Let's face facts folks, Carrboro and it's ETJ is a cruel joke. No one is willing to build on the old Saffelle location. The plans to renovate eyesore across the street is being abandoned by it owner. Mainstay firms have left to relocate in a more favorable Hillsboro or Pittsboro business climate. Could it be that Carrboro ETJ makes it too expensive to do business? Could it be that their oppressive regulation and crushing taxes are the root cause of their own discomfort on this matter? They are picking on this poor soul (who happens to be aware and willing to defend her rights) when they have so many other problems to resolve. They though she would just knukle under like so many have before. Let's keep a bright light shining on these jokers.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Very curious that the BofA has gotten away with such blatent disregard for it's own rules. I wonder how deep this irreverence penetrates the members of this board. We shall see...

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

LETTER TO THE EDITOR “There are illegal apartments throughout Carrboro; throughout the town’s jurisdiction. Why you? Why now?” These words by Mayor Chilton concluded a meeting in February 2007 in which I sought assistance with understanding “why?’ Carrboro’s attorney was alleging that PSF violated the town's residential code. Two years later on March 4, 2009, upon hearing these familiar words, Mayor Chilton was prompted to obscure their significance by ordering me from the hearing room [videotaped], as reported on March 5 by this Indy blogger. Why did Chilton change his viewpoint? Why would town counsel and the BofA violate NC State Bar Association “Rules of Professional Conduct”-- which “prohibit disseminating extra-judicial statements by means of public communications that might materially prejudice a proceeding” [Rule 3.6 (a)] -- by televising on March 4 a “kangaroo court” trial of a matter in litigation? Furthermore, “why” is Carrboro disregarding overwhelming evidence? Certainly, it understands that NC General Statutes require public utilities to obtain permits and final inspections before activating services; which were activated between October-December 3, 1997. Where are these records? Is Carrboro alleging that PSNC (natural gas) PEMC (electric) have lied? Numerous questions remain unanswered? Included is: Why did the BofA hide my January 3, 2008 Text Amendment application from its Planning Board -- for 10 months? Why did the BofA disregard this recommended solution, made by its development department and associate counsel? Why did this application disappear after the BofA’s January 15, 2008 meeting without any acknowledgment whatsoever to me? Why did attorney Morphis only learn about the alleged "missing application payment" 13 months later when Herald-Sun editor, Dan Way, reported this? Why did town staffs systematically impose increasingly insurmountable hurdles each time I satisfied prior demands? And, why did town counsel mislead state, county and local officials as regards the history and status of this matter? For example, Morphis’s December 10, 2008 email to Orange County clearly but erroneously reads, “…the property owner HAS subdivided her land…?” This was and remains untrue! Which raises more important questions, such as: Who really runs Carrboro? And why?

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Sam, Honestly do you believe that someone would not pay 500 dollar of text amendment fees, when she has everything to loose? I wish more people in carrboro will pay attention in November elections of 2009. We need officials who are elected and not selected by less than 10% of the residents. Marilyn, should take the offer of Lisa Sorg and write a letter to editor. We people in carrboro are really fedup in seeing our tax dollars going for a issue based on whether someone paid the text amendment fees or not.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Mr. Wardle, As requested previously, kindly provide a copy of the interview tape that you claim to have recorded (without my knowledged) following the BofA meeting? Also, kindly provide an email adress to which Planning Board member, Sharon Cook's 10.28.08 renakrs to the BofA may be forwarded. Thank you for this opportunity once again. MKille

