The secrecy and the stealth involved in bringing a casino to southern Rockingham County is one of the major complaints made by those in opposition.
The smart money says that the casino on 192 acres on US 220 a couple miles north of the Guilford County line was a done deal by the time the majority of the opponents found out about it.
The lack of public information about the proposed project was evident in the July 10 meeting of the Rockingham County Planning Board. The Planning Board only makes a recommendation to the Rockingham County Board of Commissioners, but opponents to a rezoning request usually make their opposition known at Planning Board meetings.
However, when the 192 acres came up for rezoning at the July 10 meeting of the Rockingham County Planning Board, it was relatively quiet. Fewer than 50 people attended the meeting, and prior to the meeting, according to Rockingham County Senior Planner Lynn Cochran, the Planning Department received three emails and four telephone calls inquiring about the rezoning request and four calls expressing concern.
There were seven speakers in opposition at the Planning Board meeting in comparison to nine speakers at the Monday, Aug. 7 meeting of the Rockingham County Board of Commissioners in opposition to the rezoning request, when the item was not even on the agenda. Over 400 people attended a meeting on Monday, Aug. 1 at the Ellisboro Baptist Church in opposition to rezoning the land for a casino.
Cochran also told the Planning Board that they could not discuss the uses that were allowed in the requested Highway Commercial zoning district.
He read this statement to the board, “No consideration of individual uses may be involved in making the decision to recommend approval or denial of the request.”
However, in the North Carolina Supreme Court decision Hall v. City of Durham, the court overruled the rezoning by the Durham City Council because the City Council did not consider all the uses allowed in the zoning district.
A portion of that NC Supreme Court decision states, “We hold that when rezoning property from one general use district with fixed permitted uses to another general use district with fixed permitted uses, a city council must determine that the property is suitable for all uses permitted in the new general use district …”
So the Durham City Council rezoning was overruled because all the permitted uses were not considered while the Rockingham County Planning Board was told not to consider any of the individual permitted uses.
Sadly since Phil Berger Jr is on the state supreme Court Rockingham county and the residents have zero say in what happens with this incredibly corrupt system and the proposed casino. Jr will support his days goals as will Kevin. NYC democrats got nothing on Rockingham county politicians.
All governments work in secret. That is their MO. Casinos should not be allowed in NC without voters’ approval.
Just like the new school in Colfax. It was a done deal before anyone knew about it. The process is a sham!
No casino in our county. Period. These fake “a” hole republicans. We don’t want it. Send it to Greensboro.
The dynamics and morality of Rockingham county will forever be changed if this goes through. The residents like the rural atmosphere and don’t want our county to be known as the gambling casino county. I remember Cherokee used to be known as a tourist area for the Cherokee indians, now it’s known as the place to go to gamble at the casino. That’s sad in my opinion.
Put them in big cities that are already acclimated for this type of thing.
Phil Berger, Jr. RINO and bar attorney. All I need to know.
Mr. Hammer, you have incompletely reported the facts presented at this hearing. Individual uses may not be considered in a straight rezoning because all uses must be considered in the subject districts according to GS 160D. My presentation to the Planning Board July 10, 2023 begins at minute 38 of the official proceedings.
https://rockinghamcountync.municipalone.com/agendaview.aspx?aid=12498&categoryid=10346#video
It is made clear during this presentation and in the written staff report to the board that all uses in the Residential Agricultural district and all uses in the Highway Commercial district must be considered in making a recommendation to approve or deny this request. If individual uses were considered, that would constitute a conditional rezoning which Hall invalidated. Your article gets it exactly backward.
A complete review of the facts of this request, a conventional “straight” rezoning request, will show that the Planning Board hearing followed all statutory requirements. See GS 160D-703(c), “…all regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building throughout each [zoning] district.” In Decker v Coleman, 1969 the standards for conventional rezonings were established and adhered to in this case.
This Planning Board hearing was conducted in conformity with Hall. The comments presented in your article were cherry-picked to twist the facts of this case. With respect Mr. Hammer, your article is wrong. – Lynn Cochran
https://rockinghamcountync.municipalone.com/agendaview.aspx?aid=12498&categoryid=10346#video