MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
City of Burlington, NC
December 14, 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
Mr. Todd Smith
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 November 9, 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.
CASE HEARD
CASE NO. 21-04 VARIANCE:
SECTION 32.12.BB(4) -ZONING ORDINANCE (MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED) (Mr. Ramesh Patel, Saconn
Drive, Burlington, NC)
EVIDENCE
PRESENTED:
Mr. Joey Lea stated that Mr.
Ramesh Patel is proposing to build a new motel and the front of the building
will face the Interstate. They are asking for a variance to the sign ordinance
that requires wall signs to be placed only upon walls that face a public street
and because the building is actually facing interior properties and not a
public street, the ordinance will not allow them to have a sign on the side of
the building so they are asking for a variance to put a sign on the front
entrance of the building. Ms. Charlotte
Straney asked where the drive is to be located for the new site? Mr. Lea stated that there is an easement to
the left side of Outback Steakhouse that will be used as an entrance.
Mr. Ramesh Patel explained
that they are planning on building a new hotel that will be facing the street
that is named Saconn Drive which is on the back side. If you put the sign there no one will be able to see it from
Kirkpatrick Road or the Interstate. Mr. Jeff Glace, Architect for the proposed
project, stated that this will be a
5-story hotel and if allowed, the sign will be presented toward the Interstate.
If we have to go around Saconn Drive it will not be seen very well at all to
the public or anyone that would be visiting the site. Mr. Glace explained that NCDOT informed them that Kirkpatrick
Road will be closed shortly and will be rerouting past the gas station and
Longpine will be the direct access because of the road problems and development
issues out that way. Mrs. Margaret Stephens asked if the physical mailing
address is on Saconn Dr.? Mr. Glace
stated that it would be. Mrs. Stephens
asked if they are proposing to use the entry from Longpine as their main entrance
to the property? Mr. Glace stated yes
and he does have a site plan and building elevations to show the Board. Mrs.
Stephens asked if there was any information on the height of the building? Mr.
Lea stated that they have reviewed the information that pertains to the airport
height requirements and that the building would be in compliance. Chairman Wilson asked if the signage
complied in every other way except that it does not face the correct way? Mr. Glace replied that they have not gone
into detail because the sign companies will be responsible for that. Mr. Lea stated that he initially looked at
the map wrong and it will be a variance for both walls. Mr. Gee asked Mr. Lea
if the variance was granted can they stipulate that no other sign be put on the
other two sides that would be typically allowed under the ordinance? Mr. Lea stated that you can stipulate that
but it wouldn’t be allowed anyway for signage anywhere else. Mr. Glace stated they do not need any more
signs and what they have will be enough. Ms. Straney asked if this variance is
on the number of signs and not moving the signs location because of where the
ordinance states it should be? Mr. Lea explained that the actual variance would
be for the location. Mr. Glace states
that it isn’t on the number of signs it’s the position on the building. Ms.
Straney stated that it is about the number of signs. Mr. Lea stated that in one
respect it technically could be because by ordinance they could have only one
wall sign, but, the actual variance request is to have a sign upon two walls
that the ordinance doesn’t allow. Ms. Straney stated that it allows it for each
street frontage adjacent to and coincidence with the property of a business
establishment. Mrs. Stephens stated
that they don’t have a street. Mr. Lea
stated that the cul-de-sac at Saconn is the only public right-of-way they
have.
Mr. Gee asked Mr. Lea to
summarize what the general purpose and intent of this ordinance is. Mr. Lea
stated that he can only assume that the intent of this ordinance is to protect
neighboring properties, so there would be a minimal impact on the surrounding
properties as far as signage, lighted signage, and that sort of thing. Chairman
Wilson asked if the surrounding property was B-2? Mr. Lea stated that it was.
Ms. Straney asked what a “projecting sign” was? Mr. Lea stated that it
is a sign that projects out from a wall.