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Wow, this is unbelievable. If I were Sam, I would post the rebuttal of Marilyn Kille as a separate article. Readers should be given a choice to decide for themselves.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Mr. Wardle, You must be imagining a conversation with someone else because I absolutely never mentioned not being willing to speak with you--either with or without my lawyer. Of course, if you would provide a copy of your taped conversation, I feel certain others, including my attorney, would like to hear it. Regarding the town's current claim that the TA wasn't considered because payment didn't accompany it, again, you've been defrauded and have chosen to buy into this sham. Try reasoning here! (1) Why did town officials wait 14 months to first provide this excuse -- that the TA was denied because payment hadn't been received. Not to mention that this simply isn't the truth and wasn't the explanation Mr. Morphis supplied on January 16, 2008. (b) No one would have gone to the length and expense that I did to prepare a Text Amendment only to jeopardize the likelihood of its being accepted by failing to pay a measily $425. fee. (c) Any reasonable individual would have asked where the payment was. Why didn't Carrboro officials do so? They had two weeks to seek an explanation before the TA was placed on its agenda. A simple phone call would have discerned that the check accompanied the application. If missing, a substitute would have been submitted promptly. Instead, absolutely no explanation was ever provided as to "why?" the TA disappeared. For a reference on this point, you might revisit Planning Board member, Sharon Cook's remarks to the BofA of October 28, 2008. These remain available on the town website. Or I'd be happy to have her send them to you if you provide an address. And why during that meeting, when the PB pursued a lengthy discussion of the reasonability of implementing a Farm code, did BofA members sitting among the audience protest, saying, "You have no right to discuss the merits of this CUP application. Your job is only to accept or reject it?" (d) If the missing payment was the issue, why won't town officials consider a TA at this time. Why did Brough insist that Carrboro sue me? Why didn't he/they seek assistance from the Dispute Settlement Center? The truth is that, when Mr. Brough first wrote in January 2007 that the apartment violated residential code, he delineatd only two options. And though he was not legally required to mention the TA option, he clearly had already decided one year before my TA application was submitted that he wouldn't allow this. Notice that I use the word "he!" Perhaps you've heard that Mr. Brough is widely acknowledged to be "the surrogate mayor of Carrboro." Furthermore, Mr. Morphis learned for the first time about check no. 987 about three weeks ago -- from Dan Way, at which point he asked my attorney for a copy. This check clearly appears missing from both my January and February 2008 statements. This isn't the first time Mr. Morphis has been left in the dark about important matters. He labored for months to find a solution; the TA was this. His firm billed the town for his services. Imagine how he felt when his superior rejected this solution. [I know how I felt!] But in the end, he wouldn't make for much of a front man if he, otherwise, was well informed. By keeping him [and the town staff] in the dark he [they] appears genuinely sincere and credible, if not always competent. Now with all due respect to Mr. Morphis, I believe him to be a fine attorney and a gentleman. But, unfortunately, his employer(s) hasn't always treated him with the respect he deserves. So, once again, why was he kept in the dark about something so important as check #987 for 14 months? Regarding your stated objective of providing an overview, a balanced perspective would have been greatly appreciated ionstead of your formenting additional confusion. Mr. Way labored for a month; you shot from the hip overnight. Was getting something on the Indy blog rapidly more important than fostering an image of competency and prudence? Regarding your contacting Mr. Way, how about speaking with folks like Shane Phelps, of the Dept. of Insurance Compliance Div. who might have informed you about state law that requires utilities to obtain both permits and final inspections before providing service? How about speaking with the utility companies to obtain the actual dates? How about members of the Planning Board? How about looking at the 200+ photos which you declined to review. Please reconsider and pursue this matter more objectively and thoroughly. I trust that you wish to be viewed as a responsible journalist. But this, as with any and all succesful pursuits, requires hard work. Otherwise, my best to you as you go forward. Marilyn Kille "If you are going through hell, keep going." -Winston Churchill

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

