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

 

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.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 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.

 
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 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: 

 

  1. 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. 

 

  1. 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.   

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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