View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
MINUTES OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
March 22, 2004
Council Chamber, Burlington Municipal Building
MEMBERS: EXTRATERRITORIAL MEMBERS:
George Byrd, Acting Chairman,
Present Bud Apple,
Jim Burwell, Present John
Paul Cobb, Present Celo
Lynn Cowan, Present Gale
Elder Greg Hargrave, Present Richard
Gordon Millspaugh, Present Ellis Piper,
Robert R. Harkrader, Planning
John Emerson, Zoning/Subdivision
Russ Smith, Assistant Director
of Planning Services
Kurt Pearson, Planner II
Dianne Fogleman, Office
NO. 1: Mr. George Byrd, Jr., Acting Chairman, called the meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m.
Planning Director Harkrader introduced
Ms. Lynn Cowan, who was appointed by the Burlington City Council to serve on
the Commission. Ms. Cowan will fill the
unexpired term of Mr. Don Starling, who was appointed to the City Council in
NO. 2: Minutes of the meeting held February 23, 2004, were unanimously
approved. This was a City and
NO. 3: Mr. Burney Jennings,
representing Biscuitville, Inc., presented an application to rezone from B-1,
Neighborhood Business District, to B-2, General Business District, the property
located at the northwestern corner of O’Neal and Sykes Streets (1703 and 1707
Sykes Street) and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 101, Block 433,
Lots 18 and 21.
a City item.
Jennings distributed a proposed site plan.
He stated that due to parking and traffic flow problems at the current
Biscuitville location on South Church Street, the company plans to build a new
facility in 15 to 20 years. Mr.
Jennings explained that when the two lots on Sykes Street became available,
they were purchased by the company; however, the lots are zoned B-1 which does
not permit drive-through restaurants. Mr. Jennings pointed out that the restaurant
is open from 5:30 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. and thus is not a nuisance in the
evenings for neighbors. He stated that
he had considered rezoning only a portion of the lots, but decided to rezone
all of both lots.
Director Harkrader stated that staff could not recommend rezoning all of both
lots but could recommend rezoning part of the lots. He conceded that the restaurant has a serious traffic problem
during peak hours, but rezoning part of the lots would allow Mr. Jennings to
relocate one of the entrances further back from South Church Street. He stated that staff was concerned about
rezoning both lots to B-2 in that area.
Member Burwell asked if Mr. Jennings could withdraw his application to rezone
to B-2 and re-submit next month for Conditional zoning and specify the
company’s intentions for the property.
Harkrader stated that rezoning both lots could possibly create more problems.
Member Millspaugh questioned what would happen to those two lots in years to
come if Biscuitville is not permitted to rezone for future use.
Member Burwell stated that to allow the company to rezone the lots would almost
be protecting the lots to be developed for other uses.
Jennings stated that it was his understanding that Conditional zoning would be
limited for two years and that there are not immediate plans to build a new
Member Millspaugh questioned why Conditional zoning is limited for only two
Director of Planning Services Smith explained that site plans for Conditional
zoning are approved for imminent development and not proposed future
Member Burwell asked if the Commission couldn’t stipulate or validate that the
site plan was for future development.
Smith stated that in that case, the property could be considered for rezoning
at that point. He pointed out that
Conditional zoning could be approved; however, on the downside, the property
owner could decide to do something different than the proposed site plan and
would have to return for further rezoning.
Member Fletcher commented that all of that area could eventually be zoned B-2.
Member Cobb asked if Mr. Jennings could relocate the driveway now. Mr. Harkrader stated that he could if the
lot line were to be adjusted.
asked if B-2 zoning was denied now, could Mr. Jennings return for a different
rezoning or would he have to wait another year. Mr. Harkrader explained that he could return with a different
rezoning request whenever he wanted to.
Member Millspaugh asked if Mr. Jennings chooses to withdraw or table the
request for rezoning to B-2, would he have to pay another fee for a different
Harkrader stated that Mr. Jennings would not be required to pay another
rezoning fee if he chooses to table the item until the next Commission meeting
and amend his rezoning request.
Member Millspaugh reiterated that he had a problem with the property sitting
there for 10 to 12 years and not knowing what would be developed there.
