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




City of Burlington, NC

November 8, 2005




Members Present                                                                       Members Absent

City:                                                                                        City: 

Mr. H.E. “Ed” Wilson, Chairman                                              Mr. Mike Gee, Vice Chairman
Ms. Joyce Lance                                                               Mr. Todd Smith

Mrs. Mary Watson

Mrs. Margaret Stephens                                                                     

Ms. Charlotte Straney                                                



Also present was Mr. Joey Lea, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Burlington.


Chairman Ed Wilson, called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 8:30 a.mHe explained that the city representatives to the Board of Adjustment are appointed by the City Council.  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.  After the City Applicant and the public have presented all evidence the Board will then close the meeting to the public and discuss the case and vote, during this time no more evidence shall be admitted nor any other arguments made unless the Board wishes to ask the Applicant a question pertaining to the evidence already presented.  Anyone that tries to make an argument or present any evidence at this time will be out of order. the Chairperson may order any individuals who willfully interrupt, disturb or disrupt to leave the meeting, failure to comply with this order is punishable by imprisonment up to 6 months a fine of $250.00 or both.  An affirmative four-fifths vote is required to grant a variance, special use permit or an appeal.   


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.



Chairman Wilson asked if there were any changes to the minutes from the September 13, 2005 meeting and the October 11, 2005 meeting.  Mr. Lea stated that the September 13, 2005 minutes were officially approved, however, there were corrections made so they are being resubmitted for re-approval.  Ms. Charlotte Straney stated that there is one word that needs to be corrected and that is on page 8 of the September Minutes 4th line from the bottom “once the foundation way laid” should be “once the foundation was laid”.    Ms. Straney stated that on the October 11th Meeting under Members Present, it should be Todd Smith not Charlotte Straney.  Chairman Wilson asked if there were any other corrections.  There being no further changes Mrs. Margaret Stephens made a motion to approve the September 13, 2005 and the October 11, 2005 minutes with corrections.  Ms. Straney seconded the motion.  There being no discussion, the motion passed unanimously.





CASE NO. 23-05  SPECIAL USE PERMIT:  SECTION 32.13.W - ZONING ORDINANCE (Child Care Facility Requirements)

Ms. Lizzie Bigelow (Loving Memories Daycare), 806 North Avenue, Burlington, NC



Mr. Joey Lea explained that Ms. Lizzie Bigelow, at 806 North Avenue, has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit for an in-home child daycare to allow for the care for eight children per shift. Ms. Bigelow does meet the requirements under Section 32.13 W of the Zoning Ordinance.  There is more than adequate fenced in play area and parking would be no more than what is required for a single-family use.  Mr. Lea stated that he has not received any calls from adjoining property owners about the daycare itself, but I do have information that needs to be entered into the record.  I received a call last week from a gentleman who has family in the area and he informed me that there is a registered sex offender living two doors down from this location.  I called Alamance County Sheriff’s Department and they confirmed this information. I also checked the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry and he is registered on the website.  Mr. Lea stated that this information is being entered into the record for information purposes only and cannot be used as evidence in the decision that the Board has to make for this daycare. It is only to acknowledge the fact that the City has knowledge of this situation.  Chairman Wilson asked if there was anything in the Zoning Ordinance to prevent the daycare facility from being located near a registered sex offender? Mr. Lea stated that due to the nature of the proceedings of this hearing and  the Findings of Fact that the Board has to make, this information is irrelevant and I enter it into the record for informational purposes only.  I have contacted the Licensing Division of the Department of Health and Human Services and asked what impact this could have for State Licensing because part of the requirements of the Special Use Permit is that she meet all of the requirements of the State. Mr. Lea stated that I have a copy of an email from the Licensing Supervisor indicating that although this is a situation, there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from issuing a license for this daycare as long as Ms. Bigelow meets all local and state requirements.  Mrs. Joyce Lance asked Mr. Lea if this has been discussed with Ms. Bigelow?  Mr. Lea stated yes it has and she is aware of it.  Mrs. Lance asked Mr. Lea if Ms. Bigelow was aware of this prior to you speaking with her? Mr. Lea state that she told me that she did not know about it until after she moved in. Mrs. Lance asked Mr. Lea if she moved in planning to open a daycare? Mr. Lea said I’m not aware of that and that she does rent the home and there is an Affidavit from the property owner allowing her to operate the daycare in the home which is in the file.  Chairman Wilson stated that Mr. Lea has testified that other requirements of Section 32.13.W  regarding the fenced in area is at least 100 sq. ft. per child and her entire back yard is fenced in which exceeds the requirement and parking requirements are no more than what would be required for a single-family use.  Chairman Wilson asked if there were any general conditions this will not meet?  Mr. Lea stated that as far as I am aware, it does meet all of the requirements of the Ordinance.  Mrs. Lance stated to Mr. Lea that this creates a moral dilemma for the Board and I assume any action of the Board will not result in any legal liability for either the State or for us personally. Mr. Lea said that the Board is only obligated to make the Findings of Fact to the requirements of the Ordinance for the use of the property. The fact that this situation exist is certainly an issue that is why we are entering it into the record stating we have knowledge of it being there in an effort to protect ourselves in the event that something should happen.  Mr. Lea said the Church across the street currently has an afternoon daycare that was there before this gentleman ever moved in to the area.  Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Lea how many children will she be keeping?   Mr. Lea explained that she is applying for 8 children per shift which is the most the State will license an in-home daycare and that consist of 5 preschool and 3 school age children.   


