[00:00:02]
[I. CALL TO ORDER]
I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23RD, 2025, MEETING OF THE CITY, NEW BRUNS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.AND WE'D LIKE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, LET'S START WITH, UH, BOARD MEMBER SANDRA GRAY.
JUST LET THE RECORD SHOW SHE'S ABSENT.
HERE, CHAIRMAN TIM TEVA HERE, BOARD MEMBER TREY FERGUSON.
AND JUST LET THE RECORD SHOW HE'S ABSENT.
AND AS YOU MAY RECALL, HE WAS RECUSED FROM THE PREVIOUS HEARING.
THE RECORD SHOWS SHE'S ABSENT.
BOARD MEMBER ASHLEY HOWELL HERE AND BOARD MEMBER BARBARA SAMSON HERE.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO HAVE QUORUM.
AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO CALL THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC RELIGIOUS ONE MISSION UNDERGONE IN THE VISIBLE LIBERTY TO JUSTICE.
[IV. CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS]
GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY.UM, WE APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S ATTENDANCE TONIGHT AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
AND SURE, ASK THAT EVERYBODY CHECK THEIR CELL PHONES AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE TURNED OFF.
UM, OR AT LEAST HAVE 'EM ON VIBRATE OR SILENT OR SOMETHING IF Y'ALL HAVE AN EMERGENCY THAT MAY CROP UP.
UM, THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING WHICH PROCEEDS VERY SIMILAR TO A COURT HEARING AND WE SURE WISH THAT YOU RESPECT EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE AND DO NOT ENGAGE IN DISORDERLY CONDUCT OR OUTBURSTS.
IF THIS TAKES PLACE, YOU MAY BE ASKED TO LEAVE OR BE ESCORTED OUT BY AN OFFICER.
I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE ONE PRESENT AND WE ONLY HAVE A COUPLE PEOPLE HERE, SO THAT'S A GOOD THING.
UM, PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF TIME.
UM, WE DO LIMIT FOLKS TO THREE MINUTES.
UM, SINCE WE ARE A LITTLE BIT LIMITED WITH A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE, UM, WE MIGHT TRY TO GIVE Y'ALL A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA TIME.
UM, BUT PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL OF OF THE THREE MINUTES.
UH, I WILL ADVISE Y'ALL, UH, AS WE GO THROUGH, UM, AND CONDUCT THE COMMENTS PERTAINING TO EACH ITEM.
UM, WE WILL CALL THE SPEAKERS UP TO THE PODIUM IN ORDER AS THEY'VE SIGNED UP.
IT'S THE BOARD'S POLICY AFTER THE PRESENTATION IS HEARD FROM STAFF TO ALLOW FOR THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK FIRST AND LAST CITIZENS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THEIR TESTIMONY PERTAINING TO THAT ITEM.
WHILE BOARD CAN ONLY CONSIDER FACTUAL EVIDENCE OR EXPERT OPINION IN THE DECISION, REASONABLE CONDITIONS MAY BE APPLIED BASED ON THE PUBLIC'S TESTIMONY.
I GUESS THIS TIME WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SWEAR IN THE PRESENTERS.
AND I GUESS WE HAVE ONE, THE APPLICANT AND ROBERT.
UM, ARE THOSE OUR ONLY FOLKS THAT ARE GONNA SPEAK? UH, I'LL STAND UP AS WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN.
PLEASE EVERY WITNESS, FOLKS STAND UP AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU ALL SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? I DO.
[V. DECISION(S)]
START OFF THE, THE MEETING, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DECISIONS FROM OUR LAST MEETING THAT WE NEED TO REVIEW.UM, HAVE EVERYBODY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THOSE FOUR DECISIONS.
SO OUR FIRST ONE IS DAY SPRING MINISTRIES OF NEWBURN, SPECIAL USE PERMIT 0 0 3 1 4 7 2 0 2 5.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION DONE? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT, UM, AS WRITTEN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
OKAY, THE SECOND, UM, APPLICATION WAS EPIPHANY SCHOOL OF GLOBAL STUDIES.
UH, THIS IS SPECIAL USE PERMIT 0 0 3 1 4 8 2 0 2 5.
UM, HAS EVERYBODY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW? YES.
AND IS THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE DECISION WAS AT THE LAST MEETING? YES.
[00:05:01]
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.DO WE HAVE A ANY DISCUSSION? AND SECOND.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
OKAY, THIS IS KING LASSO BAR AND CIGAR LOUNGE.
UH, SPECIAL USE PERMIT 0 0 3 1 4 8 2 0 2 5.
HAS EVERYBODY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT? AND IS IT SIMILAR OR OR EQUAL TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED AND APPROVED? YES.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.
AND IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
AND THE FOURTH ITEM IS IN REFERENCE TO THE CHARLES TAYLOR BUILDING RENOVATION, UH, SPECIAL USE PERMIT 0 0 3 1 4 4 2 0 2 5.
UM, HAS EVERYBODY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW? YES.
ANY DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.
[VI. SPECIAL USE APPLICATION(S)]
OUR FOURTH ITEM IS FIREFLY CAFE, UH, SPECIAL USE PERMIT 0 0 3 1 4 3 DASH 2 0 2 5.AND THIS WAS CONTINUED FROM OUR LAST MEETING TO WHERE WE HAD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, UM, SO THAT THE APPLICATION WOULD BE COMPLETE EVENING BOARD.
UH, THIS ITEM IS SPECIAL USE PERMIT 0 0 3 1 4 3 20 25.
UH, IT'S PROPOSED USE IS, UH, 8.300 CARRY OUT.
SERVICE CONSUMPTION OUTSIDE OF A FULLY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE IS ALLOWED NO DRIVE-IN SERVICE, TYPICALLY REFERRED TO AS A RESTAURANT WITH OUTDOOR SEATING.
UH, SO THE APPLICANT IS SEAN AND SARAH ROSS.
UH, PROPERTY OWNERS ARE BURN INVESTMENT GROUP INCORPORATED.
THE LOCATION IS 9 0 1 B P*****K STREET IN NEW BERN.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 0.55 ACRES.
UH, THE PARCEL ID NUMBER IS SHOWN IN THE EXISTING, UH, ZONING DISTRICTS ARE LARGELY COMMERCIAL.
FOUR WITH A SMALL STRIP, UH, OF RESIDENTIAL SIX.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS SLIGHTLY SPLIT ZONED.
THIS AERIAL VIEW SHOWS THE TWO PROPERTIES HATCHED OUT IN RED NEAR THE MAJOR INTERSECTION OF P*****K STREET.
AND, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE FIRST STREET.
UH, THIS MAP SHOWS THE VICINITY A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER IN WHICH ALL APPLICANTS WERE PROVIDED WITH WRITTEN NOTE, OR ALL RESIDENTS THAT WERE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, UH, WERE PROVIDED WITH WRITTEN NOTICE.
AND THIS AERIAL IMAGERY SHOWS EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE.
THE NORTHERN PARCEL IS MOSTLY A PARKING LOT.
UH, AND OFF TO THE LEFT OF THAT IS OUTDOOR SEATING.
UH, THE SOUTHERNMOST PARCEL, UH, IS THE, UH, BUILDING ITSELF.
THIS IS AN EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT OFF TO THE NORTH AND NORTHWEST.
UH, UP TO THE NORTHEAST YOU'LL SEE SOME C FIVE A, ALSO A COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
AND TO THE SOUTH YOU'LL SEE R SIX, UH, WITH SOME RA, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
SOME ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT.
STAFF CONCERN, UH, CONFIRMS THAT THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED WAS DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE.
UH, STAFF CONFIRMS THE REQUEST IS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION AND THAT THE SECOND SITE PLAN WAS ACCEPTED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THIS IS THAT SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
UH, THIS IS, UH, AN EXISTING SITE PLAN OF THAT BUILDING FROM A PREVIOUS APPLICATION.
UH, BUT IT IS ACCURATE TO SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING PARKING AS WELL AS THE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA.
I BELIEVE THAT IS IT FOR THE PRESENTATION.
UH, AND WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES, SIR.
ROBERT, I DO HAVE A QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO, UM, THE APPRAISAL.
AND THE BIG QUESTION IS, I TOTALLY AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE TAX RECORDS, YOU KNOW, SHOW, UM, THAT THE PROPERTY'S GONE UP AT VALUE.
UM, I THINK TYPICALLY GIS INFORMATION IS NOT, YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY AN APPRAISAL FOR A SPECIFIC PROPERTY.
AND I, I GUESS THE BIGGEST QUESTION IS THAT
[00:10:01]
JUST BECAUSE OF ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF NEWBURG HAVE GONE UP AT THE SAME RATE DURING THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME.DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? WE'RE WE, WE'RE USED TO SEEING PICTURES AND WRITTEN WORK? AND I GUESS IT'S PRETTY UNUSUAL TO JUST SEE THE RIGHT, SO THIS IS ACTUALLY NOT GIS INFORMATION FROM THE TAX CARDS.
THE TAX CARDS COME FROM THE COUNTY'S TAX OFFICE, FROM TAX APPRAISERS FROM THE COUNTY.
THE GIS THAT CRAVEN COUNTY HAS SIMPLY LINKS TO THOSE RECORDS.
SO THOSE ARE APPRAISAL TAX CARDS THAT THE COUNTY, UH, THE COUNTY PUTS TOGETHER FOR THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THOSE PROPERTIES.
AND SO I GUESS BACK TO THE SAME QUESTION IS, IS THIS, IF WE LOOKED AT EVERY PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF NEW BERN, WOULD THEY HAVE GONE UP AT THE SAME RATE? YOU WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERING EVERY PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF NEW BERN.
