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

 

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.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 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