Docstoc

CURRITUCK COUNTY

Document Sample
CURRITUCK COUNTY Powered By Docstoc
					                                                              4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 1



                                  CURRITUCK COUNTY
                        BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING
                                     April 14, 2011


REGULAR MEETING
The Currituck County Board of Adjustment met on April 14, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. in the
Historic Currituck County Courthouse. The following members were present: Bryan
Bass, Paul Beaumont, Donald Ferebee, Christian Conner, Ralph Jones, Cameron
Tabor, and Theresa Dozier. There were no members absent. Brad Schuler, Planner;
Tiffany Sanders, Planning Technician; Tammy Glave, Planner I; and Benjamin Gallop,
Board of Adjustment Attorney; were also present.

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

Mr. Schuler stated the following changes to the agenda:

1. Item 4 to be continued to a later date.

SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBERS

Mr. Bass introduced two new members, Mr. Cameron Tabor and Ms. Theresa Dozier.
Tammy Glave, Planner I, swore in Mr. Tabor and Ms. Dozier.

Mr. Bass called the meeting to order and announced a quorum had been met with five
regular members and two alternate members. The alternate members were dismissed.

APPROVAL OF MARCH 10, 2011 MINUTES
Mr. Ferebee motioned to approve the March 10, 2011 minutes with one change. Mr.
Jones seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

APPROVAL OF MARCH 10, 2011 ORDERS
Mr. Beaumont motioned to approve the March 10, 2011 orders as presented. Mr.
Ferebee seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

OLD BUSINESS

BOA 10-09 RAYMOND & BONITA WILLIAMS: Appeal of Director of Inspection’s
decision to condemn a mobile home pursuant to Article 153A-366 of the North
Carolina General Statues and Article 4 of the Currituck County Code of
Ordinances, located on the White Heirs property in Corolla, PIN 0101-000-0001-
0000, Fruitville Township.

Mr. Schuler, Mr. Castello, Mr. Raymond Williams, Mrs. Bonita Williams, Mr. Whit
Sessoms, Mr. Hal Goodman, and Mr. Ralph Woodard appeared before the board and
were sworn in.



*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
                                                                   4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 2




Mr. Schuler reviewed the case for the board.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Bass questioned if the Williams were notified of the requirement for the appraiser to
be present in order for cross examination if required.

Mrs. Williams presented a packet to the board (attached as exhibit 1)

Mr. Bass moved this case to the end of the hearing.

BOA 11-04 JAMES & AMY SANNES: Conditional use permit to allow a non-
accessory home occupation for light manufacturing located at 6308 Caratoke
Highway in Grandy, 0094-000-0106-0000, Poplar Branch Township.

Mr. James & Mrs. Amy Sannes appeared before the board and were sworn in.

Mr. Schuler presented the following case to the Board:

                          BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE ANALYSIS

Meeting Date:             April 14, 2011
Case Number:              BOA 11-04
Applicant:                James & Amy Sannes
Property Owner:           James & Amy Sannes
PIN:                      0094-000-0106-0000
Address:                  6308 Caratoke Highway
Zoning District:          General Business (GB)
Township:                 Poplar Branch

Request

Conditional use permit to allow a non-accessory home occupation (woodworking
/manufacturing and web-based retail) in the GB zoning district, pursuant to the Table of
Permissible Uses of the Currituck County Unified Development Ordinance.

Narrative

    1. The applicant will construct SurfZone Balance Trainers, surfboards, and
       skateboards at this location.

    2. Peak production is approximately forty units per month.

    3. The applicant will be constructing a detached accessory structure, approximately
       2,200 sf, on the property. Approximately 300 sf will be used for the business.



*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
                                                                    4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 3




      4. This will primarily be a web-based business.


Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Staff Findings

The Board must find that the applicant meets all criteria in order for a conditional use
permit to be approved. Following is the staff suggested findings for each criterion (as is
required by the UDO).

In granting a conditional use permit, the Board of Adjustment may attach to the permit
such reasonable requirements in addition to those specified in this ordinance as this will
ensure that the development in its proposed location meets the following:


(a)      The application is complete.
         1. The application is complete.

(b)      The proposed use is among those listed in the Table of Permissible Uses
         as a conditional use indicated with a “C.”
         1. The proposed use is among those listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
            a conditional use indicated with a “C.”

(c)      The conditions proposed meet or exceed the minimum requirements of this
         ordinance.
         1. It appears to meet the minimum requirements of this ordinance.

