Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission directs staff to seek county attorney guidance after alleged CUP violations at Church Street property
Summary
A motion to refer an alleged conditional use permit violation involving a travel trailer to the county attorney was amended and approved; commissioners debated whether the referral meant beginning legal proceedings or seeking procedural advice and voted to request attorney recommendations.
The Matthews County Planning Commission voted to send a pending conditional use permit (CUP) compliance matter to the county attorney for guidance after discussion about alleged violations at a Church Street property.
The commission’s discussion centered on whether the action would initiate legal proceedings or request procedural advice. Commissioner Mead made the original motion to send the matter to the county attorney; Commissioner Riddle seconded, and after member questions the motion was amended to ask the county attorney for recommendations and directions on how to proceed. The amended motion passed on a roll call vote with one dissenting vote recorded.
Commissioners and staff described a set of alleged violations tied to the CUP: a travel trailer reportedly placed in front of the primary structure instead of behind it as required by the original CUP; multiple other complaints alleging trash and property maintenance issues; and uncertainty about whether the person who visited the planning office was the property owner or another party. Staff said notifications and courtesy letters had been issued and that Notices of Violation (NOVs) and health, septic and well approvals could be relevant next steps.
At one point a commissioner pressed for clarity: “The motion states for legal proceedings. I thought we were just seeking the county attorney to get advice,” and staff and other commissioners responded that they expected the attorney would provide steps such as verification of ownership, septic and well approvals, and guidance on setbacks before any formal court action. A commissioner noted that an NOV is itself a legal action that can advance to enforcement if unresolved.
The roll call on the amended motion to seek attorney recommendations recorded one no vote (Mister Morgan) and a majority of ayes (Mister Ralphs, Mister Reidy, Mister Wilford, Miss Minor, Mister Roe, Mister Meeks, Mister Cook). The commission’s minutes indicate the motion passed and staff were directed to consult with the county attorney and report back.
No formal enforcement action was reported at the meeting; the commission’s direction was limited to seeking the attorney’s professional advice and next steps, not to immediately commence litigation.