Ms. Lizzie Bigelow of Loving Memories Daycare explained that she would like to get a permit to keep 8 children per shift.  Chairman Wilson asked Ms. Bigelow if she operates a daycare now? Ms. Bigelow stated yes and at the same location.  Chairman Wilson asked if she was expanding and making the daycare larger? Ms. Bigelow stated yes.  Chairman Wilson asked how many children are in the daycare currently? Ms. Bigelow stated I have four on first shift and one on second shift.  Chairman Wilson asked if Ms. Bigelow’s licensing would have to change? Mr. Lea stated that upon the Board’s approval, her license will then change.  Chairman Wilson asked Ms. Bigelow if she was aware of the licensing procedures? Ms. Bigelow said yes.  Chairman Wilson explained to Ms. Bigelow that the Special Use Permit will be void if she does not obtain the new license. Ms. Bigelow stated that she understood. Chairman Wilson said that Mr. Lea testified that Ms. Bigelow’s entire back yard is fenced in and it exceeds our codes for the children and asked Ms. Bigelow how the vehicles will be dropping off and picking up the children?  Ms. Bigelow said that I have two driveways right beside each other and there is plenty of room to park and turn around without backing out into the street or parking on the street.  Chairman Wilson asked how long she has operated a daycare? Ms. Bigelow stated I received my license on June 22, 2005 and started operating August 26, 2005.  Chairman Wilson asked if she has any excessive exterior lighting on her property? Ms. Bigelow stated, I have flood light on the side of the house.  Chairman Wilson stated that Mr. Lea has testified that there is a registered sex offender on her street and asked Ms. Bigelow if she was aware of that?  Ms. Bigelow stated I am aware of it and I’m trying to take extra precautions by keeping my front door locked at all times and when taking the kids outside I’m always in the fenced in back yard with them.  Mrs. Mary Watson asked Ms. Bigelow if she was planning on having more than 2 shifts? Ms. Bigelow stated I run first and second shifts and I don’t plan on running a third shift.  Mrs. Margaret Stephens asked Ms. Bigelow if she was taking any precautions at all in discussing this with the parents? Ms Bigelow stated I have been informing them since I’ve been trying to get my special use permit and I tell them there is a sexual predator in the neighborhood and will be keeping a special eye out for the kids and do what I can to be safe. Mrs. Stephens asked, then you are disclosing this to the parents? Ms. Bigelow stated yes.  Chairman Wilson asked Ms. Bigelow if she had discussed this with the Police Department. Ms. Bigelow stated that she had not. Mrs. Lance asked Ms. Bigelow if she would have a problem if the special use permit was for first and second shifts only? Ms. Bigelow stated that she would not. Mr. Lea stated that it would be better to leave it open for all three shifts in the event she opens up a third shift because if she does, she will have to come back before the Board for an amendment to the Special Use Permit.  Mrs. Lance asked Ms. Bigelow who helps her with the daycare? Ms. Bigelow stated that right now it is just herself.  Mrs. Lance asked what arrangements she has in the event she becomes sick?  Ms. Bigelow stated that my mother fills in for me and she is 64 years old. Mrs. Lance asked if she was the only relief? Ms. Bigelow said I also have an aunt that would fill in and she is 54.  Mrs. Lance asked Ms. Bigelow what her reaction was when she was informed about the registered sex offender living 2 doors away? Ms. Bigelow stated I didn’t really have a reaction I just know I have to watch my children better.  Mrs. Lance asked if this was the only location that can be considered for her daycare? Ms. Bigelow stated that it was. Mrs. Lance said that Mr. Lea testified about the daycare that is already in the neighborhood and I asked Ms. Bigelow for her reaction because this is a moral dilemma that nothing is written in the law to prevent this and I will try to have a positive attitude.  Ms. Straney stated that Ms. Bigelow’s driveway is actually a double carport and asked if there is room for a car to completely pull in and be off of the street? Ms. Bigelow stated that there is enough room even with the cars parked there.  Ms. Straney stated that she did not see lights other than the big mercury light in the back yard and asked Ms. Bigelow if there were more lights? Ms. Bigelow stated I have motion lights in the front and back yards, but I do not have any lights in the carport.   Mrs. Lance asked if there were floodlights on the side of her house? Ms. Bigelow said no, but I have front porch lights.  Mrs. Lance asked what door the children will be using? Ms. Bigelow said the front door.  Ms. Straney asked if it would be something to consider adding a light on the carport?  Ms. Bigelow stated the light from the front porch shines where they get out and they don’t have a problem seeing. The one child I have on second shift, is always walked to the car, but I will get more lighting if I have to.  Ms. Straney said I’m thinking as a precaution in view of the neighborhood situation, but it might be worth it to add another light.  Mrs. Lance asked Ms. Bigelow what her plans are as far as help when her business grows and if she would consider a third shift? Ms. Bigelow said I don’t plan on working a third shift but would like for it to be on my license just in case, but right now that is not being considered and I don’t think I ever will.  Mrs. Lance stated, my concern is that you have to sleep and if you don’t have other adults in the house and someone that is dedicated to being awake then there are obvious safety issues.  Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Lea if he was aware of any State regulations that require an additional person on third shift? Mr. Lea stated I am not aware of any but she would have to hire help because she knows that she cannot operate all 3 shifts on her own.  Ms. Straney asked Ms. Bigelow if she knew the exact square footage of the fenced in area? Ms. Bigelow said no.  Mr. Lea stated that it is more than twice the size that is required. I did a quick measurement on the outside perimeter and there is well more than enough fenced in area for the children.    