(d)      The conditional use will not endanger the public health or safety.
         1. The proposed use should have no impact on public heath or safety.

(e)      The conditional use will not injure the value of adjoining or abutting
         property and will be in harmony with the area in which it is located.
         1. The house is located on a 1.84 acre lot and is surrounded by property zoned
            General Business. The house, The Plantation, was previously used as a
            retail establishment.

         2. The surrounding land uses include:
            a.    North:       Vacant                         Zone: GB
            b.    South:       Real Estate Office             Zone: GB
            c.    East:        Abandoned Dwelling             Zone: GB
            d.    West:        Mini Storage                   Zone: GB




*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
                                                                     4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 4



(f)     The conditional use will be in conformity with the Land Use Plan and other
        officially adopted plans.

        1. The 2006 Land Use Plan classifies this property as Full Service within the
           Grandy subarea. The purpose of the Full Service area is to encourage new
           development to occur in village like patterns. The emphasis of the Grandy
           subarea is to allow Grandy to further evolve as a community center in its own
           right. This application is consistent with the Land Use Plan.

        2. Land Use Plan policies that are relevant to this use:
           Policy CD8: MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS which allow for compatible
           mixture of residential and non-residential uses with a pedestrian scale and
           design are encouraged. Businesses may be located adjoining (and therefore
           convenient to) an existing residential area.

             POLICY ED1: NEW AND EXPANDIGN INDUSTRIES AND BUSINESSES
             should be especially encouraged that: 1) diversify the local economy, 2) train
             and utilize a more highly skilled labor force, and 3) are compatible with the
             environmental quality and natural amenity based economy of Currituck
             County.


(g)     The conditional use will not exceed the county’s ability to provide adequate
        public facilities.
        1. The proposed use will not exceed the county's ability to provide adequate
           public facilities.

Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the findings of fact as presented
above and the following:

1. The driveway apron shown on the site plan that leads to Augusta Drive must be a
   hard surface material (concrete or asphalt) if it is to be used for the business in the
   future.
2. A Type C bufferyard is required along the left property line. The site plan shows five
   trees along the left property line, so one of the options is to add three additional
   small tress along that property line. All other bufferyards appear to be in compliance
   with the UDO.
3. The camper rental business and expansion of light manufacturing beyond the home
   occupation proposed for a later date is not part of this review.
4. Please note that parking is not allowed in front of overhead doors and this will be
   considered as part of the expansion review in the future. The site plan shows a
   handicapped parking space in front of the overhead garage door.
5. According to Section 3.2.3 of the UDO, the following special requirements must be
   met:
   3.2.3.1 Use



*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
                                                                    4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 5



    A. The use does not disturb or intrude on the residential character of the subject
       property or the surrounding neighborhood.
    B. On-premises retail sales of goods not produced on-site are prohibited except
       when the home occupation is located on a lot with direct access to US Highway
       158, NC Highway 168, NC Highway 34, NC Highway 136, or NC Highway 615.
    C. The use shall not create objectionable noise, fumes, odor, dust or electrical
       interference.

    3.2.3.2 Dimensional and Location Requirements
    A home occupation shall comprise less than 25 percent of the total gross floor area
    of residential buildings plus other buildings housing the home occupation, or less
    than 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (whichever is less).

    3.2.3.3 Additional Requirements
    A. Open storage which must be fenced with opaque fencing.
    B. No more than two non-resident persons may be employed in connection with the
       home occupation.
    C. No more than one motor vehicle shall be used in connection with the home
       occupation.
    D. One on-premise advertising sign shall be allowed but shall not exceed six square
       feet in area or four feet in height. Additionally, one off-premise advertising sign
       shall be allowed subject to the requirements of Chapter 7 of this ordinance.
    E. An accessory building or addition built for the purpose of a home occupation
       must conform in appearance to existing primary or accessory structures and may
       not have a commercial appearance.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Sannes stated that all work was done with wood and hand tools.

Mrs. Sannes stated there would be about 40 boards manufactured each month.

Mr. Beaumont asked if there would be any traffic going into the location.

Mr. Sannes stated they were unaware of the traffic volume since the building for the
business hasn’t been constructed yet.

Mrs. Sannes explained the prior uses of the building on the site had been used for
multiple retail uses.

Mr. Beaumont questioned if there was any limit to the amount of traffic.

Mr. Schuler stated that there was no limit regarding the amount of traffic that would be
at the site.




