Residents packed Foxfire's Town Hall for a public hearing on proposed revisions to single family zoning ordinances on Tuesday, January 10. But the Village Council tabled the matter after questions were raised about enforcement and Councilman Mick McCue expressed concern that the convoluted language still needed work.
“The law allows municipalities to govern use of property: that is why we have zoning," explained McCue. "The law that allows a single family to occupy a single family residence has been codified since we developed our ordinances. Our definition of 'family' in the [existing] ordinance is far too restrictive. We must change it to a broader encompassing definition of 'family' to include a modern view of the functional description of family. But, if you allow people who are not families to occupy homes, then we have all these concerns.”
As proposed, the revised ordinance defined "family" as an individual or two or more people related by blood, marriage, adoption, or another legally-recognized care arrangement, living together as a single housekeeping unit, that does not include more than four persons who are not related to the other persons of the household.
McCue said that the proposed definition would allow a large family of six or more to live together, while sharing their home with four additional non-relatives.
He also expressed concern over another ordinance revision that would impose a thirty-day limit on short-term rentals, arguing that it could create a timeshare type of situation with revolving sets of renters.
'Dormitory' ignited the issue
The Council's discussion of single family residential zoning rules began in earnest in late 2011, in response to a local business renting a home for use as dormitory-style housing for six employees. [As of early January, the rental agreement expired, and the home is no longer occupied by those individuals.]
While the existing Village Zoning Ordinance does prohibit such use, no punitive action was taken. Instead, based on a recommendation by the Village Attorney, a revised regulation and definition of "family" was drafted.
Specifically, the proposed changes include new definitions and clarification that a provide for a single family dwelling unit to be renter-occupied by families on a long-term basis, and by non-families on a short-term basis -- a compromise developed to address golf and vacation rentals. The proposed language was slightly modified by the Foxfire Planning & Zoning Committee and will now undergo a final “tweaking” before it returns to the Council table for final discussion and approval.
What the original ordinance and the proposed revised ordinance both appear to have in common, is the majority support of the community.
“My house is my biggest investment, and this ordinance is a positive step,” said Mark Stores, a Village resident who lives next door to the rental home that ignited the controversy.
Longtime resident Carlotta Young also spoke in favor of the ordinance.
“There was always an understanding, if you rented, that it would be to a single family,” she said. “We all bought property and purchased homes for our retirement. We would hope that our savings are secure in our investment.”
Young said she supported stricter rules and enforcement. “If not, you will have a hodgepodge of people coming in and out. This ordinance is in the best interest of Foxfire.”
Others raised concerns over the excessive number of parked cars and the volume of trash generated by many people sharing a single home; though some residents, including Lloyd and Vilma Geisert, cautioned against too prohibitive an ordinance.
“How will this be vetted? How is compliance going to be enforced?” Vilma asked. “Would this preclude college or exchange students who may need housing for only one semester -- or students under cultural visas? Does this eliminate those possibilities?”
Resident Ed Spaulding said that, while he would not want a rental next door to his own home, it is still important to leave the option of renting a home open.
“We need to make sure that we cover all paths,” he said.
Lynn Williams, a local real estate professional, told the Council the ordinance was a good compromise, but warned it would be difficult to enforce.
“Are you going to knock on doors and ask if they are related?” Williams said, in questioning the proposed definition of "family."
Mary Gilroy agreed that enforcement was a problem and expressed concern about what punitive action could or would be taken, and whether such regulations could give Foxfire a black eye.
“Can we enforce this in a way that Foxfire will not be viewed as an unfriendly village?" asked Gilroy. "And, how far do you go? Do you evict the tenant? Do you go to the home owner and tell them to evict the tenant?”
Councilman Steven Durham concurred that oversight will be an issue, but said that concern should not derail the process.
“I am very confident that the Council over the next several years will embark on a thorough review of all our ordinances,” he said. “And I expect oversight will be an issue with many -- but that should not stand in the way of passing ordinances.”
In a related discussion, concerns were raised over another home in the Village that is frequently used as a rental. Correcting a often repeated misconception that the large house was built specifically as a rental property, Finance Director Leslie Frusco explained the house was built and is used as a vacation property for a large family, who also allow short-term rentals.
Western Connector
Making the case that none of the three options under consideration for the Western Connector roadway will meet the stated objectives, the Council unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the proposed bypass.
An on and off topic of discussion at the county and state level for many years, the possibility of building a Western Bypass of Pinehurst was resurrected in mid-2011, when the Moore County Transportation Committee put all possible options back on the table, including do nothing, improving existing roads, or cutting an entirely new roadway somewhere in the vicinity of West End and Foxfire.
The goal of the bypass is to carry traffic -- long-haul trucks and shoppers bound for the shopping centers in Aberdeen -- from NC Highway 211 to US 1 -- without routing them down NC Highway 5 or through the Pinehurst Traffic Circle.