Mr. Lea informed the Board that he was contacted by Mr. Joe Rouse who
owns the property to the very right at the end of the cul-de-sac and that he
had absolutely no problems with the request.
Ms. Straney asked if they are looking at two wall signs rather than a
projecting sign and neither is on the actual street frontage that would be
covered by the ordinance? Mr. Lea stated that is correct. Ms. Straney asked if
there are two variances? Mr. Lea stated that it depends on how you look at it.
It could be construed as the actual number of signs because technically they
could have one and they are asking for two. However, neither one of the walls
they are asking the variance for would allow a sign anyway, so in my opinion they
are only asking for a variance to place a sign on a wall that the ordinance
doesn’t allow. The number of signs is actually dictated by how much street
footage you have, but if the Board sees it that way it could be a two-fold
variance, one for the number of signs and one for the placement of signs. Ms.
Straney stated that the hardship is not exactly the land, it’s the location of
the land and because of what the rest of the surrounding businesses are
dictating and they have to face the Interstate. Mr. Lea stated that it would be
difficult for a building to be built to face the cul-de-sac because of the way
the land is configured and meet all of the parking and other requirements. Ms.
Straney asked where Kirkpatrick Rd. is going to be closed. Mr. Glace described it on the map. Mr. Lea stated that this closing is
proposed. Mrs. Stephens stated that this is something that he needs to be
concerned about. Mr. Glace said that it is part of it, if they decide to fully go
through with the building or not, and this is one of the things they had to
look at. Ms. Straney said the purpose
of the signs is to identify the hotel from the Interstate because it’s a
non-issue to identify from Kirkpatrick because people won’t be on
Kirkpatrick.
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 that
the hardship has been clarified as the configuration of the lot with the
sloping lot back toward Saconn Drive and the closing of Kirkpatrick Road and
that the easement is going to be the actual entrance to the hotel and this lot
and the motel’s configuration on the lot and the way it faces the Interstate.
All of those appear to be hardships and it is in harmony with B-2 and all other
properties face the Interstate and there is no public safety or welfare issues
here either.
DECISION: Mrs. Stephens made a motion that the request
for a variance by Mr. Patel be approved because there are practical difficulties
and hardships in the configuration of the lot and the lay of the land and that
the proposed closing of Kirkpatrick Rd. will affect the visibility and
accessibility of the property and that Mr. Patel has made arrangements for an
easement to the property and that the request is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the ordinance and there is no public safety issues which
includes both signs on the front and right side. Ms. Straney seconded the
motion. The Board voted unanimously to
grant the variance.
(AYES: Wilson, Gee, Watson, Stephens, Straney,)
(NOES:
none)
CASE NO. 23-04 VARIANCE:
SECTION 32.4.B(5) -ZONING ORDINANCE (Minimum Setbacks for MF-A Districts) (Mr.
Mike Bolynn (representing Travis Handy), North Corner of Morehead & Anthony
Streets, Burlington, NC)
EVIDENCE PRESENTED:
Mr. Joey Lea explained that
Mike Bolynn representing Travis Handy is proposing to develop land located at
the corner of Morehead St. and Anthony St. This property has been recently
subdivided and there are three lots on that corner. The property is zoned MF-A Multi-family and Mr. Bolynn is
planning to build a triplex on the lot. The property has approximately 10,536
square feet, and by density, MF-A allows three units on the property because there
is only 3,000 square feet of land per unit required. However, due to the
setback requirements and other restraints, the multi-family requirements cannot
be met for multi-family development.
Mr. Lea explained on a map that was handed out that the red lines are
for multifamily setbacks which are 40 feet from the front at Morehead St., 30
feet from the side St. at AnthonySt., 30 feet to the rear and 25 feet from the
left side of the property parallel to Anthony St. The setbacks in blue on the
map are required for a single-family dwelling which is 25 feet from the front,
10 feet from the interior side, 12½ from the street side and 25 feet from the
rear. Mr. Bolynn is proposing to develop a triplex on this property with the
variance request from the setback requirements. The second plan that was handed out is a proposed site plan for
three units. One is a single story unit and the other is a two story unit.
