Motion to Grant was made by Toniann Primiano. In considering the findings of fact for V18-02, a request, by Sunmar Construction and Douglas Abell, Jr., for a variance from Article 8.11.6, the Board of Adjustment grants approval of the variance request based on findings that the request meets all four (4) of the 3 Page 2 of 9 criteria outline in the zoning ordinance for granting a variance. Dennis Brewer seconded the Motion. The findings are: there is unnecessary hardship that would result from the strict application; that this is peculiar to this property and the way the property is designed; and that this error happened in proportion to this property; that the hardship did not result from any connection or did not result from the property owner, but resulting from Mecklenburg County and the person who issued the zoning permit; and therefore, the variance should be granted on that; and we believe that the requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance. The Motion carried by 6-1, with E. Rowell opposing.
Staff does not make a recommendation on the merits of this criteria. 2) The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance. Staff Findings: A. All property located in the Town of Huntersville must comply with Article
Staff Conclusion: Appling the minimum 15 swimming pool setbacks (Article 8.11.6) is not peculiar to this property. All swimming pools in the Town are subject to the 15 setback. Staff did not find any conditions on the subject property that would have prevented the swimming pool from being located in a compliant location.
Staff Conclusion: The property owner and Sunmar Construction have been working with Town and County staff since May 2016 regarding the swimming pool. In this time, Article 8.11.6 has not changed. Contracted by the property owner, Sunmar Construction designed, obtained permitting, and constructed the swimming pool.
with flood plains, sewer easements, or what-have-you. E. Cecil commented that the County looked at this, and questioned if the County tries to determine it as accurate. Mr. Lewis could not answer that question. Brian Sifford, Zoning Inspector for the Town and Mecklenburg County, commented that when the application came in it did meet the setbacks on the plot plan, but would not have met the 15 otherwise. Mr. Sifford s responsibility is to zone it property with 15 on the sides and rear, and as to the permit that did not print all he could tell was that it was a computer glitch and it did not print the rear setback. On the permit in the system, which is accessible to all contractors, the permits clearly state that it is 15 in the rear. For whatever reason in this case, it did not print. He apologized, and noted he had no control over that. E. Rowell asked Sifford about the Winchester system (screenshot displayed) and who enters the data into the system, and Sifford replied, he is the one that actually enters the setbacks (0 in front, 15 on sides and rear). That is the data that is pulled out of that program and printed. The rear did not populate on the actual permit document. The setbacks have to be assigned every time. It was questioned again about the permit process, and asked that the applicant is actually given a copy of the Building Permit, to which Sifford stated they should be, or it is available to print. J. Bradshaw asked which document serves as the official permit, and Sifford replied this is the official permit in the system (the Winchester system), but what is printed is the Building Permit form, and this permit does not show it has a rear setback. The Building Permit is what is given to the applicant and/or contractor. Mr. Sifford was asked if he checks the scale on the drawings, and he responded that it is looked at, but did not know if it was 100 checked. J. Kluttz asked Mr. Lewis if he knew what the rear setbacks were, and he responded, no. T. Primiano asked Sifford if the Building Permit is the only permit sent out, and Sifford noted it was available online. Meredith Nesbitt commented when submitting digitally for a permit the review and issuing of a permit is all digital, and the applicant and staff has the ability to print a printable version, or look at the permit on the permitting website. There is a nuance about what is the official permit. If it is a digital record, the digital copy would be deemed the permit, but you do have the print out version. The County has notified staff this was a technical issue. If the permit were to be printed today, it would show all setbacks, so it was a glitch and they have not seen this before, and hoped it would not happen again. Staff recommended that this be one of the Board s findings as to what could be the official permit. E. Rowell asked Mr. Lewis how long Sunmar has been in business (12 years), and if he had ever completed any construction projects prior to the property, and Mr. Lewis noted he has been with Sunmar for 3 years, and has completed 6-8 projects in the area. Mr. Lewis is in sales and design with Sunmar. Rowell noted his problem with criteria 3, and further asked Mr. Lewis if he could actually demo a portion of the alcove. Mr. Lewis said it would not be without major problems and leaks. It is not as simple as tearing it out, and explained a new seam in the pool and how it would leak water. Cecil asked what the setback would be if it were a concrete slab, and Mr. Lewis noted they would probably be back in violation of impervious area. Staff responded about impervious calculations and the edge of the water being in the 15 setback. The water is pervious, but outside skirting is impervious. If filled in with concrete it would then be impervious. Staff could not respond to impervious violations, nor not. S. Genenbacher asked about inspections over the past year with all the work
The Chairman discussed issuing permits for his job, and has never looked at a permit without a rear setback. He had visited the site several times. Based on what the applicant and contractor did to get to this point, and noted the intent was not to create a violation. The circumstances are unique and is specific to the property. It would be hard to believe there is no rear setback though, and Mr. Lewis noted it was not his intent to do anything wrong.