Commission Member Cobb made a motion to
table the rezoning application until the next meeting. Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to table
the item until the next meeting.
NO. 4: Mr. Masoud Ghiassi presented an
application to rezone from R-6, Residential District, to B-1, Neighborhood
Business District, the property located at the northwestern corner of Union
Avenue and Rauhut Street (419 Union Avenue) and being as shown on Alamance
County Tax Map 58, Block 241, a portion of Lot 65.
Ghiassi stated that the address should be 418 Union Avenue. Tax map numbers
remain the same.
Ghiassi stated that he plans to develop a strip mall that will extend to Apple
Street. He maintained that the
development will be an improvement for the neighborhood.
recommended approval of the request for rezoning. Planning Director Harkrader
stated that this property is located on a major commercial street and that B-1
would be an appropriate extension of existing B-1 zoning.
Commission Member Cobb made a motion
to recommend approval of the request for rezoning. Jim Burwell seconded the motion.
The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request
The Commission found that the zoning
change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would
be in keeping with land use planning in the area.
ITEM NO. 5: Mr.
Richard Jones, representing Mr. Chadbourn Sharpe, presented an application to
rezone from O-I, Office-Institutional District, to CB, Conditional Business
District, to allow all uses in Conditional Business zoning with exceptions as
noted on the application as submitted. The property is located on the western side of South
Graham-Hopedale Road and to the north of North Mebane Street and being as shown
on Alamance County Tax Map 140, Block 567, Lots 101, 102 and 103.
Director Harkrader stated that this item had been amended and distributed
copies of the amended application, which lists exceptions to the use conditions
and lists development conditions.
Jones stated that Mr. Sharpe plans to develop a second commercial building and
noted that Mr. Sharpe had already developed another facility in East Burlington
with the desire to help revitalize that section of town. Mr. Jones explained
that Mr. Sharpe has plans to develop a strip mall.
Member Cobb asked how tall will the privacy wall be at the rear of the
Jones answered whatever height is recommended.
Director of Planning Services Smith stated that the petitioner would make that
petitioner, Mr. Sharpe, stated that the wall would be built to whatever is
standard for the City.
Director Harkrader stated that there is no standard height for a wall; that it
would be whatever height the petitioner chooses.
Jones stated that the proposed wall will be eight feet in height.
Member Millspaugh asked if staff had received any calls inquiring about the
rezoning and was told that it had not.
Director Harkrader stated the petitioner had met the concerns that staff had
with the rezoning and that staff recommended approval of the request for
Conditional rezoning with the following use and development conditions that
were submitted by the petitioner:
All uses allowed in Conditional Business
except the following: no amusements, athletic fields, automobile parking lots,
boarding or rooming houses, clubs and lodges, family dwellings, night clubs or
1) Developer will adhere to the Western Loop
retail space square footage will not exceed 12,000 square feet with 52 parking
spaces. Three parking spaces will be handicap access and one 12 foot by 50 foot
exterior will be constructed with masonry materials on all sides with an
eight-foot privacy wall at the rear of the property.
site plan will comply with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
and the City of Burlington’s Technical Review Committee requirements for the
entrance and exit.
5) The site
plan will include a future 100-foot right-of-way on South Graham-Hopedale Road.
ITEM NO. 6: Mr.
Carl Buckland presented an application to rezone from R-9, Residential District,
to R-M, Residential-Mobile Home District, the property located on the southern
side of West Old Glencoe Road and to the east of Lakeside Avenue and being as
shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-50, a portion of Lot 12.
an extraterritorial item.
Buckland stated that this was more a civil rights and freedom issue than a
rezoning request. He accused Commission
members of covering up what they had done in the past. He stated that at the last meeting,
Commission Member Fletcher told him to give up and go home. Mr. Buckland stated that he would never give
up and go home as long as his health and money held out.
Member Fletcher asked what did all of this have to do with Mr. Buckland’s
request for rezoning.
Buckland told Mr. Fletcher to shut up and be quiet and give him five minutes to
present his case.
Member Burwell commented that Mr. Buckland was going off on everything else
except the rezoning request.