Basically he is proposing to develop a multi-family development within the
single-family setback requirements. Mr. Bolynn is requesting a variance of 15
feet to the interior property side, 17½ feet on the street side, 15 feet front,
and 5 feet at the rear. Technically these parameters would be suitable for
single-family, so he has placed the development within the single-family
requirements. Mr. Lea stated that he
checked the lot coverage requirement allowed for single-family use and the
footprint of the building would not exceed the required square footage that would
be allowed. Mr. Bolynn has also placed his parking outside the required front
and side yards. The parking shown in front are two spaces 40 feet in depth, 20
feet for an access aisle and leaving 25 feet from the property line and two
parking spaces located to the rear of the building giving access to the other
side of the building that is also ample room to meet the minimum requirements
for parking spaces. Four parking spaces would be all that is required for a
triplex. Chairman Wilson asked when the
property was subdivided? Mr. Lea stated that it was subdivided this year. Chairman Wilson asked if there was another
structure on the lot? Mr. Lea stated that there is a home that had been built
on the corner of Flanner and Morehead.
Mrs. Stephens asked where the entries are? Mr. Lea stated that one entrance would be on Morehead St. and one
is on Anthony St.
Mr. Michael S. Bolynn
explained he wanted to find a lot to build a triplex on for Mr. Handy and in
researching he called the Inspections Department to get the setbacks and he was
given setbacks for a single- family dwelling. So based on those numbers he
purchased the lot and when it was
surveyed they discovered that the multi-family setbacks would not work,
so he had been working with Mr. Lea to work on something that would not hinder
the surrounding properties. Ms. Straney
asked about the access on Morehead St. and if a car would be able to turn in
and move forward a pretty good distance before they have to park because of the
busy intersection there? Mr. Bolynn
stated there is plenty of room and with an extra 25 to 30 feet for a turn
around. Mr. Bolynn stated that there is
a mixture of multi-family residences in that area. Mrs. Stephens asked if there
was still enough room for a sidewalk?
Mr. Bolynn stated yes. Chairman
Wilson asked when the lot was purchased? Mr. Bolynn stated about 60 days
ago. Mr. Bolynn said the property value
would’ve been too high to warrant a single-family residence there. Ms. Straney stated that according to the
guidelines that even if he was given this information that should not be a
factor. Mr. Bolynn said that in looking
at the dimensions shown from the edge of the property back to the actual
triplex, he doesn’t really need the entire variance. It’s almost impossible to
fit any kind of structure that is multi-family, in those setbacks. Mrs. Stephens stated that the allowable
zoning on that lot contradicts the use of the lot. Mrs. Stephens asked Mr. Lea if he saw any safety issues with the
configuration of the lot. Mr. Lea stated that this plan is contingent on being
able to secure the curb cuts for the two entrances. There is an existing curb
cut on Morehead Street and does not know if there’s one on Anthony Street. Mrs.
Stephens asked Mr. Bolynn if he has checked on the curb cuts? Mr. Bolynn stated
that he had talked with Jim Lauritsen in the engineering department but it was
just preliminary talks. Mrs. Stephens stated that since your on two streets she
doesn’t see that as being a problem.
Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Lea if the variance was for the numbers given
earlier which were 15 foot interior property side, 17½ foot street side, 15
foot front and 5 foot rear. Mr. Lea stated that was correct. Mr. Lea stated
that you cannot build a duplex on this lot but technically, by Multi-family
density requirements, you can put a triplex on it. Duplexes go by single-family
regulations which are R-6 and requires 6,000 square foot of land for each unit.
