Tree Laws on the Rise   Developers must present ideas earlier. By Anne Blythe, The Chapel Hill News 3-25-98 CHAPEL HILL -- Developers who want to build in Chapel Hill will have to start talking to neighbors before they get into the many details of design work.  That's the gist of a new regulation that takes effect the first of next month.  On April 1, the Appearance Commission and Design Review Board will disband, and in its place a new Community Design Commission will be established.  This commission, which will have quasi-judicial powers, will see a development proposal in its embryonic stages, before even a schematic design has been presented to staff.  Representatives from neighborhoods near the project will be invited to comment so that developers will hear on the very front end of the design process any concerns and recommended changes.  "The developers would have very minimal money invested, but they can get some valuable feedback," said Diane Bachman, a member of the combined Design Review Board-Appearance Commission who is on the new commission.  "It's as much a communication/people process as it is a design process."  Beginning next month, developers asking the Town Council for special use permits, master land use plans or subdivisions of four lots or more will be required to present only a conceptual plan with limited site analysis for the first step of the development review process.  The new Community Design Commission then would invite neighbors of the proposed site to meet with the developer and members of the new board to get any concerns on the table.  The developer would consider those comments while drafting a more detailed proposal, much like those currently presented at the outset of the application process.  Previously, developers had the option of taking conceptual plans to the Design Review Board to get priority status.  The board occasionally would suggest changes, Bachman said.  But often, the developer already had invested much time and money in the project.  "They were seeing dollar signs, and ultimately Chapel Hill was losing," she said.  The idea behind the change is that if neighborhoods are brought into the design review process earlier, then some of the contentious battles that mark public hearings might be avoided.  Developers would know what trees and natural sites were important.  Neighbors might find out more about the financial needs of the developer.  "The developer would be able to address conflict right up front," Bachman said.  "It's not going to work every time."  Developers would not be bound to follow every recommendation the commission makes, although the group would have some leverage in that it must approve final building elevations and lighting plans.  The new commission will have 15 members.  Five will be appointed by other advisory boards.  The council appointed the other 10 Monday night.  Besides Bachman, they are: Michael Brown, a UNC-CH graduate student. Terry Eason, co-owner of an architectural firm. Bruce Guild, a former Planning Board member. Sarah Haskett, a landscape designer. Alice Ingram, a former Planning Board member. Stephen Manton, a former Design Review Board member. Weezie Oldenburg, an architect. Martin Rody, a former Planning Board member. Polly van de Velde, a social worker. Anne Blythe can be reached at 932-8741 or ablythe@nando.co   Rules weighed for clear-cutting By DAN KANE, Staff Writer News and Observer 5-7-98 DURHAM -- Responding to complaints about clear-cutting by developers, Durham's Joint City-County Planning Committee has asked its staff to devote the next four months to develop a package of regulations to protect trees.  "We're trying to light a fire under this issue and get people moving,'' said county Commissioner Ellen Reckhow, a committee member.  Though Durham boasts a rich canopy of trees, neither the city nor the county has regulations to preserve them.  As development has stepped up in the county, examples of clear-cutting have emerged.  This past summer, developer Bobby Roberts cleared a small forest of old pines, oaks and maples to build 23 small houses in the Lakewood neighborhood.  And Reckhow cited another property near Sedwick Road in southern Durham that was cleared for development last year.  Durham and six other municipalities are seeking help from the state legislature in the form of a bill allowing them to adopt ordinances to preserve trees on both private and public property.  The state Senate already has approved the bill.  The state in the past has adopted similar legislation for Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Charlotte and Asheville.  Meanwhile, the planning committee has come up with several recommendations that wouldn't require state approval.  They include:  Requiring all new plans submitted by developers to identify trees more than 18 inches in width.  Clarifying zoning regulations that require tree-protection measures to be installed alongside stream buffers.  Modifying zoning regulations to ensure more trees are preserved during construction.  Allowing forestry exemptions only in cases where there are proper management plans.  Other measures that the committee staff will be studying during the next four months include:  Requiring utilities to take extra precautions to protect trees while putting down underground lines.  Requiring more open space in all new developments.  Requiring tree-lined streets in residential developments.  Limiting the maximum number of parking spaces.  Offering more incentives to developers who preserve existing vegetation.  Limiting the amount of mass grading with new construction.  Reckhow said municipalities cannot prevent a private land owner from clear-cutting property.  But with enabling legislation, they can pass ordinances that require a buffer of trees along roads and highways. Dan Kane can be reached at 956-2412 or dkane@nando.com.   Nature gets mothering in Apex By KYLE YORK SPENCER, News and Observer 4-10-98 APEX -- On a crisp morning last year, Michelle VanGundy became so outraged by the bulldozer that was plowing down oak trees near her home that she grabbed her neighbor, a cup of coffee and a lawn chair.  They planted themselves in the giant machine's path.  "The driver stopped and said we would have to move," the 37-year-old curtain maker recalled.  "But I said, 'No.' "   The sit-in saved close to 100 trees, but it was just the beginning.  Today, VanGundy and a small group of Apex moms who live in her Walden Woods subdivision are keeping the fight going.  They are clamoring to preserve three oaks at the subdivision entrance that developers want to tear down in order to put in a model home for prospective buyers to tour.  They are enlisting the support of an Apex arborist, writing articles in their newsletter and taking on anyone who is building in this former tobacco town-turned-bedroom community.  "We want Apex to stay beautiful," Laurie Grogan said.  "We don't want it to turn into a barren wasteland."  Trees are a big deal in Apex -- so big that candidates during the last election campaigned on pro-tree platforms.  The town is experiencing a tremendous building boom.  There were 1,600 residential building permits issued last year, 500 more than were issued in Cary.  Although leaders are decidedly excited about the new Comfort Inn, the Food Lion, the Taco Bell and other developments, they admit they are finding it difficult to protect the ancient oaks and the pines that dot the landscape.  Complicating matters are state laws that protect the rights of land owners who want to clear-cut their land and sell timber before selling to developers.  VanGundy and her crew of green activists say they are not tree-huggers, just average suburbanites who want to protect their property values and who want their modern neighborhoods to remain as scenic as when they arrived.  "We are talking about the same thing developers are talking about," said Laura Carver, a mother of two who has been leading the fight for the three trees by her subdivision entrance.  "We're talking about the value of our homes and the beauty of the neighborhood."  Although Apex has lost many of its trees, their efforts are not going unnoticed.  Larry Lippincott of Pulte Homes, the firm that is building the houses in their subdivision, has vowed to hear them out on the oak tree issue.  "I'm talking with [them] to see what we can possibly work out," Lippincott said this week.  As for the rest of town, David Rowland, the head of the town's planning department, said that Apex officials cannot dictate to private property owners what to do with their land, but that he too wants to see more trees preserved.  And Mayor Keith Weatherly, who ran on a pro-tree platform, said that efforts to preserve the town's greenery are "a very serious deal."  As a condition of approval to build, the town can force developers either to keep a certain number of trees or to plant some if the land has been cleared.  To help enforce those rules, the town hired an inspector at a salary of $30,000 six months ago.  "Since then, we've been a lot more vigilant," Rowland said.  Now, orange fencing wraps around construction sites, showing bulldozer drivers what trees they cannot tear down.  Guy Meilleur, the local arborist who is helping in the fight, says such efforts are a good thing.  "Developments can co-exist with the trees," he said.  "But Apex would be a much cooler place to live in if the trees were left to cool the air." Kyle Spencer can be reached at 829-4526 or kspencer@nando.com   Tree-cutting debate takes root Builders, communities disagree on need to limit chopping By KYLE YORK SPENCER, News and Observer 7-10-98 Josh Colton isn't a member of Greenpeace.  He plays keyboards, but he's never composed anthems to the Amazon rain forest and he doesn't stay awake at night worrying about the decline of songbirds.  But these days Colton sounds as if he's ready to chain himself to a tree.  Three months ago, developers began clearing the pines and oaks near his home in Apex to make room for a subdivision.  Since then, the 26-year-old homeowner has joined a growing band of area residents who are urging leaders to take a tougher stand on the Triangle's tree supply.  "I know I sound like a tree-hugger," Colton said, recalling the day he stepped onto his front porch and found the verdant plot next door transformed into a landscape of gnarled stumps.  "But they've wiped out all the trees, and it looks like a bomb hit."  Once mostly the concern of environmentalists, tree preservation is increasingly becoming a mainstream cause for both individuals and Triangle communities.  Every decade, the region loses about 30,000 acres of forests -- an area slightly larger than the town of Cary -- as roads, subdivisions and strip malls replace wide swaths of greenery.  But as residents press communities for action, few have the legal power to respond with force.  While Chapel Hill was given legislative approval nearly a decade ago to prohibit the clear-cutting of land, other communities have been stymied in their efforts.  Last year, for example, a House committee killed a bill that would have expanded the legal authority of Durham, Apex, Garner, Cary and Knightdale to limit clear-cutting -- stripping the land of trees.  The bill was heavily opposed by the building and forestry industry.  As a result, most of these communities are tinkering this year with their tree ordinances but say those measures are not enough.  "We want to do more, but our hands are tied," said Keith Weatherly, the mayor of Apex.  Lobbyists for the timber and construction industries say tougher regulation could hurt private landowners and drive up the cost of new houses and apartments.  "From our perspective, blanket authority gives folks the opportunity to suggest some fairly restrictive measures," said Michael Carpenter, a lobbyist for the N.C. Home Builders Association.  The fight to save trees has become an emotional one for some residents.  As the cuts get closer to back yards and roadways, residents are signing petitions and venting their frustrations on Internet chat sites.   Earlier this year, one irate Apex woman -- Michelle VanGundy -- even grabbed a cup of coffee and planted herself in front of a bulldozer.  The developer responded to her concern -- and she saved nearly 100 trees.  Local leaders say the problem is a state law that prevents most communities from limiting tree-cutting before a landowner has submitted development plans.  They have no power to stop a developer from chopping down trees before blueprints are filed.  Susan Harrison, a planner for the town of Apex, saw that firsthand when she drove by a plot of land on U.S. 1 near N.C. 55 soon after construction crews chopped down a grove of lush oaks and maples.  Harrison knew that developers had expressed interest in building on the land but hadn't submitted plans.  "It made me so angry,'' she said.  "Developers often cut before we have a plan in." Whose woods are these? Property rights are at the heart of the Triangle's tree battles.  Arborists argue that green vistas are a community asset that should be preserved and regulated, just as billboards are restricted to maintain scenery.  Timber and home-builder groups say they should be able to do what they want with their land.  Robert Slocum Jr., executive vice president of the N.C. Forestry Association, said tree ordinances can take away income from landowners who regularly sell their timber, making up to $4,000 an acre for tracts of old pine trees.  "Many people look at their land like a bank account," Slocum Jr. said.  "It's an investment that can be passed down."  Parker Lumpkin is one of those people.  He says his family-owned forests a half-hour north of Raleigh have been an important source of income.  "It's how I went to college and my brother and my brother before him," Lumpkin said.  "So it's frustrating for people like us, who have owned our land for 30 years, to have others come in and say, 'We know better than you do about what you should do.' "   Developers also consider tree ordinances economic burdens that aren't very practical in the Triangle, where land tends to be hilly and leveling it with heavy equipment is essential for quick construction.  William "Willie" Hood, a Raleigh landscape architect, said it costs up to $15,000 to grade a 1-acre site, and saving trees can make it even more expensive.  Barriers have to be built around trees, and construction workers and heavy equipment need to stay far from tree roots.  Even when precautions are taken, there is no guarantee that a tree can be saved on land that is being cleared.  "The more we have to grade, the more trees are damaged," Hood said.  Pulte Homes, the developer in Colton's neighborhood, declined to comment for this story.  But representatives have previously said they try to work with homeowners to save trees.  Roger Perry, a Chapel Hill developer, said many tree preservationists become overly emotional and obsessed with a favorite oak or poplar.  "The biggest problem is you just have a hit-or-miss effect with trees," said Perry, who is building Meadowmont, a 435-acre development in Chapel Hill.  "Sometimes they live, sometimes they don't."  Arborists counter that developers are being shortsighted.  They note that trees help cleanse the air, control runoff and help keep homes cool, saving energy.  When preserved in long corridors, urban forests provide shelter for wildlife, keeping deer and other animals off the roads.  Studies conducted by the National Arbor Day Foundation have found that residential property values can increase by more than 4 percent if a lawn includes trees, said Dale McKeel, executive director of Scenic North Carolina, a non-profit group that promotes highway beautification and community appearance.  "Trees are valuable elements," McKeel said. "We don't want to lose out on them."  But according to the U.S. Forest Service, the Triangle lost nearly 100,000 acres of forest land between 1964 and 1990.  Future surveys are expected to show an even greater loss as a result of the region's recent boom years. When communities fight Some North Carolina cities acted early to stem the loss, starting with Charlotte in 1977. Charlotte's ordinance allows it to protect trees on private property, except for single-family lots.  City officials estimate that the ordinance has saved more than  100,000 trees, partly because of the stiff fines imposed on landowners who ignore the law.  In December, a Charlotte developer was fined $40,000 for overpruning trees at a new shopping center.  Similar protection for trees can be found in Chapel Hill, which sought expanded powers from the state in 1989, after a developer cut down a patch of mature oak trees to make way for condominiums on Franklin Street.  The town is so committed to tree preservation that in 1993 it required a builder to design a ballet school parking lot on Franklin Street around a 75-year-old willow oak.  Two years ago, Raleigh also received the legislature's blessing for an ordinance, although the rules in the City of Oaks are less stringent than those of Charlotte or Chapel Hill.  Raleigh's ordinance allows the city to maintain seven "resource management districts" where tree removal can be limited.  But so far -- partly because of opposition from developers -- only 8 percent of the city is included in those districts.  Raleigh has strictly enforced its ordinance for those within the zones.  This year, it hit a landowner with a $21,000 penalty for illegally logging on 49 acres in one of the zones near William B. Umstead State Park.  The logger also was required to replace about $500,000 worth of removed trees.  What most communities really want, though, is the power to prevent developers from cutting trees on land before they submit development plans.  They aren't opposed to development, said Weatherly, the Apex mayor; they just want more control over how it's done.  But last year when Durham, Apex, Cary, Garner and Knightdale asked the legislature for that right, the communities ran into opposition from Carpenter, Slocum and other industry lobbyists.  When the bill hit the House Ways and Means Committee, amendments were tacked on that reversed its meaning, and the bill died.  "We have seen these groups mount increasingly aggressive campaigns," said Dan Whittle, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund.  "They're sophisticated and they have good lobbyists.  It's hard to be over at the General Assembly without seeing them."   Triangle communities hope the legislature will tackle the issue again.  In the meantime, they are taking small steps on their own.  Cary plans to strengthen its tree ordinance by requiring developers to save existing trees along streets.  Developers now are allowed to take the trees down and replant.  Durham is looking to beef up its landscape ordinance while providing more incentives for developers who want to preserve trees.  A draft of the revised ordinance, which would tighten clear-cutting restrictions on sites being developed and require more tree retention, is expected to be completed by September.  And Apex, which drafted an ordinance last year to require tree buffers in developed areas, is cracking down on violators in an attempt to signal that it means business.  The town recently hired an inspector to ensure compliance.  While towns try to balance their growth with the demands of their residents to save their trees, David Owens of the Institute of Government offers this perspective: Although state law gives property owners the right to "harvest timber" on their land, it also permits communities to draw up ordinances that protect residents' general welfare.  Trees could be viewed as an extension of that, he said.  "Landowners are not entitled to the most profitable use of their land," Owens said.  "They are only entitled to a reasonable use of their land.'' Kyle Spencer can be reached at 829-4526 or kspencer@nando.com   The Lost of Tuscaloosa Forest New, old subdivisions create uneasy blend By WENDY HOWER, Staff Writer 3-4-98 DURHAM -- For 70 years, a secret neighborhood hid beneath a small forest south of downtown, where families hiked among towering pines, oaks and maples.  Last summer, that neighborhood emerged with the crash of bulldozers.  Developer Bobby Roberts removed most of the trees and built 23 small houses there.  Nearby residents -- including two City Council members -- are angry about losing a view they had grown accustomed to and expected to be there always.  "It's just shocking," neighbor Amy Eselgroth Milne said.  "It was this beautiful forest, and now it's this low-grade neighborhood."  Others see it differently. "It's getting housing for people who couldn't afford it otherwise," said Frank Ward, a real estate agent who has listed several of the homes.  As Durham grows, homeowners and city leaders alike find they have little say over the way developers landscape their properties, blend new construction into old neighborhoods or flatten green spaces.  Some city officials who toured the subdivision Tuesday said it is not what they would like to see in "in-filling" -- new construction sandwiched between established neighborhoods or on land that has been left alone for years.  "I messed up their younguns' playground," said Roberts, who remembers building the houses on Sarah Avenue, where many of the angry neighbors now live, about 30 years ago. "That's foolish talking. Everything I've done has been approved for years and years and years. I own the property, and I have a right to build a house on it."   He's right. Roberts operated under a 1928 city planning map that had platted the land for subdivision use.  Durham has about two dozen such tracts of undeveloped land where city planners approved subdivisions decades ago.  As property values rise and developers build subdivisions on those long-idle tracts, the developers largely can do what they please when it comes to aesthetics.  "Citizens will begin to complain rather vigorously as you go into established neighborhoods and just bulldoze everything," said council member Erick Larson, who lives in the Lakewood neighborhood near the new development.  Paul Norby, Durham's planning director, said the debate over the subdivision and the felled trees will be repeated.  "This is going to happen time after time," Norby said as he walked down the gravel street through the subdivision behind Foster's Market, a local landmark.  "It would have a whole different look and feel to it had there been more of an effort to preserve the trees." Protecting trees is one way to counteract the old planning maps, city planners said.  A bill that will be before the General Assembly when it convenes this spring would allow Durham and six other municipalities to adopt ordinances to preserve trees on both private and public property.  The state Senate already has approved the bill.  In Cary, city planners submitted a similar tree-preservation bill last year, but it died in the state House.  Raleigh adopted an ordinance in 1996 to protect trees as buffer zones along major roads, but the city can't stop clear-cutting on private property.  Another aspect of the pre-approved plans, such as the one Roberts built under, is that they allow developers to build without meeting first with adjoining property owners, hence the surprise among residents of Tuscaloosa Forest when they watched the trees crashing down.  Roberts, who has built 5,000 homes around Durham, said he had to sacrifice trees because the 7,500-square-foot lots afforded little room for construction equipment.  "I'm very concerned about it, in large part because it happened so fast," said Cynthia Brown, a City Council member who lives in the neighborhood.  "The damage is done now."   Not everybody is disappointed with Roberts' work.  Anita Laney, who moved into one of the three-bedroom homes in January, said she likes the look of the new homes, despite the lack of trees.  "This was an opportunity for me to be a homeowner again," said Laney, whose two-story, yellow house has three bedrooms. "For a house that's under $100,000, I think it's decently built."  Roberts agrees.  "I think it's a pretty good place," he said.  "I sold 14 houses in about four weeks."  Roberts said he spent $2.2 million to develop the wooded property he had paid taxes on for about 25 years.  Roberts was praised by the city's chief building inspector for helping people meet their housing needs.  "He's probably put more people in residential housing than anybody else," said James Sprague, the inspector.   Sprague and other city officials said during the tour Tuesday that Roberts followed the proper codes and ordinances when he built the 23 houses, streets, storm drains and curbs.  They said they may seek improvements in a drainage ditch dug along Lexington Street, an eroding hill behind some of his new houses and a ragged patch of grass near the parking lot behind Foster's. Wendy Hower can be reached at 956-2408 or Whowe@nanonet   Editorial: A clear-cut need. News and Observer ?-?-?? A developer practically clear-cuts several acres of land for a subdivision, changing the vista for neighbors and more importantly affecting the area's ecology and drainage.  The latter, especially, is a persuasive argument for the protection of trees -- and legislative action looks like the answer.  The subdivision, in northwest Durham, consists of 23 houses built by longtime developer Bobby Roberts.  The land there and about two dozen other parcels scattered around Durham were subdivided by the city in 1923.  Roberts could cut down most of the trees because state law does not give cities the authority to pass tree-protection ordinances.  In some respects, Roberts' houses stand to benefit Durham.  He put the development on unused land inside the city, which in planning parlance is called infill.  That beats the Triangle's standard, destructive mode of development, suburban sprawl. And he built houses that sell for under $100,000, a price range desperately needed in this market.  But common sense says the City Council should take another look at the two dozen parcels covered by a vote taken 70 years ago.  The General Assembly, meanwhile, needs to allow municipalities to adopt tree preservation ordinances for public and private lands.  A bill introduced last year would give that option to Durham and six other municipalities, including Garner and Knightdale.  But it would be better to extend the authority across the board.  A balanced law will protect the rights of landowners.  At the same time, homebuyers and neighbors, both adjacent to and downstream of any development, deserve the protection against flooding and erosion that a stand of trees can provide.   Letter: Neighborhood's concern News and Observer 3-7-98 Thank you for calling attention to the concerns of Durham residents regarding new construction in established neighborhoods (March 4 article, "New, old subdivisions create uneasy blend").  While your article did a fine job in addressing the issue of regulating the destruction of forest areas during the building of new developments, it may have left readers believing that the residents of the Tuscaloosa Forest neighborhood are opposed to affordable housing or low-income housing . We most emphatically are not.  Our neighborhood is unique in its racial and economic diversity.  We are a multi-ethnic community of working-class, middle-class, and some upper-middle-class families living in single-family homes, duplexes and apartment buildings. Like our new neighbors, many of us also purchased our homes for under $100,000.  We understand the need for affordable housing.  Our concerns are that the new houses were built in a low-lying area without enough consideration for drainage issues and erosion;  this is compounded by the destruction of almost all of the trees on the property.  Subsequent flooding and erosion have verified these concerns.  One new home's driveway already has required repairs due to flooding.  We are concerned as much for the damage and loss incurred by the new homeowners as we are for our own property.  We welcome our new neighbors and look forward to working together on improvements to the entire neighborhood.  The issue is not affordable housing.   The issue is responsible development that takes into account the impact of new construction on the environment and existing neighborhoods. CAROLINE T. SCHROEDER, Durham   Builder's empire shows a few cracks By WENDY HOWER, Staff Writer News and Observer 3-30-98 DURHAM -- For half a century, Bobby Roberts has been one of Durham's most prolific builders, putting up about 5,000 houses in and around the city.  He favors smallish, pastel-colored starter homes -- often building them at the rate of two a week -- near older neighborhoods close to downtown.  His subdivisions are popular, and the houses sell quickly, because they usually go for $100,000 or less.   But troubles threaten to slow Roberts' pace and, perhaps, shut him down.  State licensing officials want a judge to put Roberts out of business.   Some homeowners who blame Roberts for crumbling and cracking foundations hope their lawsuit against him comes to trial next month.  And recently, city planners toured one of his newest subdivisions and suggested it's an example of what they don't want to see in landscaping and layout.  Those problems and others have led city and state officials and homeowners to accuse Roberts of sidestepping the rules.  In depositions, state officials have tried to figure out his complicated network of business names and family members who work out of his office building.  "He's just building houses too soon, and the inspectors in Durham are just not checking on what he's doing," homeowner William Moore said.  At least 29 other families agree, each having signed on to the lawsuit against Roberts, his construction company, and his brother, Bryant Roberts, whose name is on the building permits.  In the suit, they allege that Bobby Roberts, without a state license, built their homes with weakened concrete on poorly compacted soil.  They want the brothers to repair their homes and pay cash damages.  Roberts also has his fans. Working families like the modest price tags on his houses.  Others like the quiet neighborhoods he builds.  Still others admire his determination to help families put together federal finance packages to buy homes.  "He has probably built, in Durham County, more property than any single organization, and I think he should be recognized," said Frank Ward, a friend and longtime real estate agent.  "I think someone needs to say, 'Congratulations to you.' " Market keeps Roberts busy Roberts, 67, is keeping his bulldozers busy amid the scrutiny.  Low prices and aesthetics matter little to the state Licensing Board for General Contractors.  As regulators who set the standards for construction, its members are more interested in the fact that Roberts has been operating without a state license for 45 years.  Roberts declined requests for an interview, but his attorney, R. Hayes Hofler, said Roberts allowed his license to expire in 1953 because he does not need it.  But Roberts didn't stop building. City and state records show he has been using his brother's general contractor's license for years.   "He doesn't take a hammer and nails himself and go out there and do the construction," Hofler said. "It's the company, with crews that build these houses, all supervised by [foreman] Glenn McFarland."  