE. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN. AN ECONOMIC LOSS TO SPECIFIC REAL ESTATE. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROXIMITY ARGUMENT, YOU'VE GOT THAT OWN PROPERTY NEAR THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PERMIT, AND YOU'VE GOT TO BE AT RISK OF SUFFERING A LOSS OF VALUE TO THAT PROPERTY IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING. AND IT CANNOT BE WHAT THE LAW CALLS SPECULATIVE. YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME PRETTY HEAVY DUTY EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT, YOU KNOW, MRS. SMITH'S PROPERTY IS WORTH A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IF YOU ALLOW THIS PERMIT TO BE ISSUED, HER PROPERTY'S GONNA BE WORTH $75,000. AND THAT THAT HELPS YOU HIT THE SPECIAL DAMAGES, UH, BENCHMARK. UM, EVEN IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH THOSE TYPES OF DAMAGES, YOU HAVE TO PROVE WHAT I CALL ONE ADDITIONAL SUB FACTOR IS SOME PHYSICAL CALLS, IF YOU WILL, OF THOSE DAMAGES. AND THE CASES TALK ABOUT, UM, STORM WATER RUNOFF, INCREASED TRAFFIC, BLOCKING OF VIEW, BLOCKING OF SOME SUNLIGHT. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THESE FACTORS THAT, UH, TOGETHER, ONE, YOU'RE CLOSE TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PERMIT. TWO, YOUR PROPERTY'S GOING TO BE ECONOMICALLY HARMED. AND THREE, IT REALLY HAS TO BE FROM A, A PHYSICAL RESULT, IF YOU WILL, OF WHATEVER THE PARTICULAR PERMIT IS. UM, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD, WE WOULD SUBMIT IN THE APPEAL THIS EVENING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE APPELLANT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING. UH, ONE, HE'S ADMITTED THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE STANDING. UH, TWO, HIS PROPERTY INTEREST IS NOWHERE NEAR THE SHRINER'S PROPERTY. IT'S AT LEAST A MILE AWAY. AND THREE. AND NONE OF THE MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, UH, RELATIVE TO THIS APPEAL, HAVE YOU SEEN ANY ALLEGATION OF DAMAGE TO THE APPELLANT'S REAL ESTATE OVER IN REAL RIVERSIDE? AT BEST, YOU SEE SOME GENERAL ALLEGATIONS THAT IF THE BUILDING IS ALLOWED TO BE DEMOLISHED, THAT IT WILL IN SOME MANNER HARM THE HISTORICAL FABRIC OF, OF THE COMMUNITY. AND THE CASES HAVE BEEN CLEAR THAT GENERAL COMMUNITY DAMAGE IE THE COMMUNITY WON'T BE THE SAME. UH, WE'LL HAVE MORE TRAFFIC IN THE COMMUNITY. THOSE DON'T CUT IT. YOUR DAMAGES HAVE TO BE TIED SPECIFICALLY TO THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT YOU, SO, UM, I WILL CONCLUDE THERE, COUNSEL, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME OR IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS. I'M, I'M GLAD TO STAY HERE ALL NIGHT AND TALK ABOUT THESE CASES, BUT MY GUESS IS THAT THAT HELPS LOSE IF WE DID THAT SO WELL BEFORE, UH, WE GO ANY FURTHER. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE. UM, JUST TO, UM, ILLUSTRATE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF SOME OF THE, THE CONCEPTS THAT MR. GRADY HAS SHARED. UM, MR. GRADY'S TALKED ABOUT CASES, HE'S TALKED ABOUT STATUTES, AND I THINK SOME OF THE MATERIALS THAT YOU ALL HAVE RECEIVED IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING TALK ABOUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT BODIES OF LAW. AND I KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE GONNA GRAPPLE WITH THIS EVENING IS WHAT RULES APPLY. SO WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT LAWS, UM, SUPERSEDE THE OTHER, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GO BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL CIVICS CLASS. SO WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES. WE'VE GOT THE LEGISLATIVE, WE'VE GOT THE JUDICIARY, WE'VE GOT THE EXECUTIVE. THE LEGISLATURE WRITES THE LAWS, THEY ENACT THE LAWS, THE JUDICIARY INTERPRETS THOSE LAWS. SO WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT AND WE'RE ANALYZING HOW DO WE APPLY STATUTES AND CASES AND HOW DO WE READ THEM TOGETHER, IT'S IMPORTANT TO BEAR THOSE ROLES IN MIND THAT THE LEGISLATURE IN NORTH CAROLINA CALLED THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WILL ENACT A LAW LIKE A STATUTE THAT MR. GRADY HAS REFERENCED. AND THEREAFTER, IF THERE IS CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT THE WORDS IN THE STATUTE MEAN, HOW BROAD IS IT, HOW NARROW IS IT, UM, IS THIS WHAT WE REALLY INTENDED? THOSE CHALLENGES GO TO OUR APPELLATE COURTS IN THIS STATE. AND THE APPELLATE COURTS IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WILL RENDER DECISIONS THAT HELP US INTERPRET WHAT THE STATUTE MEANS. OKAY? AND I EMPHASIZE THE NORTH CAROLINA CONNECTION BECAUSE LAND USE LAW IN NORTH CAROLINA [00:20:02] IS A STATE SPECIFIC ISSUE. THE FEDERAL COURTS GENERALLY DO NOT DEAL WITH LAND USE ISSUES LIKE THE ONES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU. SO, AS MR. GREENY INDICATED BACK IN FEBRUARY 26TH OF THIS YEAR, THE UM, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONDUCTED A HEARING. THEY ARE A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD. I SAY THAT 'CAUSE IT'S LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT. THEY CONDUCTED A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. THEY CAME TO A DECISION BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT THEY WERE PROVIDED, WHICH SOME OF THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE. APPEALS OF QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN NORTH CAROLINA, AS MR. GRADY INDICATED, ARE GOVERNED BY STATUTE. AND THAT'S THE SAME THING THAT MR. STANTON SAID. SO THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS INFINITE WISDOM SAID, WE'RE GONNA CREATE RULES ABOUT HOW WE DEAL WITH APPEALS FROM LOWER BOARDS THAT MAKE QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS. HOW DO THEY GO UP HIGHER? AND THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED ONE 60 D 1402, WHICH IS BEFORE THEREAFTER. THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT, WELL, WHAT DO THESE WORDS MEAN? WHAT DOES STANDING MEAN? WHAT DO SPECIAL DAMAGES MEAN? AND THOSE ARE THE CASES THAT YOU'VE HEARD REFERENCED, WHICH I THINK YOU WILL CONTINUE TO HEAR REFERENCE, YOU MAY HEAR REFERENCE TONIGHT ABOUT CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AS I INDICATED, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THEIR RULES ON STANDING ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE STANDING RULES FOR LAND USE LAW IN NORTH CAROLINA. ONE OF THE CASES THAT WAS CITED IN YOUR PACKET, UM, IS THE COMMITTEE TO ELECT DAN FORS VERSUS EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. AND FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, I'LL GIVE THE CITATION, IT'S 3 76 NC 55, I MEAN 5 58. IT'S A 2021 CASE. IT WAS DECIDED BY OUR STATE SUPREME COURT. OKAY? AND AROUND ABOUT PAGE 6 0 8 IN THAT DECISION, THERE'S A LOT OF PAGES. UM, OUR SUPREME COURT SAID THESE WORDS, IN SUMMARY, OUR COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE BROAD AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE CAUSES OF ACTION SUCH AS CITIZEN SUITS AND OTHER TYPES OF THINGS, EVEN WHERE PERSONAL FACTUAL INJURY DID NOT PREVIOUSLY EXIST IN ORDER TO ADVANCE A PUBLIC INTEREST. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE COURTS, OUR APPELLATE COURTS, THE JUDICIARY RECOGNIZES THAT OUR LEGISLATURE HAS THE ABILITY TO ENACT LAWS AND CREATE CAUSES OF ACTION, CREATE PATHWAYS FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE LEGAL CHALLENGES. THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS. AND THE COURT GOES ON TO SAY, IN SUCH CASES, THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS ARE ONLY WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF, THE PERSON THAT'S BRINGING THE ACTION, HAS SHOWN A RELEVANT STATUTE, CONFERS A CAUSE OF ACTION, AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT TO BRING THE STA THE ACTION UNDER THE STATUTE. THERE'S ANOTHER IMPORTANT PART OF THIS CASE THAT SAYS, WHEN A PERSON ALLEGES THAT THEY, IN, THEY'VE EXPERIENCED SOME TYPE OF INFRINGEMENT OF THEIR RIGHTS, EITHER AT COMMON LAW, UNDER A STATUTE, OR UNDER A CONSTITUTION, IN ANY OF THOSE BODIES OF LAW, THE LEGAL INQUIRY IS ABOUT STANDING, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION CONFERS STANDING TO SUE IN OUR COURTS TO THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED AN INFRINGEMENT OF THEIR LEGAL RIGHT, BECAUSE EVERY PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO BRING THEIR CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. THUS, THE LEGISLATURE EXERCISES ITS POWER TO CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER A STATUTE, EVEN WHEN A PLAINTIFF HAS NO FACTUAL INJURY. AND THE ACTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST PROVIDED THE PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING TO VINDICATE THAT, RIGHT? SO LONG AS HE'S IN THE CLASS OF PERSONS ON WHOM THE STATUTE CONFERS THE CAUSE OF ACTION. THAT WAS A MOUTHFUL. WHAT THAT PORTION OF THE DANFORTH CASE SAYS IS YOU HAVE STANDING IF THE LEGISLATURE SAYS IN THE LAW THAT YOU HAVE STANDING. SO THAT POINTS US BACK TO, OKAY, OUR JUDICIARY IS INTERPRETING WHAT THE RULES FOR STANDING ARE. AND OUR JUDICIARY HAS TOLD US IN THIS CASE, THAT YOU HAVE STANDING IF YOU BRING AN ACTION UNDER A STATUTE, AND THAT STATUTE LAYS OUT WHAT THE RULES FOR STANDING ARE. SO IN OUR CASE, READING THESE CASES TOGETHER, AS MR. AREA HAS TALKED ABOUT, MR. GRADY, RATHER A PERSON HAS STANDING UNDER THE LAW, AS OUR COURTS HAVE TOLD US, IF THEY CAN CHECK ONE OF THE BOXES IN THE GOVERNING STATUTE AND THE GOVERNING STATUTE IN THIS CASE IS NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL STATUTE ONE 60 D 1402. DID I THOROUGHLY CONFUSE YOU OR HAVE I HELPED TO UNPACK IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER? I, YEAH, IT DEFINITELY HAS HELPED. OKAY. I I DO HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH, IF YOU'RE YEP. AND I DUNNO IF THIS, WHICH WAY THAT THE QUESTION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, BUT, UM, SINCE WE DISCUSSING NORTH CAROLINA LAW AND THERE HAS BEEN [00:25:01] SOME, UM, INFORMATION GIVEN TO US IN REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT LAW, HAS ANYTHING FROM NORTH CAROLINA EVER GONE TO THE SUPREME COURT THAT WE'RE AWARE OF IN REFERENCE TO, UM, LAND USE? NO, SIR. NOT IN REFERENCE TO STANDING AND LAND USE TO THE US SUPREME COURT. NO, SIR. UM, ALL THE CASE LAW IS NORTH CAROLINA SPECIFIC FOR THE VERY REASONS THE COUNCIL HAS STATED, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME VERY ON POINT NORTH CAROLINA CASE LAW THAT GIVES US THE RULES OF THE ROAD. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSIONS? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, UH, AS A HOUSEKEEPING ITEM, I HAVE A PHONE DRIVE THAT CONTAINS EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO EVERYBODY THIS WEEK ON ACCOUNT OF THIS HEARING. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT IT BE ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD, IF I COULD GIVE IT TO YOUR CLERK. YEAH, I I WOULD SAY YES. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION IN REFERENCE TO WHETHER WE SHOULD OR NOT? NO. DO DO WE NEED A MOTION? NO. IF, IF THE BOARD IS WILLING TO RECEIVE THAT, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS AND THEY CAN STAND ADMITTED. YEAH, NO OBJECTION. NO OBJECTION. YEAH. YES. SO I'D PUT ON THE RECORD THAT WE DID ACCEPT THE FLASH DRIVE WITH THE INFORMATION AND IT'S IN KENDRICK'S POSSESSION. AND, UH, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR HEARING US THIS EVENING, AND WE'LL OF COURSE BE ON STANDBY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS LATER ON. OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH, MR. HALTON. THANK YOU. MATTHEW HOL I LIVE AT, UH, 3 0 2 AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE. I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO, FOR, FOR IDENTIFYING MYSELF FOR YEAH, SURE. AND, AND BEFORE WE GET GOING, SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP RIVERSIDE AGAIN, UM, COULD YOU CLARIFY HOW FAR YOU ARE FROM THE PROPERTY? OH, I WOULD AGREE THAT, UM, THE ESTIMATE IS PROVIDED BY OKAY. BY THE COUNTY. YEAH. FAIR ENOUGH. MILES. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, I DON'T THINK I, I'VE PARTICIPATED IN OBSERVATION ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT HEARINGS IN THIS. I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE BEEN TO ONE OF THESE, SO I, IF I'M WORKING OUT TURN OR USING THE WRONG TERMINOLOGY IN ADVANCE, I DID HAVE ONE, UM, CLARIFYING ITEM THAT I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT. AND IT'S RELATED TO JUST THE DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIPS OF, RELATED TO THIS, UH, HEARING OR STANDING AND THAT THIS IS A COMPARTMENTALIZED HEARING JUST FOR STANDING TO THEN GO TO THE NEXT PROCEED ITEM. DID COURT PROCEED? RIGHT. OKAY. MY QUESTIONS RELATED TO A MOTION WAS FILED BY CRAVEN COUNTY TO DISMISS, IS CRAVEN COUNTY REPRESENTING NEW VERN IN, IN, IN THE PERCEPTION THAT NEW BERN IS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF THE HPC AND THE HPC PROCESS FOR WHICH THIS BOARD OVERSEES THE FUNCTIONS AND DECISIONS OF IT? I GUESS I JUST WANNA KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE I HAVE TO CONVINCE OR HOW MANY PEOPLE GET TO KIND OF ASK QUESTIONS MATERIAL. JAMIE MAY ADD SOME TO THE, THE, THE ANSWER, I GUESS, BUT IT'S MY ASSUMPTION THAT WE HAVE, UH, SO AN APPEAL TO A DECISION AND THE DECISION WAS CRAVEN COUNTY WITH THE CITY. AND SO CRAVEN COUNTY BEING THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT THERE, HAS THE RIGHT TO PUT THE APPLICATION BACK IN OR THE APPEAL TO A HEARING, OR EXCUSE ME, APPEAL TO THE, YOUR, UH, APPEAL. AND MAY, AND MAYBE I'VE SAID THIS BACKWARDS, BUT UM, PLEASE HELP ME. OKAY. I'LL HELP YOU. SO, CRAVEN COUNTY REPRESENTS ITSELF AS I THINK MR. GRADY INDICATED WHEN HE CAME TO THE PODIUM THAT MR. GRADY, UM, AND HIS FIRM REPRESENTS CRAVEN COUNTY. THE PEOPLE MAKING THE DECISION TONIGHT ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SO AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT NEED TO BE CONVINCED OF A PARTICULAR POSITION, IT WOULD BE A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. DID THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? KIND OF YES. BUT THEN MY QUESTION IS, WHAT ROLE DOES RAVEN HAVE IN PRESENTING MATERIAL IN A STANDING HEARING? I AGREE THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE THE PROPERTY OWNER, IF STANDING WAS THEN DETERMINED BY THIS BOARD BECAUSE THE STANDING IS RELATED TO THE PROCESS, NOT THE PROPERTY, UH, THAT THE, THE APPEAL IS RELATED TO THE PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE BY THE HPC THAT LED TO THE CLA APPROVAL, NOT THE CLA APPROVAL ITSELF, AND THAT THE STANDINGS RELATED TO THE PROCESS BY HPC, NOT THAT THE [00:30:01] PROPERTY, NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER ITSELF BEING CRAVEN THAT, DID I MAKE MORE CONFUSING? YES AND NO. NOW, NOW I'M, I'M GONNA, I THINK JAMIE MIGHT HAVE. I THINK I UNDERSTAND. SO ULTIMATELY CRAVEN COUNTY IS ITS OWN ENTITY, CORRECT. IN THIS MATTER, CORRECT. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WE'RE NOT AFFILIATED WITH CRAVEN COUNTY. THIS IS WITHIN OUR PURVIEW. IT'S IN THE CITY LIMITS. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HEARING THE CASE. CORRECT. AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THIS BOARD, THE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THIS BOARD IS THE CITY, 'CAUSE IT'S AN HPC ACTIVITY, IT'S BEEN ESCALATED TO A DIFFERENT BOARD FROM HBC. YES. CORRECT. SO I GUESS, HOW, HOW DOES CRAVEN IN THE STANDING HEARING GET TO PRESENT MATERIAL COUNTER TO THE TERMINATION OF STANDING OF THE, THAT'S TO DO I THINK JAMIE MOTION DISMISSED. MAY, THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR MR. GRADY TO RESPOND TO AS TO WHY HE HAD, THIS IS NOT THE FOUNDATION DISCUSSION. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. THERE'S NO DOUBT, BUT I, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE HERE IF THERE WASN'T AN HPC DECISION AND THAT WAS CITY OF NEWBURN, AND THAT'S HOW THE PROCESS GOT STARTED. YOU KNOW, IF CRAVEN COUNTY HADN'T OWNED THE PROPERTY, LET'S ZOOM OUT REAL, IS THAT RIGHT? LET'S ZOOM OUT REAL QUICK. SO AT THE HPC CCRA, CRAVEN COUNTY FILED AN APPLICATION FOR A COA CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR SCREEN AND YOU LOOK AT ONE 60 D 1402, CRAVEN COUNTY HAD THE ABILITY TO BRING AN APPLICATION FOR CRAVEN COUNTY OWNED THAT PROPERTY. OKAY. NOW THAT A CHALLENGE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE VALIDITY OF THAT COA FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHO THE PARTIES ARE AT THE APPEAL. AND THIS STATUTE TELLS US WHO THE PARTIES ARE AT THE APPELLATE PROCESS. SO IF WE LOOK AT SUBSECTION C, NUMBER ONE, ANY PERSON OR ENTITY POSSESSING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE DECISION BEING APPEALED, THAT WOULD BE CRAVEN COUNTY. SO CRAVEN COUNTY IS A PARTY TO THIS ACTION, THEREFORE HAS STANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING. THE ISSUE OF STANDING IS JURISDICTIONAL. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT WAS THE PROCESS FOLLOWED. IF A PERSON OR ENTITY DOES NOT HAVE STANDING, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD. SO THE THRESHOLD ISSUE TONIGHT IS WHETHER WE, WE KNOW THAT CRAVEN COUNTY CHECKS A BOX ABOUT STANDING BECAUSE THEY APPLIED FOR THE COA AND GOT IT. AND THEY OWN THE PROPERTY. AT LEAST THAT'S THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN IN THE RECORD. THE QUESTION QUESTION NOW IS IF MR. HALTON HAS STANDING OR HAS, CAN DEMONSTRATE STANDING. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? DID THAT ANSWER THAT QUESTION? IT DOES. AND THEN SO YES, I AGREE THAT THEY HAVE STANDING IN THE APPEAL PROCESS, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT. UM, I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION ON IS THEIR ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THE BOARD WHO HAS TO MAKE A STAND ON A DETERMINATION ON MY STANDING, WHICH IS RELATED TO THE CITY OF NEW VERN PROCESS AND NOT RELATED TO A RELATIONSHIP WITH CRAVEN COUNTY OR MY, MY STANDING OF TERMINATION UNTIL IF, IF IT WERE TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE ACTUAL APPEAL, THEY, THE COUNTY HAS STANDING IN THE APPEAL PROCESS, I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY HAVE AN APPROPRIATE ROLE IN DETERMINE, IN PRESENTING MATERIAL TO THIS BOARD GOVERNED BY THE CITY. THAT DETERMINES MY STANDARD THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU'RE, YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT, YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU ARE HERE TO SEE IF YOU MAKE IT FOR THE STANDING CORRECT. PART OF IT. CORRECT. AND SHOULD CRAVEN COUNTY BE A PART OF THAT WHEN YOU SEE IT AS BEING SEPARATE? CORRECT. BECAUSE THE APPEAL AND THE STANDING DETERMINATION IS RELATED TO THE HPC PROCESS, NOT IT'S RELATED TO BOTH. TOTALLY AGREE. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE STANDING AT THE LOWER BOARD LEVEL AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE STANDING TO BRING AN APPEAL. SO YOU NEED STANDING IN BOTH PLACES. CORRECT. I AGREE WITH THAT. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, CRAVEN COUNTY HAS FOUND A MOTION, CRAVEN COUNTY IS A PARTY TO THIS APPEAL. YEAH, I THINK WE ALL AGREE TO THAT. AND AS A PARTY, LIKE IN ANY COURT PROCEEDING, THIS IS QUASI JUDICIAL, SO IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO GOING TO COURT. THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT V YOU CAN HAVE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA VERSUS JOHN DOE OR YOU CAN HAVE BOB SMITH VERSUS JANE DOE. IN THIS CASE, IF WE WERE TO GIVE IN A CAPTION, IT WOULD BE, IF WE'RE IDENTIFYING PARTIES, MR. HOUGHTON WOULD BE A PARTY AND CERTAINLY CRAVEN COUNTY WOULD BE A PARTY. SINCE CRAVEN COUNTY IS A PARTY, IT HAS THE ABILITY TO BRING THAT MOTION TO RAISE A LEGAL ISSUE FOR YOU TO DECIDE IN THE COURT PROCESS, WHEN SOMEONE MAKES A MOTION, ASSUMING IT'S PROPER, UM, TO MAKE THE MOTION, ARE THEY IN [00:35:01] FACT A PARTY? YES, THEY ARE. DID THEY FILE IT TIMELY? YES, THEY DID. IS IT ON ITS FACE? UM, NOT RIDICULOUS AND, AND, UH, GERMANE TO THE PROCEEDINGS? YES. THEN THAT PARTY, THE PERSON WHO MAKES THAT MOTION, THEN HAS THE ABILITY TO OFFER ORAL ARGUMENT OR OFFER, UH, CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF THAT POSITION. LIKEWISE, THE PERSON ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT MOTION HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ORAL ARGUMENT OR PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE IN OPPOSITION OF THAT MOTION. YES. SO CORRECT. SO NOW MY QUESTION GOES BACK TO THE ORIGINAL IS, IS DOES CRAIG REPRESENT THE POSITION OF NEW VERN IN THEIR PROVIDING TESTIMONY TO THE DETERMINATION OF MY STANDING, WHICH IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF NEW VERN AND THIS BOARD? NO. THEY FILED NO REPRESENTATION OF NEWLEY. CORRECT. SO THE REPRESENTATION FOR THE STANDING PORTION, NOT THE APPEAL PORTION, THE STANDING DETERMINATION IS A CITY OF NEW BERN FUNCTION BECAUSE IT WAS, IT'S HPC STANDING, NOT APPEAL STANDING. IT'S ALL CITY OF NEW BERN. I MEAN, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE ORIGINAL PERSON THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY, WHICH COMES BACK TO WHAT THE LAW THAT JAMIE JUST CITED, UM, WE'RE WE ARE LOOKING AT IT RIGHT HERE ON THE FRONT. THEY, THEY OWN THE PROPERTY. THEY HAVE STANDING. SO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO I AGREE. SO THEN WE'RE, WE'RE IN A CIRCULAR MOTION HERE. UM, THAT, THAT I'M, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME. I'M EXPLAINING IT. I'M NOT EXPLAINING IT CLEARLY. I'LL, I'LL, LET ME, LET ME, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. SO YOU, IN, IN YOUR DOCUMENTATION, YOU MENTIONED THAT ONE OF YOUR, UM, INJURIES WAS HAVING TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY. YES, SIR. DO YOU HAVE YOUR ATTORNEY HERE? I DO, SIR. CAN YOUR ATTORNEY, UM, IF THEY'RE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, UM, HELP MUDDLE THROUGH THIS A LITTLE BIT EASIER AND EXPLAIN THE TWO, THE PROCESS, SIR? SO ARE, ARE YOU SIGNED UP AND YES. SWORN I'M SIGNED UP. SO, SO, SO MAYBE YOU CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND WHERE THE CHALLENGE IS HERE. UM, WELL, AND BECAUSE I'M, CAN YOU, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? YES, SIR. IT IS CLAYTON CHEEK. UM, MY RESIDENCE IS 45 0 7 BERKELEY DRIVE, WHICH IS IN TRENT WOODS AND NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS, BUT I AM AN ATTORNEY HERE, UM, WITH MR. HALTER. SO, SO WHAT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU IS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE QUESTION IS STANDING IS SO CONFUSING FOR ONE, BUT POTENTIALLY NOT FOR ANOTHER, UM, BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING YOU ADVISED HIM ON HOW TO SPEAK. YES, SIR. SIR. SO MAYBE I'M WRONG. WELL, NO. YES, SIR. I MEAN, HE WANTED ME HERE TODAY. MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF MORAL SUPPORT. UM, MR. HALTON, YOU KNOW, FILED THIS APPEAL A WHILE AGO. I JUST RECENTLY GOT INVOLVED. I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF MAYBE AN ESOTERIC ARGUMENT. I THINK THE CONCERN THAT HE'S KIND OF FEELING, BUT IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS, WHICH IS JUST PART OF THE PROCESS IS THAT HE'S COMING BEFORE YOU ALL, UH, AND ADVOCATING HIS CASE. AND THEN WITHIN THAT THE CITY'S ATTORNEY IS HERE GIVING ADDITIONAL ADVICE AND GUIDANCE. AND SO I THINK THAT IS THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS, BUT I THINK HE JUST WANTED SOME BETTER UNDERSTANDING TO MAKE SURE HE UNDERSTOOD WHO WAS ADVISING WHOM. AND TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, I THINK HE FELT A LITTLE LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS IN TWO DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTITIES THAT HE'S BATTLING AGAINST, SO TO SPEAK. WHEREAS THERE'S ONLY ONE PARTY, CRAVEN COUNTY. AND THAT'S JUST PART OF THE PROCESS BECAUSE THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL. UM, YEAH, SPECIFICALLY, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE STANDING DETERMINATION, THERE'S TWO SEPARATE PARTIES REPRESENTED IN THE DETERMINATION OF JUST THE STANDING, NOT THE APPEAL. THE STANDING IS ONLY DETERMINED BY THE CITY, AND THIS IS NOT THE MOTION. THE MOTION IS WHAT HAS INVITED THEM IN. SO YOU RECEIVED THIS VIA MAIL, RIGHT? I SEE ON THE END OF IT THAT YOU GOT A COPY. OKAY. SO THE MOTION THAT THEY FILED IS WHAT IS INVITED CRAVEN COUNTY INTO THIS. IS THAT CORRECT? JAMIE? THE MOTION THAT WAS FILED CERTAINLY IS WHAT SPARKED THE CONVERSATION ABOUT STANDING. CERTAINLY, UH, FROM MY READING OF THE LAW, UM, CRAVEN COUNTY WAS A PARTY TO THIS APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE APPLICANT THAT RECEIVED THE PERMIT. THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL. I THINK HIS QUESTION IS, IS WHY IS THE COUNTY HERE SINCE IT'S ABOUT STANDING AND THAT IT SHOULDN'T, LIKE THE MOTION IS ABOUT THE APPEAL AND THE STANDING IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS STANDING OR NOT. SO HIS QUESTION IS, IS WHY IS THE COUNTY HERE SPEAKING WHEN IT SHOULD JUST BE DISCUSSING? DOES HE HAVE STANDING OR DOES HE NOT HAVE STANDING? MY JOB IS TO THEN STANDING WITH YOU, NOT TO COUNTER ARGUING FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. THAT TAKES PLACE IN THE SECOND CASE, RESPECTFULLY, AS A PARTY TO A CASE. YOU GET TO ADVOCATE AT ALL STAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS ON RELEVANT ISSUES. [00:40:01] SO IF THERE'S AN ISSUE AS TO STANDING, CERTAINLY MR. HOLTON GETS TO MAKE ARGUMENTS TO YOU ALL ABOUT WHY HE HAS STANDING. I CAN'T THINK OF ANY AUTHORITY, ANY CASE, ANY STATUTE THAT SAYS THE OTHER PARTY TO THE CASE DOES NOT GET TO SPEAK, TO OFFER A COUNTERING, UM, POSITION. TO ME THAT WOULD FLY IN THE F IN THE PHASE OF DUE PROCESS IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT. IT. AND, AND I DON'T KNOW, MR. GRADY IS STANDING. I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS SOMETHING TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION ON THIS. SHOULD, SHOULD WE WAIT FOR MR. GRADY TILL THE REBUTTAL SINCE HE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN REBUTTAL OR, I, I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO CONFUSED IN HERE, BUT, UM, BUT THAT'S FINE, MR. CHAIRMAN. YEAH. THANK YOU. UM, MR. CHAIRMAN AND JAMIE, THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS THAT, LET'S SAY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS JOHN SMITH. UM, WOULD HE NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING TO THIS HEARING BECAUSE HE IS THE OWNER? I I I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD THINK OF THE OWNER JUST IN TERMS OF THE COUNTY CORRECT. OWNING IT. JUST THE FACT THAT A PERSON OR ENTITY OWNS THE PROPERTY. CORRECT. AND YOU ARE APPEALING THE DECISION BY THE HPC. CORRECT. AND, AND SO IT SAYS, SO HE WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT, WHOEVER THAT OTHER PERSON IS THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY HAS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK DURING THE ACTUAL APPEAL DETERMINATION, BUT NOT, I DON'T THINK IN A WAY TO INFLUENCE THE STANDING DETERMINATION. THOSE ARE, THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE ELEMENTS OF THE SAME PROCESS. I LOOK AT IT THAT, THAT THE OTHER PARTY IS NOT INFLUENCING ME. THEY ARE PRESENTING EVIDENCE TO ME SO I CAN MAKE A DECISION. OKAY. THAT FOLLOWS THE LAW. OKAY. AND THAT'S, I JUST NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THAT I AGREE WITH YOU. I HIGHLIGHTED A CONCERN BASED ON KIND WHAT I SEE, UM, DEFINING WHO'S WHO IN, IN THIS HEARING. UM, I AGREE THAT THERE IS CLEAR STANDING IN THE SECOND PORTION. I THINK IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AS CLEAR FROM THIS WHEN OFFERING, UH, TESTIMONY TO A BODY TO DETERMINE BY INDIVIDUAL STANDING. SO, SO YOU JUST LOST ME AGAIN. WE WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS. STOP ANSWER QUESTION. SO, SO, SO YOUR STATEMENT THEN WAS IT WAS CLEAR IN THE ORIGINAL PROCESS OR THE NEXT PROCESS, BUT IT'S NOT SO CLEAR HERE. CORRECT. 'CAUSE THE APPEAL IN THE APPEAL, THEY ARE THE LANDOWNER. THIS PROCESS IS A, IS A PIECE OF BUSINESS BETWEEN MYSELF AS THE APPLICANT, THE DETERMINING BODY AS THE OVERSEER OF THE HPC PROCESS AND THE CITY WHICH SERVED BOTH FORMS. NOT, IT IS NOT A CRAVEN COUNTY PROCESS TO DETERMINE STANDING BY THE BOARD. JAMIE, I'M GETTING MORE CONFUSED. THEY'RE NOT MAKING THAT DETERMINATION. HE'S JUST PRESENTING EVIDENCE. IT'S JUST LIKE YOU ARE. SO WE ACTUALLY MAKE THAT DETERMINATION WHETHER YOU, WHAT I'M SAYING IS I DON'T THINK, IT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE UNLESS DETERMINED. SO I'M ASKING YES, CONFIRM THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR AN OUTSIDE ENTITY, BUT HE'S NOT AN OUTSIDE ENTITY. HE'S NOT AN OUTSIDE ENTITY. HE'S THE OWNER. CORRECT. BUT RELATED TO DETERMINING MY STANDING, BUT BUT THE MOTION, BUT THE MOTION KIND OF TALKED CHALLENGES STANDING PER, PERHAPS WE'RE AT AN IMPASSE AND I THINK, I THINK WHAT MR. HALTON IS ASKING FOR, AND IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE, IT'S FOR THIS BOARD TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IF THE COUNTY HAS THE RIGHT AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PERMITEE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. IF CRAVEN COUNTY HAS THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING. SO MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE COUNTY HAS RIGHT TO HAVE A PART OF THIS HEARING. SO WE HAVE A MOTION. A SECOND. A MOTION. DO WE AND WE HAVE A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? SO ALL IN FAVOR TO THE MOTION THAT SAYS CRAVEN COUNTY IS A PARTY AND DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS. AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. SO, SO WE AGREE THAT CRAVEN COUNTY ATTORNEY DOES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. GOVERNMENT'S WORKING. RIGHT. YOU GET TO PARTICIPATE AND THAT'S SURE. UM, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, EVERYBODY GETS THAT OPPORTUNITY AND SO JUST WANNA MAKE THE PROCESS, UM, HAPPEN EVEN IF IT, EVEN IF I HAVE TO NUDGE IT IN A VERY, UH, UH, CONFUSING WAY. SURE. BUT, UM, I BELIEVE EVERYBODY RECEIVED A, [00:45:01] A PACKAGE OUT OUTLINE. THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF HOW I WOULD SUPPOSE, UH, KIND OF FOUR ELEMENTS RELATED TO HOW I WOULD PRESENT THAT I HAVE A UNIQUE STANDING, UM, RELATED TO HOW THE PROCESS WAS CONDUCTED. UM, AND IN THIS MATTER, AS I STATED EARLIER, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THE PROPERTY, IT IS THE PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE, UH, BY THE HPC THAT THEN PRODUCED THE COA DETERMINATION. SO MY APPEAL IS RELATED TO HOW THE PROCESS WAS CONDUCTED, UH, TO ENSURE THAT IT WAS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES, PROCEDURE OF HPC, UH, WHICH HAS OVERSIGHT BY THIS, UH, BY THIS FILE. THE, UM, PART OF THE REASON WHY THIS IS A UNIQUE MATTER AND, UH, IN RELATED TO STANDING DETERMINATION IS THE PROPERTY THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED, WHERE THE DECISION MADE ABOUT THE PROPERTY IS RELATED TO A NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTERED BUILDING. SO THE PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE IS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE A HIGHER ELEVATED, UM, LEVEL OF DECISION TO AUTHORIZE DEMOLITION OF A NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTERED BUILDING. THEREFORE, THE WAY THAT PROCESS IS CONDUCTED, ONE SHOULD BE UNDER ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL IT IS REQUIRED TO GET THAT APPROVAL. BUT ALSO BECAUSE THIS DECISION, UM, OR THE, UH, THE APPEAL RELATED TO HOW THE PROCESS WAS CONDUCTED APPROPRIATELY OR INAPPROPRIATELY OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDELINES, WILL NOW ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT AT SUCH A HIGH LEVEL THAT BEING A MEMBER OF A UNIQUE COMMUNITY DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY COA DETERMINATIONS IN THE FUTURE. BECAUSE I LIVE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, I AM A HISTORIC HOMEOWNER, THAT