Buckland commented that Commission members took an oath and that they should
give him five minutes on the floor.
Buckland stated that he was exercising his civil rights from the
Constitution. He stated that everyone
has the right to live in the house they want; go to the school of their choice;
sit in whatever seat they wanted to on the bus, and throughout history, people
have stood up for their rights.
Sometimes, he pointed out, you have to resort to drastic measures, and
that was what he was going to do.
Buckland distributed pictures of a couple of manufactured homes and also
pictures of the interior of a manufactured home. He stated that he was going to
purchase a 1,600 square foot 32 foot by 56 foot manufactured home through
repossession from a bank and place the home on one of the lots and sell it for
$70,000.00. He noted that this home
would be larger than his own home.
stated that Commission members are always talking about affordable housing and
HUD housing, and he will have people waiting in line to buy the house and lot
for $70,000.00. He asked where else
could one buy a home for $14.00 a square foot and directed his question to Mr.
Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher stated that he
had built one a few years ago for his son.
Buckland stated that the manufactured home is a 1999 Grand Manor that he had
purchased from the bank for $23,900.00 and that whether or not the Commission
or City Council approved his request for rezoning, he was going to place the
home on his property -- even if he had to take it to court and even if the
police came out there with their K-9 units.
Commission members that if they continue to discriminate against him and not
allow manufactured housing he may have 500 lawsuits against the City instead of
the five he now has.
Buckland distributed two pictures of manufactured homes and also copies of
price sheets for manufactured homes. He
asked that those be made a part of the minutes. He also circulated pictures of
the interior of a home.
Member Cobb asked which lot was Mr. Buckland going to put the house on, and Mr.
Buckland answered an 80 foot by 200 foot lot next door to Emmanuel Church. Mr. Buckland pointed out that the church
pastor lives in a manufactured home.
Member Apple asked Mr. Buckland how many homes does he plan to put on the
property. Mr. Buckland answered one for
now in order to set a precedent, and he would take it to court and have 500
people going with him and backing him because he was offering affordable
Member Burwell asked Mr. Buckland if he was going to place a manufactured home
on the property just to set up a lawsuit against the City or was he really
interested in offering affordable housing.
Member Apple stated that many times Mr. Buckland has accused the City of having
Commission members in its pockets, and that he wanted Mr. Buckland to know that
he has a mind of his own and that no one has him in their pocket.
Member Millspaugh pointed out to Mr. Buckland that some of them were not
serving on the Commission when Mr. Buckland filled lawsuits against the City
and that he did not appreciate Mr. Buckland accusing them of lying.
Member Fletcher asked Mr. Buckland why should someone pay $70,000 for the home
when they could go out and get one on their own for $23,000.
Member Faucette asked how many acres was Mr. Buckland trying to rezone and was
told approximately two acres.
Buckland stated that someday there would be an inverse condemnation suit whereas the City would have to buy up all
the land that he owns because his health is not good and he can’t do what he
used to could do. He stated that he had
about 120 acres left.
Gant with Glen Raven Mills stated that the company has property near Mr.
Buckland’s property and that he had concerns that the manufactured home would
devalue their property. He was also
concerned that certain development could adversely affect the river.
Director Harkrader stated that Mr. Buckland had amended his rezoning
application to include Lot 31 (Alamance County Tax Map 12-50). He informed the Commission that there are
basically two types of houses -- one that meets the state building code and one
that meets HUD codes or national codes.
The main difference, he stated, was that they are built differently --
one is stick-built or built on the property whereas the other one is built in a
factory and does not meet state building codes but does meet federal Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) code. Mr.
Harkrader stated that the factory-built manufactured homes aren’t bad but they
are different and that staff could not see at this time any compelling reason
to rezone the property to accommodate manufactured homes.
Harkrader stated that he knows Mr. Buckland feels strongly about manufactured
homes; however his strong beliefs or the threat of a lawsuit should not be the
determining factor for swaying Commission members in making a decision. He pointed out that there are several areas
in the City that have been rezoned for manufactured housing, but staff can see
no reason to change the development patterns in this area.