THE TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL – M. Kille’s response to this Indy blog "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail." - Abraham Maslow Former two-term Carrboro mayor, Senator Ellie Kinnaird, who has generously attempted to resolve this matter for about one year, wrote on December 21, 2008, “Looks like they are trying to drive you out of business.” Referring on December 23, 2008 to “predatory behaviors”, Senator Kinnaird wrote further, “You are not the first to run into these obstacles. I objected to it all the time when I was mayor.” One question stands above all others: Why was there no mention of my Text Amendment application during this meeting, which was the acknowledged solution recommended by the town’s associate counsel, development staff and Planning Board? MY REPLY TO MR. WARDLE’S LAMENT Wardle: “You are out of order,” the mayor said, his voice rising in frustration. TRUTH - Mayor Chilton, playing the dunce in this well-scripted and orchestrated charade, claimed I was “out of order” as I departed the hearing room willingly -- and as he once again misrepresented the truth. I responded by reminding him that, “You concluded our February 4, 2007 meeting [our first and only meeting about this matter] by asking, ‘Why you? Why now? There are illegal apartments and outbuildings throughout Carrboro and throughout its jurisdiction.’” On Tuesday evening Mr. Chilton appeared suddenly chilled to hear his own words. And, recognizing them for the truth they denoted, raised his voice to override mine in an effort to mask this truth. View the videotape. Then decide for yourself! Wardle: Across the room, the defiant woman snorted in disgust. “No,” she shouted back. “You are out of order!” TRUTH – Perhaps I’d become just a bit upset about “how and why?” Carrboro’s BofA had so carefully staged this masquerade. But I felt no need to shout! Although, if you think about it, given the apparent ruse that had ensued for over an hour, some might readily have thought to do something even more dramatic than merely shouting. I certainly had good reason to say or even do more! After all, the prior Saturday Chilton claimed to the Chapel Hill Herald editor that the town had invited me and my attorney to this Kangaroo Court proceeding – which, like everything else, couldn’t have been further from the truth. Wardle: “(under North Carolina law, town litigation may be discussed in a closed-door hearing).” TRUTH: Yes! But this was no closed-door session. It was clearly open to the public and televised. Now, ask yourself! Why was I and my attorney excluded? Wardle: “Kille, who was clued into the board’s unadvertised discussion of her court case by a friend watching the meeting on the town Web site,…” TRUTH: This discussion -- an unpublished addendum to the evening’s BofA published agenda -- was brought to my attention, as the meeting commenced, by members of the town’s staff, planning board, and advisory committees, as well as by a resident. Each encouraged me to “get right down there and tell the truth.” Wardle “The woman, standing erect and imperial, turned to the small, stunned crowd of attorneys, city employees, reporters and citizens [edit: and television camera] assembled for the evening meeting. She shouted that they’d been lied to, and then, after a subsequent exchange with the mayor, his honor ejected her from Town Hall.” TRUTH – Now you’d be stunned also upon hearing fact-after-fact being misrepresented -- out of context; being distorted by gross omissions. By having discovered that such a surreptitious effort to mislead citizens was being orchestrated and broadcast behind [your] back! AND, by mayor Chilton twice that evening having denied me an opportunity to speak – to defend myself -- to “balance the issue” – when he fully understood that, under the law, I had a right to speak for up to three minutes without permission; without interruption; free of his attempts to shut me up by proclaiming that I was “out of order.” Lastly, no one “ejected [me] from Town Hall.” I had already risen to leave and was standing at the exit door when Chilton’s final deception was foisted upon the audience. Wardel: “Kille’s long, strange battle with Carrboro began in 2006, when a person who had rented an apartment in her horse barn wrote a letter to the town complaining of substandard conditions in the unit, including intermittent water service and mould. The Town of Carrboro does not mediate landlord-tenant disputes, but the notification tipped staff off to the existence of an apartment that Morphis said was never approved.” TRUTH – By summer 2006 54 y.o. Linda Nathanson, the former tenant, had been convicted in Orange County Superior Court for non-payment of rent – both on my behalf and that of former landlords. At the time she leased this apartment she’d defrauded me about her history, used her sister’s credentials to cover her own undesirability, and signed an application in which she asserted having a job and never having been prosecuted or evicted for non-payment of rent or other debts -– all in an effort to convince me to lease the premises to her. Months later and by then destitute, she defrauded a Bank of America manager into removing funds escrowed in my name at its Carrboro branch. Angry about this conviction, she retaliated by defrauding Carrboro officials when she claimed that there had been year-long problems with plumbing. TRUTH – In July 2006 master plumber, David Pratt, supervisor of Roto-Rooter and the farm’s