View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

 

MINUTES

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

City of Burlington, NC

October 12, 2004

 

 

Members Present                                                                       Members Absent

City:                                                                                       

Mr. H.E. (Ed) Wilson, III, Chairperson                           

Mr. Mike Gee, Vice Chairperson                                         
Mrs. Mary Watson
Mrs. Margaret Stephens

Ms. Charlotte Straney

Mrs. Joyce Lance

 

Extraterritorial:                                                                            Extraterritorial:

Mr. A.D. Lassiter                                                                      Mr. Charels W. Terrell

Mr. Carl Parks                                                                        Mr. Bobby Goodman

Mr. Chalmers Brumbaugh

 

Also present was Mr. Joey Lea, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Burlington.

 

Mr. Ed Wilson, Chairperson, called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 8:30 a.mHe explained that the city representatives to the Board of Adjustment are appointed by the City Council and the representatives of the Extraterritorial jurisdiction were appointed by the County Commissioners. This is a quasi-judicial hearing.  Everyone speaking before the Board should state their name, sign the log on the podium, and swear or affirm that everything they say is true to the best of their knowledge.  Appeals of the Board’s decisions may be taken to the Alamance County Superior Court.  The City will state their position because of their knowledge of the case and the technical codes.  The applicant will state their case, and then anyone from the public may speak.  The Board will then close the meeting to the public, discuss the case and then take a vote.  An affirmative four-fifths vote is required in order to grant a variance, a special use permit, or an appeal.

 
DUE PUBLICATION

Mr. Joey Lea, Code Enforcement Officer with the City of Burlington, advised that due notice and publication of this meeting of the Board of Adjustment and matters to come before it had been made, and all contiguous property owners were mailed a notice advising of this meeting.

 
SWORN TESTIMONY

Prior to testifying before the Board, each party was sworn in or affirmed that the testimony they were about to give was true to the best of their knowledge.

 

MINUTES

Chairman Wilson asked if there were any changes to the minutes from September 14, 2004, meeting.  There being no changes, Mrs. Margaret Stephens made a motion to approve the minutes and Mr. Mike Gee seconded the motion.  There being no discussion, the motion passed unanimously.

 

NEW MEMBER

Chairman Wilson welcomed the Board of Adjustment’s new member.  Jondeen Terry swore in new member Todd Smith.

 

NEW BUSINESS

Joey Lea informed the Board that Mr. Buckland has filed suit with Superior Court in nature of certiorari on Friday, October 8, 2004.  Mr. Buckland appeared before City Council on October 5, 2004 to address the issue of the filing fee. The Council indicated to Mr. Buckland that the City did an internal review to determine what the fee should be for the Board of Adjustment and it is actually less than the figure they came up with and the council let him know that they believed the fee to be reasonable.  Mr. Lea said he will keep the Board informed as he gets information on Mr. Buckland’s case. 

 

Chairman Wilson stated that with the extraterritorial cases to be heard today will need to have a unanimous vote because they have 2 ETJ members absent.  He also informed those in the ETJ that they have the option to be heard today knowing that it requires a unanimous vote of all eight members or postpone the meeting until next month when all members are able to attend.  They all agreed to be heard today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE HEARD (ETJ)

CASE NO. 17-04  SPECIAL USE PERMIT:  SECTION 32.9 -ZONING ORDINANCE (SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR CHURCH’S IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) (Shiloh Presbyterian Church, Grand Oaks Boulevard, Burlington, NC)

 

Chairman Wilson reminded the Board that this is a request for a special use permit and will have to meet all of the findings of fact and the general conditions for a special use permit.

 

EVIDENCE PRESENTED:

