The request by a group of Woodlake property owners will be on the agenda for the commissioners’ July 21 meeting, when they conduct a public hearing on a proposed revision of subdivision regulations.
Talk of a proposal to move one or two fairways and subdivide the land into residential lots prompted the homeowners’ group to ask for the zoning change. Owners complained that the change would obstruct their view of the lake and would lower property values.
Attorney Michael B. Brough, representing the Riverbirch Coalition, asked the Planning Board to adopt an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would require the Woodlake developers to seek a conditional use permit before making substantial changes in the resort community.
When the countywide zoning ordinance was adopted, Woodlake and one other gated community, Seven Lakes, were placed in special gated community districts, where deed covenants apply rather than county zoning regulations. This was done at the request of property owners and developers.
But now a Woodlake group is asking the county to impose conditional use permit requirements under certain conditions, especially as they apply to golf course changes and developments.
“My folks are looking for the exact same protection,” Brough said after pointing out that under the existing ordinance, property owners in Rural Agricultural districts have recourse to the conditional use permit process when owners of neighboring property want to change the use of property.
Brough said a conditional use permit is required at any time a property owner wants to make “substantial or inappropriate changes” in the use of neighboring property. He said his clients are entitled to the same protection.
But Woodlake owner Ingolf Boex spoke against the proposed amendment by citing the numerous improvements made at the resort community since he purchased the development originally known as Lake Surf.
“Property values at Woodlake have increased dramatically,” Boex said.
The German-born Boex came with his own attorney, Edward Lord of Greensboro.
“This is really a private dispute,” Lord said.
Boex said the installation of a water system was among several improvements made after he purchased Woodlake.
He said the development owns property on the other side of the lake and that consideration once was given to the idea of moving the fairways. Boex said he has no intention of leaving Woodlake with a 16-hole golf course, but he has considered moving the fairways to a better location. He said the 17th fairway is too narrow, and golfers often hit balls into the lake.
Boex said it “hurts my heart” to think that Woodlake residents fear he would damage the development.
“There would be enough protection for everybody,” he said. “Their investment is our investment too.”
County Planning Director Richard Smith reported that Woodlake was created as a subdivision prior to the implementation of countywide zoning. And a couple of board members recalled that the gated community district was provided at the request of residents in Woodlake and Seven Lakes.
‘Wanted To Be Left Alone’
Mike Cimino, a former board member who was acting as alternate at the Thursday meeting, recalled that the county tried to accommodate the interests of the two gated communities when the zoning ordinance was being developed.
“Now it appears that you want to change that,” Cimino said. “At that time, the gated communities wanted to be left alone. They wanted to be controlled by covenants.”
Brough explained that covenants contain deed restrictions, but they apply only to the use of land on individual lots, not to uses applied to common property affecting the entire community.
Board Member Kim VonCanon said she understood the issues raised by the Woodlake residents, but she, too, had questions about the request.
“I empathize with you,” VonCanon said. “I’ve been through this in a small town.”
Cimino asked Brough why his clients’ requested amendment uses the word “adversely” rather than “substantial” in describing the possible effect of changes.
Brough said not all of his clients’ property directly abuts the lake. But he added that changes in property adjacent to the lake could have an adverse effect on their property values.
“It would alter their lifetime investment,” Brough said.
Brough practices law in Chapel Hill but owns a residence at Woodlake.
Richard Lawson, speaking for the homeowners’ association, said he did not know how many people were living at Woodlake when the zoning ordinance was adopted. But today, he said, there are 600 families living there.
“It’s not a matter of agreeing or not agreeing,” he said. “It’s that we want to have a voice.”
Lawson said Woodlake people have a big investment in their property.
The text amendment recommended by Brough reads in part: “...whenever any land area has been developed as a golf course, then the use of any land area so developed may not be changed, and no structures, roads or other improvements inconsistent with the use of such area as a golf course may be constructed therein, unless the proposed use is permissible in the Gated Community Woodlake District and the Planning Board issues a conditional use permit authorizing such change in use and construction...”
The requested amendment says that the Planning Board should make sure that the proposed use and construction “would not adversely affect the value of properties ... particularly properties located in close proximity to the land that is subject to the permit request and would not otherwise be detrimental to the established character” of the district.
However, the planning staff recommendation said that “it would be inappropriate for the county to take a position on this particular request” inasmuch as the development was in existence prior to countywide zoning.
“Furthermore, staff believes that this change in design, especially as it relates to golf course design, is a private issue,” the staff recommendation summary continued.
The staff then recommended that because proposed revisions in the subdivision regulations include wording that might affect deviations in the original preliminary plat, the wording of the proposed amendment could be considered at the same time the county commissioners consider the revised subdivision ordinance later this month.
Arguments went back and forth between the attorneys and some speakers from the public present for the meeting in the Agriculture Center auditorium.
At one point, the board conferred with Hal Morris, an attorney from the county attorney’s staff.
Before calling for a motion, Board Chairman Jimmy Melton delivered a statement in which he assured everyone that the board wants to make the right decision.
“Every member of this board wants to protect property values. Believe me, we need all the taxes we can get,” he said to laughter from the audience.
Internal Issue
But Melton said he thinks the situation is an internal issue that should be resolved between property owners and the developers.
However, Melton said, he was not trying to pass the buck to the commissioners but expressed the opinion that following the staff recommendation would be the best way to expedite a resolution.
“You have plenty of protection now,” Melton said.
Board member Terry Bryant agreed that property values should be protected but said he did not want taxes to increase for anyone.
Bryant said he wanted to bring a little levity to the discussion when he thanked County Tax Administrator Eddie Parris for “finding all that money I lost in the stock market.” Bryant added that he was not in favor of putting a hog parlor on the 17th fairway.
Thomas Oldham, a relatively new member of the board, admitted that he is still in the learning process but said he was sure “This gentleman wouldn’t do anything to damage your property,” an apparent reference to Boex.
Member Harry Huberth said many of the issues raised by the Woodlake people are addressed in the subdivision revisions going to the commissioners July 21.
“I’m confident that your protection level is going up,” said Huberth, who chaired the Planning Board committee that spent many hours working on the subdivision revisions.
Huberth said that anything done must be accomplished at the countywide level, not simply to single out special areas.
“Whatever we do to you, we’re doing to ourselves,” he said.
Cimino then made a motion to follow the recommendations of the staff. Bryant made the second, and the vote was unanimous.
Four members of the board — John Garner, Tony Chriscoe, Frank Maser, and Richard Taute — were absent because of illness and family or business conflicts. Cimino, as an alternate member, was called in to make a quorum.