Multi-family requires 3,000 square foot per two bedroom unit which is 9,000
square feet of land required in order to build a triplex and he’s has over
10,000 square feet in the lot
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 stated that the
hardship is that he didn’t create the hardship, he purchased the lot for a
specific use and to obtain the highest use of the property he has to be able to
build the proposed triplex and a miscommunication regarding the setbacks led
him to the purchase and at this point he cannot obtain the highest invested use
of this property. It also appears that building to the setback requirements
make it, without a variance, impossible for him to build what he is proposing,
and if we grant the variance it would be contingent upon receiving curb cuts on
Anthony and Morehead Streets and it is within harmony of the general purpose
and intent of the ordinance and that it will not endanger the safety or welfare
of the adjoining property owners as there are multi-family uses as well as
single-family residences and would suggest granting the variance for setbacks
for multi-family to fall back to single-family setback requirements limiting
the variance to a maximum of 2128 square feet as proposed. Ms. Straney stated that she would agree with
most of that but going back to the issue of possibly being misinformed, that we
are not supposed to consider that and there is plenty of hardship here and that
technically it is up to the property owner to check out everything before they
purchase and this is zoned for something that is impossible to build.
DECISION: Mr. Gee made a motion to grant the variance
for multi-family setback requirements to conform to the single-family setback
requirements for Travis Handy on the property to be located at the corner of
Morehead and Anthony Streets with the conditions that the variance be limited
to the maximum of 2128 square foot footprint that has been proposed and that
the variance be contingent upon receiving two curb cuts one on Morehead Street
and one on Anthony Street. The hardship in this case is that the land is zoned
for something that is impossible to build on and the variance is in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and in granting the
variance the public safety and welfare had been assured as that it is in
harmony with the existing neighborhood consisting of multi-family and
single-family residences and that there is adequate parking and circulation
around the property, Mrs. Mary Watson seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to grant the
variance.
(AYES: Wilson, Gee, Watson, Stephens, Straney,)
(NOES:
none)
CASE HEARD
CASE NO. 22-04 VARIANCE:
SECTION 32.10.A(1) -ZONING ORDINANCE (ACCESORY BUILDING REGULATIONS) (Mr. John Lewis Simpson,
1815 Hawthorne Lane, Burlington, NC)
Chairman Wilson stated that
Mrs. Stephens asked to be excused from this case. Mr. Gee asked if Mrs. Stephens could be excused from this case
due to a Conflict of Interest, Mrs. Watson seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to excuse Mrs.
Stephens from the case and invited Mr. Todd Smith an alternate member to join
them.
EVIDENCE
PRESENTED:
Mr. Joey Lea stated Mr.
Simpson lives at 1815 Hawthorne Lane and is asking for a variance to place an
accessory structure to the rear of his property. The requirements for detached
accessory structures are that if it is located more than 10 feet away from the
principle structure and not more than 15 feet tall, it can be placed no closer
than 5 feet to the rear or side property lines. In this particular case, Mr.
Simpson is asking for a variance of 3½ feet to the side property line and
approximately 2 feet to the rear. Mr.
Todd Smith asked if they are talking about a permanent or temporary building?
Mr. Lea stated that the requirements are the same for both.
Mr. John Lewis Simpson
explained that what he is proposing to build will match the house as if it has
always been there and the structure that was previously there had been torn
down because it was in disrepair. This
will be an accessory building to keep a lawn mower, weed eater, etc. It will
not be taller than 15 feet and will not be taller than the house. Mr. Simpson showed a picture from the front
of the house standing from the curb where a storm drain is and stated that all
the water from other properties flow through his yard and it looks like a
lake. Ms. Straney stated that this is
an accessory building that will go behind the garage and wanted to know why it
couldn’t go in the other corner. Mr.
Simpson said that the neighbors are elevated higher than his property. Mr. Simpson spoke to Mr. Blake who is his
neighbor and he is not objecting to the accessory building at all. Mr. Lea stated that he heard from the
property owner directly to the rear which is lot 28 into the back and she had
no problem with the variance request.