Buckland stated that single-family residential zoning is not what the City’s
Comprehensive Land Use Plan calls for
in the area, and that the Plan states
that R-M zoning would be moderately compatible with Light Industrial zoning in
the area. He maintained that
single-family manufactured housing would be compatible.
Acting Chairman Byrd, Mr. Buckland stated that the two of them are different --
that Mr. Byrd is different from Mr. Cobb -- that some on the back row were
different from Mr. Cobb. He asked if
any of them could sit there and say their rights had never been deprived and
stated that they should understand how he feels -- to be discriminated
against. Mr. Buckland stated that when
one’s rights are deprived, they have to take drastic measures.
Member Enoch told Mr. Buckland that his comments had nothing to do with his
application for rezoning.
Member Faucette also stated that this was not a race issue.
Member Hargrave stated that the Commission was dealing with the rezoning issue
and members did not need a history lesson.
Member Millspaugh asked if any of this land had ever been involved with
previous lawsuits with the City.
Buckland stated that it had. Mr.
Millspaugh asked how could the Commission consider rezoning this property as
long as it is involved in a lawsuit.
Director Harkrader asked which lawsuit was this property involved in, and Mr.
Buckland stated that it was involved with the 40-acres with one of his previous
Member Apple asked Mr. Buckland if he even wanted the Commission to recommend
approval. Mr. Buckland stated that
every time the City turns him down it gives him the right to sue to the City.
Harkrader again questioned Mr. Buckland if this property was part of any of the
active five lawsuits, and Mr. Buckland stated that it is a part of property
Buckland suggested that the Commission send this item on to City Council
without a recommendation.
Harkrader stated that he was not sure if the property could be rezoned while
under litigation and that the matter would have to be discussed with the City’s
Member Fletcher made a motion to recommend denial of the request for rezoning
as long as the property is involved in a lawsuit. Paul Cobb seconded the motion.
Member Apple stated that unemployment in this county is 6% and that many people
cannot afford housing. He pointed out
that young people are moving back home with their parents because they can’t
live on their own and that more affordable housing is needed.
Member Hargrave stated that he did not think the Commission should consider the
application since the property is under litigation.
Buckland stated that he was still going to put a manufactured home on the
Commission voted 11 to 1 to deny Mr. Buckland’s application to rezone. Voting to deny the application were Byrd,
Burwell, Cobb, Cowan, Hargrave, Millspaugh, Enoch, Faucette, Fletcher, Franks
and Piper. Voting against the motion to
deny the rezoning application was Apple.
ITEM NO. 7: Mr.
E. Lawson Brown, Jr., representing CBL and Associates Properties, Inc.,
presented an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, and R-9,
Residential District, to CB, Conditional Business District, MF-A, Multifamily
District, and O-I, Office-Institutional District. The CB District will allow all uses permitted in Conditional
Business with the exceptions noted on the application as submitted. The
property is located on the eastern side of the Western Loop, south of Garden
Road, west of Westview Terrace and west, south and east of St. Mark’s Church
Road and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-24, Lots 1, 1A, 2, 2C, 2D,
2E, 2F, 2H, 2J, 2K, 2M, 2N, 2P, 2Q, 3 and 8; Alamance County Tax Map 3-19, Lots
53, 33, 34 and 35; Alamance County Tax Map 3-25, a portion of Lot 144; and
Alamance County Tax Map 3-26, Lots 56, 57 and a portion of Lot 5.
Brown stated that CBL and Associates Properties, Inc., was one of the largest
shopping center developers in the United States. Oak Hollow in High Point and Hanes Mall in Winston-Salem are two
of CBL’s developments. He introduced Mr. Mark Mancuso with CBL in Waltham, MA;
Mr. Jeff Roach with RL Horvath Associates, Inc., of Durham; and Mr. Gary Martin
with Centerpoint Development, Inc., of Marietta, GA.
Brown informed the Commission that a small portion of the property being
proposed for development is owned by Pool or Pond Partners and that Pool or
Pond has agreed to swap another portion of property with CBL.