DISCUSSION & FINDINGS OF FACT:  There being no comments from the public, Chairman Wilson turned the meeting over to the Board for discussion.  Chairman Wilson stated that it appears she meets all of the guidelines and doesn’t appear to be any issues with the general requirements for the permit. Mr. Wilson stated that I agree it is disturbing for a sexual offender to live two doors down but is not aware of any provisions for the Board to take to rectify that situation. A special use permit is permitted by a matter of right if they meet the conditions of the Ordinance that is defined by our City Council.  Chairman Wilson stated that he is not sure what the Board can do to prevent an incident of a sexual nature but I am willing to discuss it.  Mrs. Lance stated that the only positive thing is that it is a registered sex offender. There are sex offenders out there that aren’t registered and there is no law to back us up in any finding if we let that prohibit the issuance of a special use permit. Of course we find it disturbing but I understand that moral dilemmas do not enter into a decision we make when we do not have the law to back us up.  Mrs. Lance asked Mr. Lea when making the motion about public safety, is it appropriate to include the information about the sexual offender?  Mr. Lea stated that public safety in this situation refers to any adverse effect that this use may have on the public, not necessarily what this particular situation has on the public which is irrelevant to the use. Mr. Lea stated that you can include it as a condition for her to take every step possible in protecting the children and according to the State, as they told me that they were also of the same mindset but basically she is taking sole responsibility for these children.  Mrs. Straney said in spite of the situation, as a society we try to give people second chances. We don’t know any details of this particular situation and it may be a person that would never do anything again and it is unfair to make the assumption that it’s a dangerous situation.  Mrs. Lance stated that being in the nursing profession it is known in literature that sex offenders re-offend. They are the most likely to re-offend more so than someone that commits armed robbery or murder. There is no cure and it is a huge problem and I would like to make it apart of the record that I was concerned when I asked Ms. Bigelow her reaction and her statement was that she really didn’t have one and that bothers me but Ms. Bigelow also said that she realized that she had to watch her children closer.  Mrs. Lance stated I’m outraged not toward Ms. Bigelow but I realize we cannot prohibit this use as said earlier.      