Mr. Joey Lea stated that Shiloh Presbyterian Church is proposing a new facility located on Grand Oaks Blvd. The site plan has been approved by the Technical Review Committee and meets all of the specified requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Mark Reich, Engineer of Alley, Williams, Carmen & King who has prepared the site plan for Shiloh Presbyterian Church stated that the church is hoping to relocate to a new site due to Home Depot purchasing their old site.  Ms. Straney asked if this was a combination of what had been residential lots and what the cablevision and utility line easements that are going through the middle of the building means? Mr. Reich stated that the easements would be relocated.  Chairman Wilson asked if that requires approval from the Utility Commission? Mr. Reich stated that it does not and they will be working with the local utility company’s to get them relocated.  Ms. Straney asked if to the right of the proposed Bell tower if there was a proposed road that will serve residential lots? Mr. Reich stated that it was still part of the utility area.  Mr. Chalmers Brumbaugh asked if the Church owns more than one block? Mr. Reich stated the Church bought several blocks of land from the Koury’s and there were several lots that faced out onto Grand Oaks Blvd. There was a larger tract that had not yet been developed which makes up for the lower half of this particular tract. Mr. Lea stated that it has 2 parcel numbers but not 2 owners. It’s one tract of land with 2 parcel numbers because part of the property is in the City limits and the other is in the ETJ.  Chairman Wilson asked how many parking spaces are in the plan? Mr. Reich stated there are 143 total spaces. Mr. Lea stated that the parking meets code.  Chairman Wilson asked what the plans are for fencing or screening the property? Mr. Reich stated they do not have any at this time, but they do have some landscaping plans that will meet with the City’s requirements out at the front, but no additional fencing or screening are being proposed.  Chairman Wilson asked if the exterior lighting faced inwards toward your property?  Mr. Reich stated that it would.  Ms. Straney asked if the land that was owned by Carolina Hosiery would be residential?  Mr. Reich stated that the City approved a preliminary plan back in the ’90s for Carolina Hosiery Mills or the Koury’s and it shows there would be large residential lots in that area. Ms. Straney asked if the trees facing on Grand Oaks Blvd. will be cut down so the church will be completely visible from the street?  Mr. Reich stated that they will be doing grading in the front and will be cutting down the trees and planting new trees with the City’s requirements.  Ms. Straney said another question they have to look at is signs  the plans do not show any signs. Mr. Reich said he doesn’t see anything in their plans on signs but is pretty sure they would like to have one out in front of the church. Mr. Lea stated that signage is normally one of the last things that is taken care of and will meet the City’s guidelines. Ms. Straney wanted to know if there was any response from the neighbors particularly across the street in between Ardmore and Marlborough?  Mr. Lea said he had no comments or calls from anyone in the neighborhood.  Mrs. Margaret Stephens stated that this particular piece of property has been owned by the church for a long period of time so the neighbors out there have been aware that this is going on, so this is not a new proposal.  Mr. Reich stated there have been articles in the newspaper relative to the church building there as well during the site planning of the new Home Depot discussing the move out in that area.  Mr. Brumbaugh asked if they knew the extent to which the parking of vehicles would be out on the street.  Mr. Reich said as he understands it,  this is much more adequate parking than what is needed for what they have members for. Mr. Ed Lance, neighbor, asked if the property immediately to the west of this was zoned business and if so would that restrict the types of businesses that might locate there? Mr. Lea stated that the property to the west is zoned B-1 Neighborhood Business which would allow commercial business on a small scale. Mr. Lance asked if they could serve alcohol?  Mr. Lea stated that they probably could if it were a small restaurant  Mr. Lance asked if there were future plans for activities at the church other than that of a religious nature, as in education, daycare that type of thing?  Mr. Reich stated that in his discussion with the architects they have talked about perhaps a Boy Scout hut and some recreation facilities to the east of the church. They certainly hope they would be able to expand this particular building for a larger congregation with a new educational wing that would go to the east and connect back to the Sanctuary. Nothing has been mentioned about a daycare and the recreational type functions would be a Sunday School type function.  Chairman Wilson stated that the only matter before the Board of Adjustment is a church in a residential district, the other issues might require them to appear before this Board again.     

 

DISCUSSION & FINDINGS OF FACT:  There being no further comments from the public, Chairman Wilson turned the meeting over to the Board for discussion.  Mr. Gee made a motion that the 4 required conditions for issuing a special use permit in accordance to Section 32.13(b) are met due to the following Findings of Fact:  combining the first and second conditions that

  1. the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plans submitted and approved and
  2. that the use meets all required conditions and specifications. The findings of fact are that  the use of this property as a Church will not endanger the health or safety as it has been presented and approved by the Technical Review Committee and meets all required conditions and specifications as testified by Mr. Joey Lea regarding general conditions for a special use permit.  Mr. Gee stated that he is also combining the third and fourth requirements stating:
  3. that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property owner or that the use is a public necessity and,
  4. that the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development of Burlington and it’s environs. the Findings of Facts are that this use of the Church will enhance the value of the adjoining property and that it is in harmony with the area that it is located.  Mrs. Watson seconded the motion.