YOU WOULD BE CONSIDERING THE SPECIAL USE CRITERIA OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
AND MR. TABAK, YOU, YOU RAISED AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
UM, FOR ONE, I I, I THINK WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT VALUE IN OUR CONTEXT AS IS DICTATE DICTATED IN OUR LAND USE ORDINANCE AND CONTEMPLATED BY THE STATUTE, THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES AN ASSESSMENT OF A PARTICULAR USE COMPARED TO THE VALUE OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT IMMEDIATELY ABUT OR ADJOIN.
AND I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THIS INFORMATION IS ILLUSTRATIVE TO THAT FACT BECAUSE AS YOU TALKED ABOUT, THE TAX ASSESSOR IS NOT COMPARING THE USE OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL TO THE PARCELS THAT ARE AROUND IT.
THEY'RE ASSESSING VALUE IN A MORE GENERAL SENSE.
ADDITIONALLY, AT THE TOP OF EACH DOCUMENT YOU SEE A DISCLAIMER THAT SAYS CRAVEN COUNTY DOES NOT WARRANT THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PAGE AND SHOULD BE USED ONLY FOR TAX ASSESSMENT PURPOSES, NOT NECESSARILY, UM, TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST USES AND IMPACTS ON ADJOINING VALUES AS YOU ARE DOING TONIGHT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE, THE APPLICANT WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PRODUCTION, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
UM, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO, TO ASK ABOUT TONIGHT.
ALRIGHT, SO STAFF'S POSITION TO BUILD ON TOP OF THAT, THIS METHOD WOULD NOT APPLY TO ALL SITUATIONS, UH, FOR EVERY APPLICATION.
HOWEVER, THE PREVIOUS USE OF TAP THAT WAS LARGELY THE SAME USE AS WHAT IS GOING ON TODAY.
SO THOSE TAX RECORDS DO CONTEMPLATE THE TAX VALUE WITH THAT USE IN PLACE FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS.
SO IS IT, SO I, I THINK THAT WE'RE WE'RE HERE, UM, TO GET A, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
WAS THERE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT DURING THOSE SAME PERIOD OF YEARS THAT THIS DOCUMENT REFERENCES? IT, IT WOULD BE STAFF'S POSITION THAT THE PREVIOUS SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WHETHER IT EXISTS OR NOT, IS IRRELEVANT TO THE TAX VALUE THAT WAS THERE.
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE TAX VALUE WOULD'VE GONE UP MORE GREATLY IF THAT BUSINESS DIDN'T OPERATE THERE? THAT'S NOT THE CRITERIA THAT THE, THIS BOARD HAS TO REVIEW OFF OF.
IT HAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT USE WOULD POTENTIALLY DAMAGE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY VALUES.
BUT AGAIN, MY QUESTION WOULD BE IF THE APPRAISAL, WHICH WAS DONE FOR TAX PER ONLY KNEW THAT THEIR BUSINESS WAS OPERATING WITHOUT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT WAS PARTICULAR TO THIS BUSINESS, WOULD THEY THEN COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT VALUE? THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER? AGAIN, IT, IT'S THIS USE FOR THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT BASED OFF OF THOSE VALUES OR, UH, A VALUE OPINION REPORT FROM A CERTIFIED APPRAISER, WHICH THE GENERAL STATUTE DOESN'T SPECIFY WHETHER OR NOT YOU NEED A SPECIAL USE OR, UH, AN APPRAISER FOR THAT.
IT JUST CONTEMPLATES THAT IT IS THE BURDEN OF THE APPLICANT TO PROVE THAT THE DAMAGE, THE DAMAGES WOULD NOT BE DONE TO THE PROPERTY VALUES OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
AND TO THAT POINT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GLAD MR. GOFF MENTIONED THE STATUTE.
THE STATUTE DOES NOT SAY THAT YOU THOU SHALT HAVE A CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE APPRAISER.
THE STATUTE SAYS THAT LAY TESTIMONY IS INSUFFICIENT TO BE COMPETENT EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF VALUE.
SO IN ORDER TO INTERPRET WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN, WE LOOK AT CASE LAW.
SO THIS MATTER HAS BEEN LITIGATED ACROSS THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ESPECIALLY UNDER ONE 60 D.
AND THERE ARE SOME CASES THAT INSTRUCT US ABOUT HOW WE TO INTERPRET THIS REQUIREMENT.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CASES WHERE A COUNTY TAX ASSESSMENT THAT'S NOT PARTICULAR TO A SPECIFIC USE, UM, HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE TEST THAT THE COURTS IN NORTH CAROLINA HAVE APPLIED IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT EXPERT TESTIMONY, YOU WANT ONE, SOMEBODY WHO HAS CONDUCTED AN EVALUATION THAT SITE SPECIFIC AND YOUTH SPECIFIC.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THOSE FACTS IN OUR RECORD TODAY.
IT MAY BE, YOU KNOW, WITH SOME MORE QUESTIONS, WE CAN DEVELOP THOSE FACTS.
UM, BUT THE COURT, IF THEY WERE TO, TO REVIEW YOUR DECISION TONIGHT, WOULD LOOK AT
[00:15:01]
WHAT METHODOLOGY WAS USED TO ASSESS THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSED USE AS IT RELATES TO THE, THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE AROUND IT, THE USES THAT ARE AROUND IT.AND DOES THAT STAND SCRUTINY MORE OFTEN THAN NOT WHEN WE HAVE SPECULATIONS OR CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS, UM, WHERE THE BOARD KIND OF HAS TO GRASP AT STRAWS TO KIND OF COBBLE TOGETHER AN OPINION.
THOSE THOSE TYPES OF CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT SURVIVE JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.
SO I SAY ALL OF THAT TO SAY THIS INFORMATION RAISES SOME QUESTIONS AND YOU ALL WILL NEED TO UNPACK ON THE RECORD TONIGHT ANY SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT HELP YOU BETTER INTERPRET THE RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU SO THAT YOU CAN BE SATISFIED THAT THEY SPEAK TO THE ELEMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION BY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS, CONCERNS? NONE.
MY QUESTION IS, WAS THERE DIFFICULTY WELL, AND MIGHT BE FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT, AND OBTAINING AN APPRAISAL OR WAS THERE A SPECIFIC REASON THAT THAT WAS NOT DONE? WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS.
WE NEED TO GET YOU THE STATE NAME AND ADDRESS AND SEAN AND SARAH ROSS.
RB PAUL STREET AT PARK FLIGHT CAFE.
WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS WITH THE CITY SINCE JUNE.
UM, WE DID NOT JANUARY, IT WAS JANUARY, EXCUSE ME.
UH, WE DID NOT GET AN APPRAISAL BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTLY TOLD US THAT ROBERT'S TESTIMONY TONIGHT WOULD SUFFICE THAT WE DID NOT NEED TO.
WE WENT IN AND ASKED ABOUT WHY WE NEED TO DO IT BECAUSE IT WAS A PREVIOUS USE AS DISCUSSED IN THE LAST MEETING WITH YOU ALL.
WE HAVE RECORDS SHOWING THIS THAT IT HAS BEEN, WE HAVE FOLKS THAT ARE IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE WILLING TO TESTIFY THAT TAP THAT RAN FOR FIVE YEARS AS A GARDEN SPACE, JUST AS WE ARE.
AND WE'RE QUESTIONING WHY THAT WAS ALLOWED, WHY THE CITY DID GOVERNMENT DID NOT.
SO IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS MOVE FORWARD, THE DIRECTOR OF DEALING SERVICE, ROBERT, WE ALL TALKED ABOUT THIS AND THEY SAID THAT THIS WOULD SUFFICE.
HAD WE KNOWN THAT THOSE WOULD NOT SUFFICE, HAD WE KNOWN THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE LEGAL AS PER YOUR LAWYER HERE, WE WOULD'VE WENT AND DONE IT.
WE HAD OTHER AVENUES TO DO IT, BUT WE WERE TOLD WE WERE FINE.
SO THIS IS AGAIN, THE CITY HAS PUT US AGAINST THE WALL TO WHERE WE'RE MAYBE GONNA BE DENIED AND HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER CONTINUANCE TONIGHT.
AND THIS IS GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION.
WE HAVE SPENT HOURS OF OUR TIME AS A NEW BUSINESS IN THIS COMMUNITY, AND WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE BEING OSTRACIZED FOR THIS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN A USE IN THIS CITY AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT KNOWS IT, INCLUDING THE MAYOR AND MULTIPLE OTHER FOLKS IN THIS TOWN.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS SUCH A HUGE PROBLEM.
WHEN THE CITY HAS TOLD US THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO, WE DO IT.
WE COME HERE, WE SUBMITTED PLANS THAT DIDN'T GET PUT IN, AND NOW THIS, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE STANDING.
SO WE WOULD'VE, BUT WE WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.
ADDITIONALLY, I'D LIKE TO STATE THAT WHEN WE MET WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NUMEROUS TIMES, WE ACTUALLY SHARED OUR FINANCIAL STRESSES AS A BRAND NEW BUSINESS IN NEW BERN AND ACTUALLY REQUESTED AT THIS POINT THAT THE CITY PAY FOR THE APPRAISAL, IF THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT DUE TO THE FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT WE WOULD SHARE IF WE HAD TO TAKE THAT ON, IT IS QUITE EXPENSIVE TO GET A NEW APPRAISAL.
SO WHEN WE MET WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THEY WERE HOPEFUL THAT THIS WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO REALIZE THAT YOU CAN DRIVE RIGHT PAST OUR PLACE.