Mrs. Joyce Lance 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 are it has been testified that the plans submitted are adequate for this permit to be issued. There is already a daycare center in the community and this would be an additional one and will not endanger public health or safety.


2)      that the use meets all required conditions and specifications

The Findings of Fact that Ms. Bigelow has testified to are the adequate fencing and that she exceeds the code requirements for the number of children that she has. Mr. Lea testified the area is more than twice the size it needs to be and she does have adequate lighting with motion lights in the front and back and front porch lights where the children will actually enter. Ms. Bigelow has a driveway that looks to be a double driveway that she says vehicles can turn around if need be and there will be no need for parking on the street and there have been no calls from the adjoining property owners.


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 are that Ms. Bigelow has four children on first shift and one child on second shift and has the option to open a third shift if she wants, so there is necessary use for childcare here with another childcare facility in the area.


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 as Mr. Lea testified he has spoken with the State and Ms. Bigelow has met her licensing requirements and as long as she meets all of the Local and State requirements then this business should not be a problem.


Mrs. Mary Watson seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to approve the motion on the findings of fact.


(AYES:  Wilson, Lance, Stephens, Watson, Straney)

(NOES:  none)



Mrs. Joyce Lance made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit for Loving Memories Daycare to be located at 806 North Avenue, owned by Ms. Lizzie Bigelow due to the previously stated Findings of Fact that the applicant be required to assure this Board and the public that she will take every step possible as to assure the safety of these children and she is assuming sole responsibility for their safety as a matter of getting this special use permit and the applicant shall complete the development in accordance to 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.  Ms. Charlotte Straney seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to approve the Special Use Permit.


(AYES:  Wilson, Lance, Stephens, Watson, Straney)

(NOES:  none)















































CASE NO. 24-05  SPECIAL USE PERMIT:  SECTION 32.13.T - ZONING ORDINANCE (Recycling Facility Requirements)