Horrified at the possibility that Hoffman Road -- a state route that cuts through the middle of Foxfire Village -- could potentially be widened to a divided, multi-lane boulevard; the Council's resolution states that a bypass using Hoffman Road would “unduly harm and destroy the sense of community within Foxfire.”
In addition, the resolution argues that any roadway constructed wholly within Moore County will not be able to meet the stated purpose of the bypass.
Instead, the Council's resolution formally requests that NC Department of Transportation broaden its planning process and scope to explore creating a regional solution to the problem and permanently remove from consideration any improvements that would bisect the Foxfire Village community.
Long Range Planning
Two years in the making, the long-awaited Long Range Plan was distributed to the Foxfire Council for their review and approval by Councilman McCue.
“Yes, the LRP Committee spent two years to get to this point," he said, "but the hard part will start once it is approved and we begin trying to implement it."
Finance
Property tax bills were due January 6, reported Finance Director Frusco, and nearly 88% of anticipated tax revenue has already been collected.
The General Fund stood at $857,205 in unrestricted accounts, with an additional $104,423 in restricted funds, including prepayment towards the Woodland Circle account, capital reserves, and money set aside for Stonehill Pines. The Water Fund was reported at $300,854, with an additional $591 in prepayment towards the Woodland Circle fund and $135,000 held in escrow for a new well.
An interest-only loan payment for the Woodland Circle Extension project is due in April 2012, with $75,810 from the General Fund and $5,357 from Water. Annual debt service also includes annual payments in July towards the Village Green Park fund and for water improvements.
Frusco reported that the Village received a second payment of $19,476 in state Powell Bill funds, bringing this year’s total to $38,952. These state funds are restricted to paving, drainage repairs, mowing along the shoulders, and other road maintenance needs.
MPA internship
Hoping to secure a ten-week Master of Public Administration [MPA] graduate student intern, Frusco and Councilman McCue volunteered to participate in an upcoming interview process at the UNC School of Government.
Frusco explained that each student in the two-year program must complete an internship in government.
“Many of the students want to go to bigger venues -- like DC or Charlotte -- but a smaller municipality can offer a much broader experience,” she said. “They would have the opportunity to work in multiple departments.”
Quickly spinning out a few possible scenarios, Frusco said a graduate student could assist Foxfire with grant-writing, developing a Human Resources policy manual, or improving the website and other communications with residents.
Water
Water leaks are not a rare occurrence in the Village, reported Councilman Durham. In fact, sometimes they are a daily occurrence.
However, leaks are primarily on the service lines -- not the main lines -- and Durham suggested it may be more cost-effective over the long term to replace the leaking lines rather than repair them.
Durham also recommended that fencing damaged by fallen tree limbs around the water tower should be repaired, and brush cut back.
In another water-related discussion, Durham asked whether there was a set policy on irrigation meters and if they were charged an availability rate in addition to the primary house meter.
A state law enacted in 2009 requires new construction to install a separate irrigation meter alongside the house meter; and, currently, there are no accounts in the Foxfire Water system with the dual meter. During discussion, Town Clerk Lisa Kivett and Finance Director Frusco seemed to agree the availability charge -- if and when applied -- will be a single fee on the account and will apply to both meters.
Streets
The deadline for a Federally-mandated street sign replacement program has been temporarily suspended; however, any new signs installed must meet the new standards imposed for sizing and reflectivity.
Of particular concern are a few Village signs, such as for golf crossings, that can be very difficult to see at night.
Councilman John Eltschlager said a sign inventory has been conducted and that he is putting together a replacement list with anticipated costs.
In a brief discussion about the possibility of lowered speed limits, he explained that the overall Village speed limit must remain at 35 mph unless otherwise posted, per state law.
Turning attention to the major traffic arteries, Mayor George Erickson said in his tenure with the Council [since 2003], the Village has asked the state to reduce the 40 mph speed limit on three separate occasions -- and each time the request has been denied.
Stonehill Pines
In 2009, the Foxfire Village Council approved a twenty-year agreement with Stonehill Pines -- a massive planned development of homes, a hotel, two golf courses, and commercial areas.
Erickson reported that the agreement requires construction to commence by the end of 2012. He said that he had learned in a recent conversation with the Stonehill Pines attorney, that the developer intends to move forward with the project.
“They still want the project, and they are working towards the end of year deadline,” said Erickson.
Other business
In other business on Tuesday, January 10, the Foxfire Village Council:
• Tabled discussion on a proposed ordinance that would require door-to-door solicitors to apply for a permit before conducting business in the Village.
• Accepted for review an appeal by CABT [Coalition against Bigger Trucks], a group opposed to Federal legislation that would allow longer and heavier trucks to operate on U.S. roads, to draft a formal letter supporting a continued ban on such vehicles.