YOU CAN GO RIGHT IN OUR GARDEN.
THAT'S EVIDENCE ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THIS IS BRINGING LIFE TO THIS COMMUNITY.
THIS IS BRINGING LIFE TO NEW BERN AND SPECIFICALLY TO THE FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY.
WE ARE JUST TRYING TO LIVE OUT A DREAM OF OVER 20 YEARS AND THIS FINE COMMUNITY OF NEW BERN AND BRING SOMETHING WONDERFUL TO FIVE POINTS.
IF ANYONE IS GRASPING HERE, IT'S IT IS US.
I WILL SHARE THAT WITH YOUR, YOUR CITY OF TOYER.
WE ARE GRASPING, WE ARE FIGHTING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP OUR BUSINESS ALIVE.
AND WE ASK YOU TO PLEASE, PLEASE GRANT US THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
WE HAVE A LETTER HERE FROM OUR NEIGHBORS AS WELL THAT GOES INTO WHAT WE BRING INTO THE COMMUNITY AND SUPPORT IN US.
THEY COULDN'T COME TONIGHT BECAUSE THEY ARE RELEVANT BUSINESS OWNERS RIGHT NEXT TO US.
UH, BURN CITY CIGARS AND THE UNBROKEN POTTER ARE DIRECT NEIGHBORS AND FRESHWATER AND THEY'RE SUPPORT WITH US.
FRESH WATER COULDN'T BE HERE AS WELL.
THEY HAVE SUPPORTED US, BUT EVERY ONE OF OUR DIRECT BUSINESS NEIGHBORS FULLY SUPPORTS WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO DO THEY HAVE SPECIAL USE PERMITS TO OPERATE? ALSO? THEY'RE IN DIFFERENT ZONES.
THEY'RE IN DIFFERENT ZONES AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAP THAT IT'S ONLY OUR BUSINESS IN THIS ONE RARE ZONE.
AND JUST A BRIEF MOMENT, MR. ROSS, DID YOU WANT TO SUBMIT THE LETTERS THAT YOU HAVE? YEAH, WE CAN SUBMIT THAT.
LET'S PLEASE SUBMIT THAT LETTER.
LET'S ALSO SUBMIT A LETTER THAT I WROTE TO THE NEWBERG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, UM, IN DEFENSE OF THIS COMPLAINT THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.
THIS IS NOT A COMPLAINT THAT IS BROUGHT FORWARD BY OUR NEIGHBORS.
THIS IS A COMPLAINT THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE CITY FROM ANOTHER BUSINESS ACROSS TOWN BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT
[00:20:01]
GRANTED THEIR SPECIAL USE PERMIT.SO THERE, THERE'S SOME, THERE'S SOME, UH, HAZE THERE HAPPENING FOR Y'ALL.
JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE THIS THIS WAS NOT PRESENTED BY OUR NEIGHBORS.
OUR NEIGHBORS IN FIVE POINTS ARE FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS GARDEN AT THIS SPACE BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN USED FOR, FOR 15 YEARS.
TAP THAT AND THE CITY LAUNDRY BEFORE US HAVE BEEN USING THIS.
IT IS DUE TO CITY OVERSIGHT THAT THERE WAS NOT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT GRANTED PREVIOUSLY.
AND WE ARE JUST HAVING TO SHARE THE, THE LOAD OF THIS, EVEN THOUGH WE WERE TOLD BY THE CITY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THAT OUR, OUR USE AND OUR BUSINESS PLAN WAS FINE WHEN WE OPENED IN MARCH OF 2025.
I'LL, AS I'M TRYING TO READ THROUGH, I'LL ALSO TRY TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS.
I I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY HERE ON THE BOARD OR EVEN IN THE, THE, THE ROOM THAT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES THAT Y'ALL ARE UP AGAINST.
I THINK THAT THE ISSUE THOUGH BECOMES SETTING A PRECEDENCE.
IF, IF, IF WE CHOOSE AS A GROUP TO DO SOMETHING THAT AFFORDS SOMEBODY ELSE TO NOW ALWAYS USE THE GIS INFORMATION, UM, WHEN IT'S, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT WORD IS, A GREATER CHALLENGE, UM, THAT'S OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE HAVE TYPICALLY DONE, UM, THAT'S GONNA CHANGE LEGALITIES.
AND SO SAY, UM, THE FOLKS HERE THAT HAVE, UM, WRITTEN A LETTER AND I HAVEN'T GOT TO THE BOTTOM YET TO, UM, SAYS THANK YOU FOR THE CONSIDERATION, BUT BASED ON WHAT JAMIE'S SAYING, THEY COULD POTENTIALLY FILE A SUIT AGAINST BOTH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE CITY AND YOU ALL.
IF WE GRANT SOMETHING THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR, OUR RIGHT MR. BECK, AT THIS POINT, WE'RE READY TO FILE A SUIT BECAUSE OF THE HARASSMENT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED SINCE JANUARY, 2025 FROM THE CITY OF NEWBURN.
THAT'S ALSO A PRECEDENCE THAT YOU'RE SETTING IF YOU DO NOT GRANT THE APPROVAL FOR A BUSINESS THAT WAS TOLD BY THE CITY OF NEW BERN MULTIPLE TIMES.
AND I HAVE PROVEN EMAILS AND EVIDENCE OF THAT, THAT OUR PERMIT, CAN YOU BRING THOSE UP TO ME? ABSOLUTELY.
OUR PERMIT WAS GRANTED EVERY TIME WE DISCUSSED CODING PERMITTING, EVERY TIME WE CAME FORWARD FOR ZONING, EVERY TIME SOMEONE VISITED OUR ESTABLISHMENT PRIOR TO OPENING, WE SHARED OUR BUSINESS PLAN.
AND ALL ALONG THE WAY IT WAS SHARED THAT WE WOULD USE OUTDOOR DINING AND BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION.
AND EACH TIME THE CITY CAME BACK TO US AND TOLD US THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO FILE AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN USED FOR THIS EXACT USE FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS.
CAN YOU BRING THOSE DOCUMENTS FORWARD SO WE CAN REVIEW THOSE AND THAT THAT'S BEEN SHARED ACTUALLY WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NUMEROUS TIMES.
AND MR. BECK, LET'S, LET'S JUST MAKE SURE THAT OUR RECORD IS CLEAR HERE.
SO THE WITNESS THAT'S CURRENTLY TESTIFYING HAS OFFERED TESTIMONY ABOUT PREVIOUS APPROVALS FOR THIS BUSINESS, FOR THIS USE IN THE CITY OF NEW BERN UNDER THEIR OWNERSHIP.
AS YOU MAY RECALL FROM THE LAST HEARING, I I THINK THERE WAS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD ABOUT THAT PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATION, WHICH WAS NOT A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION AS YOU MIGHT RECALL.
AND MR. MR. STANTON, I'M GONNA ASK YOU A QUESTION JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR.
WHEN THIS BUSINESS FIRST SUBMITTED FOR ZONING APPROVAL, DID THEY INCLUDE OUTDOOR DINING ON THEIR PERMIT APPLICATION OR SITE PLAN? NO OUTDOOR DINING OR, UM, IT WAS NOT PLACED ON EITHER THE SITE PLAN OR THE APPLICATION.
AND I THINK THAT ORIGINAL SITE PLAN HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET TONIGHT.
IT'S A DRAWING THAT HAS SOME COLORS ON IT, UM, SHOWS RESTROOMS, EVENT SPACE, UM, SOME COUNTERTOPS AND WHATNOT.
UM, BUT DID NOT ILLUSTRATE THAT OUTDOOR DINING PIECE.
IS THAT ONE AVAILABLE TO BE PUT UP ON THE SCREEN? DO YOU HAVE THAT TO PUT ON THE SCREEN? KENDRICK? I CAN SEE IF I CAN TRY TO, YEAH, I I KNOW
SO TO CONTINUE, MR. BECK, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON THE RECORD HERE BECAUSE THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.
IF YOU ALL LOOK AT THE SPECIAL USE APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU IN THE PACKET, I WOULD DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE TWO OF THAT APPLICATION.
PAGE TWO OF THAT APPLICATION HAS FOUR QUESTIONS.
YOU'LL SEE QUESTION NUMBER TWO, WHICH SAYS, WILL THE PROPOSED USE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE VALUE OF ADJOINING OR ABUTTING PROPERTY? AND IS THE USE A PUBLIC NECESSITY? AFTER THAT QUESTION, YOU WILL SEE BOLD FACE TYPE PRINT, WHICH SAYS DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING THIS FINDING MUST BE PROVIDED IN THE FORM OF A REPORT
[00:25:01]
OR TESTIMONY FROM A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL.WHAT THAT SAYS ON THE APPLICATION, IF YOU LOOK FURTHER DOWN THE APPLICATION, YOU WILL SEE A SIGNATURE SPACE.
SO JUST WANT THAT TO BE CLARIFIED IN THE RECORD.
THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU NOW IS, AS YOU'RE RECEIVING THESE LETTERS FROM THESE NEIGHBORS, WHAT ELEMENT DOES THAT TEND TO GO TO? YOU KNOW, THAT YOU CAN'T USE LAY TESTIMONY TO ESTABLISH VALUE, BUT THOSE LETTERS MAY BE PROBATIVE ON OTHER ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO VALUE.
WE'VE GOT SOME NEW FACTS IN OUR RECORD.
WE HAVE SOME FACTS THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS WITH OUTDOOR DINING SPACE.
AND I THINK THE POSITION OF STAFF AND OF THE APPLICANT IS THAT THAT FACT PLUS THE TAX ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED SHOULD CAUSE YOU TO DRAW A CERTAIN CONCLUSION.