Mr. Kent Coble – CSI Recycling, 1136 Cedar Crest Drive, Burlington, NC



Mr. Joey Lea explained that Mr. Kent Coble with CSI Recycling has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit to operate a recycling facility for the recycling of construction and demolition debris at the location of 1136 Cedar Crest Drive which is the old Hanford Brick location. The submitted site plan has had some minor modifications. This plan has been before the Technical Review Committee (TRC) and approved for it’s plan and development and as proper use of the property.  Mr. Lea stated, I have received numerous phone calls from the general public in regards to the use of the property. Most calls were inquisitive and I received a form letter signed by two people that was addressed to the Mayor and City Council and as you know this is considered hearsay evidence and I am presenting this for you to decide whether or not you want to enter this into the record.  Chairman Wilson stated, I will enter this into the record.  Mrs. Straney asked if it was notarized? Mr. Lea stated no, it is only signed by two individuals from Elon.  Mr. Lea stated that there is also a letter from the TRC in the package stating they have approved the plan.  Chairman Wilson asked if there was anything the TRC wanted to see get done? Mr. Lea said there was one suggestion to close one of the entrances on the northern side of the property which was agreed to and a concern about sprinklering the building itself but that issue was resolved and it was not necessary at this time to do so.  Chairman Wilson asked if the Fire Department checked the fire codes? Mr. Lea stated that a representative from Fire Department is on the committee and approved the plan.  Chairman Wilson asked if transportation recommended one northern access with a 25 ft. radius? Mr. Lea said yes and that has been completed.  Chairman Wilson asked if Section 32.13.T of the Ordinance as it refers to Recycling Facilities is to be applied to this project? Mr. Lea stated yes it does but the first two sections do not apply in this case because they deal with batteries and oils which is not apart of this process and the third section is up to the Board to decide if they have adequate screening and if not you can require more. Their site plan does indicate that they have requested Recycling and Outdoor Storage. Outdoor Storage in itself requires a special use permit, however, in an I-1 District as part of the requirements you can have Outdoor Storage with proper opaque screening and they will be supplying the screening.  Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Lea if to his knowledge there will be no batteries stored or recycled at this facility and there will be no motor oil or grease stored or recycled there either?  Mr. Lea stated that this is construction and demolition debris that they will bring in and remove recyclables such as certain metals, concretes and woods and the remaining portion of the debris will be taken to a landfill. No batteries or oils will be part of the process.  Ms. Straney asked if the items will just get sorted there? Mr. Lea stated that some material will be stored for recycling.  Chairman Wilson asked how long the materials would be on-site before being removed?  Mr. Lea said he did not know and the owner can testify to that issue.  Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Lea if vehicle circulation, ingress and egress to the property, traffic flow and safety have been addressed by the TRC? Mr. Lea said yes there is a member from NCDOT on the Committee and it has been reviewed and approved. Chairman Wilson asked if there was ample parking, loading and unloading areas at the facility, and if there was any adverse effect on adjoining property owners such as noise. Mr. Lea stated that there was not.  Chairman Wilson said these are general conditions for the record and I’m going through them and also want to know about the service entrance, refuse and service areas with particular reference to ingress and egress of the service areas and is this the same as the main entrance? Mr. Lea stated that they are primarily the entrances and exits that were already there and used by Hanford Brick. The one enhancement is that all of the drives, driveways, and parking for vehicular traffic have to be paved which is a requirement of the District, whereas before only the area near the office was paved with the rest being gravel. This is on the plan as submitted and has not been completed as of yet.  Mrs. Watson asked if the facility would be utilized for materials within Alamance County only? Mr. Lea said I have no idea where the materials will come from.  Chairman Wilson asked if there were any additional utilities being added to this property? Mr. Lea said the infrastructure is already there.  Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Lea if signs and lighting, with reference to glare, traffic, safety, economic effect, were in general compatibility? Mr. Lea stated that as far as he knows everything is adequate.  Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Lea if open spaces were required for this use? Mr. Lea said no and in this particular instance, because of the type of use, the landscaping requirements did not come into effect. However, on the plan they are adding a considerable amount of buffering with the trees which again is not required but they are doing this as a part of their screening.  Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Lea if he believes that the compatibility issue is being met with adjacent properties and other properties in the area? Mr. Lea stated yes that is my belief.


Mr. Charles Bateman, an attorney representing the neighbors and others asked Chairman Wilson if he could cross examine Mr. Lea? Chairman Wilson said yes. Mr. Bateman asked Mr. Lea that in his testifying about landscaping you stated that this requirement did not have be met. Is that correct? Mr. Lea said yes, that is correct. Mr. Bateman stated that this is a Planned Industrial District and asked on what basis do you make an assumption that the landscaping requirements do not have to be met? Mr. Lea stated that under the provisions of the Landscaping Ordinance, every use has a classification by number. If the number of the use of the property does not change by more than two, it does not have to adhere to the provision of the Ordinance. Mr. Lea said that this use classification did not change.  Mr. Bateman asked if the brickyard use was a use allowed in an I-1 district? Mr. Lea said that now that use would also require some sort of special use permit or conditional rezoning because we do not have a classification for brickyards.  Mr. Bateman asked how long it has been since it has operated as a brickyard?  Mr. Lea stated I’m not one hundred percent sure but do know that General Shell Brick bought out Hanford and believes General Shell has been gone about a year.  Mr. Bateman commented that it has not been a brickyard for at least a year, and asked Mr. Lea if there a non-conforming use limit in the zoning? Mr. Lea stated that if the actual use of the property changes, then the non-conformity ceases to exist. Mr. Bateman said that if the use ceases to exist for a certain period of time is it your understanding the property looses it’s Grandfather status? Mr. Lea stated yes, Mr. Bateman asked, and what period of time would that be? Mr. Lea said that it is non-conforming and for a nonconforming use of land it is thirty days.  Mr. Bateman asked if it was fair to say than this particular property must be viewed as any future use now be required to meet all the standards of the I-1 District? Mr. Lea said yes that is correct. Mr. Bateman asked, in the I-1 District do the landscaping requirements have to be met? Mr. Lea said yes they do. Mr. Bateman asked if they were being met by the proposed applicant? Mr. Lea said yes they are.  Mr. Bateman asked Mr. Lea if he had personally examined the requirements and are testifying that they do meet all the requirements for landscaping? Mr. Lea said yes.  Mr. Bateman asked Mr. Lea if he testified that there will be no adverse impact on adjacent properties? Mr. Lea stated based on my knowledge of the use of the property yes. Mr. Bateman asked if that is viewed as a personal opinion? Mr. Lea said yes.


