MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
City of Burlington, NC
May 10, 2005
Members Present Members Absent
City: City:
Mr. H.E. (Ed) Wilson, III, Chairman Mrs. Margaret Stephens
Mr. Mike Gee, Vice
Chairman Mr. Todd Smith
Mrs. Mary Watson
Ms. Charlotte Straney
Mrs. Joyce Lance
Also present was Mr.
Joey Lea, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Burlington.
Mr. Ed Wilson,
Chairman, called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 8:38 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
Chairman Wilson asked if there were any changes to the
minutes from April 12, 2005 meeting.
Mr. Lea noted that on the last section of the minutes on Case #06-05
referenced Mr. Smith as stated “that should be controlled by your Zoning
Ordinance for an allowed use”. Mr. Gee actually made the comment and that
should say Mr. Gee. Mr. Gee made a
motion to amend and approve the minutes as stated. Mary Watson seconded the
motion. There being no discussion, the
motion passed unanimously.
CASE HEARD
CASE NO. 07-05 SPECIAL USE
PERMIT: SECTION 32.13.W - ZONING
ORDINANCE (CHILD CARE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS) (Terri Lea,
1883 NC Highway 62 North, Burlington, NC)
Chairman Wilson explained that
one of the Board Members is running late and should be attending shortly but
they can go ahead and hear the case but will need a unanimous vote for it to
pass and wanted to know if Ms. Lea wanted to proceed. Ms. Lea stated yes she would like to continue. Mr. Lea noted that on the agenda for Case
#10-05 the map, block and lot number were incorrect, he will get the correct
numbers but it will not affect anything on the property notifications that were
sent out.
EVIDENCE PRESENTED:
Mr. Joey Lea explained that
Ms. Terri Lea is applying for a Special Use Permit to operate a child care
facility at 1883 NC Highway 62 North and is requesting to care for 8 children
per shift. The State will only allow 8
children per shift in a home daycare that consists of 5 preschool and 3 school
age children for an in-home daycare and this is a residential use. Mr. Lea said he visited the property and
there is more than adequate area for a child’s play area and she does meet and
or exceed all the requirements for an in-home child daycare. Chairman Wilson asked if she had her State
approval yet? Mr. Lea said that this is her third daycare and is sure she has
her State approval and just needs her Special Use Permit. The State will not
issue their approval until she has her Special Use Permit. Chairman Wilson asked if it does meet all of
the specific and general requirements for a childcare facility for our
code. Mr. Lea stated that it did. Ms. Straney asked if this was an addition to
the one she has or is she moving one? Mr. Lea said she is moving to a new
location. Ms. Terri Lea explained that
she is relocating her daycare that she is currently running. Chairman Wilson asked if she was aware of
all of the codes that have to be met? Mrs. Lea stated that she is aware of
them. Chairman Wilson asked if she
received her State approval yet or if it was contingent upon getting her
Special Use Permit? Mrs. Lea stated that it is contingent upon receiving her
Special Use Permit. Chairman Wilson
asked how many children she cares for right now? Ms. Lea testified that she cares for 5 children per shift and
operates 3 shifts. Mr. Gee asked if she
feels like the use will endanger the public health or safety if she puts the
daycare at the facility? Mrs. Lea stated that it not. Mr. Gee asked Mrs. Lea if it will injure the value of adjoining
and/or abutting property owners? Mrs. Lea stated that it will not. Chairman Wilson asked if the drawing that
was included with her application was how she intended to put the fence up?
Mrs. Lea stated that it was. Ms.
Straney asked if the fence was 50 x 50 because in the drawing it didn’t look
that way? Mr. Lea stated that the original dimensions were incorrect and that
he actually went out there and measured it off and they are in the process of
putting the fence up and the measurements will be correct if not larger. Chairman Wilson asked if the fence exists
now? Mrs. Lea stated that they have already put it up. Mrs. Mary Watson asked when people are
dropping off and picking up children if they would be driving into the driveway
and asked how they would get back out onto Highway 62? Ms. Lea stated they would be coming into the
driveway and can turn around in the driveway to get back onto Highway 62. Ms. Straney asked if there was any extra
lighting other than the streetlights? Ms. Lea stated nothing other than the
lights on house. Ms. Straney asked Mr.
Lea if she was required to have some kind of lighting for 3rd shift.
Mr. Lea stated there is no specific requirement for lighting. Ms. Lea stated
that her lights are set up the way her home is setting and hat she has porch
lights and a light on her carport and they also have motion lights in the front
of the house. Mrs. Joyce asked what the hours are for the 3rd shift?
Ms. Lea stated that they are dropped off at 10:30pm and picked up around
7:00am.
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 based
on the testimonies that were given by Mr. Lea and Ms. Lea all four conditions
have been met to grant a Special Use Permit and there’s been no testimony to
contradict what has been heard.
DECISION:
Mrs. Mary Watson made a motion that the four required
conditions for issuing a Special Use Permit in accordance with Section
32.13.B(1)(A) are met due to the following Findings of Fact:
1)
that the use will not materially endanger the
public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to
the plan submitted and approved.
The Findings of Fact is that it does
meet the condition as testified by Ms. Lea and Mr. Lea. There is no material
danger to the public health and safety of the children that will be cared for
in this facility and will meet the minimum requirements.
2)
that the use meets all required conditions
and specifications
The Findings of Fact is that the
required conditions and specifications have been met as testified to by Mr. Lea
and Ms. Lea.
3)
that the use will not substantially injure the
value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity
The Findings of Fact is that
there have been no statements made from surrounding neighbors to the contrary.
4)
that the location and character of the use, if
developed according to the plan as 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 Fact is that the
previous three Findings of Fact have been stated.
Mrs. Joyce Lance seconded the motion. The Board voted
unanimously to approve the motion on the findings of fact.