*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
                                                                  4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 6



ACTION

Mr. Conner moved to approved the conditional use permit subject to staff’s findings of
fact. Mr. Ferebee seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

BOA 11-05 CHRISTOPHER SUSKO: Conditional use permit to allow a non-
accessory home occupation for a limousine/taxi service located at 102 Seabreeze
Lane N in Knotts Island, 0076-000-080B-0000, Fruitville Township.

Mr. Christopher Susko, Mrs. Tammy Susko, Mr. Todd Whitehead, Mr. Kevin Riggs, Mr.
Ardell Waterfield, Mr. Kim Tate, and Ms. Tammy Bland appeared before the board and
were sworn in.

Mr. Schuler presented the following case to the Board:

                          BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE ANALYSIS

Meeting Date:             April 14, 2011
Case Number:              BOA 11-05
Applicant:                Christopher Susko
                          Exotic Style Limousines, Inc.
Property Owner:           Christopher and Tammy Susko
PIN:                      0076-000-080B-0000
Address:                  102 Seabreeze Lane North
Zoning District:          Agricultural (A)
Township:                 Fruitville

Request

Conditional use permit to allow a non-accessory home occupation (Taxi Service) in the
A zoning district, pursuant to the Table of Permissible Uses of the Currituck County
Unified Development Ordinance.

Narrative

    5. The business will store two limousines in the back yard of the property which is
       the maximum allowed for a Taxi Services use located in the Agricultural zoning
       district. It will mainly operate on the weekends with the exception of an
       occasional run during the weekday. It will operate as a “pre-arranged” service
       with the drivers picking up the vehicle a day before the scheduled run and
       returning the vehicle the next day.

    6. The applicant is proposing to add a 6-foot privacy fence on the western side of
       the property, landscaping, and gravel to widen the existing driveway. He will
       store the two limousines behind the privacy fence in the back yard.




*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
                                                                     4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 7



      7. Due to the proposed business being located in a residential subdivision and the
         noise generated from a diesel engine, staff would like to the Board to consider
         possible hours of operation that would be reasonable in a residential area.

      8. Currently, the business is operating without a CUP. A complaint has been filed
         with the county regarding this issue, but the application for the CUP stays all
         code enforcement action. Due to this situation, should the CUP be granted staff
         would like the Board to decide a reasonable length of time in which the proposed
         improvements need to be installed.

Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Staff Findings

The Board must find that the applicant meets all criteria in order for a conditional use
permit to be approved. Following is the staff suggested findings for each criterion (as is
required by the UDO).

In granting a conditional use permit, the Board of Adjustment may attach to the permit
such reasonable requirements in addition to those specified in this ordinance as this will
ensure that the development in its proposed location meets the following:

(a)      The application is complete.
         1. The application is complete.

(b)      The proposed use is among those listed in the Table of Permissible Uses
         as a conditional use indicated with a “C.”
         1. The proposed use is among those listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
         a conditional use indicated with a “C.”

(c)      The conditions proposed meet or exceed the minimum requirements of this
         ordinance.
         1. Section 3.5.9 B of the UDO places special requirements on Taxi Services
         located in the A District. One of those requirements is that the use does not
         disturb or intrude on the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood.
         The use can meet this requirement with the required buffering and if certain
         conditions are placed on the permit limiting the hours of operation of the
         business.

(d)      The conditional use will not endanger the public health or safety.
         1. The proposed use should have no impact on public heath or safety.

(f)      The conditional use will not injure the value of adjoining or abutting
         property and will be in harmony with the area in which it is located.
         1. The property is located on a 0.92 acre lot in a small subdivision off Woodleigh
         Road in Knotts Island. There are residential lots surrounding the property with
         single family dwellings to the north, west, and south. Proper conditions need to
         be placed on the permit, including buffering of the vehicles from adjacent single



*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
                                                                     4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 8



         family dwellings, and limiting the hours of operation, in order for the business to
         be in harmony in the residential area it is located.

      2. The surrounding land uses include:
            a.    North:       SFD/vacant lot                   Zone: A
            b.    South:       SFD                              Zone: A
            c.    East:        Vacant lot                       Zone: A
            d.    West:        SFD                              Zone: A

(f)      The conditional use will be in conformity with the Land Use Plan and other
         officially adopted plans.
         1. The 2006 Land Use Plan classifies this property as Limited Service within the
             Knotts Island – Gibbs Woods Area subarea. The purpose of the Limited
             Services Area is to provide for primarily residential development at low
             densities.    Efforts should be made in these areas to protect farmland,
             preserve open space, and to provide for a sense of “community”.
             Commercial development should also protect and preserve the community in
             scale, architectural style, materials, landscaping, and site design.