THE QUESTION FOR YOU ALL TONIGHT IS TO DETERMINE IS THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FROM THE TAX ASSESSOR'S RECORDS IS THAT COMPETENT MATERIAL, SUBSTANTIAL RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT YOU CAN RELY UPON IN MAKING A DECISION TODAY? THAT'S THE QUESTION FOR YOU ALL.
YOU MAY FIND THAT THAT IS SUFFICIENT FOR YOUR PURPOSES, GIVEN THE CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION YOU'VE RECEIVED FROM THE APPLICANT, YOU MAY ALSO DRAW A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL NEED TO DISCUSS.
AND AND ALSO, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I WAS GONNA SAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M NOT ABLE TO FIND THE ACTUAL APPLICATION READILY RIGHT NOW JUST BECAUSE IT WOULD DISABLE ALL THE COMPONENTS FOR THE POWERPOINT.
UM, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE A RECESS FOR, I WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO GATHER THAT IN THE MIDST OF THAT AND, AND WE MAY NEED TO DO THAT.
BUT YOU KNOW, AND, AND I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME BECAUSE I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION TOO, UM, OR A COMMENT ANYWAY, YOU KNOW, I HEARD THE STATEMENT THERE JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO ABOUT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SAID THAT THE BOARD WOULD ACCEPT SOMETHING BEING THAT APPRAISAL, YOU KNOW, IF IF WE DID WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAID, WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE OPERATING AS A QUAI JUDICIAL BOARD AND WE WOULD THEN BE DOING WHAT PEOPLE TOLD US TO DO.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR TO US THAT ANYBODY WOULD SAY THAT UN UNDERSTOOD, BUT THEY'RE THE HIRED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY WHO ARE THE CONSIDERED EXPERTS IN THE MATTER.
THEY, THEY'RE OUR ONLY, THEY'RE OUR ONLY RESOURCE.
AND, AND SO, AND IN THE SAME SENSE FROM MY PREDICAMENT, YOU KNOW, BEING I'M RETIRED NOW, BUT AS SPENT A LOT OF YEARS IN, IN THE BUSINESS, WE'LL SAY IN REAL ESTATE, UM, TIMBERLAND SPECIFICALLY, UM, AND ASSESSMENTS ARE TOTAL ARE, ARE, ARE VERY SUSPECT WE'LL SAY WHEN IT COMES TO SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.
SO IT, UM, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'D BE ABLE TO LOAN, BE A PERSON COULD BORROW MONEY WITH AN ASSESSMENT.
UM, AND THE APPRAISALS FOR THE ASSESSMENTS ARE JUST AGAIN, WHAT'S UP ON TOP TYPICALLY.
AND SO EVEN FROM ME, FROM AN OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE, MAYBE I'M BEING MORE CRITICAL, UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SOMETHING TYPICALLY I'VE EVER SEEN, UM, AS TESTIMONY WE'LL SAY IN A DEALING.
AND, AND SO I'M ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS SO I CAN GRASP MY HEAD AROUND AND AND UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S DIFFERENT FROM OTHER THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT APPRECI.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR DOING YOUR DUE DILIGENCE.
AND, AND I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT IF WE DO SET A PRECEDENCE THAT IT'S GOING TO, IT'S GONNA CAUSE MORE CHALLENGES FOR A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE IN ADDITION TO YOU ALL.
UM, AND IN SOME WAYS IT, IF, IF WE HAD THE APPRAISAL, UH, I I MIGHT DISAGREE THAT IT'S SETTING A PRECEDENT, SIR, YOU'RE ACT THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY UNIQUE CASE.
I DON'T IMAGINE, I WOULD HOPE AT LEAST THAT THE CITY OF NEW BERN HASN'T THAT GRANDFATHERED IT, YOU KNOW, PER SE MULTIPLE BUSINESSES OVER THE COURSE OF 10 TO 15 YEARS WITH A, UH, AN IMAGINARY SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WE'LL CALL IT.
AND THEN, AND THEN ON THE FIFTH BUSINESS IN THE SAME SPACE, THEN FINALLY DECIDE THAT THAT BUSINESS HAS TO HAVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THAT'S WHY THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE CASE.
AND IT APPEARS THAT YOUR, YOUR, YOUR PROPERTY IS IN A VERY UNIQUE LOCATION ALSO.
AND IT IS BEEN TOUGH TO NAVIGATE BECAUSE OF THAT.
TO, TO TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT PERSPECTIVE OF IT.
UM, ROBERT, I GUESS HE, I HAS A COMMENT HE WANTS TO MAKE.
SO I I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO REALLY NARROW THIS DOWN TO WHAT THIS ACTUALLY IS BECAUSE MAYBE IT DOES SET A PRECEDENCE, BUT IT MIGHT BE A MISCONSTRUING OF THE FACTS THAT THIS WOULD APPLY TO EVERYTHING.
THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE THE PREVIOUS USE IS THE CURRENT USE AS WELL.
AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GENERAL STATUTE STATING WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOING TO INJURE THE VALUE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES, IT DOESN'T MAKE A DISTINCTION AS TO WHETHER IT'S MARKET VALUE, TAXABLE VALUE, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
[00:30:01]
ADDITIONALLY, EVERY ONE OF THOSE ADJOINING PROPERTIES HAS TAX VALUES THAT WERE ASSESSED BY AN ASSESSOR AT THE COUNTY WHO BILLED THIS TAXABLE VALUE.IT IS THEIR OPINION AS THOUGH, AS THEMSELVES BEING PROFESSIONALS THAT THIS IS WHAT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY SHOULD TAX THAT PROPERTY HAS.
SO TO NARROW IT DOWN, IT DOESN'T APPLY IN EVERY CASE.
'CAUSE IF SOMETHING ELSE DECIDED TO COME HERE THAT ALSO REQUIRED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, IT'S NOT APPLES TO APPLES.
SO I WOULD PROVIDE THAT LOGIC AS WELL.
MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I JUST WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO, UM, SOME PREVIOUS ITEMS THAT WERE ON YOUR AGENDA.
YOU ALL, UM, APPROVED WRITTEN DECISIONS FOR DAY SPRINGS MINISTRY AND THE EPIPHANY SCHOOL OF GLOBAL STUDIES AND THE DAY SPRINGS SITUATION.
UM, YOUR RECORD THAT YOU JUST ADOPTED REFLECTS THAT THAT WAS AN EXISTING USE OF A CHURCH MM-HMM
THAT WAS GOING TO EXPAND THE EXISTING USE.
AND THEY PRESENTED COMPETENT MATERIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AN EXPERT OPINION BY A REAL ESTATE EXPERT ON THE ISSUE OF VALUE.
ADDITIONALLY, I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU ALL THAT'S IN YOUR RECORD, UM, ABOUT THE EPIPHANY SCHOOL AS WELL WAS AN EXISTING USE AND YOU ALL IN ASSESSING THAT EXISTING SCHOOL USE, UM, AND ADDING THE SNACK BAR.
SO SAME PRO, SAME PROPERTY, SAME PARCEL, DOING SOMETHING OUTSIDE THAT WAS SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
ACCORDING TO THE RECORD THAT YOU ALL ADOPTED AND APPROVED, YOU ALL REQUIRED THE EPIPHANY SCHOOL OF GLOBAL STUDIES TO GO THROUGH THE SPECIAL USE PROCESS AND PROVIDE EXPERT OPINION, UM, ON THE ISSUE OF VALUE.
AND THAT SCHOOL, THAT ENTITY, THAT APPLICANT PROVIDED EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE WRITTEN DECISION THAT YOU ALL ADOPTED TONIGHT.
JUST HOW DID IT COME THAT THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER WOULD PRESENT A CASE TONIGHT FOR FIREFLY CAFE? THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER? I'M SORRY.
CAN YOU TELL ME YOUR POSITION? UH, YEAH.
SO, UH, ORIGINALLY THIS WAS PRESENTED AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING BY, BY JESSICA RUE, CORRECT? OR WAS IT YOU? NO, IT WAS ME.
SO, UH, IS SHE NOT BEING HERE? I STOOD IN PLACE.
KENDRICK ASKED ME IF I WANTED TO PRESENT OR IF HE WANTED TO PRESENT AND ASK OR IF I WANTED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, I, I JUST TOLD HIM THAT I WOULD PRESENT.
AND, AND I WAS GOING TO BE THE ONE TO SPEAK ABOUT ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TAX RECORDS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AND COULD YOU STATE YOUR POSITION JUST SO WE HAVE THAT ON THE RECORD ALSO? SO IT'S MY POSITION AND I THINK I CAN DRAW A REASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE, THE TAX ASSESSOR'S OFFICE EMPLOYS PROFESSIONALS TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WHAT THE TAX VALUE IS OF THAT PROPERTY.
AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXAMPLES OF DECISIONS YOU JUST PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, ADDING THE SNACK BAR IS NOT APPLES TO APPLES BECAUSE THAT'S AN EXPANSION AS WELL AS THE OTHER SCHOOL OR, UH, OR THE OTHER CHURCH MAY BE ALSO CONSIDERED AN EXPANSION, EXPANDING THEIR DAYCARE.
THIS IS IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT OF SOMETHING THAT'S PREVIOUSLY BEEN USED FOR THE SAME USE.
YEAH, I I WAS LOOKING AT THE LETTER ALSO JUST TO, FOR THE RECORD, YOU'RE THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, CORRECT? YEAH.
SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT ON THE RECORD ALSO.