(AYES: Wilson, Gee, Watson,
Lance, Straney)
(NOES: none)
Mrs. Mary Watson made
a motion to approve the Special Use Permit for Ms. Terri Lea to be located at
1883 NC Highway 62 North in Burlington, due to the previously stated findings
of fact and that the applicant is required to get her permit from the State to
operate the daycare facility based on the Findings of Fact and she 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 or void, then this permit shall be void and of no
effect. Charlotte Straney seconded the
motion. The Board voted unanimously to approve the Special Use Permit
(AYES: Wilson, Gee, Watson, Lance, Straney)
(NOES: none)
CASE HEARD
CASE NO. 09-05 SPECIAL USE
PERMIT (Amendment): SECTION
32.13.M - ZONING ORDINANCE (Townhouses in R-15 District) (Don Wagner,
End of Oakcrest Court, Burlington, NC)
EVIDENCE PRESENTED:
Mr. Joey Lea explained that Mr. Wagner has presented an
application to construct 6 townhouses at the end of Oakcrest Court. The site
plan has been reviewed and approved by the Technical Review Committee and does
meet all of the general and specific requirements for a townhouse development
within an R-15 Residential District.
Mrs. Watson asked if this will take up the entire area that is vacant?
Mr. Lea stated that the physical structures do not. This one tract of land that
was recently subdivided and will only allow 6 units on this parcel which is
15,000 sq. ft. of land per unit. Ms.
Straney asked for clarity on where the boundaries are with townhouses? Mr. Lea
showed the boundaries to her on the plan.
Chairman Wilson asked if the one-story brick building was apart of this
lot? Mr. Lea said that it is an existing Church and the property was subdivided
and the rear portion was sold to Mr.
Wagner and the other portion remains with the Church. Mr. Gee stated that the maximum density allows for 6 units and
wanted to know if access has to abut a public street. Mr. Lea stated that it is
allowed to come off a public street with a private drive into a multi-family
development. Mr. Charles Bateman a local attorney representing Mr. Wagner,
explained that the question about the perimeters of this property and all of
the land that’s included in there is common area for uses of the 6 unit
townhouse development and that you actually own the piece of land that is under
the unit itself, plus all the owners as a group will own in common or the
homeowners association for their benefit will own the rest of the area shown on
the map and will keep it up. This is an allowable use of 6 units and is within
the density of R-15. It is consistent with the density of the neighborhood and
being a townhouse it is a method of ownership and not anything more than that.
The landscape standards are being met according to the new landscape ordinance
and Mr. Wagner is here and will speak in detail of the construction and Mr.
Bill Moser a Licensed Real Estate Appraiser will speak in his opinion to the
impact of this development and property values. Mr. Don Wagner explained that
this is for a 6 unit townhouse project and he presented it to the Technical Review
Committee for review and have actually complied with the new landscaping
ordinance and feel like it’s going to be an asset to the community and provide
some housing. There is going to be quite a bit of common area. With townhouses
they are actually buying the land beneath the townhouse itself and will be an
enormous amount of green area around the homes and it runs contiguous with
Oakcrest Court which will be the entrance to the property. Ms. Straney asked where the parking is going
to be for the units and if there’s going to be a private drive off of the
cul-de-sac? Mr. Wagner explained there
is a private drive down the center and it will be double-spaced parking in
front of each unit. The plans are to include an asphalt private drive and a
turn-off with a concrete slab in front.
Ms. Straney asked if the shelter belonged to the Church? Mr. Wagner stated that it originally did but
it falls inside his property and he undecided as what to do with it but would
like for the Church and homeowners to use it.
Mr. Gee asked if lighting will be on each individual unit? Mr. Wagner
stated that it would but he was not sure what will be at the back side of the
cul-de-sac and there will be individual lights on the private street. Mrs. Watson asked if the landscaping would
be a way of sectioning the homes off?
Mr. Wagner explained that everything will be landscaped with individual
units being landscaped including around the dumpster area. Mrs. Watson asked the size of each unit? Mr.
Wagner said they will be 1,100 to 1,200 sq. ft. per unit. Ms. Straney stated that according to the
chart 1,600 sq. ft. was required for townhomes in a R-15. Mr. Lea stated that
is the minimum lot size and there is no minimum size required of the
structure. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Lea
when he testified earlier if they meet the minimum sq. ft. of 1,600 as well as
all of the other conditions? Mr. Lea stated that they did and in a townhouse
development Mr. Wagner will have to do a plat when the development is finished
and in that plat it will show the individual properties and they will be given
a parcel ID numbers. Ms. Straney asked
about the two houses on the end of the cul-de-sac and if their property lines
were contiguous with Mr. Wagner’s? Mr. Wagner stated yes they are one and the
same. Mrs. Lance asked Mr. Wagner to
explain where the extra parking will be. Mr. Wagner stated that there are two
spaces per unit. Mr. Lea stated all that is required is 1 ½ spaces per unit and
they are providing 2 spaces. Ms.
Straney asked what kind of lighting will be at the end of the cul-de-sac? Mr.
Wagner stated there will be individual lights on the private street but does
not know what kind of lighting is at the end of the cul-de-sac. Chairman Wilson asked if he was intending on
having floodlights in the neighborhood? Mr. Wagner stated there will be lights
just like on a city street and the lights will not bother neighbors. Mr. Bill Huey, NC State Appraiser, stated
that he has been in the real estate business since 1971 and in his experience,
when you have older homes and bring in new construction it helps to stabilize
it and make more desirable for the neighborhood. Right now the current market
is going toward multi-use, and in West Burlington most all new subdivisions
include single-family, condominiums, and townhouses. Also, the market today
does not show an adverse impact on having this type of development. Mr. Gee asked Mr. Huey if this project
will substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property? Mr. Huey said that it would help it because
this being an older neighborhood and having new construction within that
neighborhood always helps out. Mr. Huey
stated that in that neighborhood you already have similar uses over on Pine
Knoll Terrace there’s a special use R-9 development that is twice the density
of this and over on Morningside Dr. there’s duplex units. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Huey if he thinks
this is in harmony of the neighborhood? Mr. Huey stated yes it is. Mrs. Lance stated that as testified earlier
this will be owner occupied and implies it will not be rental properties. Mr.
Huey stated yes that is his understanding.