long-time plumber, notified Nathanson that the main supply to the barn needed to be shut down in order to repair a leak in the barn portion of the building. Both Pratt and David Hernandez, the farm’s long-time, part-time maintenance manager [who’s also a commercial electrician], attested that Nathanson’s claims were erroneous – a total fabrication. They’d read a copy of her letter. But town officials disregarded this when, thereafter, they determined that an opportunity existed to control PSF for the town’s future benefit. Wardle: “Illegal apartments are not entirely unheard of in Orange County. Many so-called ‘in-law’ units that landlords install in basements or over garages are technically noncompliant with local land-use ordinances. Some were installed before current zoning rules were adopted; others were built without knowledge of—or in blatant disregard for—the same laws.” TRUTH – At no time did I believe this apartment to be “illegal.” In July 1997 I sought permitting from the state, the county and Carrboro for what town inspector, Michael Conova, described as the “first barn to ever be permitted and inspected by the town.” Specifically, at the time the blueprints and schematics that were submitted to Conova specified “workshop (future apartment)”; thereafter, the town issued a permit for a workshop only. TRUTH – Also in July 1997 I asked Conova (a) for guidance in choosing sub-contractors and (b) help with ascertaining whether they were using approved techniques. I was a lay person; I’d heard about nightmares that others had had with contractors. Reportedly, six barns had been completed within Carrboro’s jurisdiction that year. I sought the names of their contractors. Conova admitted having no knowledge of these other barns – none of which had been permitted or inspected. To this day, only one is known to have been permitted/inspected – undertaken two or more years after its completion. In July 2004, a town inspector acknowledged this and that “over two dozen code violations were found in that barn.” When asked about the town’s response to this, I was told that, “We can’t do anything; it’s in the past – it’s done with.” When I indicated that state law provides penalties for such violations, the inspector replied, “Well! Mike Conova and I have been talking for about two years now about drafting a letter of reprimand to send to people who violate code…but we’ve never gotten around to this!” Astonishing! The watershed barn referred to is in an incorporated subdivision, not Orange County farm land as is my farm. It also belongs to a prominent local attorney. You decide! Wardle: “Kille brought a handful of such dwellings to light in the process of her struggle with Carrboro. In an attempt to justify her own apartment, Kille provided zoning inspectors with the addresses of 17 other homeowners with what she claimed were apartments similar to hers. Town records show that, in March 2008, inspectors followed up on the tips. Only one of the 17 was actually in noncompliance; the property owner quickly obtained an occupancy certificate.” TRUTH – The list was prepared by a law enforcement officer employed by the Town of Carrboro who had become “angry about the apparent corruption.” I amended it to include the above illegal barns. In 2007 another illegal barn was completed -– and, according to its owner in November 2008, was ignored by Carrboro inspectors when they inquired about the apartment in his residence. Interestingly, this barn is on a property wherein the residence has three or more illegal additions -- all within the time since my barn was built. Wardle: “Though Kille’s 19.5-acre Peppermint Spring Farm lies outside of Carrboro city limits, it is beholden to town zoning regulations under the state policy of extraterritorial jurisdiction. And since the property is within Carrboro’s Watershed Residential zoning district, Kille isn’t permitted to build a second dwelling on the farm without subdividing it.” TRUTH – Carrboro’s “20/20” long-range plan states as follows: Farmland Preservation, sec. 5.61: "The town should adopt incentives to help limit the conversion to developed uses that bridge transition areas. These incentives should be designed to preserve small farms, farm co-ops and organic farming within conservation subdivisions and elsewhere.” TRUTH – In 1988 the legislature transferred development jurisdiction for farms and rural land from counties to local municipalities, mainly in response to lobbying from development interests. Thus, Carrboro has had 20 years to implement a “Farm Building Code.” Such codes routinely allow caretaker housing, a/k/a “auxiliary apartments” for emergency and routine back-up, according to the town’s planning administrator. Orange County allows such, provided its dimensions do not exceed 800 sf. IF Carrboro is sincere about “preserv[ing] small farms” within its jurisdiction, why hasn’t it implemented a Farm Building Code in 20 years? And “why?” has the BofA disregarded its citizen’s requests and the Planning Board’s recommendation to do so? According to the development staff, to do so would impede future development, making it more costly overall for developers. Interesting! Wardle: “Kille has explored the subdivision option, but has not yet completed the legal process required to gain approval for it.” TRUTH – In Fall 2007 the town’s Planning and Development staff, along with its associate counsel (Morphis), recommended a “simple, routine solution” -- A Text Amendment -- describing a TA as “an exception that is made all the time.” Thereafter town staff provided samples of others’ applications, shared pertinent studies and documents, provided me a workspace within the development dept., and advised me as to the language to include. The resulting 18-page application was highly detailed. Most notably it addressed the primary objective protecting the University Lake watershed land by limiting density. My farm is zoned “watershed residential.” Carrboro’s “Table of Permissible Uses” allows watershed residential land to be developed for a host of alternative uses, including as schools, churches, athletic facilities, retirement communities, residential subdivisions, and so on. Bed-and-breakfasts were added in 2007. Consequently, the town staff concluded that, by allowing the caretaker apartment, having three residents on the farm’s 20 acres would pose “a significantly lower risk than if the land were to become a subdivision.” By agreement with staff and counsel, my TA application was submitted on January 3, 2008 along with the application fee (ck No. 987, $425). On the afternoon of January 15, 2008 Town Clerk, Sara Williamson, assured me that she had placed my application [along with my letter asking the BofA to postpone legal action until it reviewed this] on the evening’s BofA Agenda. Morphis informed me that I was not allowed to attend that meeting. TRUTH – On January 16, 2008 Morphis told me that senior counsel, Mike Brough, had advised the BofA to remove my application from the agenda and to sue me instead. Three weeks after I submitted the application and check, the latter reappeared in my mailbox --- in a plain, white, #10 envelope; no return address. When I sought an explanation from the town’s planning administrator, I was told to forget about returning it because “a decision has(d) obviously been made” and “it’ll only be absorbed into the town’s coffers; the town doesn’t return fees regardless of the outcome of an application.” Why did the TA disappear thereafter? Why was the check returned? Why was there never any mention thereafter of the separate letter? In January 2009 Morphis learned from the CH Herald that a check existed. Thereafter the BofA claimed it rejected the TA because no payment accompanied it. Now ask yourself. If you, as a BofA member, knew legal action was pending? If you knew an applicant had spent weeks under a 90-day Court order preparing an 18-page document with your staff’s help [the sample TA applications were all hand-scribbled phrases on a single page form w/o code citations], and with the town paying legal fees, wouldn’t you ask the applicant: Where’s your application fee? Not Carrboro’s BofA. Why not? Wardle: “Kille was ordered to remove the apartment; Morphis said this could have been as simple as removing the kitchen and making a few changes to the floor plan. She refused.” TRUTH – I never refused! This was considered as one of two options in December 2007 and simultaneously with the TA (above). On December 21, 2007 Morphis, staffer James Thomas and inspector Rick Wade inspected the apartment. Wade insisted that all electrical wiring and outlets, storage cabinets, wall paneling, a sink, and so forth had to be removed. When asked, “If this met code in 1997 as a workshop, why don’t these [systems] meet code for a workshop in December 2007?”, he answered, “Because I said so; these are the rules!” Thereafter, my electrician and plumber refused to perform this work; claimed that Carrboro was ordering the space to become, in fact, non-compliant with NC Building Code; and that this would jeopardize their licenses, something they refused to allow. Wardle: “Kille built the 520-square-foot apartment in 1997, two years after she moved onto the farm. She said she rented it for $550 a month to people who also helped her care for her horses. Though she admits she has no certificate of occupancy or any other documentation from the town approving the unit as a dwelling, Kille claims that town inspectors must have been aware of its presence, since they made multiple visits to the barn that houses it as the structure was being built.” TRUTH – I am not a contractor. I relied upon the town for guidance. I believed that I was fully complying with everything required. And that the final inspection(s), during which the apartment was completed and fully accessible, represented what I only