Roanoke Rapids City Council Tuesday moved forward with a land use amendment in the Carolina Crossroads Music and Entertainment District that is specifically tied to horse racing and pending state legislation on the matter.
The final approval of the amendment came down to a 3-2 vote, with council members Sandra Bryant and Warren Keith Bell voting against it and Curtis Strickland, Rex Stainback and Wayne Smith supporting the measure.
The amendment changes the former wording of multi-use outdoor recreation facility to multi-use indoor/outdoor recreation facility.
The change in wording allows the horse racing proposal and a myriad of other uses should legislation on allowing horse racing fall through.
It would also make horse racing and other uses a use by right rather than a use that has to be issued through a special use permit.
Carida Capital Group petitioned the city to amend the land use ordinance.
White comments
During a public hearing on the matter, Roanoke Rapids attorney Bill White, who represents the group, first referenced last year’s action which allowed casinos to be added as a permitted use in the entertainment overlay district. “As I stated at that meeting the theater was never intended to be a stand alone venue for the district. While the theater is doing very well with the shows and other productions, the balance of the district needs to be developed.”
White said, however, “The politics of the 2023 regular session of the General Assembly did not permit the introduction of the legislative bill to permit four non-tribal casinos to be located in North Carolina.”
The location of one, according to the last draft, “was to be in our entertainment district,” White said. “It was hoped and remains our hope that this legislation will be introduced in the short session of the General Assembly. Currently, that hope may be fading unless both houses of the General Assembly recognize projected tax revenues from the casinos as a means to balance the budget.”
What the 2023 session did do, White said, was enact session law to allow wagering on professional, college, amateur sports and live horse racing and to authorize live horse racing in the state, which became effective in January.
The law requires that sports wagering must be in a permanent place of public accommodation defined as places where in-person wagering is offered. “These venues are associated with sports venues and are subject to rules, regulation and enforcement by the North Carolina State Lottery Commission.”
The commission is to adopt rules governing the conduct of horse racing in the state, White said. “Legislation has been drafted to require the state lottery commission to publish its proposed rules by January 1, 2025.”
He said, however, “Who knows how the state lottery commission may push back on that deadline. The last draft of the legislation that I’ve reviewed also requires the state lottery commission and the department of commerce to jointly study the impacts of live horse racing and wagering on the economic development and tourism in this state with a focus on Tier 1 counties.”
White said the study would include any recommendations on how to market the resources of Tier 1 counties for horse racing including the development of horse tracks, training facilities, breeding facilities, tourism-associated equestrian activities and any other matters related to bringing horse racing to the state.
The deadline for the joint commission to report findings to the legislature is no later than February 15.
“When the General Assembly announced legislation to govern the requirements for horse racing and horse tracks, my client believes that this track could be located in the entertainment overlay district,” White said. “Through the coordinated efforts of the lottery commission, the department of commerce, Halifax County tourism, Halifax County Development and others, our Tier 1 county could benefit greatly from a coordinated plan on how to best market the development of a horse track for training and breeding facilities.”
White said the economic impact associated with equestrian activity, sports wagering and many other activities “would be significant for our city and our county.”
With the reclassification, “My client believes they have the contacts to make this permitted use a reality, provided, of course, the General Assembly passes the required legislation and the state lottery commission does not make the requirements too burdensome,” he said. “Time is always of the essence and development may disappear if hearings are required. We have drafted the permitted uses as broadly as possible to permit other activities if the horse track is not enacted.”
Serious money is at stake, the attorney said. “Applications for sports betting is basically a million dollars. They’re talking with these breeding facilities and training facilities, not counting the track, a minimum of $100 million so it will be a significant impact. What my clients are trying to do is keep as many possibilities open as possible.”
Singleton comments and Bryant’s concerns
David Singleton is a resident of Wallace Fork Road which is across from the area that has been under discussion for the casino as well as the horse racing. “We haven’t heard anything about this until I was told to come over here today and just listen,” he said during the public hearing. “I wasn’t really ready to speak until I found out more information on what I was going to speak about.”
He wanted to know what becomes of the residential area. “We’ve been out there for a while. We ran through this once before and had a big problem with it. We’re not really trying to relocate and we’re not really trying to make it hard for the city as well. They have put us back in the residential area which we were in the city and it seems like we’re about to go about getting the same thing to happen again.”
Singleton was referring to an annexation in 2005 by action of the General Assembly in which residents in the community were given no warning. The land was annexed to make way for development in the Carolina Crossroads Music and Entertainment District.
Residents eventually won a battle for de-annexation.
“I would like to have more information on what they’re talking about so I can get a general idea of what’s really going,” Singleton said. “They haven’t said anything to us about what they are doing. It’s just a guessing game for us and I’m sitting right across the street looking at it.”
Singleton said he doesn’t believe it’s right for people not to know what’s going on in their community.
With a special use permit residents would be notified, Interim Planning Director Kristen Anderson said. “If it’s allowed by right you would not be notified. If someone does provide a development plan we as a planning department could notify you of that but we would not be required.”
It was Singleton’s comments that influenced Bryant’s decision to vote against the matter. “I think Mr. Singleton brought up a good point. I want to know if we approve this if people that are still residents out there, I think they at least need the courtesy of being notified. If that is part of a special use that is what I want included in the motion.”
City Attorney Geoffrey Davis said the first part under consideration was changing the definition to incorporate race tracks and other uses and then the second part was going from requiring a special use permit to uses permitted by right. “Right now if somebody were to go out there and develop a use such as that it would not be permitted by right. They would have to come to city council and ask for a special use permit.”
As drafted, he said, “If permitted by right there would be no city council action. There would be no notice to individuals that live nearby.”
There was the opportunity to make amendments to the proposal but none were offered and Smith proceeded with his motion to approve the amendment on a second by Stainback.
“It’s not that I’m not in favor of going forward but I do think that if we’re going to go out and incorporate areas where people are living, they at least need to have some type of input. They need to be notified,” Bryant said.