Mr. Lea stated that these are townhouses and they do imply they will be
owner occupied but it is up to the developer on whether or not he wants to sell
them or rent them. There are no standards within this ordinance or any
requirements that will require him to sell them off or rent them. Mr. Huey stated that the majority of houses
in this neighborhood sell from $80,000 to $115,000 and a brand new townhouse
will be well under $100,000 and easily be within range of the higher end of the
neighborhood. Chairman Wilson asked if
there was anyone from the public that would like to speak. Mr. Terrell Duncan
stated that he does not want to dispute Mr. Huey’s statement but the houses on
Oakcrest Court and the houses around there are about 4,000 to 6,000 sq. ft.
with full basements close to 4,000 sq. ft. and this is the neighborhood you
have to go through to get to the townhouses and with a zoning of R-15 it raises
major concerns. There is a water problem, water stands at the end of Oakcrest
Court when it rains which is considered a City problem and developing here will
not help it. Water flows two ways over toward McKinney Street down by the
Blackwell’s, behind his house and into a pond.
Chairman Wilson stated that on Mr. Wagner’s plan he is proposing to
build a storm-water run-off retention area.
Ms. Barbara Brooks Allison stated that the drainage problem really
concerns her because they are at the lowest point on the side of her property
that is adjoined by Mrs. Spring. There is a little ditch there and when it
rains really hard it floods. It doesn’t come into the house like it used to but
standing water will still be there and the ditch will overflow. Mrs. Allison
stated that she’s had a 30-gallon trash can wash down into the culvert. Mr. Gee explains that on the plans they have
incorporated a storm-water retention area as part of this project and are
trying to address that issue. Ms. Allison asked if that would be sufficient
because that’s a major concern of hers and the other issue was one that Mr.
Duncan raised about the project being brick and not wanting it to be a
distraction to the neighborhood? She said she taught school for 30 years and
coming home in the afternoon was a delight to look out and see the pasture land
behind her house and would like to be reassured that’s still going to be and
remain in that character back there.
Ms. Marjorie Jamison stated that she has been a real estate agent since 1978 and explained
that her property adjoins the Mitchell’s property in the back and the lot to the left of hers is the
Cruises who work and cannot be here today. They live on a dead end street and
have young children and have felt safe there.
Ms. Jamison said that house is about $150,000 and understands the
townhouses will between 1,100 – 1,200 sq. ft. and wants to know what the sale
prices will be? Mr. Wagner stated he does not know right now because they are
not built at this time and that the contract has not been given to a builder at
this point. Ms. Jamison asked about the
townhouses on N. Mebane Street that Don Wagner developed and how many of those
townhouses have been sold and the price ranges and she’s questioning on whether
there is a market at the end of Oakcrest for townhouses and if they don’t sell
what will be done with them? Chairman
Wilson stated that the sales of the homes have nothing to do with the Board.
The Zoning Ordinance allows for a Special Use Permit in this area if this property
meets certain conditions and that is the purpose of this meeting. The rain
water run-off is a legitimate issue that needs to be resolved, the sales of the
homes is not an issue that our Ordinance requires us to deal with. Ms. Jamison stated that the maintaining of
the integrity of our neighborhood is because when Morningside Apartments were
built that was a desirable complex and you know what it is now and I would hate
to see these units rented and would hate to see someone move in there that will
not have pride in their ownership. Mrs. Jamison stated that she’s an original
homeowner and bought the house before it was finished. Mr. Gee stated that he recognizes her
concerns and one thing that would be helpful to the Board is that they have
posed a lot of questions and as a realtor if she had concrete evidence to
present before the Board to contradict what their expert testimony has been
that would provide more weight, but at this point they have received testimony
from a Certified North Carolina Appraiser stating that this is not going to
injure abutting property. Ms. Jamison
stated that it does. When Pine Knoll Terrace was built they had trouble selling
those units and they ended up renting a bunch of them. Some of them have come
on the market and don’t sell well and it is a real negative. Even some of the
duplexes that were built do not sell well and some of them ended up being sold
to investors. Ms. Jamison stated that
she would like to see the project turned down and also said that she doesn’t
know if the townhouses on Camden have been selling or not and has not seen that
they have. The market might not be there for the townhouses which is not your
problem but it is the neighbors problem so don’t add to it. Mrs. Mavis Barbour stated that she owns property
on Hale Court, a cul-de-sac off of McKinney and her son and two small children
live there and has the same concerns as the lady before her has which is the
size of the townhouse and ones that she sees in the paper. These are relatively
small and we’re afraid that it will turn out to be rentals with transients
coming in and out. This has always been a single-family type residential
neighborhood although older residents live here and have been here since the
development started and this bothers me because if they do not sell and will
possibly have to rent them they may end up being where you have a HUD type
situation which would be disastrous to the neighborhood. Mrs. Barbour stated that she is concerned
because her son and two children will be living right behind the townhouses,
this has always been a quiet area, the children could play in the cul-de-sac
and now there will be quite a bit of traffic and that really bothers me because
I feels as though this will become a HUD situation and I think it is not a good
idea for that area. Mr. Gale Anderson stated that he lives on Morningside Dr.
in front of Barbara Brooks Allison and is concerned about the water problem in
Mrs. Allison’s yard and the yard next to her. Many times when it rains he sees
the water raise and it’s almost waist deep especially in the Spring’s yard
between Barbara’s yard and her next door neighbor. There’s a culvert underneath
the street and is underground past the house next door and across the street.
The ditch is about 6 to 8 ft. deep and the water has continuously heeded out,
plus the fact that his house is considerably worth more than $110,000 and these
townhouses will be across the street in sight of his house and doesn’t think
the property value will enhance his with them there and I don’t think it’s a
good idea to have them there. They will be small and unattractive for people to
purchase. Mr. Gee asked Mr. Anderson if
he knew the tax value of his property? Mrs. Anderson stated it’s about $150,000. Mr. John Tarleton stated that he lives at
2530 Oakcrest Court and that he has lived there for 37 years and has a large
house with a garage. Mr. Tarleton stated that his concerns are the water that
stays on the Court in the cul-de-sac when it rains. Mr. Tarleton stated that
parking is the main concern because one of the driveways which is the
Mitchell’s is on the Court and would be blocked if anybody got off the center
of the Court. When he (Mr. Wagner) builds his driveway he’s taking up part of
the end of the court and again the there’s the driveway to our house. He (Mr.