Mark Selph, secretary-treasurer of the state licensing board, interprets the law differently.  A builder must have his own general contractor's license for constructing a home that costs $30,000 or more, Selph said.  A complaint from a homeowner who was also suing Roberts drew state inspectors to the Forestwood subdivision last summer.  "I spoke to Bobby Roberts on July 15, 1997, and he stated that he has been building for 22 years this way, using Bryant's license, and no one has ever said they were doing anything wrong," state investigator Linda Smith wrote in a report prepared for the licensing board.  "I told him that he cannot build that way." Dissatisfaction in paradise Roberts clear-cuts most trees on a property, then installs straight rows of houses in alternating styles.  He covers them with pressed-wood siding and installs front porches with wooden railings.  Each sits on a concrete slab, usually without a garage, skirted by a close-clipped lawn and a tidy white curb.  Wreaths with silk flowers decorate the doors; there's hardly a scrap of litter anywhere.  Carlos Johnson and his wife, Vicki, thought they had found paradise two years ago when they saw a beige, three-bedroom home in Forestwood.  They were thankful to move their toddler out of a neighborhood where they routinely heard gunshots.  "I thought I was doing a great thing by getting this house," Johnson said.  "This neighborhood is awesome."  But the Johnsons didn't know about the crack that snaked through the concrete beneath their floors.  After they moved in, a neighbor pointed out the long ridge under the brown carpet in their living room.  "Basically, I think we're getting shafted," said Johnson, who is not part of the lawsuit.  He shakes his head when he thinks about how he took out a 30-year mortgage, expecting to grow old here.  Cracks creep up his walls now.  "I can't move, really, so I have to stick it out," he said.  Across the street, William Moore has to step around an inch-and-a-half-wide crack that stretches across his kitchen floor.  In warm weather, ants and cockroaches crawl up through it into the house, he said.  He joined the lawsuit against Roberts, and he wants to move out.  "I'm disgusted. I'm terribly hurt," he said.  "I always thought buying a house, your first dream house, would be the most exciting thing in your life."  Plenty of Moore's neighbors are happy, however.  Most of the 230 or so houses in Forestwood have no problems with foundations, attorney Hofler said.  One homeowner dropped out of the suit against Roberts, and another settled with him when he agreed to buy back the home for $105,000.  Roberts was willing to repair some of the other foundations, but lawyers for the plaintiffs advised owners not to allow it, Hofler said.  "He has never been given a full opportunity to fix these houses."  Each of the houses involved in the Forestwood suit had a one-year written warranty that required Roberts to fix any defects if an owner gave written notice, Hofler said.  "None of the folks gave any written notice." Licensing questioned While lawyers pulled the lawsuit together, a few homeowners turned to the city for help.  Durham's chief building inspector, James Sprague, filed a complaint with the state licensing board against Bryant Roberts in May for allowing Bobby Roberts to use his general contractor's license.  But when Bobby Roberts switched to using the license belonging to his foreman, McFarland, the city let him go.  In the 12 months since Roberts began using McFarland's license, the city has approved his permits for at least 69 houses.  Roberts generally follows the rules, Sprague said, and keeps city inspectors busy with his fast-moving projects.  "He builds 'em quick," Sprague said.  "He doesn't mess around with 'em.  He doesn't sit around and think about 'em."  Sprague and other city planners visited one of Roberts' newest clusters of homes this month at the request of unhappy neighbors.  Paul Norby, Durham's planning director, said he wished Roberts had staggered the houses and not removed so many trees.  "It would have a whole different look and feel to it had there been more of an effort to preserve the trees," he said.  No matter what happens, Bobby Roberts, known for his generosity to employees and well-regarded by many, finds ways to keep working.  Two years ago, for example, the N.C. Real Estate Commission discovered Roberts was using his brother's real estate brokerage license to act as landlord in the family's rental management business -- one of Durham's largest. But Bobby Roberts wasn't supposed to be a landlord at all, the commission said. In 1981, he had lost his brokerage license while serving two years in a Florida federal prison for a conviction involving the misappropriation of funds at a savings and loan.  In Durham, the commission's investigation found tenants who complained that both Roberts brothers padlocked or removed their doors when the tenants fell behind in paying rent.  The brothers improperly dipped into tenants' security deposits to finance other businesses, the commission found.  Bryant Roberts' brokerage license was revoked as a result.  "The inadequate records, undesignated trust accounts, unnecessary fund transfers and other dubious and illegal practices result directly from the control of Bobby R. Roberts over the rental business conducted under the license of Bryant Roberts," the 1996 commission report read.  The Roberts rental business carries on today, however, through the brothers' nephew, Donald Roberts, who holds a brokerage license. Wendy Hower can be reached at 956-2408 or whower@nando.com   State hasn't stopped builder By WENDY HOWER, News and Observer ?/?/?? DURHAM -- While his brother must give up building for more than six months contractor Bobby Roberts has managed to avoid attempts by state officials to shut him down.  Roberts, who has built about 5,000 houses throughout Durham during the past five decades and continues to build this summer, never held a general contracting license.  Four months ago, regulators asked a Wake County judge for an injunction against him for using his brother's license to build homes.  The brother, Bryant Roberts, agreed with the state Licensing Board for General Contractors this month to give up his license for 180 days after being accused of allowing Bobby to use his license. In the no-contest agreement, which includes 18 months of probation, Bryant Roberts did not admit guilt.  Under the agreement, Bryant Roberts is allowed to wrap up $4.2 million in current projects but cannot perform new work for 180 days after that.  "This is not by any means a light punishment," said one of the licensing board's attorneys, Carson Carmichael of Bailey and Dixon, a Raleigh law firm.  Meanwhile, Bobby Roberts continues to build homes -- most recently in the Gorman community, northeast of downtown -- using the contractor's license of his foreman, Glenn McFarland.  And Durham's building inspection department continues to approve those applications because they hold McFarland solely responsible for the work performed, said Gene Bradham, the city's director of inspections.  But state regulators contend it is not enough for McFarland to hold his own license.  Either Roberts or his company, Roberts Construction Co., must hold a license, state officials said.  This month, Durham inspectors are checking with state regulators to make sure there is nothing improper about the relationship between Roberts Construction Co. and McFarland, Bradham said.  "We don't know who's working for who and who's paying who," he added.  Bobby Roberts' problems with state regulators began in May 1997, when Durham's chief building inspector, James Sprague, filed a complaint against Bryant Roberts for allowing Bobby Roberts to use his license.  