Brown stated that 840,000 square feet of retail space is planned for the area,
and the development will have a campus-style atmosphere much like Friendly
Shopping Center in Greensboro. Besides
the commercial space, the development will include out-parcels as well as
Office-Institutional and Multifamily uses.
development will be constructed in two phases, Mr. Brown told the Commission,
and the first phase will be the western portion with construction of one large
building and four smaller building areas with a gas pump area. The second phase will include the
development of out-parcels for other stores, restaurants or offices.
100-foot right-of-way will be dedicated for the construction of a four-lane
road, part of which will be constructed at a later date. Retention ponds will help alleviate storm
water run-off, and if any changes are necessary to the design of the proposed
shopping area, developers will bring their requests back to the Commission.
Member Fletcher asked how long will the second phase of construction take, and
Mr. Brown stated the developers estimate a five-year build-out for the second
phase and a two-year build-out for the first phase.
Member Franks asked when is the multifamily area planned, and Mr. Brown stated
that it would be about five years down the road.
Brown also stated that signage and landscaping will adhere to the City’s
regulations, and that the developers are waiting to hear from the North
Carolina Department of Transportation for approval of road design and signalization. He also pointed out that an extensive
traffic analysis had been conducted, and that the developers were very
sensitive to the nearby residential areas.
Brown maintained the following:
1) That the
development is consistent with the City’s long-range plans.
2) That the
development will afford the highest and best use of the property.
3) That the developers had been outlining the development with City
staff for 16 months and that staff has approved the plans.
4) That the development offers great transportation infrastructure
5) That this is a master plan for 142 acres.
Brown stated that this was the biggest development that he has been involved
with in his 28 years of experience. He
stated that CBL does quality work and distributed projects showing projects
that the company had been involved with.
Member Byrd asked if traffic flow had been addressed to prevent
congestion. Mr. Brown stated that
everything possible had been done to keep the area from becoming Huffman Mill
Road or Wendover Avenue in Greensboro.
To help alleviate this situation, Mr. Brown stated that the entrance to
the development had been designed to be further away from the St. Mark’s Church
Road ramp, and that no curb cuts will be allowed on the outside perimeter of
Member Faucette stated that he does foresee an increase of traffic on
Forestdale Drive and Boone Station Drive for those going to the development and
wanting to stay off Huffman Mill Road.
stated that NCDOT will determine the placement of traffic signals as needed.
Reynolds of 1243 Westview Terrace stated that he had lived in his home for 20
years and had experienced the rezoning of property on three sides. He explained that neighbors get the noise
from trucks around Wal-Mart, the Interstate and from the multi-story hotels
nearby plus traffic from the kidney center across the road. He stated that neighbors are now concerned
with having only one road into their neighborhood once this development begins
which will not be good for the residences or businesses. He explained that neighbors, who have been
approached by realtors and developers about purchasing their property, are
concerned that the neighborhood will become boxed in and their biggest concern
was with the planned multifamily development.
He presented to the Commission a petition signed by all homeowners in
the Fairview Estates Subdivision and on Garden Road asking that the multifamily
zoning be changed to commercial zoning or Office-Institutional zoning and that
a buffer around the proposed development be included. Mr. Reynolds displayed an aerial view showing the residential
area and the proposed development. A
copy of that petition is made a part of these Commission minutes.
Member Burwell asked Mr. Reynolds why did neighbors object to multifamily
zoning. Mr. Reynolds stated that
homeowners feel that they could get trapped in there with only one road to get
in or out and that they would be unable to sell their property because they
were locked in. He stated that the
homeowners think it is time to let go and move on and that almost everyone has
already signed a contract to sell their property.
Tickle, 3148 Garden Road, stated that homeowners have no protection on any side
of them -- motels on one side, Interstate, Wal-Mart and now this proposed
Rippy stated that he has lived on Garden Road since 1965 and that neighbors had
fought Wal-Mart and lost and that they had seen their property value
decrease. He stated that since there
was only one way for neighbors to come out ahead was to stop trying to beat
them and instead joining them.
Foster stated that he had lived on Westview Terrace only three years but the
neighborhood has constantly been changing.
He had concerns about there being only one road in and out of the
development and stated that the area is no longer a good neighborhood but good
Chuck Basa, 1255 Westview Terrace, stated that neighbors are all in one boat
and are stuck between a rock and a hard place and that they had no choice but
to sell their property to developers.
