Controversy and questions over a proposed annexation agreement with Pinehurst drew a standing room only crowd to the Foxfire Village Council meeting on Tuesday, January 12. Following a heated discussion period that resulted in one resident being escorted from the room, the Council approved the agreement in a 3-2 split vote.
   However, without a fourth nod -- a super majority vote, if you will -- the Council will follow the recommendation of Village Attorney Michael Brough and conduct a second vote on the annexation agreement at a Special Meeting on Thursday, January 14 at 3:00 pm at Foxfire's Village Hall. If the vote remains 3-2 or better in favor of the agreement, that will secure its approval.
   The large crowd -- and controversy -- was in marked contrast to the relatively benign previous Council discussions on the agreement. A special work session called in November to go over details was sparsely attended, and only a handful of residents spoke at two public hearings on the proposal held in December.
   The opposition is mainly focused on two points: that Foxfire is giving up too much prime commercial property along NC Highway 211, and that rural residents between the two villages have not been given notice or enough opportunity for input.
   Councilwomen Page Coker and Leslie Frusco both oppose the agreement, along with Tom Collins, chair of the Foxfire Quality Assurance Team, and Parks Committee Chair Jack Olsen. Voting in favor of the agreement -- a document they say is a necessary planning tool for both villages -- are Mayor George Erickson, and Councilmen Ed Lauer and Vic Koos.
   
Agreement in the works for eight months
   Negotiations on the twenty-year annexation agreement began eight months ago, with Erickson and Lauer representing Foxfire, and were first reported by The Times in our June 12, 2009 issue; however, several residents of the outlying affected areas have only just recently become aware of the discussion.
   As proposed, the agreement sets aside land that would be off-limits to each village for future annexation. The map was recently revised to move the Lake Diamond subdivision -- a rurally located, thirty-home lake community -- into the area open to annexation by Foxfire rather than Pinehurst.
   That change was the result of an appeal by Richard Shearer and Chris Nelsen, a resident of Lake Diamond and the president of the community's property owner’s association. In December, the Lake Diamond representatives approached the Foxfire Council and asked that Lake Diamond be brought into the potential Foxfire annexation area -- a request that was supported by Pinehurst -- and the map was duly amended.
   The revised map now extends the Foxfire reserved area north from the Foxfire Village center to Hwy 211 and then west to NC Hwy 73W; east beyond the Stonehill Pines development to encompass Lake Diamond, and south beyond Roseland Road. The area reserved for Pinehurst heads north from Roseland Road, skirting east of Lake Diamond, Stonehill Pines, and the existing Foxfire Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction [ETJ], and ultimately crosses over NC Hwy 211 from near Ellis Road all the way to NC Hwy 73E in West End: an area that includes nearly all of the 1,800 acre Pine Forest Development — a major subdivision and resort complex currently under review by the Moore County Planning Board.

  
Sufficient public notice?
   Rural resident Amy McDonald said, at this point, all she has heard about is the controversy. She asked the Council how word of the agreement had been disseminated and whether they felt that residents along Foxfire Road have been adequately notified.
   Erickson and Lauer responded that the proposed agreement has been discussed at several meetings and included in the minutes, posted on the Foxfire Village website, reported in The Times, and that legal notices were placed in The Pilot, as required by law.
   Individual letters to residents are not required and were not sent, but several owners of large affected properties were contacted independently, including a meeting with representatives of the Pine Forest Development.
   “They told us they preferred to stay in the county, some said they’d rather be with Pinehurst and we worked with Lake Diamond and the Wilson’s. You can only do so much,” said Lauer.
   The Wilson property is an 800-acre rural tract located along Hoffman Road and Hwy 211, north of Stonehill Pines. Currently the property is under Moore County zoning but, as originally proposed by Pinehurst, the property had been included in their jurisdiction for potential annexation. The Wilson family made a formal request to be included in the Foxfire Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction [ETJ] instead, and an agreement between the county and Foxfire is under attorney review. Erickson said the request must be approved by the Moore County Board of Commissioners before a public hearing would be held in Foxfire, anticipated for February or March of this year.
   Councilwoman Coker said that she is disappointed that public notice in a newspaper is the only requirement by law but encouraged residents to stay current and read the legal notice section regularly.
   “It is up to us as individual citizens to look for that information,” she said.
   
Move to table fails
   Opposed to the agreement, Coker recommended tabling the discussion until the Pinewild lawsuit is settled, but her motion died without a second.
   “I don’t see why we’re rushing into this at this time. We’re not representing the people here -- there is no benefit for Foxfire,” she argued. “This agreement works to Pinehurst’s advantage, it buys them time.”
   Lauer responded that the annexation agreement has nothing to do with Pinehurst’s attempt to forcibly annex the Pinewild development or the lawsuit that action has spawned.
   “Their [Pinehurst] ETJ already extends almost to every border on these proposed map areas,” Lauer said.
   Unlike Foxfire, which must go to Moore County to request an extension to its ETJ -- as in the case of the Wilson property -- the Pinehurst ETJ automatically extends two miles beyond its corporate limit.
   “We’re dealing with too many opinions not based on fact,” said Lauer. “If you look at the ETJ as it exists now, we’re right up against each other as we stand. I saw this agreement as a way of ensuring some boundaries around us as a small community. I moved here from Pinehurst, I owned land in Pinewild. My feeling is, all I want to do is preserve our way of life out here.”
   Lauer said that Stonehill Pines will take at least fifteen more years to develop, and that the Pine Forest Development would take at least that long.
   Land north of Hwy 211 was not included in areas that Foxfire might annex because “it is outside of our reach.”
   “To be perfectly frank, we don’t have the infrastructure, nor will we ever be able to provide them the services they will require, unless they come to us voluntarily like Stonehill,” said Lauer. “We don’t have a source of water to supply a development of that size. As for railroad access [referring to the commercial property Foxfire would control on Hwy 211], there has always been talk of access from two different roads -- 211 and Hoffman.”
   Koos agreed, “What has been unfair is criticism of this Council, by one in particular, that we are trying to jam this down everyone’s throat.”
   His remarks incited an open argument with Parks and Recreation Chairman Olsen, who was ultimately asked to leave the meeting.
   Attempting to restore order, Erickson called the question, forcing a vote, and then announced the Village attorney’s recommendation that the 3-2 split vote would require a second vote, to be held in a Special Meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 13, at 3:00 pm in the Village Hall.