Then, about 30 homeowners filed suit against both brothers and Roberts Construction Co., complaining of cracking and crumbling foundations in the Forestwood subdivision.  The state licensing board filed a complaint against Bobby Roberts in April, followed by several extensions and waiting periods.  Bobby Roberts' June 4 response to the complaint seeks to dismiss the claim because Durham's city-county inspections department issued the building permits.  State regulators, through a lawyer, have given Bobby Roberts until Aug. 14 to voluntarily stop building without a contractor's license.  "We're doing all that we can do," said Mark Selph, secretary-treasurer of the state licensing board.  "We're doing the maximum amount allowed by law."  The licensing board, meanwhile, will watch the homeowners' civil lawsuit against Bobby Roberts, scheduled to begin July 27 in Durham Superior Court.  The state can use evidence in that trial against Bobby Roberts, said Cathleen Plaut, a lawyer with the Bailey and Dixon law firm who works for the state regulators.  If Bobby Roberts does not agree to a consent order -- as his brother did -- the board will ask a Wake County judge to shut him down.  With that, Bobby could not build projects valued at more than $30,000 without a state license.  One option for the longtime builder would be to apply for a corporate license. Wendy Hower can be reached at 956-2408 or whower@nando.com   Courtroom composure cracks in case against builders by John Stevenson Herald-Sun 8-17-98 Three lawyers, a judge and a parade of witnesses spent last week in Durham County Civil Superior Court talking about cracks in cement.  By Friday, there also were a few noticeable cracks in their composure.  And it isn't over.  The mix will be the same this week. At issue is a case that pits Randy and Kimberly Henderson against Roberts Construction Co., builder Bobby Roberts and contractor Bryant Roberts. The Hendersons say their home in Forestwood, a subdivision near Hillside High School, was constructed on such a defective cement slab that it literally is falling apart.  Twenty-seven other homeowners have similar cases pending against the Roberts brothers, but those proceedings have been deferred until after the Henderson jury trial is completed.  Officials said the outcome of the Henderson case might have a major impact on the 27 others.  If the Hendersons win a substantial sum from the Roberts brothers, the brothers might be inclined to settle with other disgruntled customers, officials speculated.  But if the Hendersons lose, the others might have a hard time collecting unless they too are willing to risk a lengthy court fight. The Roberts brothers are accused in all the cases of using "immoral. unethical, unfair and deceptive" tactics in building and selling the 3-year old homes in Forestwood. During the first week of the Henderson proceedings, Judge Henry Hight granted the unhappy homeowners a tactical victory.  Over strenuous objections from the Roberts brothers and their lawyer, Hayes Hofler, the judge said jurors could be told that other homeowners also were unhappy with Roberts Construction.  Hofler had tried to exclude such information on grounds that it might "overwhelm and prejudice" the jury.  He also argued that the number of satisfied Forestwood homeowners "greatly outnumber" those who are dissatisfied. A key witness during the first week of the trial was engineer Benjamin B. Wilson of Engineering Consultant Services Limited in Durham.  The highly charged, adversarial nature of the case was apparent even before Wilson began his testimony, which lasted all day Thursday and all morning Friday.  Holfer contended that Wilson should not be qualified as an expert witness in construction materials. "He doesn't have the experience in construction materials" for residences, the defense lawyer argued.  Wilson was permitted to testify as an expert anyway.  He said the Henderson's home was built on a concrete slab 3 inches thick, even though plans called for a 4 inch slab and the building code specifies a slab at least 3 1/2 inches in depth.  Wilson also testified that the slab tested for strength "on the order of 900 pounds per square inch."  But the building code calls for a minimum result of 2,500 pounds per square inch, the engineer added.  With Wilson narrating, jurors were shown slides of cracks that developed in the Henderson' slab - cracks that apparently caused a floor to become uneven and a wall to begin to buckle.  In addition, soil beneath the slab was not sufficiently compacted to provide a firm underpinning for the house, according to Wilson.  "It will continue to crack until it's properly repaired," Wilson said of the Hendersons' slab. "It's impossible to predict how fast things will occur....But the cracks will continue to get wider and longer....It doesn't even come close to meeting the minimum building code." Objections over chart Besides using slides, Wilson illustrated his testimony with a large chart showing the alleged discrepancies in the Hendersons' home.  Holfer became visibly and audibly irate.  "That chart was prepared by our expert.  He's now saying it's going to illustrate his testimony," Holfer griped.  "That drawing is not going to be able to illustrate his testimony any better than his own drawing."  The judge overruled Holfer's objection.  Before long, Holfer leaped out of his seat again.  "He doesn't know about this drawing," the defense lawyer said of Wilson. "He didn't do this drawing.  He hasn't had a conversation with our expert about this drawing."  Again, Holfer was overruled.  Then Wilson made another point.  And Holfer made another objection n.  "How does he know about that?" the defense lawyer demanded.  He was overruled a third time.  Then Wilson made markings on the chart in question.  Holfer was quickly on his feet.  "I object," he thundered yet again,  "He's drawing on this thing...He's got a chart of his own he can use."  The result was the same: Overruled. Other testimony last week came from contractor Bryant Roberts, who was unexpectedly called to the witness stand by lawyer Rob Jervis, who represents the Hendersons.  Did Roberts make a personal inspection of cracks at the Henderson home?  Jervis wanted to know.  He did not, Roberts replied.  And did Roberts feel any responsibility to do so? Jervis demanded.  No, said Roberts. License loaned Roberts also testified that he had allowed Bobby Roberts to use his contracting license for at least 10 years.  He said city building inspectors were aware of this.  But the N.C. Licensing Board for General Contractors alleged recently that such license-loaning by Bryant Roberts was improper.  As a result, Roberts reached an out-of-court settlement in which he agreed to a 180-day suspension of the license.  Holfer has insisted the agreement does not amount to an admission of wrongdoing on Robert's part. Jurors in the Hendersons trial have not yet heard the defense's side of the case.  However, Holfer has given a preview in court documents of what his evidence will be.  He said weather and soil conditions - not shoddy building techniques - caused "routine problems and defects" in the Forestwood homes.  The vast majority of problems with the homes are "not unusual considering Durham's climate and natural soil conditions," Holfer wrote.   Durham couple win $60,000 in suit over home's foundation. Jury determines Roberts Construction violated warranty. by Paul Bonner Herald-Sun 8-29-98 A jury awarded a Durham couple $60,000 Thursday in their lawsuit against Roberts Construction Co. over an allegedly defective foundation on their home. Jurors determined that the company violated its warranty on the house in the Forestwood subdivision bought by Randy and Kimberly Hendersons.  The company defrauded the couple, and its contractor, Bryant Roberts, acted negligently, the jury said.  