 Good morning. The meeting will now come to order. Welcome to the June 23, 2020 meeting of the Durham Board of Adjustment. My name is Jacob Rogers. I'm the chair of the board. I would like to start by acknowledging that we are conducting this meeting using the remote electronic platform as permitted by session law 2020-3. This is the second remote meeting of the Durham Board of Adjustment and the first remote BOA meeting with quasi-judicial hearings. I would ask for your patience today as we proceed. There may be slight delays as we transition between speakers as well. The Board of Adjustments is a quasi-judicial body that is governed by the North Carolina General Statutes and the city's unified development ordinance. The board typically conducts evidentiary hearings on requests for variances, special use permits, among other requests. Today's meeting will proceed much like an in-person meeting of the Board of Adjustment. On the screen you will see the members of the BOA, additionally planning staff and representatives from the city and county's attorney's offices are attending in the remote meeting. Applicants were required to register in advance and are also attending the remote meeting. When a case is called for its hearing, applicants and witnesses will be promoted within the remote platform so their video can be seen. The chair will swear in applicants and witnesses at the beginning of each case. Staff will present each case and applicants will then provide their evidence. Control of the presentation and screen sharing will remain with planning staff. Today's meeting is being broadcast live on the city's YouTube site and the link to this broadcast is on the website for the Board of Adjustment. Before we begin the evidentiary hearings on today's agenda I would like to provide some important information about steps taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed in this remote platform. Each applicant on today's agenda was notified that this meeting would be conducted using a remote electronic platform. During registration every applicant on today's agenda consented to the Board conducting the evidentiary hearing using this remote platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in the evidentiary hearing consent to the matter proceeding in this remote platform. If there is any objection to a matter proceeding in this remote platform the case will be continued. Notice of today's meeting was provided by publishing notice in the newspaper mailed to property owners within 600 feet of the subject properties posting a sign at the property and posting on the city's website. The newspaper website and mailed notices for today's meeting contained information how the public can access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. These notices also contain contained information about the registration requirement for the meeting along with information about how to register. All individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation document exhibit or other material that they wish to submit at the evidentiary hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases as well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted on the Board of Adjustment website as part of the agenda. No new documents will be submitted during today's meeting. No case is proceeding today in which the city has been contacted by an individual with an objection to the case or an objection to the matter being heard in this remote meeting platform. All decisions of this Board are subject to appeal to the Durham Superior Court. Anyone in audience other than the applicant who wishes to receive a copy of the formal order issued by this Board on a particular case must submit a written request for a copy of the order. And at this time I would like the clerk to call the roll please. Jacob Rogers. Here. Chad Meadows. Here. Chris Burnham. Here. Here. Frederick Davis. Regina DeLacy. Here. Ian Kip. Here. Michael Retchless. Here. Micah Jeter. Here. Jessica Major. Here. Tisha Fomor. Here. All right. I've also got a couple other announcements on just housekeeping items if you will. For the Board members let's refrain from using the chat box. Also use the raise your hand feature within the I think it's the chat box or the participant panel you can do that. And please identify yourself prior to or before you start speaking. And then I'll be given the note. I mentioned this earlier but I'm going to say it again. I'll be given the oath to everyone in for a particular case on the onset of each case. So next thing we have on I guess are there any adjustments to the agenda? Okay. Staff is an adjustment to the agenda. Eliza Monroe speaking with the Plain Department. Case number B2000006 the applicant requested to withdraw this case so it will not be heard today. Thank you. Alrighty. Well let's um has everyone had the opportunity to look over the minutes of our last meeting? And we would entertain a motion for approval? Meadows move approval of the minutes from May 26th. Kip second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any objections? Any okay. Is in please call that by roll. Oh we didn't do that. Jacob Rogers. Yes. Chad Meadows. Yes. Chris Burnham. Yes. Frederick Davis. I'm sorry he's out. Regina DeLacy. Yes. Ian Kip. Yes. Michael Retzlis. Yes. Motion carries six to zero. Should be at least seven. One more. Is the designate. Please show one more. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. Thank you. Um Madam Clerk would you like to call the first case? Case B1900032 is a request for minor special use permit to allow a parking reduction greater than 20 percent. The subject site is located at 1052 Andrew Chapel Chapel Road is zone plan development residential and in the suburban tier. In this case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. Thank you. Planning staff would like to take it over. Yes. Taking it over now. Trying to share my screen. Sorry about the way everybody. Case B19, excuse me, Eliza Monroe representing the planning department here. Case B1900032 is a minor special use permit request to permit a parking reduction greater than 20 percent. The applicant is Morningstar Law Group. The subject site is located at 1017 Andrew Chapel Road in Durham. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is within the suburban tier zoned plan development residential or PDR located within the Falls of Neuse Jordan Lake protected area, watershed protection overlay district and the major transportation corridor I40 overlay district. It is also within the city's jurisdiction and is on the screen there in red. The site area is currently vacant. The applicant is proposing to have a residential development there. Primarily consisting of apartment units. Per unified development ordinance section 10.3.1 B.10. Except for within the compact neighborhoods here, reductions of more than 20 percent are of required motor vehicle parking shall require the approval of a minor special use permit. The site is currently vacant as I mentioned before. A site plan, which was in your packet as attachment four is currently under review and proposes 298 apartment units, a clubhouse and pool. The uses were approved with the development plan in 2012, which is attachment five in your packet. The unified development ordinance would require the site to have 658 spaces. That would be two spaces per the 298 units plus a one space per 100 square feet of the clubhouse. The applicant is requesting a reduction from those 658 spaces for a total of 527 motor vehicle spaces. UDO section 3.9.8 