This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Boone Overruled for SECOND TIME

How many times does this citizen have to go to the NC Court of Appeals, and how much money does he have to spend on legal fees in order to receive justice from the Boone Town Council????
From the Democrat: 
"The five-year-long clash between the town of Boone and Phil Templeton over a proposed medical clinic continues after a decision this week by the N.C. Court of Appeals.

On Tuesday, the N.C. Court of Appeals reversed an order by the Watauga County Superior Court in Templeton Properties, L.P. v. Town of Boone and remanded the case to the Superior Court for remand to the Boone Board of Adjustment to make reviewable findings of fact."



Boone's Loretta Claussen has a personal stake in this but it's the taxpayers of Boone who are paying the legal bills while this thing keeps getting kicked out by the Court Of Appeals. Why doesn't Boone just buy the property from Mr Templeton and give it to Mrs Claussen? It might be cheaper for the Boone taxpayers!

12 comments:

GIG said...

How Ironic, the citizens in the neighborhood behind the new hotel get the deaf ear to their complaints. But A clinic that might help somebody gets fought tooth and nail at the taxpayers expense from being built.

NewGuy said...

Ms Claussen does not live behind the hotel.

Reader said...

I agree, GIG.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. I just read the case. Actually the only reason the case was remanded back to the Board was because they needed to make findings of fact based ONLY on the info presented at the initial hearing. The mistake was they allowed both Templeton and the residents to testify a second time. It was a procedural issue.

GIG said...

Your right New Guy, she just helped the hotel get built and did not stand by the residents in that neighborhood.

But she is spending plenty of taxpayer money to keep a clinic form being built in hers.

That was my point if you read the article you would have sen that

NewGuy said...

gig..I was supporting your point. Templeton faced an uphill battle when he wanted rezoning on a property near Ms Laussen's neighborhood but there wasn't any town council resistance to the hotel. Had HER neighborhood been impacted by the hotel, it might have been a different story.

The first time they denied Templeton's zoning, the board did not even reach any findings of fact, they just denied him. When that case was remanded by the Court of Appeals they apparently didn't think they had enough "facts" to deny the permit, so they went out and obtained additional testimony.

The court pretty much has told them that they denied the zoning change and should be able to support their denial based on the information that they used to deny it. Shouldn't have to go out and dig for more reasons in an effort to support what they had done.

G.I.G said...

New Guy you have my apology.

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous, the case was remanded twice. The second time is all you can claim as to further testimony being the reason.

The town is just trying to fight Templeton with the public purse until he gives up due to costs.

Hopefully the courts will force the town to reimburse his expenses when he wins.

Anonymous said...

In their written opinion, the judges were clear. The case has been remanded back to the Board for findings of fact based solely on the initial hearing-no additional testimony. That's all it does. The court even warns that a court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Board. I'm not saying I like this--I don't. What I'm saying is I still don't see how Templeton has won anything.

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous, you continue to ignore the reason the case was remanded the first time. This error was just ex-calibrated by the town's flaunting of the original court orders.

Anonymous said...

@New Guy,
Templeton did not petition for rezoning of the property. A medical clinic was a permissable use under R-1 zoning (Dr offices on Dr Drive mostly R-1) with a special use permit. The Boone Town Council met after Templeton's submittal and denial of the request to change the ordinance and removed medical clinic from allowable uses. In my opinion Templeton has better than 50% chance in this case. This really speaks to the UDO and how poorly it has been constructed.

Wolf's Head said...

This is an example of how we need tort reform. The loser should pay the winners legal costs, as is done in Texas.

Of course, the Town would pay with it's citizens taxes, and until they have had enough the Council will continue it's fascist ways.