Wagner) really needs to create more parking for more than 2 cars per unit and
needs to provide ample parking for visitors other than the Court because
there’s people that live on the Court and they don’t want people parking all
over there and then walking across. Also, they are interested in seeing the
construction and would like to see it brick veneer and would also like to take
into consideration for the Blackwell’s and the Mitchell’s to move it toward the
back of the property to give it some more buffer room, that way they will
accept this a little better. Mr. Tarlton stated that he has been there for 37
years and had their homes in brick veneer and keep their yards up and would
like to know what will happen to the extra area in the future when the units
get assigned to the homeowners? what will grow there? who will keep it trimmed?
Mr. Wagner stated that it will actually be owned by the Homeowners Association
and setup the way every other townhouses are set up. Mr. Tarleton stated that
he hopes the homeowners know that when they move in because that will cost a
lot of money to mow, and it’s been mowed for many years and has been well kept.
People are going to park in the Court then people that already live there will
not be able to get into their driveways. Looking at the drawing you’ll see a
concrete pad that allows for more parking and there already is a very bad water
problem that the City needs to address and it stays there until it evaporates. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Lea if there was a
requirement of the square footage for the townhomes? Mr. Lea stated no, it is
just for the minimum lot size. Chairman
Wilson said that as far as the water goes the plan has it’s own water retention
area and wants to know how it is designed and what the criteria is for that and
is it required by Ordinance? Mr. Lea
stated that this development went before the City Council for conditional
rezoning requesting 12 units. That proposal for rezoning was denied by the City
Council and Mr. Wagner is now developing this property under Special Use
requirements for 6 units. One of the original concerns was the storm-water
run-off. The storm-water retention area was a requirement by the Technical
Review Committee and Mr. Wagner agreed to adhere to maintaining the water on
the property. Chairman Wilson asked if
the requirements for the retention was outlined by the Technical Review
Committee. Mr. Lea stated that it is actually
above and beyond what is required based on the requirements for soil erosion
which was determined by our Engineering Department to be adequate and Mr.
Wagner agreed to accept it. Chairman
Wilson asked if there was anything in the Ordinance that states what to use to
construct the homes such as brick? Mr.
Lea stated no, however, the General Statutes gives you authority to impose
conditions upon the Special Use Permit within reason. Those are conditions that
could make the development more compatible if there are situations that would
have some adverse affect such as buffering, so there are some things that you
have to work with but again, the Statutes state that conditions must be within
reason and there is no specific requirement to make Mr. Wagner construct these
in any way shape, form or fashion.
Chairman Wilson stated that as far as the parking it has been testified
that there are 1½ parking spaces per unit and he has provided 2 spaces per
unit, so he exceeds the Ordinance in parking. Chairman Wilson asked if there
was anything stated in the Ordinance that requires these to not be rented or
used for HUD? Mr. Lea said that there are no restrictions in the
Ordinance. Mr. Lea said that Mr. Wagner
can testify that his intentions are to sell and that he necessarily doesn’t
have to. Chairman Wilson asked if this was the only location on the lot where
the townhouses can be built? Mr. Lea
stated that the location of the dwelling units are more than adequate under the
Ordinance. Chairman Wilson asked if there’s other adequate locations on the lot
as well? Mr. Lea stated yes and he’s
indicated the setbacks on the plan and the units can be located anywhere within
those setbacks. Mrs. Barbour asked if that would infringe on the homes behind?
Chairman Wilson stated not if he stays out of the setbacks. Mrs. Barbour asked,
so he’s going to be completely adjoining my whole line of property? Chairman
Wilson said yes. Mr. Lea said that technically he could but he’s not going
to. Mrs. Barbour said but you say
technically that he can, what’s to say that once this gets approved that he can
do whatever he wants to do? Mr. Lea stated that once he gets approved for the
Special Use Permit and if he deviates against his plan then he has to come back
to this Board for an amendment, but with that said within this meeting if it is
decided that he needs to push it back or put it somewhere else then that’s what
will be done, they do have the authority to do that, and once this is approved
then he will have to come back for any major changes such as the location of
the structures. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anything in the Ordinance
for the Board to deal with the value of the townhomes perceived real or
otherwise? Mr. Lea stated no. Ms.
Straney asked how things take place procedurally? Mr. Lea stated that once the
structure is built a survey will be done showing a plating of the property and
that can be done individually or all at one time. Ms. Straney asked if his
intentions are to sell them and if he cannot then nothing has really changed on
the land and it is one big lot owned by the owner or if they could switch from
selling to renting? Mr. Lea stated if nothing sells then he as the developer
still owns the property as one piece of property. Mr. Bateman stated that once he puts it into townhome lots it will
be platted. Once he commits it to a townhouse development in terms of order of
the State a townhouse development he cannot recombine them, otherwise you
couldn’t allow townhouses and not allow multi-family dwellings. Mr. Lea stated
that once they are platted and the construction’s done it could be replatted
back into a single lot, Mr. Batemen said yes but then it wouldn’t be a
completed building. Mr. Lea explained
that once it gets into motion for multi-family and he starts construction then
it’s going to stay multi-family no matter what, and he’ll have to start tearing buildings down to make anything
else. Ms. Straney said so it will stay platted as individual lots but could be
rented rather than sold, Mr. Lea said yes, someone could actually buy a
townhouse and rent it out. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Wagner to address the
issues. Mr. Wagner stated that the
Planning Department has been out to the sight multiple times both when it was
raining and when it was not raining. One thing he did agree with was to
guarantee the post-construction run-off will be equal to pre-construction so
that is guaranteeing these folks that no matter what is being built it will not
increase the flow of water onto Oakcrest down to Morningside Dr. If anything
they might have a chance to bring the standards up with the retention area
depending on how intense they have to get with the design work and we want
something pleasing to the eye and not an eyesore. Mr. Wagner stated that if they can help with some of the existing
problems that are there, they would try to do that as well. Chairman Wilson asked if the plan intends to
take into account the standing water on Oakcrest because the neighborhood
testimony stated that your tenants would have to drive through standing water
to get to their units. Mr. Wagner
stated they cannot do anything with that because it’s the lay of the land and
it’s a paved road. They are actually going to be slightly uphill from that and
their inlet for storm-water retention will be right there, that is something
that was not addressed with his Engineers. Chairman Wilson stated that the
neighbors did testify that it was a City problem and not the developer’s. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Wagner what his
intentions are for the townhouses and that the neighbors have a preference of
brick? Mr. Wagner stated they have a preference for brick as well but they will
complete a marketing study as to what will sell in that area. Mr. Wagner stated
that it’s not that much more expensive to veneer the front’s of
townhouses. Ms. Straney asked about the
back’s of townhouses? Mr. Wagner stated that is why they are doing a
landscaping buffer all the way around the place and as far as the bricking on
the back if they decide to use brick veneer they will use that on the front and
sides, not the back. Chairman Wilson stated that pending a market study your
final determination is that you are looking at brick veneer? Mr. Wagner said
yes, that is correct. Chairman Wilson
stated as testified earlier there are 2 parking spaces per unit and asked Mr.