A and B establishes four findings and 13 review factors that the applicant must meet in order for the board to grant a use permit. These findings and review factors are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to these findings and review factors are identified within the application, both of which are within your packet and staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process. Thank you, Eliza. Any questions for Eliza before we proceed? I believe that Meadows has raised his hand. I did. Thank you. This is Chad Meadows. Eliza, I apologize for not getting this question to you beforehand. In looking at the site plan, I noticed that the vast majority of this site is inside Wake County. Is that an error or will Wake count? How does the jurisdictional issue work here with respect to the portion of the property that's inside Wake County? I will, the portion that we're discussing today is just the 1052 Andrews Chapel Road. I am not familiar with the Wake County process and how we will reach out to them and if that is necessary, I'll have to reflect upon legal staff to maybe provide some insight there or any other staff members. But the portion that we're only able to approve the MSCP for is going to be the 1052 Andrews Chapel Road. The other portion I'm going to scroll a little bit here on the screen so that I can show the other members of the board what Chad is referring to. The red highlighted area is a part of the site but so is the dark blue area directly underneath it. That part is within Wake County and therefore is not part of the red highlighted area. Any other questions for staff? All right. Would the applicant, I would say come forward usually. But I also want to, before we start, for the applicant starts, I want to administer the oath to everyone who will be speaking in this, for this case. So who is the, is Morningstar? Morningstar Law Group and I believe they do have some additional people on their team today that will also be needing to take that oath. Okay. Neil, I think I saw you on the roster. Are you there? I can hear some whispers but I'm not sure if that sets or not. You've got Mike, Tanti, and Chad Boyette. We're ready. Okay. Well, this is going to be for all the speakers for this, this case. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Thank you. All right. Well, you may proceed if you'd like. Chair, this is Krista Kugro with the city attorney's office. We also need to get verbal consent of the participants to the remote meeting format. I wrote that on the agenda here. I forgot to do that. So do the applicant, does the applicant consent to this remote meeting? Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Well, you please continue or start. Thank you. Oh, go ahead, Eliza. This is going to reiterate earlier for Chad and Jarvis. I didn't know if they were in earlier, but for control of the screen, they'll be staffed. So if you have any specific pieces of information you want to pull up from the attachment submitted, please just direct to me and I'll be sure to pull those up. Chair, this is Krista Kugro, city attorney's office. I believe Mr. Ghosh was not on the call when you administered the oath, and I'm not sure about the consent. So if we could just make sure that that was done. Thank you. All right. Mr. Ghosh, do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes, I do. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Rogers and members of the Board of Adjustment. I am Neil Ghosh, an attorney at the Morning Star Law Group at 112 West Main Street in Durham. I am representing the owners of the property located at 1052 Andrew Shuffle Road. And we will present evidence in support of the application for a parking reduction. The permit relates only to the parking reduction, not the proposed use itself, which is generally permitted at this location. So the evidence will be focused upon the impact of the reduction, and not the more general aspects of the use. As staff mentioned, we are requesting a parking reduction of around 20%. We believe the requested permit is warranted for the reasons which will be shown by the evidence that we will present to you today. And at this time, I would ask that all materials referred to or used by the witnesses, including the staff report, and all of its exhibits be entered into the record, and that judicial notice be taken with regard to the contents of the UDO, the comprehensive plan, and other adopted plans of the city and county of Durham. So noted. Thank you. In addition to those, we have some exhibits which we submitted to staff earlier. They are the reports of our expert witnesses. One is from Mr. Jarvis Martin, who we are tendering as an expert witness in the field of real estate appraisal. He is a certified real estate appraiser with Stuart Martin McCoy. And the other report is a parking study, which was done by Mr. Earl Llewellyn at Kimley Horn and Associates, and he is a traffic engineer. I just wanted to make sure that those things would be entered into evidence and that those two witnesses would be accepted as expert witnesses capable of giving opinion testimony consistent with the requirement laid out in General Statute 160A 393K. All right. You can proceed, yes. Okay. So for me, the easiest way to describe the location is that it is behind the Harris Teeter at the corner of T.W. Alexander and Highway 70. The property is very much part of Brighter Creek. There will be direct vehicular access to the Harris Teeter Shopping Center from the site. The development plan for this area included this use. It was approved in 2012, which I believe Eliza mentioned earlier. We're excited to see this section of the project finally being built out and we're requesting your approval of a minor special use permit for a parking reduction for that purpose. Our first witness will be Mr. Earl Llewellyn. Good morning, everyone. I am Earl Llewellyn, traffic engineer with Kimley Horn and Associates at 300 Moore Street in Durham. I routinely conduct traffic impact and park analyses like these as well as overseeing roadway designs, traffic signal designs and the like. I graduated from NC State with a BS in civil engineering. I'm a registered professional engineer in North Carolina and have worked in the traffic engineering field for over 30 years. As Neil said, I conducted the parking study for the project which uses current industry standards, parking methodologies, etc. And that study has been entered into the record by Neil. My report assumes the development will consist of 298 mid-rise apartment units. That's basically between three and ten stories, as well as a clubhouse of 7268 square feet. Since completion of the study, the clubhouse has reduced to 6218 square feet. So based on that site plan, the UDO would require 658 parking spaces. The applicant is providing 527, which is approximately a 20% reduction. Based on information provided by the applicant, my report examines parking demand using two independent variables. Those are one, the number of units and number two, the total number of bedrooms proposed. Mr. Luellen, I apologize. Would you mind turning your camera on, please? Given my setup, that's a little difficult, but I will try if you bear with me. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Sorry about that. So the clubhouse and amenity area are not variables that ITE relate to maximum parking demand. If you think about it, the maximum parking demand for apartments occurs overnight when the amenity areas are not in use. So while that data is very likely included, amenity areas such as clubhouses and pools are included in a lot of the ITE data, those really aren't independent variables used to calculate the maximum parking demand. Using those ITE rates, the parking generation manual specifically, the following rates are expected for this type of land use in this location. It's 1.42 spaces per unit or 0.84 spaces per bedroom. The requested parking reduction will provide a rate of 1.77 spaces per unit, which is again about 25% higher than the ITE rates, or 1.18 parking space per bedroom, which is 40% higher than the ITE rates. Therefore, it's my professional opinion that the proposed parking reduction will adequately accommodate the expected parking demand. And I'm happy to address any questions you might have. Any questions for Mr. Llewellyn? I can't see any raised hands, so if there are. Regina has raised her hand. Mr. Lacey. Yes, in practice, you'll have what happens about visitor spaces. I mean, if you're getting one to have 1.7 spaces per unit, what happens when somebody has a visitor? Will there be sufficient, you said mostly overnight. I'm assuming that some people will have overnight visitors and where are they going to park? The overnight visitors are included in these studies. So overnight visitors are included in this 1.42 parking demand rate. Delacey, can you speak to that, how it's worked in the past in your professional opinion, with regard to parking pressure? With regard to parking, what? I couldn't. I just call it parking pressure. Anybody who's been a day hop in a college knows that at certain times of day, there's just no place to park. And big date being the highest point of what I had referred to as parking pressure. Yeah, we refer to it as parking demand. And what the ITE data is, is a collection of studies across the United States that look at apartment complexes like this in similar areas, which in this case is suburban, urban that does not have access to light rail. And based on all of these studies, it basically goes out and looks at the parking demand of each facility and determines when the maximum rates of those occur for a variety of uses, not just departments, but across the land development spectrum or land use spectrum. And those highest maximum demands are what they record. So they're recording the data of parking being used at its peak. Those are the rates that are reported by ITE. Does that answer your question? Lacey, yes, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Luella? Thank you, sir. Thank you all. Thank you, Earl. And our next witness will be Mr. Jarvis Martin. Good morning, Mr. Rogers and members of the Board of Adjustment. My name is Jarvis Martin. I'm a state certified general appraiser. I have two degrees from North Carolina Central University in business. And I've been in the real estate business here in Durham for over 40 years. I'll be glad to answer any other question that you may have about my qualifications or resume. My firm was requested by the applicant to look at this property to see if we could gauge if there would be any adverse impact on this parking reduction of the surrounding or nearby properties. Since this, excuse me, development would be adjacent to an existing shopping center, what we did was to look at three apartment complexes that had been approved with reduced parking that was in close proximity to commercial facilities, as well as look at shopping center facilities that have not been impacted by apartments with reduced parking requirements. With commercial property, the best way to gauge value is by looking at the rental rates and vacancy. In the three shopping centers that we looked at that were not impacted by close by apartments with reduced parking, we determined that the rental rate for their space ranged from $25 up to $36.50 per square foot. When we looked at centers that were in close proximity to the three developments that did have some reduction in parking, the rental rates in those centers also ranged from $25 up to $32 per square foot. And the vacancy rates in all these centers at the time of the study was in excess of 95 percent, which is considered full capacity in the market. It is generally known, again, that if you're going to have reduced parking in a apartment complex and having it in close proximity to places where people could walk and shop, that would be an asset for those surrounding properties. So based upon the rental rates and the fact that we could gauge no factual impact, it is our opinion that the reduction in this parking, these parking spaces will not have any adverse impact on adjacent or nearby properties. And that my study concludes and backs up what is said in the traffic study, and therefore we recommend approval of the minor special use permit. And I'm available any questions. Any questions for Mr. Martin? I have a question. What is the relevance of the price per square foot for the commercial space in this exercise? Well, the replete would be that we looked, again, I looked at the price per square foot at the shopping center there in Bride Creek and compared it to the market since this department is not there. And this is within the range of the 25 to $32 a square foot. And then looking at the square foot rate of commercial spaces that was in close proximity to units, to developments that had a reduction in parking for the development, and those that were not impacted by such further weight to see the correlation if there was any reduction in demand for those units that was close to the complexes that had the reduction in parking. And what this study says is that they're all within the same range and their vacancy rates were pretty much the same. So therefore, I see no adverse impact from this development being constructed with reduced parking on the commercial center there at Bride Creek or any other surrounding properties. Thanks. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? If it's okay, could I ask a direct question to my own witness, Mr. Martin? Sure. Mr. Martin, just to clarify, I just want to make sure in your study, the commercial rental rate is used as a proxy to determine the value and the impact to value that an apartment complex might have based on a parking reduction. Is that right? That is correct. That was my question. I'll leave it back to you, Chair Rogers. Thank you. Any other questions? Looks like Regina, do you have a question? You're muted. My question, the 25 to 32 dollars a square foot, is that per year or are you referring to a different value? That is the rental rate that the tenants are paying to the landlord to rent these spaces. And again, that rate varies depending upon the size of the space. Typically, larger spaces justify a smaller rent and smaller spaces typically on the high end. So that is the rental rate that they are getting for those spaces within those centers. My question, Delacy, my question is, is the rental rate per month or per year? That is an annual square foot rental rate that's calculated per square foot and then paid on a monthly basis. Thank you. Any other questions? Meadows has his hand raised, Chair Rogers. Mr. Meadows. Thank you, sir. I have a question for Mr. Goche. I assume that the balance of this property is in Raleigh. Do you have approval from Raleigh? Was any special use permit or other waiver or reduction necessary from the city for the parking that you're proposing? And if so, have they approved that? The balance of this property actually is in Durham. It's also in Wake County, which is odd, but ultimately the planning jurisdiction, in this case, falls to the city of