Swepsonville’s town council approved the annexation and rezoning of about three acres on the edge of town last Tuesday night, in order to make way for a Sheetz gas station and convenience store.
The council did so over the objections of the nine public speakers who “signed up to speak” while other would-be speakers in the audience were not allowed to ask questions or speak during the consideration of the annexation and rezoning issues, since they had not “signed up to speak” on a form at the meeting entrance.
[Story continues below photo of town council.]
Voting 5-0 in favor were mayor Henry Carrouth, mayor pro tem Drew Sharpe, and councilmen John Andrews, Travis Sapp, and Wilbur Suggs.
Only speakers allowed at public hearing were those who “signed up”
The council through its mayor, Henry Carrouth, took the position that only the nine people who “signed up” to speak at the public hearing could speak or pose questions during the meeting.
Alamance News publisher Tom Boney, Jr., present to cover the meeting and also a Swepsonville resident, was among those who challenged the mayor’s procedure – with Boney objecting that state law does not allow the kind of restriction on public participation that Carrouth employed.
Twice Carrouth consulted the town’s attorney, Paul Koonts, in the face of Boney’s objections. Koonts told the mayor that in his judgment the procedures for who could speak were “within the discretion” of the council.
While some local municipalities occasionally employ a “sign-up” sheet for some public hearings, those are usually a starting point for public participation, with most jurisdictions allowing residents to speak during a public hearing even if they did not initially sign up to do so. Most local cities and towns do not require any sign-up to speak at a public hearing in the first place.
But Carrouth said only those who had signed in would be allowed to speak at the podium or ask questions of the company’s representatives or the town council.
Carrouth offered Boney and several other residents in the crowd of about 50 who complained about being shut out from participation during the public hearing an opportunity to speak during a “public comment” period at the end of the meeting – after the council would have voted on the Sheetz project.
Traffic worries
Among those who did address the council, the most frequent objection was the likely traffic impact at the busy corner of NC 54 and North Jim Minor Road, which several said had been the site of traffic accidents.
The company’s representatives said they had conducted a traffic impact analysis, but it was not made available during the hearing or in the “agenda packet” accessible to the public beforehand.
According to the Sheetz representatives, the only traffic-related requirement imposed by the state’s Department of Transportation was for a right turn lane into the Sheetz site.
“There’s been a lot of accidents” [at the intersection of North Jim Minor Road and NC 54, the site of the proposed Sheetz]. That little narrow road [referring to North Jim Minor Road] is going to have to be widened.”
– Swepsonville resident Karen Strawther
Swepsonville resident Karen Strawther said, “There’s been a lot of accidents” at the intersection of North Jim Minor Road and NC 54. “That little narrow road [referring to North Jim Minor Road] is going to have to be widened,” she said. But when she asked whether North Jim Minor Road would be widened, a company engineer said that had not been recommended by the DOT.
Another nearby resident, S.W. Taylor, who lives on 7½ acres along North Jim Minor Road beside the future Sheetz also raised traffic and other concerns. “I’m going to be impacted daily,” he said.
“I would hate to see Swepsonville turn into another Mebane.”
– Swepsonville resident Mike Surber
Mike Surber, a resident of the Laurelton Village subdivision, which is the residential development closest to the future Sheetz, said he and his family had been drawn to the “peace and tranquility” of the area. “I would hate to see Swepsonville turn into another Mebane,” Surber summarized, cautioning the council not to allow too much development too fast.
In addition to traffic safety issues, other residents raised environmental safety issues, and especially the possibility of gas leaks near Back Creek, which is just a few hundred yards from the Sheetz site.
Why is the town paying Sheetz $100,000?
Another target of residents who spoke, and Boney who tried to, was the plan by the council to provide a $100,000 payment to Sheetz to subsidize the company’s extension of sewer lines from the Laurelton subdivision to the Sheetz site a quarter-mile or so away.
“Why does the company need subsidies?” asked Jacob Strock.
“Why are we putting $100,000 toward a billion dollar company? We’re [Swepsonville] already a bargain.”
– Swepsonville resident and town councilman-elect Lee Walls
Lee Walls, another resident who was recently elected to the town council (he’ll take office in December), was even more pointed, “Why are we putting $100,000 toward a billion dollar company? We’re [Swepsonville] already a bargain.”
In an interview after the meeting, Walls said that, “Given the information I have, I would have voted ‘no’ against the $100,000 ‘cost-sharing’ plan.” He added, “That’s an awful lot of [the town’s] budget going to a private company.”
As to the underlying issue of the annexation and rezoning, Walls was more circumspect, saying that he suspected there was much more information that the council had from its four months of closed-door sessions than is available to him or other residents. “I don’t know what I don’t know,” he said in an interview.
Peter Strock also questioned, “Why does the town have to pay a penny of this?”
Carrouth said that the town would “recoup” its investment through “system development fees” that would be paid both by Sheetz and other future developers as a result of the sewer line being extended to the other (east) side of NC 54.
Boney later told the mayor that the town shouldn’t have to incur any costs from the sewer line extension and then the town wouldn’t have to recoup anything. “We’ll just have to agree to disagree,” the mayor responded.
Boney also questioned why the so-called cost-sharing agreement was not the subject of a public hearing, but was simply listed as an agenda item separate from the annexation and rezoning public hearing.
Crime, environmental concerns also raised
Another Strock family member, Nicole Strock, raised concerns about potential violent crime, based on late night crimes at other Sheetz locations (which, like the plan for the one in Swepsonville, are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week). She also pointed to Sheetz-related gas leaks that she had found in researching the company online.
Jacob Strock said that “the community should know what are the risks” associated with the company’s plans, repeatedly asking whether various environmental tests or studies had been undertaken. He wondered whether wells in the area could be affected by potential gas leaks from the Sheetz station.
Jacob Strock also took aim at the town’s attorney: “Is he Sheetz’ attorney or the town’s lawyer? I don’t which one he’s representing.” [Town attorney Paul Koonts is representing Sheetz in an annexation and rezoning request for a different Sheetz project in Mebane.]
“Is Sheetz going to be helping the economy of this area,” Jacob Strock questioned. “If so, why do they need subsidies. . . If they’re going to be such a thriving business that’s going to be helping the community, don’t you think they could swing it [without a contribution from the town]?”
One of the company’s representatives, Sean Poole, emphasized that the company had three choices for developing the corner property at North Jim Minor Road and NC 54: it could stay in unincorporated Alamance County, which would generally require well/septic hookups for water and sewer service; it could seek annexation from Graham, which is nearby; or it could be brought into Swepsonville. “Whoever controls the annexation, controls the development” of the property, Poole outlined.
Why were residents restricted in asking questions?
At the end of the council meeting, after the council had already voted on the Sheetz annexation and rezoning, several members of the audience expressed concerns about the mayor’s restrictive rules for public participation and what they considered to be the town’s lack of transparency.
Mary Drummonds said she did not understand why “questions were not allowed” earlier during the public hearing, adding that it “gave the impression that a decision had already been made” by town council members.
Boney noted that no council member had raised a single question to Sheetz representatives during the public hearing, and with the exception of the mayor, the other four councilmen were totally silent. Councilman John Andrews responded to one resident during the public comment portion at the end of the meeting.
Resident Davita Mack said it had been her experience at the previous month’s meeting, in October, “you kind of threw us out the door and into the rain” before the council went into a closed session. “There’s not been a lot of transparency.”
She added, “There’s not a warm and fuzzy feeling about how you’re running things.”