Wagner to address the additional parking.
Mr. Wagner stated that if someone were looking for additional parking it
would be just as it is now with single-family residents. Most of them have
single car driveway and two cars get inside and one car is parked out on the
street. We will have a private street and the street will run down inside of
these units and will essentially be able to handle 2 cars in front. And if not
2 then definitely 1. Chairman Wilson
stated that Mr. Wagner feels that overflow of parking will be contained within
the private street versus having to park out in Oakcrest Court. Chairman Wilson
asked if Mr. Wagner’s intentions are to sell the units or to own the units and
rent them? Mr. Wagner stated that right now his plans are for these to be
end-user homes and sold units. Chairman Wilson asked if the Homeowners
Association will maintain the maintenance of the common area and if each
townhouse unit buyer would have to pay to have these areas maintained and that
you are aware and the buyers will be aware that the property will have to be
maintained to certain State and City standards? Mr. Wagner said yes,
absolutely. Mrs. Lance asked Mr. Wagner
to clarify some of the concerns on whether or not there’s a true market for
townhouses in that area or not. Mr. Wagner said that we at Piedmont Developers
which he owns have a development on the corner of Mebane Street and Sellars
Mill Road and sales are starting to become brisk in there and have plans to
start an additional 46 unit in the Spring of this coming year and wouldn’t
spend the funds in doing that unless we were pretty certain they would sell.
Ms. Jamison asked if they are going to be one-story? Mr. Wagner said yes, they
are one-story. Ms. Jamison said that she’s just questioning the market out
there and she’s had no problem with Town Place behind her house and she’s been
all through out there and likes what she sees but it’s the townhouses that
she’s having a problem with. I just doesn’t think the market is there. Ms. Jamison said that the first thing that
she heard about was that there was going to be low-income housing built
here. Chairman Wilson said they
understand her position, however, they have not heard anything about low-income
housing or HUD. Mr. Huey addressed the
HUD situation stating that he is the Chairman of the Commission and also the
Chairman of the Commission of the Graham Housing Authority and there are no
funds for HUD. The only thing that could happen would be a Section 8 Voucher
System through Graham Housing Authority which they only allow the top price for
a 3 bedroom which is $725.00 a month. There is no way you can afford to
rent new construction under the Graham
Housing Authority or any type of this Voucher type program because it won’t
bring enough money to justify the payment. Chairman Wilson asked if he was
familiar with the HUD values in Burlington and if they are comparable to the
HUD values in Graham? Mr. Huey stated
there is only one system for the whole county that handles vouchers and that is
Graham Housing Authority, everything else is public. Mr. Gee asked Mr. Huey that earlier he was presented as a
Certified Appraiser giving testimony to value as an Appraiser and wants to know
in his opinion the impact this will have on value of adjoining property owners
and how it fits in harmony with adjoining properties in the area. Mr. Huey
stated that considering the low density of it he doesn’t see any impact
whatsoever in an adverse way. You have the Church behind there and 6 units on
2.3 acres with plenty of buffers on it, and as far as the other development,
that has been resold so many different times they are mostly owners in there
and the prices have gone up over the last 3 to 4 years so he doesn’t see any
reason for this to adversely effect the value for the surrounding property. On one
street the majority of the houses in the development are 1,000 to 1,100, sq.
ft. and there’s only a few in there that are larger. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Wagner what the square footage of each
individual unit would be because the plan shows 1,092 sq. ft. Mr. Wagner said
they will be a minimum of 1,100 sq. ft. Mrs. Watson asked how many bedrooms?
Mr. Wagner said there will be only one or two units with two bedrooms. The rest
will be 3 bedrooms.
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 from the testimony that has been given, it appears that all four
conditions for issuing a special use permit have been satisfied. Granted there
are different opinions on the development. The only question that needs to be
addressed is whether requiring brick is within reason in issuing a special use
permit and along those lines if we’re going to require it, determining the
reasonability of it, if there’s going to be a façade should that be a complete
brick façade or something that is just a silent front and on the sides of the
building? Chairman Wilson stated that townhouses in the community do have a
vinyl backside or some other material and doesn’t feel that it would be
unreasonable to require brick on all four sides. Mr. Wagner indicated a
preference about leaning towards a brick front façade and the neighborhood
seems to prefer that and our 4th requirement is to keep it within
harmony of the area and it is in the scope of this board to require a brick
front and side façade on the townhomes. Ms. Straney stated that Mr. Wagner did
testify that it is not that much more expensive to have brick and speaking from
her own experience with the ones in her neighborhood where the backside are
white and if they had at least used a vinyl or paint, or a different color of
brick other than what they used, it would have been much better because it just
glares through the trees and she doesn’t know if color vinyl is more expensive
than white, but if it would have been a natural color to blend in with the
environment it would have been much better.