He told Commission members that for the past three years he has seen the
increase of traffic in the area, and that the neighborhood had been a little
jewel there. He stated that no matter
if state-of-the-art patio homes were built in the multifamily-zoned areas,
property values of their homes would go down.
Member Burwell asked Mr. Brown if the developers needed time to consider
changing Multifamily zoning to O-I, and Mr. Brown stated that it was staff that
asked the developers to include multifamily zoning in the development. Mr. Brown stated that he would amend the
rezoning application and delete multifamily zoning and change it to
Office-Institutional zoning contingent upon the area being annexed by the City.
Member Burwell asked if the homeowners in attendance -- 30 to 40 -- understood
Office-Institutional zoning and they responded that they did.
Kalbfleisch, 1233 Westview Terrace, stated that all neighbors were in agreement
that multifamily zoning be eliminated.
Member Millspaugh noted that it appeared that the Westview Terrace neighborhood
had become an island unto itself.
Member Franks stated that the site plan does not show buffers around the
Director of Planning Services Smith stated that the development will have to
adhere to City-wide landscape regulations recently adopted.
Director Harkrader stated that the developers can amend their rezoning
application and change the Multifamily classification to
Office-Institutional. He stated that
staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning. He pointed out that this application was
complicated and had included considerable road infrastructure. He pointed out that there would be no change
in the alignment of the Western Loop; however, St. Mark’s Road will be re-aligned
southerly towards the proposed development.
He stated that staff recommended approval of the rezoning with the
following use and development conditions and amendments to the application:
retention and drainage for the subdivision as shown on a plan provided by the developers
and approved by staff.
driveways, parking and building areas as shown on a map provided by the
developers and approved by staff.
storage, sales and display areas to be permitted as long as the area does not
exceed five percent of the approved building square footage.
Mark’s Church Road to be extended southerly into the site as shown on a plan
provided by the developers and approved by staff.
to be shown on a signage plan provided by developers and approved by staff.
will be located in areas designated “Building Area” as shown on drawings
provided by developers and approved by staff.
4) An east
to west corridor road will be constructed in two phases as shown on plans submitted
by developers and approved by staff.
road will align with Boone Station Drive at Garden Road to the east.
conditions stated in “General Site Notes” and “Condition of Rezoning” shown on
a plan submitted by developers and approved by staff.
referred to are “Conditional Use Zoning” as prepared by RL Horvath Associates,
Inc., consisting of five pages dated February 17, 2004.
materials shall be masonry, split-face block and stucco of earth-tone color for
shall be in accordance with an attached “Sign Package Criteria” submitted by
developers and approved by staff.
Amendments to the Conditional Business Rezoning
entire 142 + acres will be zoned Conditional Business to the west,
Office-Institutional to the southeast and Office-Institutional to the
northeast, as amended during the meeting and all in accordance with the
submitted site plan, as amended.
2) All uses
for the Conditional Business portion will be consistent with the uses specified
in the Table of Permitted Uses for the City of Burlington under Conditional
Business zoning with the exception of the following uses: no adult bookstores,
adult video stores, adult cabarets, adult motels, boarding and rooming houses,
churches, drive-in theaters, heliports, helistops, sheet metal and roofing
shops, storage of petroleum products in facilities greater than 100,000
gallons, swimming pools (community, non-profit), transportation terminals
(freight) or travel trailer parks.
for out-parcels will be ground signs and wall signs only.
signs will be pylon signs not to exceed 50 feet in height and a width not to
exceed 25 feet.
existing multiple lots will be combined into one lot prior to development, and
subsequent subdivision shall be in accordance with applicable subdivision
Commission Member Fletcher made a
motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning from R-15 and R-9 to
Conditional Business and Office-Institutional and eliminating the request for
Multifamily zoning. Paul Cobb seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
request for rezoning from R-15 and R-9 to Conditional Business and
Office-Institutional and eliminating the request for Multifamily zoning.
There being no further business to
discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
A. Byrd, Jr., Acting Chairman