The jury also approved the Hendersons' claim that the company engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, a finding that could triple the damages in planned further hearings. Roberts brother, Bobby Roberts, also was at fault, the jury said, for falsely representing the house as complying with state and federal specifications and for working as a general contractor without a license. The verdict could have repercussions beyond the civil trial, which lasted more than two weeks in Durham County Superior Court.  The Hendersons' neighbors - 27 of them - have lined up with similar claims.  All 28 homeowners have been parties to the lawsuit, but the judge in the case, Henry Hight, ordered the trial limited to one to keep it manageable.  The houses in Forestwood, off Fayetteville Road just south of Hillside High School, were built by Roberts within the past five years. The Hendersons, through lawyers Bob Jervis and James Farrin, contended that the foundation of their 2-year-old house at 10 Rush Court was weak and the ground under it improperly prepared.  Several cracks in the slab have developed, and the biggest one, between one-quarter and three-eights inch wide, has grown wider and longer since the suit was filed last year, Jervis said.  Gaps in plasterboard and foundation wall cracks also appeared, and some doors have begun sticking, he said. An engineer testified on the couple's behalf that the slab, which building codes specify should have been at least 3 1/2 inches thick and that its strength was less than half what the codes called for.  The soil under it was poorly compacted and only half the required 4 inches of gravel laid before the concrete was poured, according to the lawsuit.  Some of the Forestwood homes have no gravel under their slabs, Jervis said Friday.  The Hendersons' damage award is designed to cover the cost of breaking up the old slab and rebuilding it and shoring up with steel girders the foundation walls on one end of the house. Lawyer Hayes Hofler, representing the defendants, argued that the foundation cracks represented normal settling.  City building inspectors said they approved the work.  Jervis said, however, to reveal such shortcomings as those the Hendersons alleged, being usually conducted after the slab has been poured and set. Roberts Construction Co. is among Durham's oldest and largest residential construction companies.  Bobby Roberts testified during the trial that the company has been built an estimated 5,000 houses in Durham County during his 40-year career.   Judge rules that Roberts Construction Co. must pay $180,708. Homeowners win legal fees in addition to tripled damages. by John Stevenson Herald-Sun 9-3-98 A judge ruled Wednesday that Roberts Construction Co. must pay $180,708 in tripled damages for using "unfair and deceptive trade practices" in the building and marketing of a new home.  Superior Court Judge Henry Hight also ordered Roberts Construction to pay $39,490 in legal fees for the homeowners, Randy and Kimberly Henderson. Evidence in a three week trial, which ended Aug. 27, indicated that the Hendersons' home in the Forestwood subdivision - near Hillside High School - was built on a concrete slab that was too thin and less than half the strength required by building codes.  As a result, the slab in the 2-year-old, $85,000 home cracked and settled so extensively that repairs were estimated at more than $60,000, evidence indicated. Jurors last week awarded the Hendersons $60,236 after finding that Roberts Construction violated its warranty on the home and defrauded the Hendersons.  Jurors also found that contractor Bryant Roberts acted negligently as an individual and that his brother, Bobby Roberts, falsely represented the Hendersons' house as complying with state and federal specifications.  Finally, the judge concluded that Bobby Roberts worked as a general contractor without a license. But it was up the judge to determine whether Roberts Construction had willfully" engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices - and thus whether the damages of $60,236 was subject to tripling under the law.  Hight wasted little time in doing so Wednesday.  The judge also concluded that Roberts construction and Bobby Roberts should be liable for a "reasonable" fee of $39,490 for attorneys who represented the Hendersons, Robert Jervis and Finesse Couch. Lawyer Hayes Hofler, representing Roberts Construction, contended unsuccessfully that such a fee was unwarranted because the Roberts brothers had made "numerous efforts" to settle the case short of trial.  Among other things, the Roberts brothers offered to fix the Hendersons' house under the scrutiny of licensed engineers, Hofler said.  And if such repairs were not completed within 120 days, the Roberts Brothers were willing to pay someone of the Henderson's choice to finish the work, Hofler added.  He said that such structural repairs would have been warranted by the Roberts brothers for 10 years.  Finally, the Roberts brothers offered to buy back the Hendersons' house or to settle with them for $5,000 cash, according to Hofler.  "The defendants did everything they could to try to resolve all the issues," Hofler argued. Meanwhile, 24 other Forestwood homeowners remain as parties to the lawsuit against the Roberts brothers.  But in an effort to keep the proceedings manageable, only the Henderson case was sent to trial last month.  It was not known Wednesday what impact, if any, the Henderson verdict will have on the remaining cases. Roberts Construction is among Durham's oldest and largest home-building companies.  Bobby Roberts testified during the just-ended trial that the company has built about 5,000 houses in Durham County during his 40-year career.   Employee of Bobby Roberts under investigative by state By Wendy Hower, Staff Writer 10-8-98 DURHAM -- State licensing officials are investigating the foreman of one of the city's biggest builders, who was ordered by a Superior Court judge last week to pay homeowners $180,708 for a shoddy foundation.  Contractor Bobby Roberts, who has built about 5,000 houses throughout Durham over the past five decades, used "unfair and deceptive acts or practices," Judge Henry Hight ruled. Roberts has not held a state general contractor's license since 1953.  His habit has been to use other people's licenses -- those of his brother, Bryant, and his foreman, Glenn McFarland.  For that, state regulators asked a Wake County judge to shut him down five months ago.  The state Licensing Board for General Contractors filed a complaint July 20 against McFarland for unlawfully allowing an unlicensed person or company to use his license to build four Durham homes. Last month, Bryant Roberts, who has his own contracting firm, agreed to give up building for more than six months when the licensing board accused him of allowing his brother to use his license.  In the no-contest agreement, which includes 18 months of probation, Bryant Roberts did not admit guilt. Troubles began for Bobby Roberts two years ago in the Forestwood subdivision of more than 200 homes he built near Hillside High School.  About 30 homeowners filed suit against both brothers and Roberts Construction Co., complaining of cracking and crumbling foundations.  That's when state regulators discovered he lacks a license.  In court last month, a jury found that Bobby Roberts and Roberts Construction Co. built a Forestwood house without a general contractor's license.  The foundation of the house at 10 Rush Court did not have properly compacted soil, and the concrete was "weakened and inadequate," the jury found.  Through his attorney, Roberts argued that he was willing to repair some of the foundations, but attorneys for the plaintiffs advised them not to allow it.  Each house had a one-year warranty that required Roberts to fix any defects if an owner gave written notice.  None of them did, lawyer Hayes Hofler has argued.  Plenty of homeowners in Forestwood are happy, Hofler said.  Last week, the judge agreed to triple the jury's damage award for a total of $180,708, including attorneys' fees.  "We got every single penny that we asked for," said James Farrin, an attorney for the homeowners. "We couldn't have had a bigger victory." A similar lawsuit against Roberts and his company, involving 26 other Forestwood homeowners, is pending.  Despite the trial and state regulators' attempts to shut him down, Roberts built homes all summer -- recently in the Gorman community northeast of downtown -- using McFarland's license.  Durham's building inspections department approved those applications because inspectors hold McFarland solely responsible for the work performed, said Gene Bradham, the city's director of inspections.  Bradham and the inspections department have assisted in investigating McFarland, said Mark Selph, the licensing board's secretary-treasurer.  Meanwhile, the board has kept tabs on the recent trial, he said.  "We will use whatever the court found in our injunction action," Selph said. Wendy Hower can be reached at 956-2408 or whower@nando.com   Embattled builder told to halt, mulls response By PAUL BONNER, Herald-Sun 10-8-98 Durham builder Bobby Roberts, ordered by a court to cease business until he obtains a state contractor's license, hasn't yet decided what to do next, his attorney said Wednesday. Roberts, as president of Roberts Construction Co., has built thousands of homes in Durham since 1953, when he obtained a general contractor's license but never renewed it, as required annually. A group of 27 people or couples who bought homes Roberts built near Fayetteville and Cook roads sued the company in Durham County Superior Court over allegedly shoddy foundations.  One couple whose case was allowed to go to trial won a $180,000 judgment recently. One of the lawsuit plaintiffs also complained to the N.C. Licensing Board for General Contractors in Raleigh, where officials found that Roberts didn't hold a current license.  The board filed suit requesting an injunction in Wake County Superior Court this summer. After the Durham judgment, Roberts agreed to a consent order in the licensing case.  The order forbids Roberts or Roberts Construction Co., from doing any general contracting work worth more than $30,000 until Roberts obtains a license.  It was filed Tuesday. Robert's brother, Bryant Roberts, was licensed and applied for inspection permits for Bobby Roberts' projects, said Cathleen Plaut of the Raleigh law firm of Bailey and Dixon, which handles the licensing board's legal work. In a related action, Bryant Roberts agreed last month to cease construction work for six months in a disciplinary action by the board. According to the Wake County lawsuit, Bobby Roberts also relied upon a license held by a foreman in his company, Glenn McFarland.  Licensing board Administrative Director Mark Selph said yet another complaint has been filed with the board against McFarland and is headed for a hearing. License applicants first must pass an exam.  Some applicants, called "special applicants" - Bobby Roberts would be considered one - also must be approved by the board as fit to receive a license, Plaut said. Bobby Roberts' attorney, Hayes Hofler, said Wednesday that Bryant Roberts also has been vice president of Roberts Construction Co., and McFarland a supervisory employee. "They've done business this way, as you know, for years, and the city and county inspectors approved their jobs for years," Hofler said. No one questioned the license arrangement until the Durham lawsuit plaintiffs complained, he added.   Forestwood homeowners collectively suing By John Stevenson, Herald-Sun 4-12-99 An unparalleled record will be set later this month when 26 civil cases go on trial simultaneously before one judge in Durham County Superior Court. "It'll probably make 'Ripley's Believe It or Not,'" quipped lawyer Robert Jervis, who presents the plaintiffs. The cases allege that homes in the Forestwood subdivision near Hillside High School were shoddily erected by Roberts Construction Co., builder Bobby Roberts and contractor Bryant Roberts.  The owners of the 26 houses contend that the Robertses thus owe them between $60,000 and $80,000 each. A related case went to trial in Durham last year and resulted in a $180,708 court judgment against Roberts Construction. In the case, jurors decided that the concrete slab of the house of Randy and Kimberly Henderson was too thin and less than half the strength required by building codes.  As a result, the slab in the 2-year-old, $85,000 house cracked and settled so extensively that repairs were estimated at more than $60,000, evidence indicated. Jurors in the case awarded the Hendersons $60,236.  Judge Henry Hight tripled the sum, as allowed by law, after finding that Roberts Construction had engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices against the Hendersons. Lawyers for the Robertses argued unsuccessfully last month that the 26 remaining cases should be tried individually.  They said that trying the cases at once would be almost impossibly unwieldy and would take far too long. But Judge Steve Balog disagreed and set the trial to begin April 26. In preparation for the trial, lawyers for the Robertses recently sought court permission to do further concrete testing at the allegedly defective houses. They said engineers employed by the homeowners had tested the strength and thickness of the concrete slabs by drilling a 2-inch-diameter core sample from the perimeter of each house. But such samples were "unrepresentative and misleading," lawyer Haynes Hofler argued in a written motion. According to Hofler, a 2-inch sample is below the minimum core size of 3 inches that is needed for accurate testing.  "Smaller cores are difficult to cap and test properly, and are often influenced by individual rocks in the small sample of concrete," said Hofler. Hofler also noted that Altas Engineering Inc., working for the Robertses and using 3-inch samples, had obtained favorable test results from two houses on Tranquil Drive and Pedder Court.  In contrast, engineers working for the homeowners obtained unfavorable results from the same houses when they used fewer and smaller test samples, Hofler indicated. But Jervis said it would be expensive, disruptive to the homeowners and overly time-consuming for additional concrete testing to be allowed at the houses in question. Judge Balong reached a compromise solution.  He ruled that engineers employed by Roberts Construction may further investigate and inspect the homes, but he said they may not conduct any "destructive testing" of the concrete slabs.  Nor may they do any digging or sampling of soil outside the houses. Beyond that, all inspections are to be done at minimal inconvenience to the homeowners, Balog ruled. Both sides still are seeking to exclude certain evidence in the pending trial. Among other things, Jervis and the homeowners don't want any references to "the purported absence of construction deficiencies" in other homes built by the Robertses. "It is not the absence of deficiencies in other homes...that is the issue in these actions but rather the presence or absence of deficiencies in the plaintiffs' homes," Jervis wrote. For their part, the Robertses want to exclude evidence about a number of things, including: * Any action against Bryant Roberts by the N.C. Licensing Board for General Contractors.  At least one such action began in 1997 but settled, Hofler noted in writing.  He said evidence about the matter could mislead jurors and unfairly turn them against the Robertses. * Any reference to the financial status of the Robertses, with the exception of financial evidence needed to support the homeowners' claims for punitive damages. * Any reference to other lawsuits filed against Robertses.   Back to TLNA Concerns