(g)      The conditional use will not exceed the county’s ability to provide adequate
         public facilities.
         1. The proposed use will not exceed the county's ability to provide adequate
            public facilities.

Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the findings of fact as presented
above and the following:

Requirements:
1. A “C” buffer yard (small trees planted 30 feet on center) is required for the front and
   rear property lines.
2. The proposed trees on the western property line need to be spaced at least 10 feet
   apart to allow for air circulation.
3. Any office/business indoor space must be less than 10% of the total square footage
   of the residence.
4. No handling, including storage, of flammable and/or combustible fuels for
   commercial operations may occur on site.
5. The BOA shall establish reasonable hours of operation for the business.
6. The BOA shall establish a reasonable time in which the proposed improvements
   must be installed.
7. The two vehicles associated with the business shall be stored in the back yard as
   indicated on the site plan.
8. The site plan is updated to show employee parking.




*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
                                                                   4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 9



DISCUSSION

Mr. Beaumont the question of the spacing of the trees for the buffer yard.

Mr. Schuler stated that the cooperative extension office recommended the spacing of
the trees.

Mr. Susko explained the nature and operation of the business that he had been
operating for approximately three years.

Mr. Schuler stated that a text amendment was previously approved for the use to be
allowed in an agricultural zoning district.

Mr. Conner questioned the hours of operation.

Mr. Susko stated it depends on the type of event that was occurring but most of the
business was conducted on the weekend.

Mr. Beaumont asked the applicant about his request for the hours of operation.

Mr. Susko stated 8:00 am to 9:00 pm would be sufficient.

Mr. Bass stated that a reasonable time must be established for the improvements to be
installed as recommended by staff.

Mr. Susko said that between 30-90 days would be sufficient. He also stated he wanted
to change the fence requirement as suggested by staff.

Mr. Beaumont questioned the location of the privacy fence.

Mr. Susko explained the location of the fence and stated the limousines would be
parked behind the fence.

Mr. Bass asked about number of employees.

Mr. Susko stated he had four employees including himself.

Mr. Conner questioned the number of employees that would be coming to the house to
pick up the limousines.

Mr. Susko stated there would only be two.

Mr. Whitehead stated that he was the only adjoining neighbor and he was the one who
filed the complaint for there being a third limousine parked on the property but at this
time had no problem with Mr. Susko’s business




*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
                                                                  4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 10



Mr. Riggs stated he was a driver employed by Mr. Susko and stated that anytime there
was a late job he generally took the limousine back to his house and returned the
limousine to Mr. Susko’s residence the next day.

Mr. Waterfield stated he was a neighbor of Mr. Susko’s and was in favor of his
business.

Ms. Tammy Bland stated she was a residence of Knotts Island and had no problem with
Mr. Susko’s business. She stated she was in favor of allowing longer business hours
on the weekend.

Mr. Kim Tate, certified real estate appraiser, stated he was present in case there were
any questions about the property value.

Mr. Beaumont questioned the requirement of the bufferyard and the spacing between
the trees.

Mr. Schuler explained the requirement for the bufferyard.

Mr. Whitehead stated he didn’t mind a larger spacing between the trees.

Mr. Schuler stated there was an allowance for changes to the required bufferyard as
long as an affidavit was signed by the adjoining property owner.

Mr. Conner asked if staff was ok with the change to the location of the fence.

Mr. Schuler stated he was ok with the change.

ACTION

Mr. Beaumont moved to approve the conditional use permit subject to staff’s findings of
fact and the following recommendations:

        1. Hours of operation are from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm

        2. The fencing requirement would be installed as discussed.

        3. The bufferyard would be installed as discussed providing the adjoining
           property owner would sign an affidavit.

Mr. Jones seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Bass moved to establish a 60 day period in which the previous recommendations
for improvements to the property must be completed. Mr. Beaumont seconded the
motion and the motion passed unanimously.




*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
                                                                      4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 11



OLD BUSINESS (continued)

Mrs. Williams stated that they were unable to get ahold of their contractor and he would
not be present at the meeting.

Mr. Hal Goodman stated he was a licensed North Carolina structural engineer. He
visited the Williams property and provided a list of repairs for the structure so that it
would become a habitable structure.

Mr. Beaumont questioned if the structure was still sound.