 

(AYES:  Wilson, Gee, Watson, Straney, Stephens, Lassiter, Parks and Brumbaugh)

(NOES:  none)

 

DECISION:  Mr. Gee made a motion to approve the special use permit for the Shiloh Presbyterian Church to be located on Grand Oaks Boulevard due to the previously stated Findings of Fact and that the applicant shall complete the development in accordance with the plans submitted and approved by this board and if any of the conditions affixed hereto or any part thereof shall be held invalid and void, this permit shall be void and of no effect.  Mrs. Stephens seconded the motion.

 

(AYES:  Wilson, Gee, Watson, Straney, Stephens, Lassiter, Parks and Brumbaugh)

(NOES:  none)

 

 

 

 

CASE HEARD (ETJ)

CASE NO. 19-04  VARIANCE: SECTION 32.3.E(5) -ZONING ORDINANCE (SIDE SETBACKS IN OFFICE-INSTITUTIONAL) (Preservation North Carolina, Glencoe Mill Village, Burlington, NC)

 

Chairman Wilson reminded the Board that this is a request for a variance and not a special use permit and the conditions for a variance are attached in front of the application.

 

EVIDENCE PRESENTED:

Mr. Joey Lea stated that Glencoe Mill Village is an area to the north that was brought into our Extraterritorial Jurisdiction several years ago and is in a designated historical area. The old mill located on the river will be renovated for different types of uses. They come to us today seeking variances to what would be the side setback requirements in an O&I District. Handed out to you was an amendment to where the commercial buildings are. What you are looking at are proposed property lines that will create a subdivision of the property. There is a proposal for renovations of the building for different uses. The configuration of the property would create side setbacks around the parameters of the building that would be all side setbacks which would be a 10 foot requirement in an O&I district. Because of the location of the buildings and the location of the property lines it will be approximately 4 feet from the property line to the building. There are other requirements that will be involved with this subdivision which will be requirements under the building code that will require the building to be constructed to meet certain standards in order to be that close to a property line. Granting the variance wouldn’t necessarily mean that they could have the buildings there because they would have to make sure they build the building in accordance to the North Carolina State Building Codes. The variance request is for 6 feet from the entire property lines around the parameters of the building. Mr. Lea suggested that if the Board grants the variance, to grant it under the contingency that all the North Carolina State Building Codes are met to ensure that the variance doesn’t guarantee the setback.  Ms. Straney asked if the variance request was for a separation requirement. Mr. Lea stated there is no separation requirement between the buildings. The only separation requirement would be from the building to the property line.  Mrs. Lynn Cowan, Director of the Glencoe Mill Village for Preservation North Carolina stated that Glencoe Mill Village is a historically significant 1880’s textile mill and mill village. Preservation North Carolina is in the process of restoring and redeveloping the village. We are almost complete with the houses and are beginning work on the commercial property and that initially the dye house which is the smaller of the two buildings was scheduled for demolition and they have now found someone to restore the dye house and use it as an architectural office so that is why they are asking for the variance. The buildings are where they are, and cannot be moved so we’re asking for a variance in the setback so the dye house can be restored.  Chairman Wilson asked what the plans are for the larger building?  Mrs. Cowan said currently they are under contract for condos.  Chairman Wilson asked Mrs. Cowan if she was aware that they would have to meet North Carolina State Building Codes.  Mrs. Cowan stated that they are aware of that and have actually had meetings with the City’s Engineering, Inspection and Planning Departments. Ms. Straney stated she’s trying to get her bearings straight on what else is out there and wanted to know where exactly the museum is located.  Mrs. Cowan stated that it is right next to the dirt road.  Mr. Brumbaugh asked if the gravel road would ever be paved? Mrs. Cowan stated that it is actually a private road and will never be a public road because the distance between the office and the little machine shop is too close.  Mrs. Stephens stated that part of the reconstruction of the proposed new plan not only eliminates the demolition of the building but separates the building. Mr. Gee asked if the tenant was going to be purchasing the building? Mrs. Cowan stated that they will be purchasing and rehabbing the building. Chairman Wilson stated that one of the things the Board needs to look at is hardship and since this is a historical site and your trying to preserve as much as possible then the configuration of the two buildings close together and your desire to preserve the dye house would be categorized as a hardship. Mr. Lea stated that this is under the guidelines of the Historic Preservation Commission and asked Mrs. Cowan if they were aware of this? Mrs. Cowan state that the Commission was aware of the plans. Mr. Lea referenced Section 32.15(K)2 paragraph 4 which states a special exception to the building setback front yard, side yard, rear yard, plot coverage and height requirements may be approved by the Board of Adjustment for Historic Districts and Designated Historic Properties if the application complies with the intent of the architectural and historic guidelines of the Burlington Historic District and if first recommended by the Burlington Historic Preservation Commission, provided the improved application will not constitute a threat to public safety. Mr. Lea Stated that the ordinance does allow the Board to grant those variances, however, you are correct in the fact there has to be a hardship