Durham. So we are not required to get any additional approval from the city of Raleigh. Thank you. Any other questions for this particular witness, Mr. Martin? Mr. Goche, you want to for you to continue? Yes, thank you. This is Neil Goche for the record again speaking on behalf of the applicant. And you've just heard expert testimony from Mr. Earl Wellen and Mr. Jarvis Martin about the parking reduction. There are other factors which the board must consider before granting a special use permit, but this particular permit does not implicate many of those factors. As outlined in the staff report, the parking reduction does not have any bearing upon circulation, service interests, lighting, signs, utilities, open spaces, environmental protection, or screening, buffering and landscaping. As Mr. Bluellen explained, the proposed reduction is compatible and in harmony with the approved development plan rezoning for the area. The parking reduction will provide adequate parking for the expected demand and will not adversely affect public health and safety. Finally, as Mr. Martin explained, the proposed reduction will not substantially be injurious to the value of properties in the general vicinity. All of the competent substantial material evidence in the record shows that the applicant has met all of the requirements of the UDO for your approval of the requested minor special use permit for the parking reduction. And therefore, we respectfully request your approval. We'll be glad to address any questions that you may have. Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant? Staff does not have a question, but just wanted to, for the record, if all the applicants could potentially just speak their name, usually we ask people to introduce themselves with where they speak just one more time so we have an adequate record. Dr. Martin. Earl Bluellen with Kim Lehorn. Mike, it's Mike Tanti and Chad Boyette with Applicant. We just wanted to clarify, which I think now clarified earlier, the site plan for this private community is within the Durham jurisdiction, even though part of the property is in Durham County and part of the property is in Wake County. And this is Neil Gauch, the attorney for the applicant. Thanks y'all so much for chiming in. Just want to make sure we get this right the first time around. Any questions for the applicant or any witness? Just for the sake, just in case we didn't miss or we missed this, anybody on the call opposed to this? Who wishes to? Alrighty. We will close the public hearing. Any discussion among the board members on this particular case? All right. Well, would staff like to give a recommendation? Staff recommends the approval of case B190032 such that the approval shall be substantially consistent with the site plan case D190031 and all information submitted to the board as appropriate application. All right. Does anyone want to make a motion? Meadows, I'll make a motion. I hereby make a motion that application number B190032, an application for a minor special use permit on property located at 1052 Andrews Chapel Road, has successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the site plan case D190031 and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We have a motion. Is there a second? Lacey, second. All right. Madam Clerk, will you call the board members? Ms. Burnham? Yes. Mr. Lacey? Yes. Mr. Kip? I believe Mr. Kip's muted. I did say yes. I'm sorry. This was muted. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Meadows? Yes. Mr. Rogers? Yes. Mr. Retchlis? Yes. And Ms. Wymore? Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. By vote of seven to zero, your minor special use permit has been granted. You'll receive a formal order from planning shortly. Thank you for coming before the Board of Adjustment. Thank you. Have a good day. You too. Madam Clerk, would you like to call the next case? Case B20000001, a request for a variance from the sidewalk requirements. The subject site is located at 510 East Pettigrew Street, is zoned Downtown Design Corps, and is in the Downtown Tier. And this case has been advertised for the required period of time, and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. The affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. Thank you. Would the staff like to take over? Eliza, you have this one? Yes, I do. And I am beginning to share my screen now. Good morning, everybody. Eliza Munro once again with the planning department. Plenty staff requests that the staff report on all materials submitted at the public hearing be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. As noted. Thank you. Case B200001 is a request for a variance from the sidewalk requirements of the Downtown Design Corps Zoning District. The applicant is Client Design Associates. The subject site is located at 510 East Pettigrew Street. The case area is highlighted on the screen in red. This site, as I mentioned before, is in the Downtown Tier, zoned DDC, and is within the City of Durham's jurisdiction. The site is currently vacant. Per UDO section 16.4.2a.1, within this DDC zoning district, sidewalk shall be provided from the building phase to the back of curve. For this site and the approved location of the building, that will result in the sidewalk lifts within the range of 27 to 34 feet wide along the wooden exchange lane and a roughly 40 foot sidewalk along East Pettigrew Street. The site is currently vacant, as I mentioned before, but a site plan was approved in October of 2019, case D1900079, to permit the construction of the apartment here. The site, the applicant is requesting a variance from section 16.4.2a.1 of the UDO to instead permit a 12 feet sidewalk around the site at the back of curve to contribute to a visual environment downtown. Additional landscaping would be provided between the building and the sidewalk. In UDO section 3.14.8 establishes four findings that the applicant must make in order for the Board to grant a variance. These findings require approval and are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings are identified in the application, which are both within the packet that you all received. Staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process. On the screen here, we do have a couple of different maps, which were also a part of the packet, and I'll be flipping through them as I was doing before with the previous case. So the first screen here is the context map. This is what is required by the current unified development ordinance. So as I mentioned before, the 27 foot sidewalk along the wooden exchange lane and the 34 foot sidewalk here, and then a 40 foot, roughly 40 foot sidewalk on the east pedigree side of the site. The very last slide is kind of a concept plan in which the applicant is proposing to have instead, which would require a variance to allow for a 12 foot sidewalk. So that is all I have at the moment if there's no questions from the Board. Any questions for staff before we continue? All right. Thank you, Eliza. Would the, of course, I can't see how many people we've got, but it looks like Mr. Buff. Is there anyone else to speak for this? Any other witnesses? It might just be Mr. Buff. All right. I'll, uh, we need to administer the oath for you. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. And do you consent to using this remote platform? I did. Thank you. Please tell us about this project. All right. I'm Elliott Buff. I'm representing, uh, I'm representing the client. Um, I work with Kalan Design in Raleigh, where an architecture, landscape architecture, interior design firm, and I'm a landscape architect with 13 years of registered experience. And I've been with Kalan Design for 16 years. And this is 510 East Pettigrew Apartments. And I appreciate Eliza for kind of going over the initial, um, packet that we, the exhibits we've already put together. I think, um, the context map showing just the existing conditions and the two mats showing what is the code condition and then what is our proposed condition. Um, we are requesting a variance for sections, um, of the project that are running two streets with unique conditions. We have a wooden exchange lane and we have East Pettigrew Street. Um, due to the orientation of wooden exchange lane, it's a very exist, it's an existing street with a curvilinear design. And East Pettigrew Street due to, um, several different factors of an existing right-of-way reservation and a right-of-way dedication, um, results in a very large frontage along East Pettigrew Street. And the curvilinear nature of a wooden exchange lane results in a very, um, uh, open area between the curved street and the building face. Um, the building was approved with the site plan. So we currently have an approved condition, um, meeting the ordinance requirement of having sidewalk running from back of curve to the building face and that showed in the code condition and that has been approved. And we're requesting the variance to allow for additional landscaping and a 12 foot sidewalk lift. Um, within the packet, we've already outlined, um, the cases for all hardship and, uh, I think the exhibits, um, helped clarify the, um, request that we're trying to make here. Do we have any questions for Mr. Buff, the applicant? Meadows has his hand raised, Chair Rodgers. Mr. Meadows. Thank you, sir. Um, Mr. Buff, I noted the, uh, there, there's two differing lines. There's a right of way dedication and a right of way reservation. Um, will all the land area between the East pedigree street paving and the right of way reservation, is that going to go to the city or can you help me understand the distinction between dedication and reservation? It has to do with the, the right of way reservation. Um, let me get oriented. I believe the right of way dedication is, uh, just for future roadway improvements. The right of way reservation is reserved as a part of any future go triangle master plan documents. If, uh, I think there's two levels of improvements that are proposed on East pedigree street and the dedication is for the first level of improvements and ultimately the right of way is that reservation is for the second level of improvements. So if go triangle, uh, follows through with plans that are adopted, then we would see the pedigree street right of way grow to the, um, to the, to the red line marked right of way reservation. That's right. And the project's been approved, designed and approved with that reserve, with that ultimate reservation as the final design. One more question, sir. Where is the front entrance of the building? Um, the, the front interest is really along East pedigree street. Um, Liza, if you could flip to the, um, probably the second exhibit of the proposed condition or even, yeah, even the code condition is fine as well. Um, there is the corner, really the corner of wooden exchange lane and East pedigree is the front corner of the building. And there's a main entry sort of where you see that rectangular planner there near the, um, front corner of the building. That's really the front door. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Um, Mr. Buff, do you, um, would you like all of your written and oral testimony to be part of the, the record? Is that, yeah, I assume normally, yes, I would. An exhibit and it's just something we have to have to put on the record. I appreciate that. Any other questions for miss, for the applicant? Liza, you went, there you go. Hi. This Rex was, uh, Mr. Buff, uh, the, the trees, uh, there's a, are there going to be any planters around these trees or kind of obstructions? Um, is the sidewalk going to be flush so people aren't tripping over that, these areas? The sidewalk, um, is a continuous flush sidewalk and the tree plantings are flush tree grape pavers with, um, bricks on top too. So you have a continuous flush, uh, flush surface there at the sidewalk and that's a Durham approved standard streetscape. Great. Thank you. I've got a question. Now I'm looking at what we've got on the screen now, this light green color between this, it looks like the edge of the building, the dark green and then the trees. What is that light green? Is that just, um, that would be vegetation or, or it is conceptually we're showing shrubs at the base of the building and then long between the shrubs and the sidewalk. Okay. Any other questions? Sorry, Chair Rogers, just wanted to chime in really quickly in relation to, um, Mr. Betul's comment. The, if approved by the board, this, uh, change would have to go through a site plan amendment since it is a previously approved site plan. And at that time, all departments would ensure that the, what is being proposed will be built up to the standards of the UDO and any other codes. Thank you, Eliza. All right. Any other questions before we close the public hearing? All righty. Um, we'll now close the public. Well, first of all, just in case, are there, is there anybody on the line who is against this application? Hearing none, we'll close it. Any discussion among the board members? This is Meadows. I have a question about, um, I assume that the, the city will be maintaining, um, the area that's inside the dedicated right of way, or there's a, uh, um, some sort of, uh, agreement between the city and, and the applicant about, uh, maintenance, um, of the, of the vegetation in the, in the, in the right of way. Wasn't sure about that. Good question. Um, Eliza, do you have an answer or does the applicant have a Um, I do not have an answer at this time because this is not something that has been formally submitted to the city of Durham. Um, in terms of this request to change over for the right of way maintenance, I do believe that is within our general services department. And I'm looking at virtually Jessica and Bo to correct me if I'm wrong within that range. I'm not aware of this time of any partnerships or, um, agreements between us and Go Triangle for the area that is the right of way, um, reservation. This is Jessica Dockrey, planning department. The city does maintain the right of way. Thank you, Jessica. Any other discussion? I kind of like the area with less impervious surfaces, um, such as this, um, something a little more creative. Um, I would think it looks to me. So those are my thoughts. All right. Was anyone having a motion? I believe there was a raised hand by, um, Delacy. I'm sorry, um, Miss Delacy, you may be on mute. You are on mute. Hang on. Okay. Um, I agree with you about, uh, my joy at less, uh, with your joy at less impervious surface, but I was thinking about, um, how the, um, um, how crowded the, the sidewalks are, uh, when it comes down to down the street, uh, toward, uh, uh, the ballpark and how people just, and, and, uh, the, uh, D pack and how people just flood that whole sidewalk. And I was just musing as to whether they would continue to spill out, uh, on sidewalks further away than that, or are people no longer interested in walking that far? That was my only musing. It's not an injection. It's just a thunk, think, thought. I was wondering that, and I don't think I saw this, um, the number of units, uh, in this, in