Mr. Goodman stated the frame was still sound and explained some areas that needed
to be repaired.

Mr. Bass questioned the guidelines for repair.

Mr. Goodman stated his report contained guidelines for a contractor to be able to repair
the residence. He would not be able to provide a cost for the repairs.

Mr. Bass questioned the procedure for reviewing the repair estimates.

Mr. Gallop explained the ability of the Board to review evidence if found to be creditable
and based on the authenticity of the document.

Mr. Beaumont stated that the question at the last meeting was if the structure was
sound enough to be brought up to a habitable condition.

Mr. Williams stated that there were many different estimates because a few of the
places where they had obtained estimates didn’t have all the items available needed for
the repair.

Mrs. Williams stated that they had gotten an estimate from Mr. Vakos, a licensed North
Carolina contractor, but he was unable to attend the meeting.

Mr. Conner asked if Mr. Vasko would be hired to do the repair work.

Mr. Williams stated he had gotten an estimate from a contractor as requested
regardless if he hired Mr. Vakos or did the work himself. He stated that a dollar amount
was necessary to compare the cost of the repair with the value of the structure.

Mr. Ferebee questioned if they contactor was going to let the owner work under his
license for the repair.

Mr. Williams stated no they would do the repair themselves and that the estimate from
the contractor was only to establish a cost of the repair, they did not intend to hire the
contractor as they were allowed to do the work themselves.



*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
                                                                      4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 12




Mr. Bass stated the cost of the repairs would be compared to the value of the trailer. He
questioned if the septic tank repair cost would be included in the repair costs for the
trailer.

Mr. Beaumont stated that the septic tank wasn’t a part of the structure.

Mr. Gallop stated that if the septic that services the trailer it might be need to included in
the repair costs. He stated that the objective was to figure out if the structure could be
repaired within a reasonable amount as compared to the value of the structure itself.

Mr. Bass questioned the portion of the appraisal value of the trailer and if that would
include the value of the land.

Mr. Gallop explained it would only be the appraised value of the trailer that would need
to be compared to the repair costs.

Mr. Beaumont questioned replacement cost for the structure.

Mr. Bass stated that a replacement cost could be provided if requested.

Mr. Gallop explained the options for an appraisal.

Mr. Castello stated that mobile homes were built by HUD standards and not by building
code standards. He explained Mr. Goodman’s responsibility as the engineer and stated
the fees for his service would need to be included in the cost of the repair. He stated
the letter from the electrician concerned him because of his recommendation for the
power cord supply. He read a section from the 1999 electrical code as to the
requirement for an approved mobile home power supply cord, not just an extension
cord. He stated that any existing wire would need to be replaced due to the building
code requirements regarding wiring that is involved in water damage. He said that he
doesn’t have a problem with the trailer being repaired he was more concerned that the
trailer was repaired correctly and met the building code requirements.

Mr. Ralph Woodard stated he was a licensed home inspector and a former contractor.
He stated that he looked at the structure and felt there was little value to the structure.

Mr. Whit Sessoms, part owner of the property, presented information to the board
(attached as exhibit 2). He explained his concerns with the repair of the trailer as
outlined in exhibit 2. He felt that the trailer was a liability for the property.

Mr. Bass asked for clarification of the ownership of the property.

Mr. Beaumont stated that the property was established many years ago before the
ordinance regulated only one dwelling unit per lot.




*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
                                                                    4/14/11 BOA Minutes: Page 13



Mr. Gallop stated that the structure would be considered a non-conforming structure.
He stated that the objective was to determine if the structure could be repaired for a
reasonable amount to bring it to minimum housing standards.

Mr. Ferebee questioned the type of ownership of the property and how it was divided
among the owners.

Mr. Sessoms explained the ownership was of an undivided interest.

Mr. Gallop asked Mr. Castello if the all the repairs were completed as provided by the
structural engineer would it bring the structure into compliance.

Mr. Castello stated no.

ACTION

Mr. Gallop stated the options for ordering a repair of the structure or for ordering the
condemnation of the structure and evidence would need to be provided for either
options.

Mr. Beaumont moved to uphold the administrators decision based on the following
findings of fact:

        1. The structure does not meet minimum housing standards.

        2. Evidence was not presented to prove the cost of the repairs relative to the
           value of the structure.

Mr. Conner seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to discuss Mr. Ferebee motioned for adjournment. Mr.
Jones seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting
adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Tiffany B. Sanders/s/

Planning Technician




*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:8/16/2012
language:Unknown
pages:13