Thursday, April 2, 1998

BY SARA OLKON Journal-Bulletin Staff Writer

A group of angry residents are suing the town, contending that impending zoning ordinance revisions will hurt property values and stifle business growth.

However, town officials say the action is politically motivated, premature and simply false.

The 11 plaintiffs include Kenneth Maynard and former Town Council members Forrester Safford and Charlene Dunn.

Superior Court Judge Frank Williams is expected to decide on April 9 whether to grant the defense's motion for dismissal. If the case goes forward, it could go to trial as early as April 13.

The lawsuit is the latest wrinkle in a long-running dispute.

In 1991, the Town Council appointed a group of citizens to update the town's zoning ordinance in response to a state mandate. Three years later, a proposal made it's way to the Planning Commission and, subsequently, the public, for review.

Eventually, the Town Council rejected the proposal, in part because some business leaders rallied against it, calling it too restrictive for commercial growth.

In March 1996, the Town Council formed a new zoning committee and gave its members six months to revise the ordinance. Maynard was appointed chairman.

But the work was not completed in time, and that fall, the newly formed all-Republican Town Council handed the task over to the Planning Commission.

The commission is expected to present a proposal to the public in the next two months. Meanwhile, public workshops are being held; the next workshop is scheduled for April 22 at 7:30 p.m. in Town Hall.

Maynard said the group is suing to stop the commission from designating certain areas as "unsuitable for development," which could deflate their property values.

"This is an artificial creation that will in effect to take away people's assets," he said.

Maynard said the commission's designation is simply a way to inhibit growth.

"I think there are many people in town who take the attitude: 'We don't want to see any development. We are here and don't want others to come.' "

Town Manager George Hibbard said Maynard's comments were completely unfounded.

"I don't know where these expectations (for lower property values) came from," he said. "We've had zoning since 1974. We have never been challenged as unfair."

"I find it odd," he added.

Town Solicitor Philip Sloan Jr., said the group's claims were premature, since the plan is still in the development phase, and questioned the substance of the lawsuit.

"This is absurd; there is no factual basis for this," he said.

But Maynard said there is plenty of reason for worry. To spread the word, the plaintiffs sent out a letter to residents in November detailing what the impending ordinance would mean. It read, in part:

"The purpose of this letter is to notify you of a change applicable to your property that we believe may render your property without value. . . . It appears that your property lies within an area comprised of hydric soils and probably at least one of the following flood categories. . . . (It will be) declared unsuitable for development. . . ."

Hibbard responded by calling the letter "disturbing," and full of "factual inaccuracies and misleading content." He said that no ordinance had been adopted, and would not be - until it is subjected to public scrutiny and legal review.

Some town officials have characterized the lawsuit as nothing more than a thinly veiled political scheme to undermine the council.

Maynard disputes the notion that the suit is political simply because two of the plaintiffs are former council members affiliated with the opposing political party.

"The people who are plaintiffs in this lawsuit are the people who have taken the time to understand (it)," he said.

He added, "I never have run for political office, and never will. To say that it is a politically motivated group is totally inaccurate. Listen to what we are saying."