 

DISCUSSION & FINDINGS OF FACT:  There being no further comments from the public, Chairman Wilson turned the meeting over to the Board for discussion. Chairman Wilson stated again that this is an extraterritorial case and will require a unanimous vote of all the eight members that are here.  Chairman Wilson stated there is a hardship and it is in harmony with our ordinance and doesn’t see any public safety or welfare issues here either.  Mrs. Stephens made note that in dealing with the Historic Commission, that it is a difficult and stringent Board and if they’ve come this far on it then there were a lot of points that had to be made before they got to this point.  Chairman Wilson asked if the Board understands what the variance is for?  Mr. Carl Parks stated that if we are going to let the people restore the village and put restrictions on it how will they go about restoring a village or historic site when putting a lot of blocked walls between us. Mr. Parks stated that he doesn’t see any problem with the variance Ms. Straney stated that she does not have any problem with this but she does not like to operate in the dark and what was sent out to the Board really didn’t tell them what the issues are It did explain what section of the zoning ordinance  applies and wishes they had more explanation of what it would be before the site visit and if you don’t know what your looking for it’s a little difficult.  Mr. Lea stated in response to Ms. Straney’s comment that this particular case is difficult at best to explain.  Chairman Wilson asked if the property was subdivided yet? Mr. Lea stated that the property has not been subdivided and what your looking at is a proposed subdivision that will have to meet the regulations of the Subdivision Requirements.     

 

DECISION:  Chairman Wilson made a motion to grant Preservation North Carolina – Glencoe Mill Village Site a 6 foot variance to all side setbacks adjacent to the property lines in accordance to Section 32.5 (B) 5 Side Setbacks, as testified by Mrs. Cowan. The hardship in this case is the necessity to preserve as much as the Glencoe Mill Village as possible with the proposed subdivision of this property and therefore, the need for the side setback variance. They are able to preserve another building on this plot and due to the original construction of this building this is about the only way it appears that this can be saved, therefore, more of the historic site can be preserved.  The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and it does preserve it’s spirit as testified by Mr. Lea as he read Zoning Code 32.15(K)2 paragraph 4 and granting the variance does not endanger the public safety and welfare and substantial justice has been done as this matter has been in front of multiple historic committee reviews.  Mrs. Stephens seconded the motion.  Chairman Wilson amended the motion contingent to all building code requirements of the North Carolina State Building Codes will be met or the variance will be void.  Mr. Gee seconded the amendment. The Board voted unanimously to grant the variance.

 

(AYES:  Wilson, Gee, Watson, Straney, Lance, Lassiter, Parks and Brumbaugh)

 (NOES:  none)

 

 

CASE NO. 18-04 (City)  SPECIAL USE PERMIT:  SECTION 32.9 -ZONING ORDINANCE (SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR CHURCH’S IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) (Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church, Hanford Road, Burlington, NC)

 

Chairman Wilson reminded the Board that this is a request for a special use permit and will have to meet all of the findings of fact and the general conditions for a special use permit.

 

EVIDENCE PRESENTED:

Mr. Joey Lea stated that Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church has a location on Hanford Road for a proposed new church and was approved under a special use permit back in 2002. The reason they are here today is because special use permits are only good for 2 years and their two years is just about up. They are not at the point of starting construction just yet, so they are here to renew their special use permit.  Mr. Lea proceeded to tell the Board that it is the exact same application that was proposed 2 years ago with just some minor changes that will not affect the plan and handed out a copy of the minutes where the case was approved previously.  Mr. Lea stated the only minor change is that the memorial garden will now be a columbarium that will be moved inside the circle and the school that is shown on the plan is proposed for the future and it will have to be approved by the City Council.