SO NEXT QUESTION, IS THERE A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN REFERENCE TO ZONING AND USE, UM, SINCE WE'RE CONTINUING TO DISCUSS PREVIOUS USE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED THERE IS, WHAT WOULD THAT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BE? SO WHEN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS ON NOTICE NO, OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT A ZONING VIOLATION, THEY HAVE SET, THEY HAVE FIVE YEARS TO BRING A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AGAINST THE PROPERTY.
SO WHERE DO WE ALL STAND WITH THAT SITUATION? I THINK IN, IN AN EFFORT TO BE COOPERATIVE, AND TH THIS ISN'T TESTIMONY, IT'S JUST OFFERING SOME, SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT THAT I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AT PREVIOUS HEARINGS IN ORDER TO BE COOPERATIVE WITH THE BUSINESS OWNERS, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. STANTON, UM, THE CITY OF NEW BERN GAVE THE PRO THE BUSINESS OWNERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN LIEU OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION OR A STOP WORK ORDER.
AND SINCE THAT APPLICATION PROCESS HAS BEEN IN PLACE, NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION HAS BEEN LEVIED BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
[00:35:01]
THAT'S CORRECT.ON THIS, UH, WE WERE NEVER GIVEN A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
KENDRICK STANTON CAME TO OUR PLACE OF BUSINESS DURING ONE OF OUR WINE DINNERS KNOCKING ON THE DOOR.
AND HE SAID, I WAS TOLD TO COME DOWN HERE AND TELL YOU YOU CANNOT USE YOUR GARDEN ANYMORE.
SO THERE WAS NEVER A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
THERE WAS A STOP, AN IMMEDIATE STOP OF BUSINESS.
WE WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN THIS FIRST STARTED.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S FRUSTRATIONS HERE.
THERE WAS NEVER A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
WE WERE NEVER TOLD THAT WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY UNTIL HE CAME TO MY DOOR AND STARTED KNOCKING ON IT AND SAYING, YOU NEED TO SHUT DOWN YOUR GUARD BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A COMPLAINT.
SO THE, THE BUSINESS ITSELF, INDOOR BUSINESS, I'M ASSUMING WHEN I SAY IN INDOOR, IS STILL OPERATING.
THE OUTDOOR PART IS THE CHALLENGE, BUT SINCE WE PUT IN THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WE'RE STILL ALLOWED TO USE THE OUTDOOR.
AND SO Y'ALL ARE CONTINUING TO USE THE OUTDOOR CURB HAS, WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SINCE WE HAVE THE PERMIT AND WE'RE STILL ALLOWED TO USE IT.
SO, AND THE CITY MANAGERS, WELL, FOSTER HUGHES HAS COME DOWN AND TOLD US THAT TOO, BECAUSE I WENT TO HIM SINCE WE DID NOT GET A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
AND WE GOTTA STOP BECAUSE THAT, THAT'S NOT PROPER GOVERNMENT.
YOU NEED A VIOLATION BEFORE YOU GET STOPPED.
YOU CAN'T SHUT DOWN A BUSINESS WITHOUT BEING GIVEN A VIOLATION FIRST.
WHAT WAS THE DATE THAT YOU RECEIVED THAT STOP? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WAS? JUNE 22ND.
AND JUST FOR THE BOARD'S CLARIFICATION, UM, WHEN I WAS DIRECTED TO GO AND TRY TO, OR MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO SPEAK WITH THE ROSSES IN REGARDS TO ACTUALLY, UM, CEASING THEIR OUTDOOR PORTION USE, THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WAS THE DIRECTION WAS JUST TO STOP THE OUTSIDE PORTION UNTIL WE COULD TRY TO FIGURE OUT A MEANS TO WORK FORWARD, WHICH IS THROUGH OBTAINING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
NOW, THERE'S CERTAIN CONVERSATIONS THAT I WAS NOT PRIVY TO, SO I'M NOT CERTAIN AS TO HOW ALL OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS MAY HAVE, UH, TRANSCENDED AFTER THE FACT OF MY INITIAL, UM, GOING PHYSICALLY TO THE SITE TO TRY TO SPEAK WITH EITHER MR OR MRS. ROSS.
SO MS. MARTY, MY APOLOGY, IT WAS JUNE 18TH AND THERE WAS NEVER ANY COMMUNICATION TO US THAT WE WERE IN VIOLATION AT ALL UNTIL KENDRICK CAME AND HAD THE STOP WORK ORDER.
THERE WAS NOT A COMMUNICATION OF A COMMUNICATION NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
IT WAS A MORE SO A DIRECTIVE VERBALLY UNTIL WE TRY TO WORK OUT WHO WAS THAT DIRECTED BY.
MAY I ASK WHEN THAT COMPLAINT CAME IN AGAINST YOU? I WAS NEVER GIVEN THE COMPLAINT.
I WAS NEVER TOLD ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL AFTER HE GAVE US, KEN, DO YOU SHUT IT DOWN? I CAN'T RECALL IMMEDIATELY OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD'S NO DATE.
YEAH, THERE'S NO DATA WHEN IT WAS SENT.
IT JUST TALKS ABOUT SINCE JANUARY, JUST 2025.
CURIOUS WHETHER THE COMPLAINT CAME IN BEFORE OR AFTER, UM, YOUR STOP ORDER? IT WAS BEFORE, ESSENTIALLY.
SO THAT PROMPTED THE STOP ORDER.
UH, IT, IT WASN'T A STOP ORDER.
IT WAS MORE OF A LESS, A VERBAL, UM, POINT.
AND, AND UNTIL WE COULD TRY TO WORK THINGS OUT GOING FORWARD TO OBTAIN THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ACTUALLY LEGITIMATE THE OUTSIDE USE.
SO, SO MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, UM, SO TECHNICALLY Y'ALL ARE STILL OPERATING EVEN THE OUTDOOR SPACE.
AND SO THERE HASN'T BEEN A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OR FRUSTRATION OTHER THAN TRYING TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
HAVE YOU ALL ALL ASKED AN APPRAISER WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TO DO THE APPRAISAL? WE STOPPED THAT BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD BY MS THAT WE WERE NOT REQUIRED TO DO THAT BECAUSE SHE HAD EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM MR. ROBERT GOFF HERE THAT WOULDN'T SATISFY.
SO WE DID NOT PURSUE FURTHER AFTER OUR MEETING.
AND FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION THAT INFORMATION, UH, THAT WE WOULD BE THE EXPERT TESTIMONY OR THAT TAX RECORDS WOULD BE EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT YOU WOULD BE OKAY WITH.
THAT'S ALSO KIND OF A MISCHARACTERIZATION BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THE ONES THAT HERE TO MAKE THIS DECISION.
UH, IT WAS OUR POSITION THAT THIS MAY SUFFICE AND IT'S A LOGICAL SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM.
UH, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS STILL YOUR DECISION.
STAFF DOES SEE THAT THE TAX OFFICE DOES EMPLOY PROFESSIONALS, AND THIS DOES OBVIOUSLY SPEAK TO TAX VALUE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES.
AS YOU'LL RECALL, ROBERT, DURING OUR MEETING, WE STATED THAT IF YOU WERE UNABLE TO GATHER THE INFORMATION NEEDED, THAT WE AS THE BUSINESS OWNERS OF FIREFLY CAFE WERE REQUESTING THE CITY OF NEW BERN.
IF AN APPRAISAL WAS IN FACT NEEDED, IN YOUR OPINION, THAT WE WERE REQUESTING THAT THE CITY OF NEW BERN PAY FOR THAT AT THIS POINT, IT WOULD BE AN EXTREME BURDEN TO ACTUALLY TAKE ON ANY EXPENSE.
WE ARE LITERALLY GOING FROM PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK.
SO, SO THAT DISCUSSION DID HAPPEN, UH, AND IN AN EFFORT TO MINIMIZE THAT IMPACT SURE.
WE, WE DID GATHER THE INFORMATION FROM THE TAX OFFICE.
HOWEVER, THE CITY DID NOT PAY FOR AN APPRAISAL REPORT BECAUSE THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE
[00:40:01]
A FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO A PARTICULAR PARTY.UH, THE THESE TAX RECORDS ARE COMPLETELY FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
GOOD GUESS SO I JUST WANNA READ, UH, NOT READ ALL THAT, BUT FROM SEPTEMBER 18TH, THIS WAS FROM JESSICA RUTH, THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICE.
I KNOW SHE SAID SEAN AND SARAH ROSS HAVE APPLIED FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THEIR ESTABLISHMENT, ESTABLISHMENT, THE FIRELY CAFE.
AND AT THE AUGUST 21ST, 2025 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE APPLICANTS WERE INFORMED A FORM THEY NEEDED AND AN APPRAISED REPORT TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT THAT STATES THE USE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE VALUE OF ADJOINING OR ABUT PROPERTY OF THE USES OF PUBLIC NECESSITY.
BUT THEN IT SAID, IT IS THE POSITION, THE POSITION OF DEVELOPING SERVICE STAFF THAT THE REQUIREMENT CAN BE SATISFIED WITH AN ALTERNATE FORM OF EVIDENCE.
AND THEN THEY WAS TALKING ABOUT PAYMENT COUNTER TAX RECORDS, YOU KNOW, THE APPRAISED VALUE FOR ANY PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
AND THEN AT THE END IT SAYS, STAFF CONCLUDES THAT THE TAX RECORDS OF ADJUSTMENT PROPERTIES CAN BE CONSIDERED COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
AND THAT FIVE FLIGHT CAFES PROPOSED PLAN WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY IF LOCATED WE PROPOSED AND DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO THE PLAN SUBMITTED.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT JUST RULED THAT THEY WERE SAYING THAT IT'S STILL AN APPRAISED REPORT, THAT THEY DID A TAX EVALUATION AND THAT, CORRECT? YES.