member would like to discuss. E. Cecil was recognized, and stated there are two people that work very hard; Bob Blythe and Michelle Haines. He thought all should respect and understand what they go through in an effort to do for the Town what has to be done. He hoped in the future that would be done, and took exception to any derogatory comments that have been, or may be made. He hoped that any member would appreciate their hard work, as he does, and he takes affront to what has been said. E. Rowell asked if there had been something specific, and E. Cecil commented there are those that know what he is saying, and noted he wanted to compliment them.
Page 9 of 9 did not need to be revised. At the last hearing, there was a large number of people, and he saw discussion on social media (wasn t sure if it was before or after the hearing). The Rules, Section 3.D Discussion of Board Cases, prompted him to think of revising the Rules for social media, but for now, as a good reminder, if having controversial cases come up, that members refrain from discussing upcoming matters of business, including on social media. He did not want the members to prejudice themselves, or have to recuse someone. The Chairman asked staff about any rules of the Town that apply to social media. David Peete noted no policies, but ex parte communicate is broad. The Chairman further noted that social media is not the place to have these types of discussions prior to, or after a case has been ruled upon. C) Elections for Chairman and Vice Chairman Toniann Primiano nominated Eric Rowell for Chairman, and was seconded by S. Genenbacher. Dennis Brewer nominated Bethany Welch for Chairman, and was seconded by E. Cecil. There were no other nominations. The vote for Rowell received two votes, and the vote for Welch received 7 votes. Chairman: Bethany Welch The nomination for Joe Kluttz for Vice Chairman was declined to give another member a leadership opportunity. Toniann Primiano nominated Eric Rowell for Vice Chairman, and was seconded by Wil Smith. There were no other nominations, and the vote was unanimous. Vice Chairman: Eric Rowell
Property Owner/Applicant: Regina Martin Staff: Meredith Nesbitt Senior Planner The applicant, Regina Martin, is requesting a variance from Article 3.2.3.d.3 (see text below) for a 4 variance from the required 50 rear yard setback. See Exhibit 1 for the variance application. The applicant seeks to construct a detached single-family home on the currently vacant lot. See Exhibit 2 for aerial and site photographs. Article 3.2.3.d.3
of all of the following: 1) Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. Staff Findings:
Page 4 of 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The applicant is seeking a variance from Article 3.2.3.d.3 for a 4 variance from the required 50 rear yard setback to construct a new detached single-family home. Based on the findings of fact staff concludes this request meets the four Ordinance requirements for granting a variance and recommends approval of this variance request. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1 Variance Application Exhibit 2 Site Photos Exhibit 3 Adjacent Property Well House Exhibit 4 Norman Woods Subdivision Plat Exhibit 5 Email from Mecklenburg County Environmental Health
Good afternoon. As Kevin has mentioned, the septic system must be located in the front yard. There is a well on the neighboring property to the rear of this property which is why the proposed septic system must go in the front yard. Please feel free to email me or call me on my cell at (704)201-7414 with any questions.
Thank You, Jeremy Michelone
From: Kevin Capps [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2018 4:18 PM To: Meredith Nesbitt
Monitor up to five cities and counties and get alerts when they plan to vote on topics you're passionate about.