later learned differed from a CO. [NOTE: Carrboro claims there was only one “final inspection.” But the records of the gas and electric companies, as required by state law, support that these installation were permitted in Oct. 1997; and finally inspected separately and prior to Dec. 1]. Only the building and plumbing were inspected on December 1, 1997 [SEE below]. The blueprints, which Carrboro claims no longer exist, were filed with Conova, along with electrical and plumbing schematics, elevations, and the names of selected contractors. The planning administrator also had these plans. Ten years later Carrboro claims to no longer have these documents. But -- conveniently it appears – it has an allegedly original permit. What happened to the utility company permits? And, to all the other documents? Wardle: “She said inspectors have [sic?] applied inconsistent standards over the years, costing her thousands of dollars in unnecessary construction costs.” TRUTH – Construction began in July 1997 and was completed in December 1997. For weeks beginning in July contractors were increasingly annoyed by the inspectors’ demands to “put-in-and-take out.” When in early October an inspector threatened a “stop work order” -- because no handicapped bathroom appeared under construction – the contractors concluded that the town staff had never been properly trained or familiarized with this project. And, consequently, that inspectors had alternately been applying residential and commercial standards. And, “Yes!” This resulted in cost overruns of an estimated $20,000. The inspector’s demand, that a handicapped bathroom was required, led me to decide to complete the “future apartment”, which had always been viewed as essential for proper management and security. By then Autumns Wood tenants had begun to damage the farm’s fences when attempting to feed the horses; the animals were escaping onto the roadway, endangering themselves, pedestrians and motorists. Within days of this decision, contractors acknowledged having obtained from Carrboro amended permits to construct the apartment. No one ever mentioned “impact fees.” I knew nothing/heard nothing about impact fees. I was a lay person; In hindsight, I would have expected town staff to have mentioned this during our initial planning meetings. It wasn’t until December 2008 that such was ever mentioned by Carrboro. And, only after I and my attorney had been told for a year that “only 2-acres and a bathroom permit would be required.” Wardle: “Kille has provided no evidence for her claims of malfeasance on the part of town officials.” TRUTH: Nothing could be further from the truth (again)! Over 200 photos depict in remarkable detail the entire construction process and attest to the fact that this apartment existed at the time of the final inspection. Carrboro claims that this was conducted on December 1, 1997. In fact, the apartment was completed about two months before the barn was completed. Gas and electric service was activated to the apartment ONLY [not to the barn] no later than December 3. Ask yourself? How did I complete the construction of a $35,000 apartment in 48 hours? The evidence supports that the inspector conducting the final inspection never entered the building and never activated the water to the structure or tested pressures. TRUTH – During the 5+ months of construction, town building staff inspected the project 2-3 times weekly; the Autumns Wood apartment complex was under construction on former O.C. land opposite the barn. This road front barn wasn’t something that was hidden from view; it has a dedicated driveway and a USPS-approved address and mailbox out front. Wardle: “Two and a half years of litigation and one $10,000 fine later, the apartment still stands, and Kille’s complaints against the town and its agents have intensified. TRUTH – Initially I agreed to convert the apartment to a workshop. I changed course once it became clear that renovations would cost an estimated $15,000 and violate building code. Thereafter I opted to accept the town’s alternative offer: (a) subdivide to allow 2-acres to be assigned to the barn and (b) obtain a permit for the apartment bathroom. In April 2008. Town counsel informed the Court that 120-days would be adequate to complete the subdivision process. By May the town insisted that the farm become a “Major Subdivision.” Think Wal-mart! This is an exceedingly complex, costly, time consuming process; Carrboro’s history supports that completion of this process routinely requires an average of two years. Why hadn’t counsel acknowledged this when directing the Court to limit compliance to 120 days? Another seemingly insurmountable hurdle? Deadline: August 26, 2008. TRUTH – I promptly hired the required contractors. However, throughout the ensuing 13 weeks – into mid-August – town staffs failed to respond to inquiries by contractors who sought help interpreting various code options. During