THE POSITION OF STAFF IS THAT THAT COULD BE, IN OUR OPINION, CONSIDERED, UH, EXPERT OPINION OR EXPERT TESTIMONY.
BUT KEN IS STILL THE OPERATIVE WORD BECAUSE IT IS ULTIMATELY UP TO THE BOARD TO MAKE THAT DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THAT.
BUT CAN WE CLARIFY, JAMIE, YOU SAID THAT THE STATUTE SAYS THAT, UM, IT DOESN'T INDICATE THAT AN APPRAISAL IS REQUIRED LIKE AS FAR AS LIKE BY SOMEONE PROFESSIONALLY LABELED AN APPRAISAL.
JUST, UM, THAT THE VALUE IS NOTED.
UM, IS THAT HOW THE STATUTE READS? AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? SO, SO THE STATUTE THAT I'M REFERENCING IS ONE 60 D, 1402.
AND THAT STATUTE AMONG MANY THINGS DEFINES COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE IS NOT DEEMED TO BE SUFFICIENT.
I'LL SAY THAT A DIFFERENT WAY.
OPINION TESTIMONY OF LAY WITNESSES IS NOT APPROPRIATE, IS NOT COMPETENT EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE USE OF PROPERTY IN A PARTICULAR WAY AFFECTS THE VALUE OF OTHER PROPERTY.
AND THE INQUIRY THAT YOU ALL ARE HAVING TONIGHT IN ONE OF YOUR CRITERIA IS ABOUT HOW THIS PROPOSED USE IS GOING TO AFFECT THE VALUE OF ABUTTING OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES, IS ABOUT HOW THIS PARTICULAR USE IS GOING TO AFFECT OTHER PROPERTIES IN A PARTICULAR WAY.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF THE TAX RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU TONIGHT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I ALSO DON'T KNOW, BASED ON THE WARRANTIES THAT ARE INCLUDED ON THE TAX RECORDS THEMSELVES, IF YOU CAN EVEN RELY UPON THEM BECAUSE THERE'S A DISCLAIMER SAYING IT MIGHT NOT BE RIGHT.
SO TO TO CIRCLE BACK TO YOUR QUESTION, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT EXPERT OPINION, WE HAVE TO HAVE RELIABLE METHODS FROM CREDENTIALED INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC USE AND THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT, NOT VALUES.
GENERALLY, IF YOU ALL MAKE THE DECISION TONIGHT THAT THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU IN THIS PACKET WITH THE TAX RECORDS IS COMPETENT MATERIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO VERBALIZE IN WHAT WAY IT IS COMPETENT.
OKAY? AND YOU MAY BE ABLE TO DO THAT TONIGHT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED.
UM, BUT THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO STRUGGLE IN YOUR DEBATE THIS EVENING.
UH, ANOTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, SINCE Y'ALL HAVE CONTINUED TO OPERATE IT, IT SURE APPEARS THAT THE CITY IS DOING ITS BEST TO KEEP EVERYBODY WORKING TO WHERE WE CAN GET THROUGH THE PROCESS AND DO IT PROPERLY.
UM, AND WE HAVE CONTINUED THE MEETING ONE TIME.
AND MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, HAS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY EVER CONSIDERED HELPING WITH THE APPRAISAL SINCE THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY IF THERE IS A VALID PERMIT? THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, YOU GUYS ACTUALLY JUST WALKED IN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK WITH HER.
UH, WE HAVE, WE ARE WORK IN A VERY COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT TOGETHER.
AND, UH, IT, AGAIN, IT HAS BEEN SHARED BY EXPERT
[00:45:01]
OPINION FROM JESSICA RU, THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THAT THE APPRAISAL MAY NOT BE NECESSARY.SO AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE DID NOT PROCEED WITH THE APPRAISAL.
WE'VE ALSO CON RECEIVED CONFLICTING INFORMATION MULTIPLE TIMES IN EACH VISIT THAT WE'VE HAD PRESENTING THIS INFORMATION.
THAT HAS CHANGED A COUPLE OF TIMES, SO YOU CAN SEE WHY WE'RE MAKING OUR BEST EFFORT TO GET THIS DONE.
BUT WE'RE ALSO A LITTLE CONFUSED ON WHAT IS REQUIRED OF US AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE IT HAS CHANGED SO MANY TIMES, AND EVEN MS. BULLOCK'S OPINION HAS CHANGED NUMEROUS TIMES.
SO PLEASE MAKE SURE TO INCLUDE AND, AND CONSIDER FACTS AGAIN, NOT JUST MS. BULLOCK'S OPINION ON THIS MATTER.
I KNOW THAT SHE'S AN EXPERT WITNESS, BUT SHE DID SAY A COUPLE OF TIMES, IN MY OPINION, THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE.
WE WANNA CONSIDER EVIDENCE AND FACTS HERE, NOT OPINION.
SO THAT, THAT I'M SHARING WITH YOU EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO US OVER THE LAST, UH, NINE MONTHS IN TRYING TO MOVE THIS BUSINESS FORWARD.
UH, WE'VE JUST RECEIVING CONFLICTING INFORMATION FROM THE CITY, AND MR. TAPAK, THE WITNESS RAISES A PERFECT STATEMENT.
I AM NOT TESTIFYING, I'M NOT SWORN IN AS A WITNESS.
MY JOB IS TO OFFER YOU LEGAL OPINIONS BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS TONIGHT.
AND YOU CAN RELY ON LEGAL ADVICE, YOU CAN DO THAT.
UM, IF YOU'RE INCLINED TO HEAR FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER, I DO NOT BELIEVE SHE WAS SWORN IN, SO YOU'LL NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO SWEAR HER SO THAT SHE CAN OFFER ANY TESTIMONY.
SO, SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY, SO I'M GONNA BRING, I'M GONNA BRING A SIGN UP SHEET.
WE'LL GET YOU TO SIGN UP THE SHEET FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL SWEAR YOU BACK.
I'M SORRY, I, I'VE BEEN, UM, I'M AN OLD LADY, SO I HAD A HIP REPLACEMENT AND I'M LIKE NOT WALKING VERY WELL, BUT I WILL TRY TO OKAY.
GET MY SWEARING SHEET UP HERE.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION TO THROUGH THE, JUST IN GENERAL BETWEEN US? GO AHEAD.
SPEAKING THE MIC, SPEAKING TO THE MIC.
DO YOU RECEIVE A LETTER REPORT PERTAINING TO, DID YOU RECEIVE A LETTER? DID I RECEIVE? YES, SURE.
SO, OKAY, PROBLEM, RIGHT? YEP.
IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET IT LIST THE ITEM.
REMAIN BELOW IF YOU, IF YOU HAD ANSWERED YES, PLEASE LIST THE ITEM.
FIRE TO ME, THIS IS EXPERTS AND, AND I THINK Y'ALL NEED TO PROBABLY ADDRESS THOSE COMMENTS SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN HEAR, YOU KNOW, SO IT GOES ON THE RECORD.
I, I WANNA SAY ON THE RECORD THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AS FAR AS VALUE BY THE TEXT RECORD, UM, AND BY THE, UH, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF NEW BERN DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVIDING THAT THE SPECIAL USE OF FIREFLY WOULD NOT IMPEDE THE VALUE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
I TOO WOULD LIKE TO BE ON THE RECORD THAT THE TAX INFORMATION PRESENTED BY CRAVEN COUNTY TO ME, IN MY OPINION, UM, SATISFIES, AND THAT I DON'T FEEL THAT AN APPRAISAL WOULD BE NECESSARY BECAUSE THIS INFORMATION, I THINK IS VERY VALUABLE.
AND, AND THAT'S FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE.
DO YOU THINK THIS IS JUST FOR THIS SPECIAL USE YEAH.
PERMIT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, IS THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE FIREFLY.
WE'RE NOT USING IT FOR ANYBODY ELSE.
IT'S STRICTLY, STRICTLY FOR THIS, UH, REQUEST.
CAN MS. JAMIE, IF WE IDENTIFY THE TAX RECORDS AS EVIDENCE THAT SUFFICE TONIGHT, DO WE FACE POSSIBLY HAVING FUTURE APPLICANT'S REQUEST THAT WE ALSO CERTIFY THEIR TAX RECORDS? THAT IS A, A VERY INTERESTING POINT.
I DO NOT HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL, UM, SO I CANNOT SPECULATE.
BUT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, A PUBLIC MEETING THAT'S GOING TO BE RECORDED AND PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
UM, SO I'M, I'M SURE THAT ANY OTHER APPLICANT FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN DOING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE MAY REVIEW THIS MEETING AND SEE THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN TONIGHT AND AT AT LEAST MAKE THE ATTEMPT.
NOW, WHETHER IT'S SUFFICIENT, I, I CAN'T SAY THAT IT WOULD BE, UM, BUT IF YOU ALL ARE INCLINED TO TAKE THIS INFORMATION AND FIND THAT IT IS COMPETENT EXPERT TESTIMONY,
[00:50:01]
UM, THAT CERTAINLY IS INTERESTING.IT FEELS LIKE OUR HANDS HAVE BEEN TIED A LITTLE BIT BY, YOU KNOW, THE LETTER FROM JESSICA RU.
UM, BUT ALSO I THINK IT'S FAIR TO POINT OUT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF PROPERTIES IN CRAVEN COUNTY'S TAX VALUES DECREASED LAST YEAR, YEAR OVER YEAR, OR FROM 2022 TO 2023? I WOULD SAY A MINUTE AMOUNT IF ANY PROPERTY VALUES DECREASED ACCORDING TO THE CRAVEN COUNTY TAX ATE.
I YOUR WHERE I STAND BY WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE SAID.
THEY SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THEY WENT BY THE TAX RECORD.
THEY TOLD 'EM THAT DIDN'T NEED, UH, THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED THE, UM, THE, THE APPRAISAL.
AND THEY SAID THAT THE TAX THING WAS GONNA BE GOOD ENOUGH.
AND I'M THINKING THAT THEY ARE PROFESSIONAL ENOUGH AND I STAND BY THAT AND I GO ALONG WITH THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE SITUATION.
I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION.
AND, UH, MS. AOL, I NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN.
UM, DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? ABSOLUTELY.
AND SO, YEAH, PLEA, PLEASE INTERJECT.
UM, WHAT YOU CAN, 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT WE, OKAY.
THERE'S SOME CONVERSATION HERE.
WELL, UM, I ACTUALLY AM NOT FULLY BRIEFED ON THE PROCEEDING TONIGHT.
UM, I'VE, UH, LOST MY HUSBAND RECENTLY AND MY PHYSICAL HEALTH HAS BEEN A LITTLE COMPROMISE, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING AS, UM, UH, EDUCATED ON THIS ISSUE AS I SHOULD BE AS A CITIZEN.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU, I HAVE OWNED THIS PROPERTY, I THINK FROM ABOUT 2009, UM, WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I, UM, DECIDED THAT OUR, OUR GIFT TO THE CITY WOULD BE, UH, INVESTING IN THE COMMUNITY.
AND, UM, THE THREE BLOCKS ON P*****K STREET FROM, UM, FLEET STREET TO, UM, WHERE THE MEXICAN BAKERY IS, UH, WERE THE COUPLE BLOCKS THAT WE WANTED TO GIVE OUR MONEY AND EFFORTS TO REDEVELOPMENT AND COMING FROM OTHER CITIES, PRETTY BIG CITIES IN, IN THE COUNTRY, I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE AN EASY THING.
THIS HAS BEEN PROBABLY THE HARDEST ROAD.
AND I DID MULTIMILLION DOLLAR PARTNERSHIPS IN DENVER, INNER CITY DENVER, WITH GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC ENTITIES AS WELL AS PRIVATE ENTITIES.
AND IT'S BEEN STUNNING TO ME TO WATCH HOW DIFFICULT IT HAS BEEN TO BUILD COMMUNITY OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS.
WE, AND I WILL INCLUDE MY HUSBAND, HAVE DONE OUR BEST.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I AM THE CLOSEST RESIDENT TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
I LIVE NOW, I LIVE IN THE ADJACENT WAREHOUSE IN BACK OF WHAT YOU KNOW, AS THE FIREFLY CAFE, AND I KNOW ONE B P*****K STREET.
MY ADDRESS IS 3 1 6 LIBERTY STREET, A NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA.
AND, UM, I HA WE, AND I WILL INCLUDE MY HUSBAND NOW, NO LONGER WITH ME, HAVE LOVED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO NEW BERN TO CONTRIBUTE TO, UH, THE REVITALIZATION OF WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE AN INCREDIBLE CORRIDOR.
UM, I DON'T KNOW MANY OF YOU HERE, BUT I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN COUNTLESS HOURS OF DEVELOPMENT, UM, FROM THE RENAISSANCE GATEWAY PLAN, ATTENDED ALL THE MEETINGS, I CHAIRED THE CNI, UM, HOUSING TASK FORCE, WHICH IS NOW TRANSFORMED INTO, UM, THE
[00:55:01]
TRANSFORMATIONAL PLAN, WHICH, UM, HAS NOW BEEN, BEEN PRESENTED THROUGH THE NEW, UM, HOUSING AUTHORITY AND CITY, UM, PLANS, WHICH ARE INCREDIBLE.THEY RE-UP WHAT WE DID WITH COMMUNITY FOR MANY, MANY YEARS WHEN WE PURCHASED THIS WAREHOUSE.
UM, I WILL TELL YOU THAT PEOPLE LAUGHED AT US AND I COULD NOT GET PEOPLE FROM DOWNTOWN TO WALK ALONG P*****K STREET.
I WATCHED PEOPLE, UM, FALLING OUT OF WAREHOUSES.
AND DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF MR. EON, THERE WAS A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY.
AND SO AFTER FOUR YEARS OF COMING TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN TO SAY, IS THERE A BUDGET FOR SIDEWALKS ON P*****K STREET? THE ANSWER WAS, WE DON'T HAVE BUDGET.
I'M NOT SAYING TODAY, BUT I'M SAYING WHEN, AND THIS IS NOW 15 YEARS AGO.
AND SO WE HAD AN ADOPT A BLOCK PROJECT THAT THE CITY THEN PUT IN WAS A CITY PROGRAM.
AND SO I WENT HOUSE TO HOUSE AND RAISED MONEY, ASKED PEOPLE ALONG THIS BLOCK TO GIVE MONEY FOR CEMENT, UM, THAT WE COULD HAVE SIDEWALKS.
AND BECAUSE OF THE ADOPTIVE PLAN, THE CITY PUT THOSE SIDEWALKS IN.
AND WE PUT IN, I THINK, 20 TREES.
THERE WERE NO TREES AND HABITAT AT THE TIME HAD, IT WAS AN ASPHALT SIDEWALK OR A STREET FROM THE STREET TO, TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, HABITAT IS RIGHT NOW.
UM, AND SO WE BUILT SIDEWALKS, WE PUT IN TREES.
THE CITY THEN UNDER MR. STEIN'S, UM, ADOPT A BLOCK PROJECT, HAD US RAISE THE MONEY FOR THE MATERIALS, BUT WE COULD NEVER HAVE AFFORDED THE MONEY FOR PUTTING THEM IN THE CITY.
DID THAT AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.
AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN HERE FOR UH, A LONG TIME DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE WE HAVE BEEN IN THE LAST 15 YEARS.
AND YOU CAN LOOK AT THE ADOPTIVE, WE CAN LOOK AT MANY PLANS THAT THE CITY HAS HAD.
I AM A RETIRED EDUCATOR AND, UH, I LIVE TO BUILD HOPE AND POTENTIAL FOR THE NEXT GENERATIONS.
I NEVER WANTED TO RUN A BUSINESS, BUT I, AT THE TIME WHEN I WAS YOUNGER AND COULD TAKE DOWN DRYWALL AND PAINT, TRIED TO SHOW WHAT POTENTIAL THERE MIGHT BE BECAUSE IT WAS EXTRAORDINARY TO ME.
AND I WAS MIFFED BY WHY NEWBURN THE POWER STRUCTURE IN NEW BERN WOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE AREA.
AND SO I CAME TO UNDERSTAND HOW DEEPLY RACIST THE CITY WAS AT THAT TIME.
WE HAVE GROWN, WE ARE GETTING BETTER.
UM, AND SO NOW WE HAVE, AND SO IN, I DON'T KNOW, I THINK IT WAS LIKE 2014 MAYBE OR SOMETHING, I, UM, OPENED THE CITY LAUNDRY CAFE WITH AN OUTDOOR SPACE, GREENERY ENVIRONMENT, OXYGEN, UH, PLACES FOR THE PEOPLE, FOR PEOPLE TO, UH, GATHER ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO ME AS A PERSON AND CERTAINLY AS A LANDLORD AND AN INVESTOR IN THIS COMMUNITY.
AND SO WE PLANTED, UM, GRASS, I WATERED IT FOR MONTHS.
WE PLANTED TREES AND AFTER VARIOUS BUSINESSES CAME IN WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT BY THE CITY, UM, ALL THAT WAS REMOVED.
TREES WERE CUT DOWN, UH, GRASS WAS TAKEN OUT.
UH, ASTROTURF WAS PUT IN WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT AND IT BROKE MY HEART.
UM, AND AS SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A CORPORATE CEO WITH
[01:00:01]
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO GO TO COURT, TO TAKE PEOPLE TO COURT, WE CHOSE TO LET THINGS PROCEED.PRIOR BUSINESSES HAVE COME AND GONE.
AND THE FIREFLY CAFE, WHEN SEAN AND SARAH CAME A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, AND I WILL TELL YOU DURING THE TIME THAT WE HAD THE CITY LAUNDRY AND WHEN TAP THAT HAD ITS BUSINESS, THERE WAS ALWAYS OUTDOOR, UH, SEATING.
PEOPLE WOULD GATHER, THEY WOULD HAVE A DRINK, THEY WOULD PLAY A GAME, UH, OUTDOOR GAME AND, AND BE HUMAN BEINGS.
SO HERE WE ARE TODAY, UM, IN, SINCE I HAVE MET SARAH AND UM, SEAN, I HAVE PROBABLY PUT IN A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS INTO THE PROPERTY.
UM, THAT IS BEFORE ALL THE WORK THAT WAS DONE PRIOR.
AND SO I, I HOPE THAT AS A SOCIETY AND AS A COMMUNITY, WE CAN FIND WAYS AND I AM RULE GOVERNED.
I'M A SCHOOL PRINCIPAL,
I ALSO UNDERSTAND DISCRETION AND COMMON SENSE.
AND I WOULD URGE THIS BODY TO IMMEDIATELY APPROVE WHATEVER IS NEEDED FOR THESE BUSINESS PEOPLE TO HAVE BUSINESS IN OUR CITY IN A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE FOR DECADES WOULDN'T COME BECAUSE IT WAS QUITE FRANKLY, TOO BLACK FOR THEM.