 

Pastor Robert Benko of Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church explained that he is asking the Board to re-approve what was already approved 2 years ago.  Mr. Gee asked if anything had changed in the past 2 years? Pastor Benko stated that the only thing that has changed is the columbarium was moved from the back side of the church into the center of the circle.  The school is on there to show what future growth could look like and the ball fields in the back behind the church. Once the lot is cleared where the school will be, will be a grassy patch of field and what they would like to do is use that for a ball field or play area in the interim.  Mr. Gee asked about parking illustrated on the drawing and if it was for the church or for the school? Pastor Benko stated that the parking off to the left side of the school would not be put in until the school was built.  Ms. Straney stated that the plans that were submitted with this request are dated February 22, 2002, but when the Board of Adjustment approved this 2 years ago the plans were dated October 14, 2002, and stated there was a large time difference there and the number of parking spaces is different Ms. Straney asked which plan would you go by? Pastor Benko stated that he would go by the latest dated plans.  Pastor Benko stated that he was not aware of the 2 different sets of plans because he was just installed as Pastor this past year, so whatever the City would require is what they will comply with.  Chairman Wilson asked if there was a difference in the sets of plans other than the dates?  Ms. Straney stated that on the October 2002 plans there are 143 required parking spots for this size sanctuary, on the October 2002 plans the number of proposed is 304 which already well exceeds the requirement. Ms. Straney continued saying that she really couldn’t count the number of trees because they are very small but wasn’t quite sure if there were differences in the landscaping.  Pastor Benko stated that there has been no changes or discussion since the Board approved this the last time.  Mr. Gee asked Mr. Lea if the plans had gone through Technical Review? Mr. Lea stated that they went through Technical Review process but there was no need to go through Technical Review again.  Mr. Gee asked if they met all the requirements, Mr. Lea stated that all the requirements had been met.  Chairman Wilson asked if they met all the landscaping requirements? Mr. Lea stated that all the landscaping requirements and lighting requirements have been met..  Ms. Straney asked Mr. Lea if he had hear from any of the neighbors? Mr. Lea stated that there was one person that came into the office and he is not present today but he was mainly concerned with the school because his property was very close to that and he was told that this meeting will not involve the school and did not know what the timeframe was for the school and stated he would need to be present at that meeting to ask his questions, but he had no opposition to the church.  Mrs. Stephens stated that she did not remember anything controversial on this request.  Mr. Gee asked Mr. Lea that if there were any changes that appear during construction that will have to be approved by the City? Mr. Lea stated that administratively they can approve any minor changes that are considered not detrimental to the plan itself, but not anything that would alter the scope of the plan, that would have to come back before the Board. 

 

DISCUSSION & FINDINGS OF FACT:  There being no further comments from the public, Chairman Wilson turned the meeting over to the Board for discussion.  Mrs. Watson made a motion that the 4 required conditions for issuing a special use permit in accordance to Section 32.13(b) are met due to the following Findings of Fact:  combining the first and second conditions that

  1. the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plans submitted and approved and
  2. that the use meets all required conditions and specifications. The findings of fact are that the use of this property as a Church will not endanger the health or safety as it has been presented and approved by the Technical Review Committee and meets all required conditions and specifications as testified by Mr. Joey Lea regarding general conditions for a special use permit.  Mrs. Watson stated that he is also combining the third and fourth requirements stating:
  3. that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property owner or that the use is a public necessity and,
  4. that the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development of Burlington and it’s environs. the Findings of Facts are that this use of the Church will enhance the value of the adjoining property and that it is in harmony with the area that it is located.  Mr. Gee seconded the motion.

 

(AYES:  Wilson, Gee, Watson, Straney, Stephens)

(NOES:  none)

 

DECISION:  Mrs. Watson made a motion to approve the special use permit for Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church to be located on Hanford Road due to the previously stated Findings of Fact and that the applicant shall complete the development in accordance with the plans submitted and approved by this board and if any of the conditions affixed hereto or any part thereof shall be held invalid and void, this permit shall be void and of no effect.  Ms. Straney seconded the motion.

 

(AYES:  Wilson, Gee, Watson, Straney, Stephens)

(NOES:  none)

 

MEETING ADJOURNED:  10:05 am 

 

 

                                                                                    ___________________________________

                                                                                    Mike Gee, Acting Chairman

 

 

                                                                                    ___________________________________

                                                                                    Mary Fanelli, Secretary