these months I repeatedly reminded staff that I was under a Court Order to complete the subdivision process; August 26, 2008 came-and-went after which I remained in violation of the 120-day Court Order. Other complications arose. Clearly, there were inherent conflicts between Carrboro’s and the county’s codes and policies, including a “one time right to subdivide” rule, the interpretation of “impervious surface”, “stream buffer offsets”, and so on. Specifically, the Orange County’s staff advised me to preserve my future property value by (a/ either not subdividing or (b) by subdividing into all allowable parcels (7) at one time. Why? Because Carrboro enforces a “one-time right to subdivide” rule – something the county had abandon two decades earlier. But this would precipitate annual property taxes estimated at $50-60,000. If only two acres were subdivided and assigned to the barn, the remaining 17.5 acres could never be subdivided in the future; as in “throwing away your land’s worth.” No reasonable person would do this! Realtors and developers, like Picket-Sprouse, described the farm as “very valuable land”, saying “Carrboro wants your land but doesn’t want to pay for it. They want you to maintain it until its needed – either to extend the town’s commercial base or to help them to comply with EPA regulations, or both.” All recommended against subdividing it if at all possible. Simultaneously, my mortgage lender advised that, once a subdivision, I would lose my residential mortgage. The O.C. tax assessor advised against subdividing, saying that I would lose my “farm use” tax classification. Under NC law, I’d be required to pay “conversion taxes”, including (a) incumbent year taxes and (b) three immediate prior year taxes, at current fair market valuations. Estimate: $300,000 if sold for housing; “inestimable if developed for commercial use.” Furthermore, if I remained a farm after subdividing into seven parcels, O.C. estimated annual real property taxes at $50-60,000 the first year and increasing thereafter. All estimates depended upon acreage and use values. Consequently, I was damned whatever I did. And what I really wanted was to remain a farm. TRUTH: On October 2, 2008 the town’s Planning Board first learned of this matter. Emails and phone calls fro staff instructed me to keep my mouth shut; that their Power Point presentation and final decision would take only 5-10 minutes. But this didn’t happen. Instead the Planning Board pursued a 45 minute discussion about the need for Carrboro to implement A “Farm Building Code” similar to Orange Counties and elsewhere. I listened as staff repeatedly referred erroneously to my having initiated this Major Subdivision. Truth - On October 28, 2008 the BofA approved the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) required for the farm to become a s/d. But during that hearing Planning Board member summarized the PBs position, chastised the BofA for its tre4atment of me and again asked for a Farm Code. Thereafter the town disregarded its year old agreement which required that two acres be subdivided and a bathroom permit obtained. Instead, the town was requiring that nine (9) acres—the farm’s entire, more desirable road front—be segregated, which could never to be subdivided again. And first mentioned “impact fees”, estimated at about $8,800 and double those of O.C. Other additional demands were imposed. The electrical services needed to be separated (how does one achieve this when all lines are embedded in 4-inches of concrete)? And the building would be subjected to 2009 building codes that didn’t exist in 1997. The “permit for the bathroom” became full-fledge construction fees as if the structure never existed. And the town imposed a doubling of fees, claiming penalties for having violated code in 1997. Well, as Senator Kinnaird wrote in a summer 2008 email, “It appears that this will never end.” No kidding! Every time my lawyer and I surmounted another hurdle, yet another was placed in our path. The conclusion by area specialists, “They want your land; they want you to maintain it until they’re ready to annex it.” There is no longer doubt! Wardle: “Outside Town Hall, Kille alleged the suit against her was being advanced to line the pockets of attorneys and to seize control of her property. She brought up the specter of annexation—a touchy issue for many in Carrboro—and suggested a town employee had been bribed by a subcontractor in connection with the apartment’s construction.” TRUTH: I never spoke with Mr. Wardle outside of Town Hall. He approached me hurriedly as I departed the hearing room, followed me down the hallway and asked to contact me the following day. I agreed to speak with him on Wednesday morning and asked for his business card; he didn’t have one. Thereafter he asked some questions about the proceedings; I offered to share with him evidence to the contrary. He responded twice that he wasn’t “interested in the nitty-gritty” or “the peripheral issues.” I thought this was odd at the time. Needless to say, he never called on Wednesday or before publishing this article. What this matter doesn’t need is someone disseminating more erroneous information. Wardle: “Seconds after she stormed from the hearing, Kille vented her rage at the Town of Carrboro. “What you heard tonight was fraud,” she fumed. “It was deception, manipulation beyond belief.” TRUTH: Actually, if you view the videotape, you’ll see where, upon Mr. Chilton denying me for the second time an opportunity to respond to these allegations, I rose, faced the audience and cameras, and chose to alert citizens by saying, “Ninety percent of what you heard tonight is a fraud, inaccurate, a distortion of the facts.” [or something close to ths since the town hasn’t yet posted its meeting videotape. Hm-m-m???] Wardle: “Kille’s case and her allegations about town leaders have caught the attention of local media. A Feb. 19 article, followed by a Feb.22 editorial, in the Chapel Hill Herald, both written by Herald editor Dan Way, repeated many of Kille’s arguments. The Herald advanced a story discussed previously on the feisty right-wing Orange County political blog Squeeze the Pulp; both publications’ versions basically square with Kille’s portrayal of events.” TRUTH: Mr. Way reported having communicated at length with Carrboro officials, regulators, witnesses, among others familiar with this matter. He examined evidence, spent about one month conducting research of every aspect so as to provide as accurate and professional an assessment of the circumstances as he felt possible. In contrast, Mr. Wardle listened to Carrboro’s BofA’s telling of this story for about an hour, spent a hasty few minutes detaining me in the hallway; and thereafter failed to follow-up with me, with Mr. Way or others before publishing his blog. Shame! Wardle: “It’s a portrayal that has puzzled town officials.” TRUTH: Really??? Why aren’t those who have looked closely been puzzled – or fooled? Wardle: “In a detailed memo to the Board of Aldermen, Morphis outlined what he called “significant inaccuracies” in the Herald and Pulp articles, including claims that Carrboro was using the apartment issue as leverage to annex Kille’s land.” TRUTH: Again, given all the obfuscations proffered by town officials to date, area land-use specialists have concurred without exception that “There can no other explanation.” “Carrboro has over-developed and is at risk of violating EPA regulations.” “Carrboro desperately needs to expand its commercial base and your land qualifies.” Wardle: “In response to the coverage, and a rising tide of public complaints as a result, Chilton took the unorthodox step of discussing Kille’s case in public.” TRUTH: I kept this quiet until Carrboro repeatedly imposed hurdles that contradicted its earlier terms and made it increasingly impossible for me to satisfy its demands. IN SUMMARY: Carrboro has chosen to disregard precedent, and the recommendations of its planning and development staff, its own associate counsel and its Planning Board. Why? Carrboro has chosen to disregard all the evidence to the contrary; 200+ photos; testimony by contractors; records offered by public utility companies; invoices; and so on. Why? Carrboro’s BofA hid awareness of this matter and of a potential lawsuit from its advisory committees and the public, against all policy and precedent, for nearly two years. Why? And why wasn’t this referred to the Dispute Settlement Center instead of becoming a needlessly costly and avoidable expense for the town? Whatever happened to my Test Amendment? Why did the BofA elect t compel a Major Subdivision — with all its potentially harmful implications — when a TA was a reasonable solution and recommended by staff. Perhaps a [partial answer lies in a question asked by the town’s development administrator on December 19, 2007: "Is Carrboro adequately restricting development consistent with OWASA's 1989 recommendations in a way that doesn't unfairly shift the burden [for water quality and storm water run-off] onto watershed residential landowners?" I’ve raised some pertinent questions – including “Why me? And “Why now? Inconsequential “nitty-gritty” questions for which Mr. Wardle seemingly has no answers! "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail." - Abraham Maslow

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Ok sam, I agree with you. Now, do you have her side of the story? I don't see it. By the way, can the town of carrboro let the citizen know, what the hell is going on with this issue? Enough of this closed meetings.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Umm..its illegal so I don't really see her side of the story. Also, $550 a month for a tiny "substandard" apartment in a barn outside of town? Come on, thats ridiculous.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike