MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
City of Burlington, NC
February 8, 2005
Members Present Members Absent
City: City:
Mr. Mike Gee, Vice Chairperson Mr. H.E. (Ed) Wilson, III
Mrs. Mary Watson
Mrs. Margaret Stephens
Ms. Charlotte
Straney
Dr. Ed Lance
Also present was Mr.
Joey Lea, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Burlington.
Mr. Mike Gee, Vice
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 and discuss the case
and 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.
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
Vice Chairperson Gee (Acting Chairperson) asked if there
were any changes to the minutes from January 11, 2004 meeting. There being no changes, Margaret Stephens
made a motion to approve the minutes and Charlotte Straney seconded the motion. There being no discussion, the motion passed
unanimously.
CASE HEARD
CASE NO. 02-05
VARIANCE: SECTION 32.3.F(5)
-ZONING ORDINANCE (10 FOOT SIDE YARD REQUIRED IN R-6 RESIDENTIAL; 32.3.F(3) 50
FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIRED) (James
McIver, Jr. 516 Key Street, Burlington, NC)
EVIDENCE PRESENTED:
Mr. Joey Lea explained that
James McIver, Jr. owns property located on Key Street that currently has two
houses on one lot. He wants to subdivide the lot so the houses are on their own
individual lots. The lot is approximately 12,000 square feet and is zoned
R-6. With the subdivision all the
regulations of the ordinance will be met with the exception of two. First is the lot width, which is measured
along the front foundation of the house. The subdivision regulations allow a
lot as narrow as 30 feet measured at the street. As shown on his site plan he
can meet most of the regulations but cannot meet the lot width on the house to
the left on the plan. The minimum lot
with for this district is 50 feet. This subdivision will be approved by the
Planning Department if the variances are granted. The actual variance request
for the lot width is for 13 feet. Also, the house to the left currently is
nonconforming from the front left corner facing the house because it is only
9.33 feet from the property line. He is
also asking for a 4.67 inch variance to the side yard requirement. Dr. Ed Lance
stated that it appears on the drawing that the lot line drawn to subdivide the
property appears to be less than 10 feet on the left side of the house. Mr. Lea
responded that the plan is not exactly to scale but what he is showing here is
13 feet to the left and a little over 10 feet to the right. He pushed it over
as far as he could to get as much lot width as he could. Ms. Straney stated that the lot width
appears to be 38.33 feet, which would be a variance of 11.67 rather than 13.
Mr. Lea said that based on his dimensions the lot will be relatively square and
will be 37 wide at the street. Ms. Straney asked if they would be able to be
ambiguous about the exact known variance.
Mr. Lea stated that the best approach to this is to base the variance on
what the actual survey will be. Mr. Gee
clarified that the proposal does meet the Subdivision Regulations for street
frontage; it is just with the Zoning Ordinance that there is a difference. Mr. Lea stated that they are different
because the subdivision regulation allow a minimum width of 30 feet at the
street and the zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 50 feet that is measured
across the front foundation of the house.
Mr. Gee stated that there is a wooden deck off of one of the houses and
asked if that was considered part of the structure? Mrs. Stephens stated that
it is shown on both of the houses. Mrs.
Stephens asked that in case of a fire and if something were to happen and it
was to burn to the ground would the City make them move the setbacks? Mr. Lea stated no, not with the variance.
Mr. James R. McIver explained
that he wants to separate the houses because the banks won’t make a loan with
the way the property is now and showed the Board a letter from the financial
institution. Mr. McIver stated that he
spoke to Haywood Cloud the Zoning Administrator for the City of Burlington and he
said that in his opinion this was a mistake that the City made a long time ago
and what he is about to do will help correct the problem and did not consider
the deck when making the line but he is willing to make an alteration to the
deck to meet the 10 feet. Mr. Gee asked
how close the deck is to the property line? Mr. McIver said it is about 8
feet. Mr. Gee stated that that if it’s
8 feet that leaves a 5-foot setback from the side property line. Mr. Lea stated that the ordinance allows a 4
foot encroachment into a side yard for decks, so he would need at least 6 feet
from the outside of the deck to the property line. Mr. McIver stated that he thinks he will have that but if not he
will alter the deck to meet the guidelines and Mr. Lea stated he would make
sure that it was verified. Ms. Straney
asked if he was getting ready to make improvements on the houses? Mr. McIver
stated that he plans on paneling, carpeting, painting and will fix them up to
make them look very nice. Ms. Straney
asked where the parking would be located? Mr. McIver stated that there’s a
driveway located on the side of the house, which needs gravel and stated that
people would park on the street. Mrs.
Stephens stated that he should have it on the side of the house that doesn’t have
the deck on it. Mrs. Mary Watson asked if the houses are vacant? Mr. McIver said that they are and have been
for over a year, along with the houses across the street that is owned by John
Patterson. Mr. Patterson and his sons look after those houses and they told me
that if I fixed up these houses then they will fix theirs up so that will
really help the community. Mr. Gee
asked if he was planning on renting the houses or leaving them vacant for
sale? Mr. McIver said either one,
whatever comes first, and he surely can’t sell them the way they are right
now. Ms. Straney asked if the prime
reason for the loan is to fix the houses up? Mr. McIver said yes and to
generate some income, one way or the other and it will also improve the
community.
Mr. Gee asked if there was
anyone from the public that would like to speak? Ms. Diane Hamilton who is the
Power of Attorney on the property for her mother who owns the corner lot on
Rosenwald and Key Streets right next to the McIver property. Her mother’s wishes are to sell the property
when she dies and bury her with the money because she doesn’t have enough
insurance. Mrs. Stephens asked if she
is speaking on behalf Mr. McIver because if he fixes up his houses that it will
increase the value of their property? Ms. Hamilton stated yes, that is what she
plans on doing.
DISCUSSION & FINDINGS OF FACT: There being no further comments from the
public, Vice Chairman Gee turned the meeting over to the Board for
discussion. Mrs. Stephens stated that
the problem he’s got is an existing problem because he bought the house but it
turned into something bigger. Mr. Gee
stated that in granting the variance is will be in harmony with the ordinance
and there is no endangering of the public welfare and there is testimony that
it should improve the community as Ms. Hamilton testified she feels that it
will aide in selling her mother’s property and it does preserve the intent of
the ordinance. Ms. Straney stated that
as far as safety goes they can actually park off the street and it doesn’t
appear to be a safety issue if the owner was able to add a driveway or other
ways where they can get off the street then that would be helpful because it is
a short and narrow street. Other than that there are no safety issues. Mrs. Stephens stated that he’s requesting a
variance and it is what it is so if he lived there and used the houses all
along and had to park on the street or utilize the space between the houses
then this would probably be easier. Ms.
Straney said that it appears that in granting the variance it would be in the
interest of the public welfare and if the houses were repaired and remodeled
that it would be more attractive and if he decided to sell, it would encourage
new ownership which usually improves the neighborhood and it does uphold the
intent of the Ordinance as it is written.
DECISION: Vice Chairman Gee made a motion to grant the
variance in 2 parts. Vice Chairman Gee
moved on the first part to grant a 13 foot variance to the lot width
requirements and the second part is to grant an approximate 4.67 inch variance
to the side yard requirement and stipulate compliance with a survey to be
performed before subdividing property.
In addition, Mr. Gee further stipulated that if the deck on the property
encroaches upon the 6-foot side yard requirement that adjustments be made to
the deck to comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
Furthermore, that a driveway be placed on the property to remove
vehicles from parking on the street in front of the house. The findings of facts are the variances are
in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and preserves
it’s spirit and granting the variance will allow the property owner to obtain
the house and best use of the property and improve the existing neighborhood by
increasing the probability of finding a tenant for these houses and the public
safety and welfare will be assured by removing parking on the street and that
substantial justice has been done.
Mrs. Watson seconded
the motion.
(AYES: Gee, Watson, Stephens, Straney, Lance)
(NOES: none)
MEETING ADJOURNED: 8:57 am
___________________________________
Mike
Gee, Vice Chairperson
___________________________________
Mary
Fanelli, Secretary