BY ESTABLISHING AN ERRONEOUS PRECEDENCE NOW DUE TO FLAWS IN THE PROCESS, NOT THE PROPERTY, THAT THAT PRECEDENT WILL BE, UH, OPEN TO FLAWS IN THE FUTURE FOR WHEN I PERSONALLY HAVE TO APPLY FOR COAS FOR WHICH I AM HAVE TO DO BECAUSE I'M STILL IN MY RECOMMENDATION PHASE. SO AS A INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS TO, UH, PARTICIPATE IN AN HPC PROCESS, WHICH IS DEFINED AS A POLICE ACTION, THERE IS AN EXPECTATION OF DUE PROCESS AND THAT THAT DUE PROCESS IS CARRIED OUT EQUITABLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES FOR EVERYBODY WHO IS WITHIN THOSE COMMUNITIES, GOVERNED BY THE HPC AND, UH, UH, AND THEIR GUIDELINES. UM, YEAH. SO WHAT, WHAT DID THE HPC DO THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE? SO BEFORE I ANSWER THAT, IS THAT, UM, IS THAT IN THE APPEAL PROCESS OR, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M NOT MR. CHAIRMAN MUDDYING WATERS LATER. WE NEED TO ESTABLISH STANDING FIRST. WELL, I, I'M ASKING A QUESTION BASED UPON WHAT HIS STATEMENT JUST WAS, YOU KNOW, THAT HE, THAT THERE WAS, I THINK IT WAS A LITTLE OFF TRACK. YOU THINK SO? OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. IF YOU THINK IT WAS FAIR ENOUGH, I GO. OKAY. UM, SO THE FOUR ELEMENTS THAT ARE DETAILED, AND I CAN EITHER JUST WALK, SUMMARIZE THEM IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL, UM, IN FACT, SOME OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED AS CASE LAW IS ACTUALLY CITED IN HERE IS THE REASON WHY STANDING EXISTS. UH, BECAUSE IT IS A, A LEGAL PROCESS THAT HAD AN ERROR AND IT CAUSES A SPECIFIC DAMAGE TO A LIMITED SCOPE OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE HPC AND MAY OR MAY NOT BE GOVERNED BY THE SAME PROCEDURES IN THE FUTURE. UH, OR A MISAPPROPRIATE APPLICATION OF THOSE SAME PROCEDURES IN THE FUTURE COULD, UH, COULD AFFECT HISTORIC PROPERTY RESIDENCE BY AN INAPPROPRIATE DECISION BASED ON AN ERROR IN, UH, IN STANDING AND PRESENT AND DETERMINED BY THIS MATTER, BY THE PROCESS, NOT THE PROPERTY. UM, THERE ARE, THERE ARE FOUR THERE, AND I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO DETAIL IN 'EM. UH, THE FIRST ONE IS THE INJURY IN FACT, BY, UH, PERSONAL RESOURCES, TIME AND FINANCIAL TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER, WHICH IS A CAUSE OF AN ERROR IN A, A PROCEDURE, UM, BY A GOVERNMENT BODY THAT GOVERNS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES OF THE CITY ON THEIR BEHALF. THE SECOND ELEMENT IS THE FUTURE PRECEDENT KIND OF ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT THE LEVEL OF PRECEDENT THAT WE ESTABLISHED BY THE PROCESS OR THE, OR CONFIRMING THAT [00:50:01] THE PERCEIVED ERRORS IN PROCESS TOOK PLACE AND THAT THE DECISION AND THE OUTCOME OF THOSE ERRORS IS ACCURATE, UH, IN THE FUTURE MAY CAUSE THOSE SAME ERRORS TO CAUSE DAMAGE, UM, OR AT LEAST NOT MAKE IT CLEAR TO WHICH RULES OR PROCEDURES THAT I AS A FUTURE PETITIONER WITH A COA FOR THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT I STILL HAVE TO CONDUCT. I DON'T KNOW WHICH RULES OR PRECEDENCE I'M HAVING TO, UH, FILE OR WILL BE, UH, HEARD AGAINST BY THE COA BECAUSE IT MAKES IT UNCLEAR AS TO WHICH RULES ARE APPLIED, UH, DUE TO THE ONES THAT ARE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE. AND THE SECOND PORTION, THE, UH, THE THIRD ELEMENT IS THE STANDING BY CORRECT PROCEDURE AND ACTION. OKAY. THIS IS RELATED TO THE COMMENT THAT, UH, IN THE EMAIL THAT I SENT TO ALDERMAN RILL, THERE IS A STATEMENT IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT I DETERMINED THAT IT'S SELF-DETERMINATION THAT I DID NOT HAVE STANDING. AND THERE'S A REASON THAT IT'S IN THERE BECAUSE ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC ALSO PARTICIPATED IN THAT HEARING AND TRIED TO OFFER TESTIMONY WITHIN THE SAME STRICT GUIDELINES OF A HUNDRED FEET PERSONAL DAMAGES, THE, THE STRICT APPEAR OF, AND HE WAS TOLD HE DID NOT HAVE STANDING. SO, BY SELF-DETERMINATION AS A REGULAR PARTICIPANT IN THE HPC PROCESS, AS AN AUDIENCE MEMBER AND AS A PETITIONER, UH, IT WAS CLEAR TO ME BY THE, BY THAT DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD, THAT I WOULD LIKEWISE NOT HAVE STANDING. HOWEVER, IN GOING BACK TO THE APPEAL IS ABOUT THE PROCESS, NOT ABOUT THE PROPERTY, THE ENTIRE PROCESS HAD TO TAKE PLACE IN ORDER. SO THE BOARD HAD TO COMPLETE ITS ENTIRE ACTIONS BEFORE AN APPEAL ABOUT THE ACTION COULD TAKE PLACE. SO IN PLACE OF NOT, UH, HAVING MY STANDING DETERMINED BECAUSE I WITNESSED A SET A, A, UH, LIFE MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY NOT HAVE STANDING, UM, AND THIS IS ON THE VIDEO, I OFFERED GENERAL COMMENTS DURING THE END OF THE MEETING, DURING THE HEARING RELATED TO, UH, AN UNEASINESS OR AN OBSERVATION ABOUT THIS APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS AND THE RULES IN THE DIFFERENT CASES, SPECIFICALLY THIS ONE, BASED ON THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE STAFF PACKAGE, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND THEN THE FINAL OUTCOME. SO THERE IS TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD ON VIDEO TO BE REVIEWED. IT'S AT THE THREE HOUR AND 30 MINUTE MARK, UH, WITHIN THE VIDEO THAT RED FOR WHICH I REGISTERED NOT STANDING AN OBSERVATION THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT ACCURATE WITH THE, UH, PROCEEDINGS AS THEY HAD TAKEN PLACE THAT LED TO THE CO OF DETERMINATION. I WOULD ALSO OFFER THAT THERE IS A, UM, WITHIN THE PROCEDURES BOOK, THERE IS TWO TYPES OF STANDING THAT CAN BE OFFERED BASED OFF THE TYPE OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED. ONE IS THE STANDARD OF THE HUNDRED FEET, UH, WITHIN THE PROPERTY TO GET A NOTIFICATION THAT IS JET, THAT IS A GENERAL, UH, FORM OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THERE IS A STATEMENT WITHIN THE POLICIES THAT IF A PROJECT IS, IS DEEMED TO BE OF SUCH SIZE, OR I'M NOT GONNA, I CAN QUOTE IT IF I LOOK AT IT, BUT IS OF SUCH A SIZE OR IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY, WHERE MANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WILL BE, BE IMPACTED BY THE OUTCOME THAT A SPECIAL HEARING SHOULD BE VOTED ON, IN WHICH CASE STANDING WOULD BE OPEN TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, FOR WHICH THEN MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC COMMUNITY, WHICH HAVE TO ADHERE TO THIS POLICIES IN THE FUTURE, BUT THEN OFFER THEIR OWN OBSERVATION AND INPUT TO THE PROCESS, TO THE OUTCOME THAT WAS OBTAINED. SO I THINK HAD AN APPROPRIATE FORM OF STANDING, BEEN VOTED ON BY PROCESS, BY ADHERENCE TO A DOCUMENTED PROCESS. NOT ONLY MYSELF, BUT THE OTHER MEMBER WHO WAS THERE TO OFFER TESTIMONY WOULD HAVE HAD STANDING IF AGAIN, THE RULES OF THE PROCESS HAD BEEN APPLIED APPROPRIATELY DUE TO THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, NOT THE, NOT THE PROPERTY. UH, AND THEN FINALLY, IN RELATION TO THE, UM, DEMONSTRATION OF UNIQUE COMMUNITY AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF COA DETERMINATIONS BY A, AN ERRONEOUS OR NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETELY ALIGNED PROCESS WILL ONLY AFFECT A SMALL PORTION OF, UH, THE CITIZENS IN THE FIRM, NAMELY THOSE THAT LIVE IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS, UH, OR OWN HISTORIC PROPERTIES FOR WHICH I'M A MEMBER OF. THAT COMMUNITY, THEREFORE IS UNIQUE TO A, A SMALL PORTION, NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, AS YOU SAW WITHIN THE DOCUMENTATION, I'M NOT JUST A HISTORIC HOMEOWNER, BUT HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION [00:55:01] COMMUNITY OF NEW BERN, UH, AS A MEMBER, AS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN, UH, THE HISTORIC, UH, EVENTS WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY TO HELP PRESERVE BY AN APPROPRIATE PROCESS, UH, THE, THE CULTURE AND HISTORIC NATURE OF THIS. I THINK I GOT IT WRONG. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION? UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, SORRY, GO AHEAD. I, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING HOW HPC HAS THEIR GUIDELINES AND HOW THEY HANDLE THEIR HEARING. AS I HAVE BEEN TOLD, AS MY ROLE ON THIS BOARD IS THAT WE HAVE TO DETERMINE IF YOU HAVE STANDING TO BRING A, AN APPEAL, WHICH MEANS YOU EITHER HAVE TO BE THE OWNER LEASEHOLD OR, OR YOU'RE GOING TO BUY THE PROPERTY WITH A WRITTEN CONTRACT. AND THOSE ARE THE THREE THINGS THAT I HAD UNDERSTOOD WE WERE TO LOOK AT THERE OR NOT. THERE'S ALSO WILL SUFFER SPECIAL DAMAGES, WHICH IS A NUMBER TWO MM-HMM . SO THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT I BELIEVE THE SPECIAL DAMAGES. SPECIAL DAMAGES, YEAH. SPECIAL. MY QUESTION. YOU DONE? YES. OKAY. SO, UH, MR. HALTON, UM, YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU FEEL LIKE THIS WAS A LARGE PROJECT AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A PROJECT ONLY AFFECTING PEOPLE WITHIN A HUNDRED FOOT RADIUS. CAN YOU DEFINE, UH, IN YOUR IDEAL WHAT YOU BELIEVE A LARGE PROJECT WOULD BE AS OPPOSED TO, UH, SOMETHING THAT'S IN A SMALLER SURE. GEOGRAPHIC AREA? SO, AND HOW WOULD THAT MATERIALLY AFFECT A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE? UM, OKAY. AS I'LL USE MYSELF AS A SORT OF HOMEOWNER MM-HMM . I HAVE TO APPLY FOR A PROJECT, ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS THE CONSTRUCTION OR APPEARANCE OF MY HOME, RIGHT. TRADITIONALLY THESE HEARINGS ARE HOMEOWNERS WITHIN THE TWO HISTORIC DISTRICTS. THAT'S APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF PEOPLE BEING AFFECTED IS WITHIN, I WILL OFFER A SMALL RAISE OF A HUNDRED FEET BECAUSE IT'S CENTRAL. IT'S IT'S LOCAL IN AND, AND, AND SMALLER IN PHYSICAL SCALE. AND THE TYPE OF PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING, UH, CONDUCTED ARE NOT FAR REACHING. THEY'RE NORMALLY JUST WITHIN THAT PROPERTY OR WITHIN THE SURROUNDING HUNDRED YARD PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE BUILDING, IT IS, UH, IT IS AN ASPECT OF THE NEWBURN SKYLINE IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT ON A CORNER PROPERTY VISUALLY, UH, AS WELL AS THE HISTORIC ASPECTS OF IT. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE ELEMENT STANDING. UM, IDENTIFYING CLEARLY THE DEFINITION OF LARGE PROJECT IS ALSO BUILT UPON, BUT I WOULD OFFER IN THIS CASE, BY THE, BY THE PHYSICAL SCALE OF THE BUILDING, UH, THE IMPACT TO THE PHYSICAL, UH, ASPECTS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR WHICH IT'S LOCATED, UH, I WOULD OFFER THAT THAT IS A LARGE PROJECT FOR WHICH IT WOULD THEN LEAD TO THE QUESTION OF A VOTE. SO THERE'S STILL, IT'S JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT A LARGE PROJECT, IT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY OPEN UP STANDING TO A WIDER AUDIENCE. THE HPC STILL WITHIN THEIR GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES, VOTES TO THEN MAKE IT A SPECIAL HEARING IF THE PROJECT IS DISCUSSED AND DETERMINED TO BE A LARGE PROBLEM. OKAY. HOW WOULD THAT MATERIALLY AFFECT THOUGH A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, THIS COMMUNITY, FOR INSTANCE? SO, UM, BY THE PROCESS THAT DETERMINES THAT MM-HMM . 'CAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND THE PROJECT IN ITS NATURE RELATED TO HISTORIC VALUE, THAT IT IS A NATIONALLY REGISTERED HISTORIC BUILDING. AND THAT LEVEL IS SO HIGH TO GET AN APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION, IT NOW MAKES THAT SAME LEVEL OF APPROVAL LOWER BY ERRORS, ERRORS IN THE PROCESS, THAT THIS CAN BE REPEATED IN LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS BY A, A MISAPPLICATION OF DUE PROCESS OF THE ORDER. SO THE DAMAGES WILL OCCUR BASED OFF THE HIGH LEVEL OF ESTABLISHED PRECEDENCE, WHICH WILL THEN BE REPEATED, UH, OR HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPEAT INSIDE THE WHOLE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. [01:00:02] THANK YOU. SO I, SO I REMAINED A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED, UM, ABOUT THE PROCESS AND, AND ONE, AND I WANT TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS BECAUSE THESE DOCUMENTS ARE ALL GONNA BE ONLINE IN THE PARTY OF RECORD. SO THE LETTER THAT WE'RE READING, AND IT'S IN THE INTRODUCTION, IT STARTS OUT AS WE, THE UNDERSIGNED AND AT THE END IT ENDS WITH YOUR NAME ON IT. YES, SIR. SO, SO WE AS PLURAL OR IMPLIES PLURAL, AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S SINGULAR, SO I'M SOMEWHAT CONFUSED ON HOW WE GOT FROM POINT A TO POINT B AND WHERE THE INJURY STILL COMES ALONG THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO I'M GONNA MAKE THIS A TWO PART QUESTION. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE FIRST PART. THE SECOND PART IS IN REFERENCE TO THE EVIDENCE OF STANDING. SO THE, THE TWO CASES, ONE, THE TRANSUNION LLC, AND THE SECOND BEING THE SPOKEY. SO, UM, IT APPEARS THAT THE WORDS HERE ARE TAKEN OUTTA CONTEXT, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S NOT THE WHOLE SENTENCE. AND I'M CURIOUS IF A PERSON WAS TO LOOK AT THE PRIMARY HOLDING OR THE G SUMMARY OF THOSE CASES, IF THAT LANGUAGE WAS TAKEN OUTTA CONTEXT OR IF YOU'RE AWARE OF WHAT THAT WHOLE CASE WAS. CAN YOU ELABORATE, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M ASKING FROM THE WE, SO, SO IT IS A, SO THE WE IS AN EDITORIAL ERROR. WE IS JUST AN OKAY, THANK YOU. AND THAT IT'S JUST A, AND SO THE INJURY ALSO IS JUST YOU AT THIS TIME, THIS. OKAY, THANK YOU. BUT THAT, BUT OKAY, NOW I SAY AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE THAT IS RELATED TO THE SPECIAL DAMAGES ONLY RELATING TO A SMALL COHORT OF THE COMMUNITIES FOR WHICH I'M A MEMBER. FAIR ENOUGH. OKAY. I, I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. SO NOW WHEN WE MOVE DOWN TO THE EVIDENCE OF STANDING AND WE HAVE THOSE TWO CASES, CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT THOSE CASES ARE ABOUT IN INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING SOME WORDS THAT ARE TAKEN OUTTA CONTEXT, UM, WHICH, WHICH ONES WERE THOSE SERVICES? EITHER ONE. WE, WE, I'D LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT BOTH THE TRANSUNION, TRANSUNION VERSUS RAMEZ. UM, CLEAR. THIS, THIS IS FAIR ENOUGH. OKAY. UM, THE QUESTION IS ABOUT THESE TWO I CAN GIVE YOU. YEAH. I MEAN, AND, AND I KNOW THAT ONLINE A PERSON CAN, CAN, UM, SEARCH PRETTY QUICKLY AND IT'S, THERE'S ACTUALLY A DOCKET NUMBER AND IT COMES UP PRETTY QUICK AS FAR AS THE SUMMARY. AND, AND SO I DID THAT. AND SO IT APPEARS THAT SOME OF THIS IS OUTTA CONTEXT IS WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION, THESE FIRST TWO. SO, UM, IF, IF I MAY NOT TO, UM, MOVE AWAY FROM YOUR QUESTION. I THINK THAT IT WAS RAISED EARLIER THAT THERE WERE SOME US SUPREME COURT CASES THAT HAD BEEN CITED, WHICH I THINK ARE THESE CASES YOU REFERRING TO. SURE. AND THAT REALLY THE CASES THAT PROBABLY ARE MOST RELEVANT WOULD BE THE ONES IN NORTH CAROLINA, THE COURT OF APPEALS OR THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT. AND I THINK THAT THE ARGUMENT, UM, THAT MR. HALTON IS MAKING IS THAT UNDER THE POLICIES AND RULES AND PROCEDURE OF THE HPC, THERE ARE SOME, UM, DEFINITIONS AND REASONINGS BEHIND STANDING. AND CLEARLY SOMEONE WHO IS A PROPERTY OWNER ADJACENT OR NEARBY DOES HAVE THAT STANDING. THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THOSE RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE FROM A PROPERTY OWNER BEYOND 100 FEET MAY BE ALLOWED IF, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS. ONE, THE PRESENTER AS COMPETENT MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION TO PRESENT THAT CAN BE DIRECTLY AND SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE GUIDELINES. THE GUIDELINES ALSO GO ON TO DISCUSS A TYPICAL COA HEARING VERSUS A PUBLIC HEARING. UM, AND HIS ARGUMENT, I BELIEVE, IS THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU KNOW, WAS NOT HELD. NOW THIS, THE GUIDELINES DO SAY THAT IT MAY BE CALLED, SO IT'S NOT, UH, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE IT SAYS MUST, BUT FOR LARGE PROJECTS THAT MAY MATERIALLY AFFECT A LARGE NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS BEYOND 100 FEET OF THE PROJECT, AGAIN, INFORMATION PRESENTED BY A PARTY MUST BE COMPETENT MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION THAT CAN BE DIRECTLY AND SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE GUIDELINES. I THINK SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL CONCERN, AND THIS GETS INTO SOME ARGUMENTS THAT AREN'T REALLY RELATED TO STANDING, ARE WHETHER THE PROCEDURE WAS CORRECTLY FOLLOWED. AGAIN, SOME OF THE, IN THE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES, WHICH ARE, WHICH ARE HERE, THEY MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE STATE STATUTES, ET CETERA, BUT TALK ABOUT WHAT IS NEEDED FOR A QUORUM AND THAT FIVE MEMBERS OF THE HBC [01:05:01] ARE REQUIRED, UM, TO HOLD A HEARING. AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THIS HEARING, THERE WERE FIVE, BUT ONE RECUSED HIMSELF. SO THAT GOT TO FOUR. AND SO PART OF THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT PROCEDURE WAS PROPERLY FOLLOWED. NOW, REGARDING STANDING, WE CAN'T REALLY GET THERE UNTIL WE TALK ABOUT STANDING. HOWEVER, IF THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED CORRECTLY, I THINK REALLY WHAT HIS CONCERN IS, IS JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T SET A PRECEDENT HERE WHERE SOMETHING WAS NOT DONE CORRECTLY THAT THEN MAY VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMUNITY OR MAYBE ANOTHER PARTY THAT WOULD HAVE STANDING. UM, AND IN ADDITION, AS SOMEONE WHO COMES AND, AND I'LL BACK UP AND SAY IF DUE PROCESS WERE TO BE VIOLATED, I THINK THAT WOULD BE, UM, SIMILAR TO A STATUTE OR A CAUSE OF ACTION OR, UH, A DUE PROCESS ISSUE WHERE HE WOULD THEN HAVE STANDING BECAUSE HE COULD SAY THAT HIS DUE PROCESS OR POTENTIAL DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN VIOLATED. AND AS A RESULT, HE WOULD HAVE STANDING THE CASES STIPULATE THAT, AGAIN, WHEN A STATUTE IS, YOU KNOW, IS AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF ACTION OR A DUE PROCESS ISSUE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE STANDING. AND THERE IS A NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT CASE THAT ADDRESSES THAT ISSUE. UM, IT'S THE SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF THE 26TH NC TROOPS INC. VERSUS THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE. AND THAT WAS IN MARCH 20, UH, 2024, UM, CASE. BUT SO, AND I THINK, AGAIN, MR. HALTON'S REAL POINT IS JUST MAKING SURE THAT ALL OF THOSE PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED. IN ADDITION, HIS CONCERN THAT HE'S GONNA BE COMING BACK BEFORE THE HPC, HE'S BEEN THERE BEFORE, HE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK SEVERAL TIMES AND I THINK JUST WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCEDURE IS CORRECT. AND THAT WOULD BRING, BUT THE QUESTION IS, IT'S SORT OF A CHICKEN FOR THE EGG BECAUSE WE CAN'T REALLY GET TOO MUCH INTO THAT. THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE ON THE APPEAL, NOT AN ISSUE ON THE STANDING, BUT I THINK THERE'S AN ARGUMENT TO SAY IF THAT HAD BEEN DONE, THAT THERE MIGHT BE A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, WHICH WOULD GIVE HIM STANDING. SO LET'S JUST CLARIFY JUST SOME OF THE NOMENCLATURE THAT'S BEEN USED. THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HAS GUIDELINES, AKA DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE THE ARCHITECTURAL AND OTHER, UM, CRITERIA THAT THEY USE TO DETERMINE, UM, WHETHER MODIFICATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE. SO THAT'S ONE DOCUMENT. THERE IS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT CALLED THE HPC RULES AND PROCEDURES. THE RULES AND PROCEDURES IS THE DOCUMENT THAT I THINK MR. CHEEK WAS QUOTING WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, UM, HOW THE HPC DETERMINED STANDARDS, UM, STANDING AND THE CONCEPT OF A PUBLIC HEARING. AND I THINK MR. CHEEK, JUST FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, WAS REFERRING TO THE HPC RULES OF PROCEDURES, SPECIFICALLY PAGE 15, WHICH SETS OUT, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS, WHICH TRACKS WITH THE STATUTE ONE 60 D 1402 PEOPLE WHO ARE MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY THE, THE COA, WHICH ARGUABLY WOULD GO TO SUBSECTION TWO. ANY PERSON WOULD SUFFER SPECIAL DAMAGES, ANY ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH WOULD THEN GO TO SUBSECTION THREE OF THE STATUTE THAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN. SO THE HPCS CRITERIA FOR STANDING LARGELY TRACKS THE STATUTE. WHAT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE STATUTE THAT THE HPC PERMITS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT YOU'VE HEARD MR. CHEEK, UM, AND MR. HOLTON TALK ABOUT. AND THE SECTION SAYS THIS, A PUBLIC HEARING MAY BE CALLED FOR, FOR LARGE PROJECTS THAT MATERIALLY AFFECT A LARGE NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS BEYOND 100 FEET OF THE PROJECT. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT REQUIRES THE HPC TO CONDUCT SUCH A HEARING. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TALKING, WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THESE DOCUMENTS THAT THE HPC HAS, WE'RE REFERENCING THE RIGHT DOCUMENTS AND HAVING THOSE PAGE NUMBERS IN THE RECORD. DID YOU READ THE PORTION ABOUT THE VOTE? UM, RELATED TO THAT, THE NEXT PARAGRAPH SAYS THAT IF THE HPC DOES CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, IT MUST VOTE TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A COA. THERE MUST BE PROPER NOTIFICATION THAT THE CO, THAT THE HPC IS CONSIDERING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE COA APPLICATION AND A PUBLIC HEARING CAN BE HELD AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OR AT A SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT DOES NOT CREATE STANDING IF THE GUIDELINES WERE NOT ADHERED TO BY THE HPC, IS THAT CORRECT? IF THE HPC OPENED UP, IF THE HPC VOTED TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING, IT WOULD INVITE PEOPLE WHO HAVE, ARE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT BEYOND 100 FEET TO OFFER COMPETENT MATERIAL SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. BUT IN THIS CASE, THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THERE WAS NO VOTE, I DON'T THINK YOUR RECORD SHOWS THAT THERE WAS A VOTE TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, NOR WAS A PUBLIC HEARING HAD CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. [01:10:01] AND THAT'S FORM THE ELEMENTS FOR EVIDENCE. HAD THAT DETERMINATION BEEN MADE THAT THIS IS A LARGE PROJECT STANDING WOULD'VE BEEN ALLOWED SK RIGHT. BUT WE ARE HERE TO DETERMINE YOUR STANDING NOW. NOW. CORRECT. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF RETROACTIVE IN THIS REGARD. YEAH. BUT AGAIN, IN THE GUIDELINES, THERE IS, UM, UNDERSTANDING THE DEFINITION THAT A PROPERTY OWNER BEYOND 100 FEET MAY BE ALLOWED AND CONSIDERED TO HAVE STANDING IF AGAIN, THE PRESENTER HAS COMPETENT MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION TO PRESENT. THAT CAN BE DIRECTLY AND SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE GUIDELINES. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT HIS POINT IS. RIGHT. BUT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE STANDING FOR THE APPEAL RIGHT NOW. YES. RIGHT. BUT IN, IN THE DEFINITION OF STANDING, WHICH I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT IN THE GUIDELINES, IN ADDITION TO THE STATUTE, THE HPC GUIDELINES, RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. YES. WE'RE NOT AT AN HPC HEARING. THAT'S CORRECT. HOWEVER, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STANDING IN FRONT OF THE HPC AS WELL. I MEAN YOU YES. AT THE TIME. BUT THE HPC HAS HEARD THIS ALREADY. SO WE'RE HERE NOW ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CRITERIA ON THE SCREEN. I UNDERSTAND. AND AGAIN, PART OF THIS ISSUE IS THE PROCEDURE, WHICH WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE VERY RELEVANT ON AN APPEAL. AND I, AND THIS IS WHERE IT'S A LITTLE CHICKEN BEFORE. RIGHT. BUT WE, WE CAN'T HEAR THE APPEAL WITHOUT STANDING. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT SOME DUE PROCESS MAY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IN THE PROCESS OF THE HPC. OKAY. AND THE POINT IS THAT IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THE CASE LAW WOULD GIVE STANDING TO SOMEBODY TO BRING AN APPEAL. SO ON ON THAT ISSUE OF PROCESS, AGAIN, WE'RE REFERRING TO THE HPC RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE, THE SECTION ON STANDING THAT MR. CHEEK IS REFERRING TO SAYS, TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OF OUR PROPERTY OWNER BEYOND 100 FEET MAY BE ALLOWED IF, AND THERE ARE THREE BULLET POINTS AGAIN ON PAGE 15. IT IS NOT A REPETITION OR DUPLICATION OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED. THE PRESENTER HAS COMPETENT MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION TO PRESENT THAT CAN BE DIRECTLY AND SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE GUIDELINES. AND THE THIRD BULLET, THE PRESENTER CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY MAY BE MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE. SO THOSE ARE THE RULES GOVERNING STANDING. IF YOU LIVE AT A GREATER PROXIMITY AT THE HPC. AND AS I THINK IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED HERE TONIGHT, MR. HOLTON EXERCISED HIS RIGHT NOT TO ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE HPC AT THAT LEVEL. SO NOW, WHETHER HE HAD H HP STANDING AT HPC OR NOT, IT'S SOMEWHAT OF A NON-STARTER 'CAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE ATTEMPTED TO OFFER IN THAT HEARING, AS MR. THOMPSON HAS INDICATED. THE QUESTION BEFORE THIS BOARD TONIGHT IS, DOES HE HAVE STANDING TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO CHALLENGE THE ISSUANCE OF THE COA? CAN HE DEMONSTRATE THAT HE HAS, EXCUSE ME, HAS STANDING UNDER THE LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA? AND, AND I THINK THE WAY THAT, AGAIN, YOU COULD ESTABLISH THAT STANDING WOULD BE IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS. AND THIS CASE ACTUALLY THE COMMITTEE TO ELECT DAN FOREST, I THINK ALSO CITES THAT. AND I THINK ACTUALLY MS. BULLOCK READ THIS, BUT WHEN A PERSON ALLEGES THE INFRINGEMENT OF A LEGAL RIGHT ARISING UNDER A CAUSE OF ACTION AT COMMON LAW, WE DON'T HAVE THAT A STATUTE. UM, ARGUABLY WE DON'T HAVE THAT OR THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION, WHICH WE MAY HAVE IF THERE WAS A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION, THAT LEGAL INJURY ITSELF GIVES RISE TO STANDING. SO THAT IS HIS ARGUMENT, IS THAT AS A MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC, UM, AREA, AND IF THE, THE PROCEDURE WAS NOT PROPERLY FOLLOWED, THEN WE HAVE AN ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH THEN GIVES RIGHT RISE TO AN INJURY THAT GIVES LEGAL STANDING. OKAY. SO I'VE GOT TWO QUESTIONS FOR JAMIE. IF, IF I CAN INTERRUPT FOR A SECOND. SO THE FIRST ONE, I KNOW THERE WAS A DUE PROCESS QUESTION THAT WE KIND OF WENT OVER ABOUT THE FIVE VERSUS FOUR, THAT THE MEETING STARTED WITH FIVE AND WE ENDED UP WITH FOUR. UM, SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT AS FAR AS THAT PROCESS, THAT IS AN ISSUE FOR THE APPEAL ON THE MERITS? ON THE MERIT. OKAY. AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE ACTUALLY COMES BACK, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED ALREADY, THE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 2021, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT LAND USE? SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. SO THE, THAT THE STATUTE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE CASE, AND I'M SURE MR. GRADY MIGHT HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS AS WELL. UM, TALKS ABOUT STANDING AS IT RELATES TO A SPECIFIC STATUTE. THE, THE DISCLOSURE STATUTE FOR POLITICAL ACTION STUFF, THERE'S A RELEVANT LEGAL DOCTRINE BECAUSE THIS DOES UNPACK STANDING WHEN SOMEBODY IS BRINGING A CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO A STATUTE. AND I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE APPELLATE PROCESS IN LAND USE IS CODIFIED BY STATUTE. IT'S IN CHAPTER ONE 60 D. SO SINCE [01:15:01] WE'RE USING A STATUTORY PROCESS TO PERFECT A CAUSE OF ACTION, THAT BEING AN APPEAL, WE HAVE TO USE THAT STATUTORY PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHETHER STANDING EXISTS. SO THE, THE PORTION OF THE CASE THAT I THINK MR. CHEEK WAS REFERRING TO, AND I'LL READ TO THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY. WHEN THE LEGISLATURE EXERCISES ITS POWER TO CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER A STATUTE, EVEN WHERE A PLAINTIFF HAS NO FACTUAL INJURY AND MAY BE ACTING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING TO VINDICATE THAT LEGAL RIGHT. SO LONG AS HE IS IN THE CLASS OF PERSONS ON WHOM THE STATUTE CONFERS A CAUSE OF ACTION. SO A PERSON HAS STANDING UNDER THE CASE THAT MR. HALTON HAS CITED IF THEY HAVE STANDING UNDER THE STATUTE, WHICH DIRECTS US BACK TO ONE 60 D, 1402, AND I WOULD SAY THAT IS CORRECT, BUT, OR THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS THE DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT. YES, SIR. YEAH, I, UM, I'M THINKING MOST OF THE MAIN THING IS WHAT HE WAS SAYING. HE, I MEAN, BUT I FEEL LIKE HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS THAT, BUT HE DON'T REALIZE THAT HPC HAVE THE OPTION OF HAVING A PUBLIC NOTICE OR NOT. SO THEY, THEY TOOK THE OPTION OF NOT HAVING IT. AND SO WHEN YOU WAS THERE, YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING, BUT SINCE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PUBLIC NOTICE OR WANTING ANYBODY TO SPEAK, THEY, YOU GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK BECAUSE IT WAS THIS, IT WAS FEELING LIKE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY STANDING AT THAT TIME BASED ON THE DETERMINATION THAT THEY HAD MADE TO A SIMILAR PARTY . CORRECT. HOWEVER, ON THE RECORD, DURING THE PROCEEDINGS, I DID PUBLICLY ADDRESS THE BOARD IN SESSION THAT THERE WILL MISS APPLICATIONS OR, UH, NOT, UH, LIKE APPLICATION BASED ON MY OBSERVATIONS, DOZENS OF HPC HEARINGS RELATED TO THE MATERIAL PRESENTED TO THE BOARD, THE GUIDELINES AND, AND PROCEDURAL ELEMENTS, NOT THE BUILDING ITSELF, BUT THE PROCEDURAL AND GUIDELINES, MISS APPLICATIONS. I DID REGISTER THAT CONCERN. IT'S ON THREE HOURS. IT'S THERE. I I UNFORTUNATELY WATCHED THE WHOLE THING. SO IT'S, IT'S THERE. YES, SIR. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES, SURE. WE CAN ALL SO THIS IS PROBABLY MORE DIRECTIVE TO YOU, JAMIE. MM-HMM. I CAN TO, JUST SO I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS, UM, SO MR, IS IT HALTON? YES, MA'AM. UM, YOU'RE A COUNTY RESIDENT? I AM. SO IF THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE COUNTY, WHICH WOULD BE OWNED BY THE TAXPAYERS, WOULD THAT MAKE IT, UM, AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST? NO. NO, MA'AM. NO. UH, CRAVEN COUNTY IS ITS OWN SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY, AND CRAVEN COUNTY IS ACTUALLY THE CRAVEN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, NOT THE TAXPAYERS AT LARGE. UNLESS MR. MR. GRADY CAN DEFINE HIS CLIENT HIMSELF, I GUESS. I DON'T MEAN TO STEAL HIS THUNDER. WE WE CAN ADD THAT TO THE LIST ON THE REBUTTAL, I GUESS. RIGHT? WELL, IT SHOULD, SHOULD OR WE, IF YOU WANT HIM TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW. IF YOU WANT CALL, CAN WE DO THAT? OR LIKE FOR THE RECORD, HE DID SAY HE AGREES WITH COUNSEL. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THEN? I JUST WANTED TO ASK THIS FOR AS EARLIER, I KNOW HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT AQUARIUM, SAY, TO START OFF WITH AQUAQUARIUM, BUT SOMEONE LEFT. BUT IS, DON'T IT STILL STAND, EVEN IF YOU HAVE A CORUM AND SOMEBODY LEAVE, WANT TO STILL STAND? THAT IS AN ISSUE FOR HEARING ON THE MERITS. SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT THERE YET. WE'VE GOTTA FIGURE OUT IF MR. HALTON HAS THE RIGHT TO INVOKE YOUR JURISDICTION. OKAY. LOOK LIKE YOU HAD QUESTION, THEY'RE NOT SEEING THE APPEAL, IS THAT CORRECT? THEY HAVE RECEIVED YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL? YES, SIR. OKAY. THE DOCUMENT? YES, SIR. OKAY. I WAS GONNA ASK, UM, MR. HALTON, IF YOU WOULD VERY, JUST VERY SUCCINCTLY, WE PUT A LOT OF WORDS TO THIS, BUT VERY SUCCINCTLY, UH, DEFINE WHAT YOUR SPECIAL DAMAGES ENTAIL. UH, MY SPECIAL DAMAGES ARE, I AM, UH, I, I'M REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLA PROCESS AS A SPECIAL, UH, CATEGORY OF HOMEOWNERS INSIDE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THEREFORE, SPECIAL RULES APPLY TO ME AS A HOMEOWNER IN THAT DISTRICT. AND IF THOSE RULES ARE APPLIED APPROPRIATELY, THAT IS A SPECIAL DAMAGE ONLY TO ME [01:20:01] IN A MISCARRIAGE OR MISAPPROPRIATE APPLICATION PROCESS. DID THAT HELP? NO, IS, IS, YES. I I THINK I'M CONFUSED SOMEWHAT IN THE SAME SENSE. UM, BE, BECAUSE IF IT'S AS A GROUP, YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY IT MAY NOT BE SPECIAL. UM, WHEN I THINK OF IT AS SPECIAL, IT'S MAYBE MORE AS AN INDIVIDUAL. AND JAMIE, HELP ME IF, IF I'M GOING DOWN THE WRONG ROAD WITH THIS. UM, SO THAT'S WHERE I'M KIND OF CHALLENGED. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHY I ASKED THE, THE QUESTION ORIGINALLY, UM, ABOUT THE INJURY OR DAMAGE, YOU KNOW, FROM A SPECIFIC STANDPOINT. UM, AND I, WE, WE, WE GET BACK INTO THE SAME CIRCLE ABOUT THAT IT'S A GROUP SITUATION AGAIN, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, WHICH IS ALSO WHY I WANTED YOU TO CLARIFY THE WE VERSUS SINGULAR ON THE WHOLE PROCESS SINCE THERE WAS A LOT OF OTHER VERBIAGE IN IT. UM, SO I, I'M GONNA HAVE TO DEFER SOMEWHAT TO JAMIE AGAIN. YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE GET FROM DISCUSSION AS A GROUP, AS A RESIDENT TO A SINGULAR SPECIAL DAMAGE? UH, WELL, THAT, THAT'S A FINE QUESTION. AND I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU BRIDGE THAT GAP. UM, WHAT I'M HEARING MR. HALTON SAY IS HE IS ANTICIPATING THAT HE MIGHT HAVE HARM IN THE FUTURE IF PROCESSES. IF HE SUBMITS AN APPLICATION TO THE HPC FOR COA AND THE PROCESSES ARE NOT APPLIED TO HIM FAIRLY, THEN HE MAY HAVE SOME SPECIAL DAMAGE IN THE FUTURE. UM, TO THAT, I WOULD SAY IN THE EVENT THAT THAT HAPPENED, HE WOULD HAVE CERTAINLY A CAUSE OF ACTION AS AN APPLICANT TO APPEAL A DECISION, UM, TO PERFECT HIS RIGHT AS A PROPERTY OWNER AND AN APPLICANT. UM, BUT IN THIS CONTEXT, I, I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU BRIDGE THAT GAP. I DON'T KNOW IF AT THIS TIME IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. HALTON. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, THE BOARD WOULD LIKE ANY REBUTTAL FROM THE COUNTY, UM, BUT PERHAPS THAT MIGHT ADD TO THE CONVERSATION. I, I'LL AGREE WITH YOU. UM, AND THE EXAMPLE I'LL USE TO KIND OF USE WHAT HE EXPLAINED VERY WELL IS RIVERSIDE. THERE IS A LINE WHERE IT'S HISTORIC MR. OMO SIDE AND NOT HISTORIC MR. COME THE OTHER SIDE. THERE IS NO, UH, APPROVAL PROCESS FOR EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION OR CHANGES WITHIN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF WHERE THE BOUNDARIES ARE, I HAVE TO APPLY FIVE TO THIS PROCESS. I KNOW I'LL HAVE TO SUBMIT COAS BASED OFF OF THE AMOUNT OF WORK TO RESTORE THE HOME THAT STILL REQUIRED. SO THERE IS A ONE FUTURE ACTIVITY TO TAKE PLACE FOR WHICH THERE IS A, A, UH, LEGAL PROCESS THAT TAKES PLACE FOR WHICH THERE IS AN EXPECTATION OF EQUAL APPLICATION OF THE PROCEDURES GUIDELINES. THAT THAT UNKNOWN OF, UM, UH, AN INFIRM DETERMINATION BY THE RULES THAT GOVERN THAT IS THE DAMAGE. I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE A STANDARD OF DUE PROCESS THAT WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY THIS BECAUSE THE, THE PROCEDURES ARE, ARE COUNTER TO THE GUIDELINES AND PROCESSES IN THIS MATTER. YES. UH, I I GET IT. I I'M CURIOUS HOW MUCH FUTURE WE ARE ALLOWED TO THINK ABOUT IN THE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, AS OPPOSED TO TODAY. WELL, ALL, ALL NUMBERS OF HISTORIC OFS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT COAS FOR EXTERIOR WORK. SO IT IS A KNOWN ACTIVITY THAT HAS TO TAKE PLACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH, UH, BUT WE DON'T, I THINK THAT COVERS THE ISSUE. IT'S NOT SPECIAL. YEAH. UH, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE DECISIONS WOULD BE, BUT IT WOULD BE BASED OFF OF, IT'S A, A LEGAL PROCESS BASED ON ERRONEOUS PROCEDURAL STANDARDS SET IN THIS MATTER. BECAUSE THE PROCESS WAS NOT, AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT THE PROCESS NOT BEING CONDUCTED CORRECTLY THAT RESULTED IN SOMETHING THAT ESTABLISHED PRECEDENCE THAT WILL APPLY TO ME IN THE FUTURE. SPECIFICALLY AT HISTORIC HOMEOWNER. BUT JUST YOU. NO, ALL, ALL. SO I THINK THAT TAKES OUT THE SPECIAL TO THE DAMAGES. ONLY HISTORIC HOMEOWNERS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT COAS AND ONLY HISTORIC HOMEOWNERS ARE SUBJECT TO HPC RULES AND GUIDELINES. SO THERE IS A QUANTIFIABLE COMMUNITY THAT ONLY THIS TYPE OF PROCEDURE AND PROCESS APPLIES TO. AND I'LL OFFER THAT, THAT IS A DEFINED SPECIAL COMMUNITY. AND YOU'RE HERE ON REPRESENT REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY OR YOURSELF. I'M REPRESENTING MYSELF AS A HARM MEMBER OF THAT SPECIAL COMMUNITY. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. [01:25:01] SO DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. I'M SORRY I BROUGHT YOU A HARD ONE. HEY, UH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. I THANK YOU. AND THAT'S WHAT I APPRECIATE THAT I WOULD REGRET NOT DOING SOMETHING OR DOING SOMETHING AND HAVING, UH, WE, WE APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION AND I HOPE THE FOLKS THAT DO LOOK AT THIS IN THE FUTURE WILL LEARN FROM IT ALSO. SO IT'S ALL PART OF THE PROCESS. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, MR. GRADY, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, BOARD MEMBERS. THANK YOU. I HAVE A LOT TO SAY. . UM, I'LL TRY TO DISTILL IT. UH, MUCH HAS BEEN MADE OF DUE PROCESS IN THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS AND WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE COA HEARING FOR THE COUNTY, HOW THAT MAY OR MAY NOT IMPACT HIS FUTURE CASE AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY OWNERS. HE HAS AN OUTLET FOR THAT. IF HE APPLIES FOR A COA AND THE RULES ARE NOT FOLLOWED IN HIS CASE, HE CAN APPEAL IT TO THIS BOARD. AND IF HE DOESN'T LIKE THAT DECISION, HE CAN APPEAL IT TO SUPERIOR COURT. SO CAN EVERY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, SPEAKING OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, UM, LET'S TALK ABOUT MY CLIENT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. MY CLIENT'S A PROPERTY OWNER. MY PROPER CLIENT WORKED WITH THE CITY OF NEW BERN STARTING LAST SPRING, APRIL, MAY. WE ATTENDED NUMEROUS TECHNICAL REVIEW MEETINGS. WE PARTICIPATED IN NUMEROUS QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. UM, WE DID WHAT THE CITY ASKED US TO DO, AND WE GOT OUR APPROVAL ON THE VERY LAST DAY THAT AN APPEAL COULD BE FILED. A STRANGER TO THIS CASE FILED AN APPEAL, DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANYTHING UP TO THAT DATE. I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. SOMEBODY FROM HAVELOCK ROLLS IN AND FILES AN APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT'S NEXT COA WITHOUT HAVING PARTICIPATED. THERE'S A WORD FOR THAT UNDER THE LAW, AND IT'S CALLED WAIVER. EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE WHEN YOU DO NOT, YOU HAVE WAIVED YOUR RIGHT. MY CLIENT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT AS EVERYBODY ELSE'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THIS CASE. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE ESSENCE OF THE COUNTY'S POSITION IN THIS. AND THE CASE IS, IS VERY SIMPLE FOR, FOR THREE REASONS. ONE, WE'VE GOT AN ADMISSION ON THE RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT, MR. HOWTON DOES NOT HAVE STANDING. HE IS ADMITTED THAT IN AN EMAIL THAT REALLY ENDS THE CASE, THAT MAKES THE CASE SIMPLE. THIS IS NOT A HARD CASE. YOU CAN STOP RIGHT THERE. TWO, HE LIVES OVER A MILE AWAY FROM THE SHRINERS BUILDING. THE NORTH CAROLINA CASES ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THIS POINT. YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE CLOSE PROXIMITY TO HAVE STANDING THIRD. AND FINALLY, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE ECONOMIC OR PECUNIARY DAMAGES TO YOUR PROPERTY TO JOIN A CASE LIKE THIS. WE STARTED TO GET INTO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL THIS EVENING. WE'VE GONE A LITTLE ASTRAY FROM, UH, THE TOPIC OF STANDING, WHICH IS FINE. THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL. IT'S NOT STRICTLY JUDICIAL. WHAT YOU HAVE NOT HEARD THIS EVENING IS ONE WORD ABOUT HOW THE APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE DAMAGED BY THE DEMOLITION OF THAT BUILDING AROUND THE CORNER. NOT ONE WORD. THE CASES REQUIRE THAT TYPE OF DAMAGE. WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD, AND I THINK IT'S THE NOTE THE APPELLANT BASICALLY ENDED ON, WAS, I'M A MEMBER OF A CLASS OF PEOPLE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN HARMED BY THIS DECISION BECAUSE I MAY HAVE TO APPLY FOR A COA IN THE FUTURE. I WASN'T SPECIFICALLY DAMAGED, BUT THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED. AND LET ME CITE FOR YOU A CASE THAT GOES BY THE NAME OF CHERRY V WISENER. IT'S A CASE THAT CAME OUT OF RALEIGH, OUT OF WAKE COUNTY. AND I'M GONNA QUOTE FOR YOU, UH, ON THAT POINT, IT WAS ACTUALLY AN HPC CASE. AND YOU'RE IN THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD IN RALEIGH. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO BUILD A MODERN STRUCTURE. YOU KNOW, THAT'S GONNA STICK OUT LIKE THE PROVERBIAL SORE THUMB, RIGHT? THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET SUED IT, WENT THROUGH THE HPC PROCESS, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS. IT WENT THROUGH SUPERIOR COURT AND WENT, IT WENT TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS. AND THE NEIGHBOR'S CONTENTION WAS, IT'S GOING TO [01:30:01] RUIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BASICALLY WHAT SHE SAID, IT'S GOING TO DESTROY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND HERE'S WHAT THE, UH, COURT HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT, IF I CAN GET TO MY PLACE. BUT THESE ALLEGATIONS DO NOT DEMONSTRATE SPECIAL DAMAGES DISTINCT TO THE RESPONDENT OTHER THAN THE VIEW FROM HER FRONT PORCH. RATHER, RESPONDENT ALLEGES A GENERALIZED DAMAGE TO THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD, REDUCED PROPERTY VALUES AND IMPAIRED ENJOYMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ME OF FACT THAT RESPONDENT'S HOME IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE HOUSE AT ISSUE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SPECIAL DAMAGES, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS. UM, WE'VE HEARD A LOT TONIGHT, BUT WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING THAT WOULD GIVE THE APPELLANT STANDING TO PROSECUTE THIS APPEAL. UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO WE DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, UM, TASK FOR ADDITIONAL REBUTTAL, AND I'LL ALSO READ THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS SO EVERYBODY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO THINK OR WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION. SO WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES HERE ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. AND, AND I THINK THE, THERE WERE FIVE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF FILING THAT. IS THAT OKAY IF I READ THROUGH, SINCE WE'RE AT THE CROSSROADS OF JUST STANDING, PERHAPS WE SHOULD FOCUS OUR, OUR INQUIRY AT THIS POINT OF YOUR DELIBERATION ON STANDING BEFORE WE GET TO THE MERITS. YES, SIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON STANDING TO EITHER PARTY THAT WE SHOULD ASK HIM TO COME FORWARD AND CONTINUE ON? OR DO WE NO, I, I'M NOT REALLY, UM, CLEAR ON WHAT YOUR CLAIM IS FOR THE SPECIAL DAMAGES BESIDES THE PROCEDURAL. COULD YOU, IS THAT, AM I CORRECT ON THAT? THAT IT WAS PROCEDURAL THAT AT THE, THAT THAT'S CORRECT. SO MY, MY CLAIM IS NOT ABOUT THE DECISION THAT MAY STILL TAKE PLACE. MY, MY APPEAL IS RELATED TO THE PROCESS THAT LED TO THAT DECISION, UM, BEING FLAWED, NOT THE DECISION ITSELF. IT MAY STILL HAPPEN. I JUST NEED TO PROCESS THE DUE PROCESS AS A NUMBER TO BE CORRECT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE IT'LL SERVE AS A STANDARD TO ME, UH, AS ADDITIONAL HOMEOWNER IN THE FUTURE. SO, CORRECT. IT'S NOT THE, IT'S NOT THE OUTCOME. THE PROCESS THAT LED TO THAT OUTCOME HAS FALL. SO I THINK THE QUESTION STILL REMAINS BEFORE US THOUGH, IS IN REFERENCE TO STANDING, YOU KNOW, AND, AND SO IN A DUE PROCESS, THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE. YOU FILED THE APPEAL AND WE HAVE TO QUESTION THE STANDING BEFORE IT MOVES FORWARD TO WHERE WE CAN HEAR THE APPEAL IN GENERAL, BECAUSE THE GROUP DECIDES THERE'S NO STANDING, THEN WE DON'T HEAR THE APPEAL. IF WE CHOOSE THAT THERE IS STANDING, THEN WE DO HEAR THE APPEAL AT THE NEXT MEETING. SO I, I, I THINK THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. YOU KNOW, THEN I, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHY JAMIE ASKED ME NOT TO GO THROUGH THE, THE, UH, INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AND, UH, 'CAUSE WE ARE STANDING AND NOT FROM THE APPEAL PROCESS. SO DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR ANYBODY OR CAN WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? OR IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, UH, AND I DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT YOU ALL WANT TO DELIBERATE AMONGST YOURSELVES, BUT IN MAKING A DETERMINATION TONIGHT, YOU ALL WILL NEED TO VOCALIZE OR, OR ARTICULATE THE REASON FOR YOUR MOTION. SO IF YOU FIND THAT MR. HALTON HAS STANDING, YOU WILL NEED TO ARTICULATE WHAT HIS STANDING IS. IF YOU FIND THAT MR. HALTON DOES NOT HAVE STANDING, YOU WOULD NEED TO ARTICULATE THE BASIS FOR WHICH YOU FIND THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE STANDING. AND WOULD IT BE A GOOD TIME TO MENTION AGAIN, THE THREE CHARACTERISTICS THAT TEND TO OFFER STANDING ION? YOU ALL WILL NEED TO DECIDE WHICH RULES YOU THINK APPLY TO STANDING BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN, WELL, THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE MADE, BEEN MADE TONIGHT. THERE'S A STATUTE ON THE SCREEN. YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THE CASES. THE GENERAL ARC OF THESE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT IS THERE HAS TO BE SOME INDIVIDUALIZED DAMAGE TO THAT PERSON THAT'S BRINGING THE APPEAL. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, IF WE, IF WE ALL AGREE THAT THE RULES REQUIRE THAT A PERSON EITHER HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST OR SOME TYPE OF DAMAGE, THEN THOSE ARE OUR RULES. IF WE AGREE ON THE RULES, THEN WE APPLY OUR FACTS TO THE RULES. ARE YOU SATISFIED TONIGHT THAT MR. HALTON HAS DEMONSTRATED HE HAS SOME TYPE OF PROPERTY INTEREST THAT IS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL? IF NOT, THEN WE GO ONTO THE NEXT CRITERIA. ARE WE SATISFIED THAT MR. HALTON HAS DEMONSTRATED TONIGHT, OR IN THE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU'VE HAD [01:35:01] TO REVIEW, THAT HE HAS SOME TYPE OF SPECIAL DAMAGE THAT WOULD TRIGGER STANDING? IS HE, UM, REPRESENTING A CLASS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE RECOGNIZED UNDER THE STATUTE OR IN THE CASES THAT WOULD HAVE STANDING? YOU WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT ANALYSIS AND THAT MAY LEAD YOU TO YOUR ULTIMATE CONCLUSION. SO JAMIE, ARE YOU ASKING US TO MAKE, I CAN MAKE A, A MOTION FOR 1, 2, 3, AND FOUR, OR DO I HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE? YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE. IF YOU FIND THAT MR. HALTON HAS STANDING BECAUSE OF X, THEN THAT IS, THAT COULD BE YOUR MOTION. IF YOU FIND THAT MR. HALTON DOES NOT HAVE STANDING BECAUSE OF X, THEN THAT WOULD BE YOUR MOTION. SURE. I MEAN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, WE CAN, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT MR. HOLMAN DOES NOT HAVE STANDING BASED ON NUMBER ONE, WHICH STATES, UH, ANY PERSON POSSESSING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS OWNERSHIP INTEREST BE AN OPTION OR CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY OR SEE AN APPELLATE BEFORE THE DECISION MAKING BOARD WHOSE DECISION IS BEING APPEALED. I FIND THAT I MOVE THAT, THOSE CRITERIA. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND IT'S, UM, IN REFERENCE TO THE GS ONE 60 D DASH 1402 C, UM, IN REFERENCE TO THE STANDING UNDER NUMBER ONE, DID ANY PERSON POSSESSING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY DON'T IN REFERENCE TO, TO SECTION ONE? YES. SO DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR A SECOND? GIMME A SECOND. SECOND. SO WE HAVE A, A MOTION AND A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? IS IT TIME TO TAKE A VOTE? SHOULD WE DO A ROLL CALL? I, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, WELL, I, I THINK WE'RE PAST THE DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW. IT'S RELATED TO THE ACT TO THESE ELEMENTS AFTER MET THE DETERMIN STANDARD. SO I, I THINK WE'RE PAST THE DISCUSSION. I THINK WE, WE ONLY, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. THIS MAY BE ONE OF MANY MOTIONS THAT YOU ENTERTAIN TONIGHT. OKAY? WE, SO WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND, UM, TO CALL. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. CAN I MAKE A MOTION WITH A MOTION ALREADY ON THE FLOOR OR NO? NO. WE GOT ONE MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. SO WE NEED TO, TO DEAL WITH THE MOTION THAT'S PENDING. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? WE DO. WE DO. OKAY. DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE? OKAY. NO. DO YOU WANT A VOICE VOTE? WOULD YOU LIKE A ROLL CALL? MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT WOULD Y'ALL'S PREFERENCE BE? ROLL CALL. ROLL CALL. FINALLY? YEP. YES, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN. SO BOARD MEMBER SANDRA PERRY. UH, SECOND. WHAT'S THAT? I'M SORRY, I MISSED. ASK MA'AM. DO I I DO I AGREE WITH IT. DO YOU AGREE WITH YES, I AGREE WITH THE MOTION. OKAY. VICE CHAIRMAN ERIC THOMPSON? NO. BOARD MEMBER? KATHLEEN MARTY. AYE. CHAIRMAN THAT AYE. AND, UH, BOARD MEMBER LESLIE ALLEN. I DISAGREE. OKAY. BOARD MEMBER ASHLEY HOWELL. I DISAGREE. OKAY. AND BOARD MEMBER BARBARA SAMSON? UH, I DISAGREE. OKAY. MOTION FAILS. SO THE MOTION FAILED? YES, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN. SO ERIC, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FIND THAT, UM, MR. ALTON DOES NOT HAVE STANDING BASED ON GOVERNMENT STATUTE ONE 60 D DASH 1402 C, UM, FINDING THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO FIND STANDING WITHIN CRITERIA SUBSECTION C ONE, A, B, AND C. WE WERE UNABLE TO FIND THE, UM, SUB CRITERIA. TWO, EITHER, UM, THAT ANY OTHER PERSON WHO WILL SUFFER SPECIAL DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION IS BEING APPEALED. UH, THREE, THAT HE'S NOT AN INCORPORATED OR UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION. AND FOUR, HE IS NOT A, UH, LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHOSE DECISION MAKING BOARD HAS MADE A DECISION THAT THE GOVERNING BOARD BELIEVES IM PROPERLY GRANTS A VARIANCE. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A, A MOTION AND, AND IT BASICALLY NOW BECOMES ALL OF GS ONE 60 D DASH 1402 C IN REFERENCE TO STANDING SECOND. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION WITH ANOTHER ROLL CALL? YES SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN AND, UH, BOARD MEMBER SANDRA GRAY? I AGREE. OKAY. VICE CHAIRMAN HERE AT THOMPSON? YES. BOARD MEMBER? KATHLEEN MARTY. AYE. CHAIRMAN TIM BECK. AYE. BOARD MEMBER LESLIE ALLEN. I AGREE. BOARD MEMBER ASHLEY HOWELL? [01:40:01] I AGREE. AND BOARD MEMBER BARBARA SAMPSON. I AGREE. YES. MR. CHAIRMAN? IT, MS. UNANIM. SO MOTION CARRIED. SO THE DECISION HAS BEEN THAT WE DON'T HAVE STANDING ON THE APPEAL. DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL, IF THERE'S NO STANDING, THEN IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO GRANT THE COUNTY'S MOTION. SO DO WE HAVE A ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GO THERE IN REFERENCE TO THE APPEAL, UM, MOTION THAT THE COUNTY, UM, FILE. AND SO THIS IS, UH, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, CRAIG COUNTY BEFORE THE CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. UM, IS THERE A NUMBER ON THIS, JAMIE? I THINK IT'S CASE NUMBER B-R-D-A-D-J DASH 3 7 4 20 25. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THAT'S THE SAME NUMBERS WE HAVE FOR THE OKAY, WE'RE GOOD. SO THAT'S OUR DISCUSSION TO, TO MOVE FORWARD. UM, AND IF THERE ISN'T ANY DISCUSSION, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL. I SECOND THAT MOTION SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, IS YOUR MOTION TO GRANT THE COUNTY'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING? THAT IS CORRECT. IS THAT YOUR SECOND MS. ALLEN? YES. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? UH, CAN WE DO ANOTHER ROLL CALL? YES, SIR. BOARD MEMBER SANDRA GRAY. AYE. VICE CHAIRMAN ERIC THOMPSON? YES. BOARD MEMBER? KATHLEEN MARTY. AYE. CHAIRMAN. TIM BECK. AYE. BOARD MEMBER OF LESLIE ALLEN. AYE. BOARD MEMBER ASHLEY HOWE. AYE. AND BOARD MEMBER BARBARA SAMPSON. AYE. AND MR. CHAIRMAN THE MOTION ONCE YOU UNANIM. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO MOTION CARRIES. UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SECOND. SO MOVED. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. MOTION CARRIED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.