My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BC 2009 04 20 Regular
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Meeting Minutes
>
BOC
>
2009
>
BC 2009 04 20 Regular
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/19/2009 2:57:33 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 1:02:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Minutes
Meeting Minutes - Date
5/19/2009
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
April 20, 2009 (Regular Meeting) <br />(D) INFORMnT• PUBLIC COhA~NTS <br />Page 1313 <br />H. Jay White, Sr., Chairman <br />Cabarrus County Board of Commissioners <br />Chairman White opened the meeting for Informal Public Comments at 6:98 <br />p.m. He stated each speaker would be limited to three minutes. <br />Lynda DeLellis, resident of 6215 Denny Rumple Road, Kannapolis, stated <br />she received a letter from the Board. She read the following letter as her <br />response and asked that it be included in the minutes as a matter of public <br />record: <br />April 11, 2009 <br />H. Jay White Sr. <br />County Board of Commissions <br />Cabarrus County <br />65 Church Street <br />Kannapolis, NC 28081 <br />Dear Mr. White: <br />I wish to thank you and the board for taking the time to look <br />into the issues I raised during the February 2009 meeting. <br />Although you state in your letter dated April 3, 2009, you have <br />been fully briefed I feel that it is exceedingly important that <br />the board, Mr. Smith and Mr. Riley understand fully the <br />ramifications of the actions and decisions that the county has <br />taken regarding this matter. <br />I am confident that Mr. Koch provided full information to the <br />board; however I am compelled to share neighborhood background. <br />First, I did not move into this neighborhood and possessively <br />attempt to heave residents from my property. In fact I fenced off <br />a half acre of my property so that an elderly neighbor could <br />continue utilize my property for his chickens and for storage. <br />Another neighbor still harvests downed trees from my property for <br />firewood. More to the point, I would not have complained about <br />people using Denny Rumple for access if they were not so <br />disrespectful to me, destructive to my property, as well as <br />threatened lawsuits due to the condition of the road; conditions <br />they created. <br />As with most disputes that drag on, information is lost in <br />translation, distorted and misunderstood so I wish to ensure that <br />all persons involved with the county's position as expressed in <br />your letter understand my perspective. <br />The first issue mentioned in your letter is the legal status of <br />Denny Rumple Road. Mr. Koch provided the Board of Commissioners <br />with the various documents including a copy of a law suit. I <br />would hope that Mr. Koch also provided the board with a copy of <br />deed book 117 pages 305 from Cabarrus County records that clearly <br />shows that W. D. (Denny) Rumple purchased the land starting at <br />Tuckaseegee Road and extending past location of my house on June <br />15, 1999. This deed supports my contentions that references to <br />my property being the dominant tract of a common owner prior to <br />the 1965 severance of W. L. Rumple estate into multiple tracts <br />is erroneous as are allegation that Denny Rumple Road has any <br />bearing on the severance of the W. L. Rumple estate. The <br />referenced law suit is fraught with fallacious allegations so may <br />not settle quickly and until then I my title is clouded leaving <br />me trapped in a nightmare. Moreover, the lawsuit is irrelevant <br />at this time; the issue at this time is access over private <br />property that to date has no deeded easements or right of ways. <br />The second issue pertains to access. Does Cabarrus County <br />exercise its own pseudo condemnation of eminent domain whereby <br />they eliminate judicial proceedings, avoid all compensation and <br />expedite the process by not notifying the property owner? How <br />did the county assume control of private property without owner <br />concurrence or due process, which is in violation of the Fifth <br />Amendment? Cabarrus County records show Mr. Tucker requested an <br />address for 911 System access. County Commissioners approved <br />Denny Rumple as Mr. Tucker's road and assigned 6215 as his <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.