After yet another BOA debacle on Wednesday night (11/8), I was left with no other choice than to issue the following letter / email to Orange County leadership. Likewise, I hope you will make your voices heard (see contact details at the end of this update):

"Dear Cy, Jamezetta and John.

I am writing you all as, quite frankly, nobody appears to be accepting accountability over the Orange County Board of Adjustment (BOA) process. A process which the State of North Carolina affords its Counties the ability to employ, define and ultimately enact, provided that such enactment is in alignment with all applicable State guidance and mandates. Accordingly, you all as tax payer funded representatives of Orange County have intentionally or otherwise, by virtue of assuming your respective positions, chosen to adopt and oversee the current Orange County BOA process. The very same process which finally, last night (Wednesday 11/8), exhausted the very last ounce of my patience. Mind you, I consider myself to be a very patient person and I hope you would agree that I have demonstrated that throughout the entire time during which the owner (Applicant) of the Lawrence Road property in question has repeatedly attempted to change and/or adjust the zoning designation of the property in question. As the BOA process demands “standing” and “facts”, allow me to bring to your attention the following facts:

1) (2) of the now seated members of the BOA panel are also members of the Orange County Planning Board who, under the Applicant’s prior attempt to rezone the property in question, both voted in favor of the Applicant’s rezoning request. Mind you that was a far more complex matter than this Special Use permit request. Why would a reasonable person expect that their previously expressed rezoning approval positions would change in terms of this new Applicant request?

2) Prior to the initial 10/18 BOA meeting the Chair of the BOA (Leon Myers) disclosed that he has some form of association with the Applicant’s attorney (Patrick Byker) but did not disclose, for the record, anything beyond that vague statement. To date, he has still chosen not to, nor has he seemingly been requested by any of you, disclose for the public record exactly what that relationship is.

3) During the 10/18 BOA meeting (1) member of the initially seated BOA panel was asked to recuse herself due to an apparent conflict of interest as it relates to an existing association with the Applicant. I applaud you for recognizing and addressing that concern appropriately.

4) As a result of the recusal cited under item #3 above, the 10/18 BOA panel was then reduced from (5) to (4). Accordingly, Mr. Myers asked the Applicant’s attorney (Patrick Byker) and EXCLUSIVELY the Applicant’s attorney if the Applicant would like to continue with the meeting, given the remaining (4) BOA board members? Or, if the Applicant would rather reschedule and resume the meeting on a later date? PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS: When the Applicant’s attorney (the very same attorney that Mr. Myers has some form of an association with) was asked by Mr. Myers about a reschedule date, the Applicant’s attorney was given (2) and only (2) options. 11/8 OR 12/6. The Applicant chose the 11/8 date. Last night’s date. Feel free to put me under oath or whatever and I will confirm… I heard Mr. Myers say 11/8 OR 12/6. Note: yet another reason why both the Planning Board and BOA meetings should be recorded in the same manner BOCC meetings are. Facts matter! Why is this rescheduling date matter important you might ask? See item #’s 6 and 7 below.

5) On 10/25 I met with Cy who I presented with a list of (8) questions / concerns that I had pertaining to the 10/18 BOA meeting held the previous week. That very same list was shared with John and subsequently wound up in the hands of his staff support (James – cc’d). Kudos to you both as you took the time to address most of the questions / concerns I had but for the conflict-of-interest concerns. Eventually I gave up trying to obtain clarification from OC legal regarding this concern after I received the following email response from James on 10/26:

“I’m not in a position to say if any position is valid nor what will be addressed by the board.  It is important to understand that I am not the board’s agent.  I receive nothing nor make any decisions on their behalf.  It would be improper for me to advise anyone other than the board regarding a legal argument.”  

6) Last night’s (11/8) BOA rescheduled meeting was ultimately cancelled as one of the BOA members was not in attendance and, again, the BOA was down to (4) seated members. Once again Mr. Myers asked the Applicant’s attorney and EXCLUSIVELY the Applicant’s attorney if he would like to proceed with the (4) seated BOA members? Or, if he would rather, once again, reschedule the meeting to a later date? To my complete surprise Mr. Myers said that he believed that he could be in the position of having a (5) panel BOA board available on 11/15. Now, based on the (2) date alternatives outlined under item #4 above, I quite simply assumed that, even if the 11/8 BOA meeting were to have to be extended, like so many of the Planning Board and BOCC meetings had been previously, the next logical resumption date would be the previously mentioned 12/6 date. A date which would follow the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday. Under this BOA process it would seem that ONLY the Applicant’s personal commitments will be taken into consideration regarding any scheduling or rescheduling requests. As a number of those of us in attendance (myself included) have personal conflicts with the new 11/15 date. Especially due to the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday. Following the meeting I asked the Planning and Inspections BOA lead (Patrick Mallett), Mr. Myers and finally the Applicant’s attorney if there was any flexibility in terms of the newly established 11/15 BOA meeting reschedule date? The answer received was… simply… the Applicant is entitled to a timely and efficient ruling. WHAT??? Who exactly is prohibiting that very timeliness and efficiency from happening? It sure isn’t those of us in the Special Use permit opposition camp. Tough luck Matt and to anyone else who can demonstrate standing and can submit factually-based testimony challenging this Special Use request. 

7) Arguably and completely unintentionally, I may be considered the primary face and voice of the opposition to any changes to this property which would impose unnecessary safety or wellbeing concerns on this neighborhood. By now there should be absolutely no doubt in your minds that I have remained actively engaged in this matter from day #1. Accordingly, I (intentionally or otherwise) likely have the greatest accumulated knowledge regarding the history leading up to where we presently are today and the history along the way. Not available on 11/15?... again… tough luck Matt.

Given that this BOA process will not accommodate my personal commitments and therefore will exclude my continued involvement moving forward, I ask that you please consider fixing this… money prevails… BOA process inequity moving forward. Accordingly, I will certainly voice the concerns outlined within this email to a much larger audience.

Sincerely,

Matt McDermott"

If you, like me, are beyond tired of this... "money wins in the end"... political dynamic we are stuck in, PLEASE consider weighing in by voicing your thoughts. They can be conveyed to the following:

1) Individual County Commissioners Contact Info. Just click on the link of each individual:

https://www.orangecountync.gov/953/Board-of-County-Commissioners-BOCC

OR

2) Contacting all County Commissioners can be sent via the following link:

ocbocc@orangecountync.gov

Thank you and Stand tall, y'all.

Matt