Chairman Wilson asked if his property is fenced in? Mr. Simpson stated yes and it is a board
fence and goes all the way around the back and to the other side and on the one
side it wasn’t even on his property so he cut it down. Mr. Gee asked Mr. Lea if the building can go
back where the other one was located? Mr. Lea stated that it cannot go back
because there is a 60% rule. When a non-conformity is torn down by more than
60% it is cost or bulk it can’t go back.
Ms. Straney asked if there was any kind of drawing that showed that
there is a setback problem on the other side?
Mr. Simpson stated that he does not have a picture of it and that it is
very deceiving because he tried laying it out in different ways. Chairman Wilson stated that the rear
property line is at such an angle that the back right corner of the building
would force it toward the front of the lot because of how the line is. Mr. Gee
stated that if he slides it over and in order to make the back right corner
meet the 5 feet, that potentially puts him within 10 foot of the house and that
makes the setback actually go to 25 feet.
Mr. Lea stated that in order for him to put it closer to 10 feet then he
has to have 10 feet on the side and 25 feet
to the rear. Mr. Gee asked if
there was a reason to have access from the driveway? Mr. Simpson stated that there was no other way to get to it and
the way the house sits there is no other way to get access to it.
DISCUSSION & FINDINGS OF FACT: There being no further comments from the
public, Chairman Wilson turned the meeting over to the Board for
discussion. Ms. Straney stated that she
is concerned that it appears that the other corner is not an alternate and
there are no measurements, Mr. Smith replied that Mr. Simpson stated that he
went out and measured it and Mr. Lea stated that if you move the building over
to the top corner it would still be out of alliance. Chairman Wilson stated that this is a variance for a 3½ foot side
and 3 ½ foot rear to allow the building to sit where it is and it appears that
looking at the print and Mr. Simpson’s testimony that there would be other
variances required by moving the building to the far left hand corner due to
the back angle of the lot as well as the lot falling off so if there’s
variances in either corner and he desires to have driveway access then I’m
inclined to grant the variance where the building is proposed. Mr. Gee stated that the configuration of the
lot and the placement of the house creates a hardship of where he’s able to
build the building. Chairman Wilson
commented that he has to stay 10 feet away from the house or he creates a whole
other set of issues due to setbacks. The hardship is to comply with being 10
feet away from the house and no taller than 15 feet which allows him to build
the storage building with the 5 foot side and rear setbacks. And when he does
that, with the shape of the lot, there is no place to build the building
without some variances and that would make the configuration of the lot a
hardship. Mr. Smith stated that the
harmony is not only that it’s in the back but also he had a building just like
it there in the recent past and the neighbors will already see it as an improvement.
DECISION: Mr. Smith made a motion to grant a variance
of 3½ foot on the right side and 3½ on the back side of his lot so he can build
a storage building that it is in harmony with the general purpose of the
statute and that the hardship there is that there is no appropriate place to
put this in the back and it would not be appropriate to put it in the front of
the house. The safety and welfare have been assured and the neighbors seem to
be in approval. He hasn’t done anything himself that has caused this action and
the unique circumstances in the land is that it is set back farther than the
other houses and there is a water issue in the front. Mr. Gee seconded the
motion. The Board voted 4 to 1 in favor
of the variance.
(AYES: Wilson, Gee, Watson, Smith)
(NOES:
Straney)
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Lea informed the Board that Mrs. Joyce Lance teaches
at GTCC and there is a conflict that will not allow her to attend the meetings
for the next 5 months. She is requesting a leave of absence and her husband Dr.
Lance who was on the Board for some time will replace her temporarily. This
will have to be done formally and her letter explaining her situation will be
given to the City Manager to be put on the agenda for City Council to grant her
a leave of absence and for Dr. Lance to replace her temporarily.
MEETING ADJOURNED: 10:18 am
___________________________________
Mike
Gee, Acting Chairman
___________________________________
Mary
Fanelli, Secretary