IT IS NOW A REVITALIZATION AREA AND EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS COMING TO FIREFLY TO CLEAR WATER, TO BREWERY 99, TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT GIVE US HOPE FOR NEXT GENERATION.
AND, UM, USUALLY I DON'T TALK WITHOUT PREPARED REMARKS, BUT HERE YOU GO.
I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WE APPRECIATE THE HISTORY.
WE GOT, I WANT TO, I DO WANT TO JUST REITERATE, SINCE YOU WERE THE OWNER, YOU SAID SINCE 2009 OH, IS I, I THINK IT IS.
SO, WELL I JUST, UM, WITH WHAT WAS SAID WITH THE, UM, MEMORANDUM FROM UHHUH
UM, THAT, UH, TALKING ABOUT THE VALUE IN ADDITION WITH THE TAX RECORDS MM-HMM
THAT IT HAD INCREASED, THAT IT WAS USED, UM, AS TAP BACK BREWERY, UM, WHICH WAS A SIMILAR CONCEPT WITH OUTDOOR USE OF THE SPACE.
SO YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT FOR THE RECORD RECORD? ABSOLUTELY.
UM, THAT IT WAS A CIVIL AND YEARS BEFORE WITH THE CITY LAUNDRY AND I MEAN, THIS IS, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE SINCE WE BEGAN REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? I GUESS WE'RE GOOD.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? YES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, ANY DISCUSSION ON, OKAY, LEMME GET MY LIST OVER HERE.
UH, NUMBER ONE, SO THE REQUESTED PERMIT IT WAS IN IS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES.
SO WE HAVE A, A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
SHOULD, SHOULD WE DO A ROLL CALL BEFORE WE, OR SHOULD WE JUST DO A YOU CAN A ROLL CALL.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL START WITH, UH, BOARD MEMBER KATHLEEN MARTIN.
BOARD MEMBER ASHLEY HOWE? YES.
AND BOARD MEMBER BARBARA SAMPSON? YES.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN? IT WAS A FIVE OH VOTE.
[01:05:01]
WE HAVE A SECOND.MR. CHAIRMAN? UH, BOARD MEMBER KATHLEEN MARTY? YES.
AND THEN BOARD MEMBER ASHLEY HOWELL? YES.
I AM GONNA SAY NO ON THAT ONE.
AND BOARD MEMBER BARBARA SAMPSON.
AND THE AFFIRMATIVE MOTION CARRIES? YES, SIR.
IF THE APPLICA, IF THE COMPLETE TO AS PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
ANY DISCUSSION AND SERGEANT, UH, BOARD MEMBER KATHLEEN MARTY? YES.
BOARD MEMBER ASHLEY HOWELL? YES.
BOARD MEMBER BRIAN LANING? YES.
BOARD MEMBER BARBARA SIMPSON? YES.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN? THAT WAS A FIVE OH VOTE FROM THE AFFIRMATIVE.
NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE USE WILL NOT MATERIAL IN DANGER.
THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY IF LOCATED WHERE, PROPOSED AND DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY.
UH, ANOTHER STAR OF, UH, BOARD MEMBER KATHLEEN MARTY.
AND BOARD MEMBER BARBARA SAMPSON.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, IT WAS A FIVE OH VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE NUMBER FIVE, THAT THE USE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE VALUE OF ADJOINING OR ABUTTING PROPERTY OR THAT THE USE IS A PUBLIC NECESSITY ON THIS ISSUE.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MR. CHAIR, IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS, YOU'RE GOING TO WANT, YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO STATE THE EXPERT OPINIONS THAT YOU'RE RELYING UPON, UM, AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS CLEAR FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, IF YOU ARE INCLINED TO MAKE A MOTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, IF YOU ARE INCLINED TO MAKE A MOTION IN THE NEGATIVE, YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO VERBALIZE IN WHAT WAY THE APPLICATION IS DEFICIENT.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT I THINK IT'S A COMBINATION OF THE CITY OF NEW BERN, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, UM, ALONG WITH THE TAX INFORMATION THAT IT'S NOT ONE OR OTHER ITEM ALONE THAT PROVES THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? UM, I HAVE MOTION TO, I SO MOVE.
SO I THINK THE MOTION IS THAT THE USE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE VALUE OF ADJOIN OR ABUTTING PROPERTY.
IS THAT YOUR MOTION, MS. HOWELL? THAT IS SECOND CASE.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? I, UM, WE USUALLY RELY ON EXPERT TESTIMONY AND I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT.
BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, UM, HAS A WRITTEN STATEMENT HERE, I'M SUGGESTING THAT THAT'S AFFIRMATIVE.
UM, I'M FINE WITH CONFIRMING THAT DECISION.
AND SO AGAIN, THAT'S IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE? FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION ONLY FOR THIS, YEAH.
I THOUGHT YOU MADE A COMMENT SO ON.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UM, ANY ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION? OKAY.
UH, STARTING WITH BOARD MEMBER KATHLEEN MARTY.
BOARDMAN ASHLEY, OR EXCUSE ME, BOARD MEMBER.
AND BOARD MEMBER OF BARBARA SAMPSON? YES.
UH, NUMBER SIX, THAT THE LOCATION AND CHARACTER OF THE USE IF DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED, WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS TO BE LOCATED AND IN GENERAL, CONFORMITY WITH THE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
ANY DISCUSSION? AND I'LL BEGIN WITH, UH, BOARD MEMBER.
BOARD MEMBER RYAN LYNCHING? YES.
AND BOARD MEMBER BARBARA SIMPSON? YES.
SO DO WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT ISSUING THE PERMIT? AND, AND I WILL SAY THE ONE REASON WHERE I CHOSE TO NOT SAY THE APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE WAS SPECIFICALLY DUE TO THE APPRAISAL QUESTION.
IS IT JUST, SO THAT'S ON THE RECORD.
[01:10:02]
DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR DISCUSSION ON THE NO PERMIT? IT SOUNDS LIKE THE, THE APPLICANT'S WOULD'VE WILLINGLY GOTTEN AN APPRAISAL AND, UM, SO IT'S REALLY CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, WHERE ALL THE BACK AND FORTH CAME FROM.THEY ENDED UP WITH JESSICA WRITING A STATEMENT, UM, TO GET US TO THIS POINT.
BUT I FEEL GREAT ABOUT GOING FORWARD WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE DECIDED.
SO THAT, UM, YEAH, BUT I GUESS I'LL MENTION FOR THE RECORD AGAIN, ALSO, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GOT HERE.
UM, IN SOME WAYS I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CONFLICTING INFORMATION AND, AND WE'RE HERE, UM, AT THE END OF IT AND, AND WE OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T READ ALL OF IT.
WE HAVEN'T HEARD ALL OF IT AND SURE.
WOULD, UM, STRESS TO FOLKS TO PLEASE DO THEIR BEST, UM, IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE LIFE A LITTLE EASIER FOR US, IF THAT'S, THAT'S POSSIBLE.
AND WE SURELY UNDERSTAND, UM, THAT SOMETIMES WE HAVE CHALLENGES.
JAMIE, WE NEED A MOTION TO ISSUE THE PERMIT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT, UH, WE ISSUE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE FIREFLY CAFE, SU 0 0 3 1 4 3 DASH 2 2 5.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ISSUE THE PERMIT.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR A SECOND? I SECOND.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND, AND I'LL START WITH THE BOARD MEMBER.
BOARD MEMBER ASHLEY HOWELL? YES.
AND BOARD MEMBER BARBARA SAMPSON? YES.
THANK YOU FOR THE PATIENCE WITH US AND, AND, AND THE PROCESS.
[VII. NEW BUSINESS]
NEW BUSINESS.I KNOW AT ONE POINT WE TALKED ABOUT SOME POLICY AND PROCEDURE MOVING FORWARD AND IT, ARE WE IN A POSITION TO DISCUSS THAT YET? YES, SIR.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I BELIEVE WE ARE CONSIDERING, WE JUST KIND OF WENT THROUGH THE DECISIONS AND THIS, UH, THIS LAST ITEM HERE, THERE'S NOT AN ADDITIONAL ITEM THAT IS COMING UP ON THE NOVEMBER AGENDA, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'D BE OKAY WITH ENTERTAINING YOURSELF AND THE BOARD, UM, PUSHING THAT INTO THE JANUARY MONTH PARTICULARLY, JUST BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE MEETING SPECIFIC TO THAT POINT.
UM, THERE IS AGAIN, IS NO NEW ITEM FOR NEXT MONTH.
SO I DON'T HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH THAT.
AND I THINK THE NOVEMBER MEETING WAS ON THE 20TH, THE SAME WEEK AS THANKSGIVING MAYBE, OR THE WEEK BEFORE AND YEAH.
SHOULD BE THE THIRD WEEK, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THE WEEK BEFORE.
AND SO, AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE ONE IN DECEMBER, SO GOING ON TO JANUARY THAT MOVE IT INTO JANUARY.
IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT? THAT SHOULD GIVE US ENOUGH TIME.
I'LL HAVE TO WORK WITH, UM, MADAM ATTORNEY AND I KNOW THAT SHE WILL BE OUT, UH, SOON.
SO JUST BEING FRANK HERE, I, I'M NOT CERTAIN AS TO HOW OR WHO, HOW THAT MAY ALL KIND OF PLAY OUT.
SO I'M WANT TO GIVE, TRY TO BREAK GROUND ON THAT AS SOON AS I CAN.
SO WE GONNA GET TO JANUARY, SHOULD IMPOSE ANY ISSUES.
OKAY? WE WE'RE, WE'RE PRETTY GOOD.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO WHO, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.