Ms. Ramona O’Briant representing Kent & Brenda Coble and CSI Recycling asked if before presenting their evidence they could deal with a procedural matter because I have received information that the folks who are concerned about this project have obtained legal council to seek a delay in the Board’s decision and I would prefer not to be in a position to present our evidence if the matter is to be delayed.  Ms. O’Briant stated that we object to any tabling of the matter but understand that the opposition will seek to delay it and we would like that issue dealt with before putting on our evidence.  Chairman Wilson asked if at this time there was a request to table this matter until next month?  Mr. Bateman stated that we as opponents do intend to seek a delay of presenting further testimony. As you know, one of the key elements in any request for a special use permit is a finding that there will be no adverse economic impact on adjacent properties. As the Board knows, this issue of adverse impact value of adjacent properties is an issue that is technical in nature and one that by the Courts have said mere opinion in landowners will not support that, which leads us to the inevitable task of having a late date and time, when obviously they’ve had months to prepare and fix their time to make up their permit and we have retained an expert who is in the process of making an economic evaluation of the impact of this particular use on the surrounding properties and that is a very detailed study as you might imagine and one that cannot be obtained in a few days time, but we have been assured that we could have this economic impact witness available with the supporting documentation at the next monthly meeting of the Board, so yes, we will be asking the Board to delay it’s decision and delay the close of testimony until next month which would allow us then to provide what we believe this Board needs and that is an expert opinion from an unbiased source relating to economic impact which is the use on the adjacent properties. This is a long way of saying yes, we are going to ask for a continuance.  Ms. O’Briant said I would prefer a called meeting sooner than the next scheduled meeting because my client has invested quite a bit of money already and has contracts pending, and I would also like to speak to our objection in any delay. This matter was submitted to the TRC with application being filed on September 28, 2005. The first article ran in the newspaper on September 29th and there has been at least one subsequent article. There has been a television report, notices from the Planning Department, and I believe there has been adequate opportunity for anybody that was opposed to this project to seek council and seek any expert testimony that they might want to seek. My client should not be held accountable for the fact that they did not seek council until recently when they knew that this project was out there and what it would entail, so we would object to a continuance. If the Board is inclined to continue the matter we would like it to be sooner than the next monthly meeting if at all possible.  Chairman Wilson stated that this is a volunteer Board and we do not get paid. We serve as a duty to serve our community and I do not know if the Board would be willing to hold a special meeting to hear this but we’ll discuss that.  Mr. Lea stated you need to decide based on the merits of whether you want to postpone this or not as opposed to straight out postponing it. Also in all fairness it would be better for the Board to consider a called meeting.  Chairman Wilson stated that procedurally we have gotten off track. Typically you present your evidence then the applicant presents it’s evidence, then the public is allowed to speak and the meeting is adjourned and obviously there is a lot of people here today that want to speak, but we need to hear the applicant’s evidence before the public can speak so we need to deal with the issue of tabling this before anyone else speaks.  Mrs. Lance said if we choose to table the issue then Mr. Lea highly recommends the Board make every attempt to make a special meeting. Mr. Lea said yes that is my recommendation.  Chairman Wilson said in order to have a special meeting then we need to allow the community to gather their evidence and we cannot have a meeting before they are ready because there would be a motion to table the issue again.  Mr. Lea stated that it is a matter of fact of whether they will be ready. They are not ready now, will they be ready then? We can get a meeting together in probably less than two weeks.  Mrs. Lance stated, so we don’t have to address that issue today when we are looking at tabling the issue We are sort of left at whenever they are ready. We cannot schedule the meeting because they are not ready. Mr. Lea stated that is true, you must decide if they have had adequate time to be prepared and if they have, then obviously you should hear the meeting. If you don’t think they’ve had adequate time then you need to consider postponing the meeting because in the interest of time this does hinge on the sale of this property in getting the special use permit that the Board consider a meeting at it’s earliest possible date.  