Mrs. Lance noted that houses on all four sides surround this building so
it’s not like one side is facing a building or a river or something else.
Chairman Wilson stated there is substantial common area set back in landscaping
to minimize the sight of seeing the townhomes from the other residential
properties. Those issues take care of the backside of the area as far as the
brick façade. With adding the brick and keeping that in harmony with the area
that also helps us meet the 3rd requirement that it will not
substantially injure the value, because the brick façade makes the homes more
valuable and the brick along with the testimony of Mr. Huey helps with meeting
those facts. Mrs. Lance stated that Mr.
Wagner testified that using the brick does not cost that much more so her point
is if that is truly the case and has been testified to then it seems like from
harmony in the neighborhood and concerns that were raised which have been
numerous regarding the harmony it’s not unreasonable for all four sides if it’s
been testified to be not much more expensive.
Mr. Bateman said that from the developer’s speculation as Mr. Wagner has
indicated that he would like for the Board to be aware that he is perfectly
willing to accept the condition of the front and the sides to be brick veneer
but as to the rear of the units that creates a lot of problems. Mr. Gee stated
that he’s not sure they can regard that comment as they’ve continued with the
discussion but since the hearing was closed to discussion among the Board and
thinks it is up to the Board Members to determine what is a reasonable extent.
Mrs. Lance understands what Mr. Lea said that it has to be reasonable and maybe
considered unreasonable and yes she would like to see it and Ms. Straney would
like to see it, however, in order to clear up this matter we may need to close
our Board discussion and open it up for Mr. Wagner, so that we know if he is
willing to do it. If it’s something he’s willing to do for good-will because
there’s so much concern raised in the neighborhood that could become a moot
point if he’s in agreement. If he’s not, then if enough Board Members think it’s
an unreasonable request then they couldn’t do it. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Lea how they should they proceed? Mr.
Lea stated that to the best of his knowledge there is not case law precedence
set on exactly what is reasonable within your request, but you as a Board will
need to determine if that’s reasonable or not and it will be up to someone else
to challenge that in court. In order to formerly open it up for discussion you
will have to take a vote to get some more insight on what Mr. Wagner is willing
to do and if he’s not willing to do that and you as a Board will have to decide
whether or not requiring him to use brick is reasonable. Ms. Straney made a motion to open the
meeting back up, Mrs. Lance seconded the motion. All in favor they opened the meeting back up. Chairman Wilson stated to Mr. Wager that is
one of the conditions the Board is considering imposing upon your special use
permit is that you cover all four sides of your townhouses in brick, Mr. Wagner
stated yes, they will have brick on all four sides. Chairman Wilson closed the meeting back to discussion upon the
Board.
Mr. Gee made a motion
that the 4 required conditions for issuing a special use permit in accordance
to Section 32.13.B (1A) are met due to the following Findings of Fact:
- The use will not materially endanger
the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed
according to the plans submitted and approved. Based on the testimony heard.
- The use meets all required
conditions and specifications both general and specific. According to Mr. Lea this project has
been reviewed and approved by the Technical Review Committee and does meet
all of the general and specific requirements to include the density
requirements not to allow more than 6 units as well as allowing access
through the cul-de-sac. The
general conditions have been met as testified there is adequate parking
and loading and it exceeds the minimum of 1½ spaces per unit. Adequate
landscaping and screening have been provided and the developer has agreed
to meet the City’s new landscaping requirements. The private street of this development will be well lit thus
meeting the lighting requirements and there is more than adequate open
space.
- The use will not substantially
injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a
public necessity.
The findings of fact is from the testimony from Mr. Bateman and Mr.
Huey. It is consistent with the density of the neighborhood as testified
by Mr. Bateman and as testified by Mr. Huey this will not substantially
injure the value of the adjoining property owners. New construction in an
old neighborhood as quoted by Mr. Huey does typically help property and
these units are to sell in excess of $100,000 which has been noted to be
in the upper end of the surrounding area.
- 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. As the same as number 3.
Mrs. Lance seconded
the motion.
(AYES: Gee, Wilson, Watson, Straney, Lance)
(NOES: none)
DECISION: Mr. Gee made a motion to approve the special
use permit for Don Wagner at Oakcrest Townhomes to be located at the newly
subdivided parcel at the end of Oakcrest Court due to the previously stated
findings of facts and the applicant be required to build these units with a
brick façade to encompass all four sides of each building in a development according
to the plans submitted and approved by this Board and if any conditions affixed
hereto or in apart thereof shall be held invalid or void then this permit shall
be void and of no effect.
Mrs. Joyce Lance
seconded the motion.
The Board voted
unanimously to approve the amended Special Use permit.
(AYES: Gee, Wilson, Watson, Lance, Straney)
(NOES: none)
Chairman Wilson stated for the record this has been
approved for a special use permit and any appeal of the decision of this Board
may be taken up to Superior Court within 30 days.
CASE HEARD
CASE NO. 10-05 SPECIAL USE
PERMIT: (AMENDMENT) SECTION 32.9 ZONING ORDINANCE (ELEEMOSYNARY
IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) (Positive Attitude Youth Center,
Graham-Hopedale Road, Burlington, NC)
EVIDENCE PRESENTED:
Mr. Joey Lea explained that
this is an amendment to an existing special use permit that was issued about a
year ago. This particular plan due to time constraints has not been before the
Technical Review Committee. It has been submitted and will be looked at during
the next meeting and just to clarify this is basically the same plan with some
modifications with the size and location of the building. The building has been
expanded and moved forward as the applicant will explain. Chairman Wilson asked if the new building
still meets the all the conditions of the ordinance? Mr. Lea stated yes, and
the general requirements of the Ordinance are also being met. Mr. Lee Isley of General Contractors,
representing Positive Attitude Youth Center, explained that this amendment is
because we’ve increased the footprint of the building. The gym size was 1/3 of
an actual competitive gym size and after meeting with the Board of Directors
they have decided to go with a full court regulation Junior High School size
gym. Upon discovering some unsuitable soils at the rear of the lot as indicated
by the tree line and where the elevation starts to change abruptly they have
moved the building forward to save costs and the only thing that was moved was
a row of parking off the front to the side of the building and we increased the
landscaping from the original plan and other than that there are no other
changes. Chairman Wilson asked what the
original square footage of the building was? Mr. Isley said approximately 8,632
sq. ft. and it is now at 13,000 sq. ft., which exceeded the 10% that City staff
could have approved. Ms. Straney asked
when you say moved forward do you mean closer to the street? Mr. Isley said
yes, and still within the setbacks because this will enable them to get out of
the unsuitable soils, save money and stability on the site, and that this is a
non-profit and was in the best interest of the community as well as the agency
to do anything possible to save money. Mr. Gee asked if moving forward to get
out of some of the costs associating with the rear of the property help offset
some of the increase of the expense for the larger building? Mr. Isley stated
yes, approximately $40,000 in just site cost due to the unsuitable soils. It
was used for dumping in the past. If you are familiar with the site it slopes
down in the back where the Hilton Road access is.
