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.m. He
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
- 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
- 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:
- that the use will not substantially
injure the value of adjoining or abutting property owner or that the use
is a public necessity and,
- 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
- 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
- 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:
- that the use will not substantially
injure the value of adjoining or abutting property owner or that the use
is a public necessity and,
- 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