Ms. O’Briant stated we have complied with all of the time requirements on applications for both the TRC and the Board of Adjustment As I said before, the public has been aware of this project for well over a month and could have made arrangements to have testimony heard today if they had chosen to do that.  Chairman Wilson stated, I respect that statement but typically we see this a lot when the public comes in to oppose something, the public is not prepared to deal with these issues with any evidence at all stating they don’t want this in their neighborhood but in this case, the public, or a representative from the public has actually hired an attorney and intend to oppose this and in my opinion that is more of an effort than what typically comes before the Board and I’m inclined to grant the delay and allow them to gather the evidence that they need.  Ms. O’Briant stated, I understand this is different from what is normally dealt with, but they have had over a month and could have hired an attorney a month ago rather than just recently and it is my understanding that they just hired an attorney within the past several days, so they made a decision not to get ready earlier and they’ve known about the project for some time so if you are inclined to grant a delay than I would request that it not be for a full month.  Mrs. Lance asked to clarify that they have known about this project since September 29th. Ms. O’Briant stated that is when it was first in the paper and then the letters that you see are referenced to the articles in the newspaper which is the letter that prompted the television report as well. They have been aware of this for some time and now it has been submitted to Fox 8. Chairman Wilson stated that neither of the letters have any dates on them. Ms. O’Briant stated we’ve had a copy of the letter for over a week so it was sometime before that.  Mrs. Lance stated, I don’t see a month being a lot of time for people to organize, get together in one month’s time and hire an attorney to represent them in 30 days. I don’t see that as a long period of time. If it were 90 days maybe, but I think these things take a while and with all respect to your position it’s hard to get enough people together to plan a wedding let alone something that is going to impact their pocketbooks and their quality of life so I tend to not be concerned about it.  Chairman Wilson asked Ms. O’Briant if she would like to add anything? Ms. O’Briant stated that she would like to comment that we indicated that they have already attained an expert so they are not going to have to go out and find somebody.  Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Bateman if he knew when his expert would be available with his evidence? Mr. Bateman said obviously I would rather schedule it to the December meeting because if we try to do something before then we fall into the Thanksgiving Holiday and that could present a problem with everyone trying to get together and I cannot really see five or six days making a difference. In any event we need at least three weeks to have everything put together to go over the investigation. Besides I hardly see it worthwhile in trying to interfere with the Thanksgiving Holiday.  Ms. O’Briant asked when the next meeting is scheduled? Chairman Wilson said that it is the second Tuesday of December. Ms. O’Briant said that would be Five weeks from now and not four weeks. Chairman Wilson stated that in addition to scheduling a special meeting we have to be sure we have a quorum because we are sitting today with one regular member that is absent but it is typically challenging for everyone on the Board to find another date in the month to meet. Mrs. Lance asked Ms. O’Briant what the hardship is for her clients in continuing this for a month other than the financial impact? I understand the opponents position and I don’t have a problem with that. Ms. O’Briant explained they have a contract that expires at the end of December and if we would come back here on December 13th which is five weeks from today and if there is another continuance sought it would create a significant issue for my client. So if we could meet in three weeks that would allow us some time too. Chairman Wilson stated that a second continuance would again have to be approved by this Board and we might be less likely to approve that at a December meeting.  Chairman Wilson explained, I cannot meet in November because my schedule is packed. The Vice-Chairman can sit for me. Mrs. Lance stated, I cannot commit to a special meeting. Mrs. Stephens said I think they should leave it at the regular time to agree with some of the Holiday comments that have been made. I will be gone the entire week and totally unavailable the week of Thanksgiving.


DECISION:  Chairman Wilson made a motion to grant a continuance until the next regularly scheduled meeting being held December 13, 2005 to hear Case #24-05 application of a Special Use Permit by Kent Coble of CSI Recycling, Mrs. Margaret Stephens seconded the motion.


(AYES:  Wilson, Lance, Stephens, Straney)

(NOES:  Watson)


Chairman Wilson stated that the motion carries with 4 final and 1 negative vote this meeting has been tabled until the December 13, 2005 meeting.









                                                                                    Ed Wilson, Chairman




                                                                                    Mary Fanelli, Secretary