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
it met all of the requirements before and is in front of the Board today
because of an increase in the square footage of the building beyond what the
City is able to approve and for relocation of the building due to unsuitable
soil.
Mr. Gee made a motion that the four required conditions
for amending a Special Use Permit in accordance with Section 32.13.B(1)(A) are
met due to the following Findings of Fact:
1)
that the use will not materially endanger the
public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to
the plan submitted and approved.
Because this is an amendment no
conditions have changed indicating no material danger to the public health and
safety from the original issuing of the special use permit.
2)
that the use meets all required conditions
and specifications
The Findings of Fact as testified
by Mr. Lea all general requirements have been met for this amendment the only
reason it is before the Board of Adjustment is because the increase in the size
is greater than 10% that City staff could approve on it’s own and is still
within the required setbacks on the property.
3)
that the use will not substantially injure
the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public
necessity
The Findings of Fact is that if
developed according to the plans submitted in harmony with the area in which it
is to be located, no testimony to the contrary has indicated that anything has
changed again since the original issuance of the special use permit, if
anything the addition of this building to this area of town will enhance the
adjoining property owners and provide an area for members of that community to
further develop and become better citizens.
4)
that the location and character of the use,
if developed according to the plan as 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.
Same as the 3rd
condition.
Mrs. Joyce Lance seconded the motion. The Board voted
unanimously to approve the motion on the findings of fact.
(AYES: Wilson, Gee, Watson, Lance, Straney)
(NOES: none)
DECISION:
Mr. Gee made a motion
to approve the amendment to the Special Use Permit for Positive Attitude Youth
Center to be located at Graham-Hopedale Road in Burlington, due to the
previously stated findings of fact and that the applicant is required to meet
all the approvals required by the Technical Review Committee and 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 or void, then this permit shall be void and of no effect. Mrs. Mary Watson seconded the motion. The
Board voted unanimously to approve the Special Use Permit
(AYES: Wilson, Gee, Watson, Lance, Straney)
(NOES: none)
CASE HEARD
CASE NO. 11-05
VARIANCE: SECTION 32.7.C(7) ZONING ORDINANCE (REAR SETBACK IN I-2 DISTRICT)
(Richard Jones Real Estate for Steve Nunn & Terry
Hughes, 2080 Chapel Hill Road, Burlington, NC)
EVIDENCE PRESENTED:
Mr. Joey Lea testified that
the property owners of this property located at 2080 Chapel Hill Road, are
seeking a variance to the rear yard setback requirements in an I-2 Light
Industrial District It is an existing structure and the actual setback
requirement is 30 feet. This is an existing building which is non-conforming,
however, for reasons the applicant will explain they are seeking a variance
from the 30 foot setback requirement in order to bring the property into
compliance. Chairman Wilson asked what
the amount of variance is that they are seeking? Mr. Lea stated it would be 1½ ft. at one point and a little less
than that at another. Mr. Lea stated that if the variance is granted, the Board
should base it on the existing footprint of the building without having to
pinpoint that exact variance. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Lea to his knowledge
are they expanding the building? Mr.
Lea stated no and this building has been marketed for quite some time and there are reasons for the variance in
selling the property. Mrs. Lance asked
Mr. Lea if the Board was going to approve this, if what you are saying is that
we approved the building as it sits now and not grant a numerical value to the
variance because it would run with the land, and in case they would rebuild we
would want them to meet the setback requirements? Mr. Lea stated yes that is correct. As this building sits, the
actual setback is variable so it is very hard to pinpoint the exact dimension
that would be requested for a variance.
Cathera Bundren representing
Richard Jones Real Estate, Steve Nunn and Terry Hughes explained that this
building has been for sale for some time and they do have a potential buyer for
the building or maybe a lease with option to buy, but the problem is that the
banks will not lend the money with it being out of compliance. Ms. Bundren showed the Board a picture of
the building pointing out the embankment behind the building and states there
is another building on top of the embankment and doesn’t believe that it
changes the complexity of the neighborhood or infringes on the neighborhood in
anyway. The original set of pictures
will show that the adjacent building to the side is built further up to the
front of the property and they only have a parking lot back there so there is
no concern there. Mrs. Bundren stated that this is a very nice building and it
needs to be utilized, it’s just sitting empty right now. Chairman Wilson asked if they were seeking
variance on a pending sale? Ms. Bundren stated that it’s either a sale or a
lease with option to buy. One way or another the property will be utilized. Chairman Wilson asked if it’s the bank that
is offering the financing that wants this issue to be cleared up? Ms. Bundren
said that banks will not lend with a property out of compliance.
DISCUSSION
& FINDING OF FACT
There being no further comments from the public, Chairman Wilson turned
the meeting over to the Board for discussion.
Chairman Wilson stated he does not see any problems here that are
existing, a lot of the harmony in public safety has already been dealt with and
this is a variance so there is different criteria as opposed to a special use
permit and the hardship is that the property cannot be sold and further used
without bringing this matter into compliance.
