Cabarrus County Building Industry Association Press Release

In Response to Cabarrus/Concord Moratorium
Friday, October 26, 2007
From:  Aubrey Haigler, President CCBIA

• Cabarrus County and Concord hid the decision process of this issue from the public – especially land owners in the affected areas.  They used the cover of a lawsuit settled in 2006 to discuss this change in closed session.

• If they were doing nothing wrong, why would they not want to inform the public and receive their input prior to a decision? 

• A fundamental question must be asked:  Is this decision a moratorium (as stated by the Charlotte Observer and the Independent Tribune)?  If it is meant to stop development for a period of time then it is a de-facto moratorium?   

• If a resident on the east side of Concord wants to sell their land to a developer, a developer must first have their preliminary plat approved by the local government.  As a result of the Cabarrus County/Concord agreement, a preliminary plat application would likely be denied by the local government because development is not feasible without water and sewer service.  

• If the outcome is automatic denial of plans, then it's a de facto moratorium.  Cabarrus County/Concord have not fulfilled the requirements of Session Law 1005-426 (below) which require four fundamental requirements be met before local government can implement a moratorium.  This provision was passed in 2005 to prevent local government from using moratoriums to shield their poor land-use planning. It appears local government is trying to do something indirectly that they can't do directly under state law.

• Using water and sewer service to control development is an attempt to gain "leverage" over landowners.  It is amazing that during the current Lowes Motor Speedway debacle, local government continues to govern by using "leverage" over citizens in the county to accomplish something it could not otherwise do. 

• There is no question this recent agreement violates the intent of the new state law on moratoriums.  This agreement joins the legally questionable Cabarrus exaction fee of $8,000 the county calls this fee a "voluntary contribution" in order to avoid arguments that it is an illegal impact fee.