DECISION: Mrs. Lance made a motion to grant the
variance to match the footprint of the existing building on the property and
that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of
carrying out the strict letter of the Ordinance. The Findings of Fact is this problem was not disclosed to the
current owner because a lending institution was not involved. The variance is
in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance and preserves
it’s spirit which the testimony of Ms. Bundren shows that and in granting the
variance that the public welfare and safety have been assured and that
substantial justice has been done.
There is no testimony to indicate there would be any problems with
public safety and welfare.
Mike Gee seconded the
motion.
The Board voted
unanimously to approve the Variance.
(AYES: Gee, Watson, Lane, Straney, Wilson)
(NOES: none)
CASE HEARD
CASE NO. 08-05 SPECIAL USE
PERMIT: (AMENDMENT) SECTION 32.13.W -
ZONING ORDINANCE (CHILD CARE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS) (Mary
Bozeman, 823 Lakeside Avenue, Burlington, NC)
EVIDENCE PRESENTED:
Mr. Joey Lea explained that
this is an amendment to an existing special use permit. Mrs. Mary Bozeman has
been running a daycare for quite some time and is applying for an in-home
center to be located at 823 Lakeside Avenue. Daycares only allow 8 children per
shift and once you go over the 8 you become and in-home center that follows
commercial guidelines and our Inspector has been out to her facility and has
given her the requirements of what she will have to do under the commercial
building codes which is minimal because under the building code it is still
recognized as a residential use. Mr. Lea said that the plan being reviewed is
the existing plan that was originally approved. The play area is more than adequate to accommodate 12
children and it has been a daycare for some time. Basically, she’s adding 4
children per shift. Chairman Wilson
stated that as for meeting the ordinance she already meets or exceeds the
ordinance with her existing operation, even with the new requirements. Mr. Lea stated yes, that is correct. Chairman Wilson said that the State would
not license her without having a special use permit first. Mr. Lea said that is
correct. Chairman Wilson stated they
need to make their approval conditional on meeting all State Codes as well as
the North Carolina Building Codes. Mr.
Lea said yes. Ms. Mary Bozeman
explained that she has been a home daycare for 9 years and she’s been in
daycare for 30 years in various locations and that she’s been a 5 Star Daycare
ever since they started the 5 Star Program.
Ms. Bozeman said that she just got evaluated again from the State and
was approved for the next 3 years and would like to be able to care for 12
children, the State gives you license for 8 or 12. The school system has the
before and after school programs and said that she has 5 preschoolers and would
like to keep 8 preschoolers during the day.
Mrs. Watson asked if that was 12 per shift? Ms. Bozeman said yes, because she does run her daycare around the
clock and has been getting a lot of
calls for 3rd shift because McDonalds will be open 24 hours and they
have been calling for 3rd shift care. Chairman Wilson asked Ms. Bozeman if she could explain the
building code issues? Mrs. Bozeman stated that she needed to add steps from the
ground to the porch and is going to install a pull station for the fire alarm
and Mr. Bud Catoe from the Fire Department will be coming out to show her where
to install it. Chairman Wilson asked
Ms. Bozeman if she was going to uphold the building codes that she was made
aware of? She said yes, and she also
intends to uphold all State requirements for continuing her license. Ms. Straney asked about the driveway and
noticed a car parked on the grass to the right of the house and also the
concern of safety with the very sharp curve and poor visibility? Ms. Bozeman
said that she tries to educate the parents about that curve and informs them to
back out and stay to the left so they can see what’s coming around the curve
before they back out. Mrs. Lance asked how long she’s been at that
location? Ms. Bozeman said she’s been
there for about 9 years. Mrs. Watson
asked if this would require her to hire additional help? Ms. Bozeman stated she has a substitute come
in and said if she keeps 10 children she can do that by herself, but if she
will keeps 12 then she will hire a full-time person and she wants to be able to
keep 8 children during the day and more for after school.
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
this is an amendment to a special use permit that has already been approved and
she’s testified that she is aware of it and intends to meet all State Codes for
a childcare facility and building codes that she’s been made aware of and Mr.
Lea has testified that her existing facility meets all of our City
Ordinance.
DECISION:
Mrs. Joyce Lance made a motion that the four required
conditions for issuing an amendment to the Special Use Permit in accordance
with Section 32.13.B(1)(A) are met due to the following Findings of Fact:
1)
that the use will not materially endanger the
public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to
the plan submitted and approved.
The Findings of Fact this
condition was met with the original special use permit and Ms. Bozeman has
testified that she has been in this business for the past 9 years.
2)
that the use meets all required conditions
and specifications
The Findings of Fact are that Ms.
Bozeman has agreed that she will meet all of the building code issues and she’s
already installed a back door, added on a back porch and has a few further
things to do regarding a fire alarm and that she will also continue to meet the
requirements for licensure.
3)
that the use will not substantially injure the
value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity
The Findings of Fact is that she
has a need to expand her business due to some late night hours specifically
testifying that McDonalds is staying open all night.
4)
that the location and character of the use, if
developed according to the plan as 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 Fact are that Mr.
Lea has agreed that all requirements have been met and she’s been at the same
location for the past 9 years so harmony in the area was found when the
original permit was approved.
Mike Gee seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously
to approve the motion on the findings of fact.
(AYES: Wilson, Gee, Watson, Lance, Straney)
(NOES: none)
Mrs. Joyce Lance made
a motion to approve the Special Use Permit for Mary’s Creative Play Home
Daycare Center to be located at 823 Lakeside Avenue in Burlington, due to the
previously stated Findings of Fact and that the applicant is required to meet
all of the building code requirements and to continue to meet her State
requirements for her licensure and the applicant/owner 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 or void, then this permit shall be void and of no effect. Charlotte Straney seconded the motion. The
Board voted unanimously to approve the Special Use Permit.
(AYES: Wilson, Gee, Watson, Lance, Straney)
(NOES: none)
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Lea stated that he
may need to call a special meeting due to the request of the contractor and
would try to schedule the meeting if he could get everyone together. Mr. Lea
also stated that the July meeting will be moved to Thursday, July 14th,
due to Mr. Lea being out of town.
MEETING ADJOURNED: 11:40 am
___________________________________
Ed
Wilson, Chairman
___________________________________
Mary
Fanelli, Secretary