this, uh, Eliza, do you happen to know how many units are in this? Um, I can pull up the exact site plan. Um, Ellie, I might default to you here. The number of units wasn't a part of the variance request, so that information wasn't required. Um, but I can pull up very quickly, so we can get back on mute. And Ellie, if you have the number of units for the original site plan, feel, I thought that you're muted. I wish I did. I don't have that number in front of me. It's okay. And for me, all the number of units blur together anyway. But if Eliza, if you do pull that up, um, just so we can formally acknowledge that. But to acknowledge the sidewalk comment, um, I think our goal was to still provide a, um, 12-foot sidewalk, which is consistent with Durham standards, and is consistent with, um, a very large, clear pedestrian, um, pathway of 12-foot width. And that's 12-foot of paving. With the tree planters, um, along the streetscape edge, along the back of the curb, those are still hard-scape tree planters with brick paving above. So you have a clear pedestrian route throughout that entire streetscape area. All right. Um, any other comments, discussion among the board? All right. Is there, this we're not getting a staff recommendation for this variance. Uh, is there a motion? I'll do it. This is my Roger. Hold on. I believe you're holding for that site plan number. Eliza was still trying to find that. Yes. Um, and unfortunately, the SharePoint file, um, I'm not able to locate the SharePoint file for it. So I do apologize. I'm not able to pull the exact number. Okay. It's again, like you said, it's not part of the, you know, this variance, but I just want just a, a simple question, but I appreciate you looking. Mr. Meadows, I think you were. Thank you. Uh, I hereby make a motion that application number B2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, an application for a request for a variance from the sidewalk requirements on property located at 510 East Pettigrew street has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We have a motion. Is there a second? Rachel a second. Thank you. Um, Madam clerk, will you call the board? Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Miss Burnham. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Redschluss. Yes. Miss Wildmore. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. A vote of seven to zero. Your variance has been approved. Um, you'll get an order from the planning department. Um, shortly, Mr. Buff, thank you for coming. Great. Thank you. Thank you for your time here. Have a good day. Uh, Madam clerk, would you like, would you like to call the next case? Sure. Case B two zero zero zero zero zero three. A request for a variance from the required street and side yard setbacks in order to construct an additional on an addition on a single family dwelling. The subject site is located at 105 Farrantosh Place is zoned residential rule in the Eno River protected watershed protection overlay and in the suburban tier. And this case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified have been notified and notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. Thank you. Um, Eliza, you want to take this one or who had? It's me here. Eliza, we're representing the planning department planning staff request at the staff report on all materials submitted here at the public hearing to be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. So noted. Thank you. Thank you. Case B two zero zero zero zero zero three is a request for a variance from the required street and side yard setbacks in order to construct an addition onto a single family dwelling an existing single family dwelling. The applicants and property owners are Kelly and Camille Drew's. The subject site is located at 105 Farrantosh Place. The case site area is highlighted in red. The site is in the suburban tier zone residential rule, otherwise in this RR located within the Eno River protected area watershed protection overlay district and within the county's jurisdiction. The site area is currently a single family dwelling per UDO, it's per UDO section 6.2.18.1 a 50 foot street in a minimum 12 foot side yard setback are required for a single family dwelling in the RR zoning district. The case area is a corner lot and thus has two street yards, one on Farrantosh Place and one on Fall Kirk Drive. The applicant is requesting a 12 foot variance from the street yard setback along the west side of the parcel in order to bring the existing structure into compliance with the current ordinance. The survey which was attached before within the packet and is on the screen here illustrates that the existing dwelling is 38.6 feet from the property line encroaching into that required street yard. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the required side yard setback and for the addition of a garage which is shown on attachment one. As proposed, the addition would encroach into the required side yard setback and requires a variance from the Board of Adjustments for approval. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes the four findings that the applicant must make in order for the Board to grant a variance. These findings require approval are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to these findings are identified in the application both or within the packet that you all received. Staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process and I will also be able to flip through the different documents here which you should have gotten a copy of but also have here for a did-did view and I do believe someone does have their hand raised. Mr. Meadows. Thank you. Eliza would you show item two on the screen just for a moment please. This is the one that you're referring to. That would be the one. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that that was on the screen for a period of time. Thank you. Thank you and if there are no further questions for staff I will allow Mr. Drew's or Mr. and Mrs. Drew's I'm not sure to speak. Is there any question are there any questions for staff before we continue? All right with the applicant. Yeah I'm Kelly Drews I'm one of the property owners but along with my wife and I'll be representing the two of us for today's meeting as Eliza mentioned essentially we're asking for two variances one. Mr. Drews for one moment I appreciate you coming to the minister of the oath and asking a question. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. All right and do you consent to using this remote platform? I do. Thank you. Please continue. Sorry. So essentially we're asking for two variances one of which is to bring our current structure into conformity it was built in 1977 before any of these guidelines were established and as such we'd like to just make sure it's you know in conformity with the current guidelines and then we'd like to request a variance from the setback requirements in order to build an attached garage. We're hoping to build a garage that's roughly 24 feet wide and would therefore be between four feet and roughly one feet from the property line depending on where on the garage you're measuring. And Mr. Drews do you would you like all of your written and oral testimony to be part of the record? Yep. Any questions for the applicant? Meadows has his hand raised. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Meadows. Thank you sir. Mr. Drews I thank you. I had a question for you about the roof of the proposed structure. If I read the site plans correctly it looked like the wall of the structure was going to be about a foot or so from the lot line. Will the garage have an overhang or do you have you thought about whether or not the the roof portion of the structure might be even closer to the lot line than what's shown in the materials that we've been given? That's a good question. So essentially the overhang of the garage roof is still in we can decide one way or another if we want or not it'll essentially the roof would be a 12 inch overhang if so which would still be within the property lines because we had 1.3 feet to work with so you'd still have within the lines if we had an overhang. We weren't aware that the overhang would be an issue in the sense of the lines themselves as it was in the air if it is and we might just say hey we'll deal with that and overhang on those sides and only include them on the the front and back side if necessary. Good question. That's the one I had I was going to wait. Any other questions for the applicant? Delacy. Mr. Delacy. Mr. Drews have you been in communication about this project with your next door neighbor who's land you a butt on the garage side? Yeah we have actually so that was the first person we talked to we didn't want to create that blood and they offered it back to come and speak here but we were told that they couldn't unless their testimony would just be the sake of you know their opinion it wouldn't make any sort of difference on the the decision so we have talked to them they are for the the garage I think it would add value both to the property and the neighborhood as a whole but again since they weren't appraiser they couldn't state that but yes we have talked to them and they are okay with it. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Drews the where your current or your proposed dry or excuse me garage is is there anything in that space currently? Yeah so we have a concrete driveway in the space it covers I would say probably 60 percent of the proposed area if you look at I don't know if you can see item one yeah so if you look down at the bottom there there's the existing concrete driveway and you can see it sort of gets wider as it enters towards the proposed garage so there are some sections where the driveway is not currently there but I would say at least 60 percent of it is taken up already by a concrete driveway and pervious surface already existing but other than that it's the only sort of open area in our property. Thank you. Any other questions? Wretchless. Mr. Wretches. Mr. Drews that's a huge footprint of a garage are you going to use it for anything else? I notice you have windows and a second story. Yeah so essentially we when we were discussing with the planning department on how to go about this permit we were told it's always better to ask for what you think could happen and if you decide to go smaller that's easier than asking for smaller than wanting more later so what we were initially thinking was a two-story garage but I believe we were going to settle actually on a one story it's only going to be used for a garage and a workshop space we like to do a lot of renovations and such and so we need a place for our tools but nothing else beyond that no business purposes or anything like that so am I to understand you said a single story or yeah so we so essentially when we when we applied for this obviously with coronavirus it was this many months ago and so we weren't we hadn't settled yet on the one versus two story you're still getting quotes and so on we think we're going to end up doing a one story just for financial reasons and it would probably just make it think a lot easier all the way around but at that point we'd already submitted the paperwork and it had been settled so the plan still set have a picture of a two-story garage but we're thinking it'll end up being only on one story and it would end up having just unfinished space of we'd use about half it for the garage car storage and then half it for tools and things like that thank you any other questions for mr. Drew's all righty well this is a very close to public hearing just in case I will ask is there anyone on the call who is against in opposition of this request here in and seeing none um all right any discussion for board members thoughts this is yeah I have a question listen go ahead um it seems like from the exist from the pictures that there's a garage on the left side of the house from the street is that staying in place with the new proposed garage um we don't have a garage on the left side of the house okay sorry it might be telling me with the pictures but there shouldn't be anything on the left side of the house it slopes down toward the street okay I'm I guess I'm confused there's a little box that's the chimney essentially um but that might be what you're saying okay Chad did you have something I as a matter of discussion um I really uh am very concerned about a structure that could be 14 plus feet in height you know a foot or less from from the lot line um I'm just not I feel like there was a way to um I wish that there had been a different configuration that brought the building a little bit closer uh farther from the lot line than it is um and that's I just wanted to share my perspective on it that's all thank you the lazy yeah I have the same concern um the current maver would be fine might be fine with it but when the house goes for a sale having a building that close to the lot line makes me uncomfortable I understand um Eliza I'm in a playing department here I know this is usually an attempted deliberation but I thought I might can provide a little bit more context if that is okay with the chair please do uh from the understandings that we had the meetings with the applicant the reasoning behind the garage being there is because the existing concrete driveway in addition there's also the well towards the back of the lot and some substantially large trees which you can kind of see here in the aerial um so based upon that the location was decided upon there staff would like to note that in the midst of all the other things that were happening um we were not aware that there was a slight change in the design um so we would like to note that the design factor was not um there has been that change that was mentioned by the applicant Mr. Drew's um but the variance request is still for the setback setbacks so I don't know if the height or the setbacks is the concern it's when to chime in to provide that additional context for the location um as well as why you have the certain things here today um Eliza I'm glad you brought that up I was looking at can you uh pan back to the yes that image um and I was looking at this earlier that you know one you've got that septic in the front and then the well in the back you really can't um position it doesn't appear you can get up to position it much uh much differently and just to provide more color on everyone's comments that's essentially what we were um when we had these initial design meetings with the plan department we were saying okay here's our property here's where we're at the open spaces and here's why we think we should put it you know here as opposed to somewhere else um the this well requirements mean that we couldn't put it too much farther back the ordinance that's what I found was a 25 foot from the well the septic being in front sort of locks it in there um and unfortunately the topography of our land means we can't really put it on the the other side who would be even closer to the the street um as for the design change um again I apologize for the potential change here um obviously the circumstances with the coronavirus makes things a little weird but um we are planning on having it um a smaller structure overall due to it being one story I couldn't bring up in the time frame we had but it is that is the goal um and our thinking behind it was that essentially the the variance it's for a setback from the property line the the overall width and length would still be the same regardless of the height and so the overall variance would undoubtedly still require the same hearing which is why we didn't rush to change anything um before the hearing yeah I'm not really concerned about the height as as a um because the footprint would still be the same um and sounds like do you have something Eliza there is a hand raised the first hand that I saw was Brian Waddell and after that Mr Wardell how are you I'm doing fine uh just wanted to remind the board about the review factors and I'm not sure if we really dealt with the cause of the hardship itself uh and whether or not there is a sufficient alternative a smaller footprint something that would impede less on the property line uh that actually could have been done or proposed uh so I just want to we you know just remind the board of those review factors I really haven't heard much about you know what actually precipitated the hardship itself and then someone else had like who was the other person had a comment had her hand raised as well tisha miss weymour uh just really quick I actually have a question for the applicant really I'm sorry that we're already past that point but it just occurred to me um on this proposed garage the the wall facing the neighbor would there be windows on that side of that structure we weren't we weren't anticipating putting any windows on that side just sort of leaving it as a privacy for the neighbor if that requires that change then we can obviously look at the design and put in windows that was not the plan as for the the hardship comments I don't know I'm supposed to be addressing all comments that are being made at the moment but um essentially we were saying that to the topography of the land I'm placing it on the left side both puts it closer to the street yard and makes it harder to slope um and then due to the well in septic it makes it difficult to move it forward or backwards in any direction um and then the fact that there's already a concrete driveway over the vast majority of the space means that it made sense to sort of put a structure over that there's anyone any other thoughts Delacy Mr. Lacey um I was wondering uh if the applicant had considered moving the garage closer to the septic or is there a a distance that has to be maintained between the septic and any construction so we had considered it um according to the code 15a ncac18a.1950 the garage must be um five feet from any foundation so there is there is a limit there we have more than we have 12 feet I believe to work with but um the other issue is that we didn't want the garage to become we wanted the garage to remain subordinate to the primary structure and if you can see bringing it closer to the septic might um would bring it in front of the line of the house currently um which we felt would sort of make it uh the more of a primary structure with the current house being existed like an add-on to it and that was the idea we wanted line across the front Delacy so I see you didn't want to say here's a garage and there's a house attached to it right exactly wanted to have a house for the test garage not garage you go first then there's a house if you want it thank you very good question um you know one of the things I'm thinking about and um you know if this really affected anybody it's that adjacent property owner and I'm sounds like notice has been given to them and the applicant is also talked to them while they're not here to to show their support I guess they're um you know it sounds like they have they they're very well aware of of what this would look like so my concerns about that that lot line our little our ease because of that weather you know we can't determine you know they could sell their house tomorrow or it could be 30 or 40 years from now and and that really has no impact in my mind on own our decision I don't think but because we have to go with what you know current um they aren't here but um and so that's just what I'm thinking about that any any thoughts from anyone else right um does anyone want to make a motion does anybody want to talk about concerns further Mr. Retchless um you know with um with this proposed footprint I just think it should be brought back to the drawing board it seems to just be huge and and uh if he's already um bringing down the height of it um I don't see why he couldn't make it smaller that's not for me to decide so that's just my thoughts on this anyone else um I am also concerned with the size of the structure not necessarily its placement rather its length it's 40 feet deep um the corner uh that is closest to the lot line the one that that gives me the most pause I wonder if a less deep structure might be um easier to accommodate it might still need a variance but perhaps the variance would be less uh than than than the variance necessary uh for this structure um alternatively and it's not my job to design this site but I wonder if there's some way that it might move closer to the existing house again as a means of attempting to minimize that side yard setback uh variance that's necessary uh and by the way I do appreciate them coming in and trying to get the house quote unquote legal uh with respect to the street setback I I I do appreciate that but uh I I'm just I don't feel as though this proposal minimizes the variance request um in ways that could potentially be done and would love to see a a modified design um to to address some of those concerns uh may I say something I'm not sure who said that yeah oh mr kip please do yes um okay so I'm not crazy about the design or the fact that it's just a couple of feet from the side yard but the neighboring house is quite a ways away and that would really be the only person bothered and the applicant said that they're not bothered by it so sure the house may trade later um but the future uh occupant neighbor doesn't have to buy the house if they can't stand the fact that the garage is effectively on their lot line so I know this is in the the rr zoning um it's suburban tier but as an urbanist I don't really have a problem with it so that's just my opinion I have a question am I allowed to provide additional color at this point or are we on the next stage um go ahead sorry so um there's been a lot of discussion about the neighbor and you know their thoughts on it and I'm here to testify that we can we get questions daily about when we're going to start construction because they're very interested in seeing it go up in the sense that they have no problem with it um it is a good point that the neighboring house is um quite a distance away um we actually have a row of trees and sort of pushes in between them existing that wouldn't be disturbed by this garage um and if we also have a fence in the backyard that wouldn't be disturbed by the garage um so we we when we were designing this um we had just moved to the neighborhood and so we didn't want to upset all of our neighbors um but as as mentioned um there's no one else that would be affected and the reason for the design itself in terms of the width of it is that we were going for a two car garage um standard two car garage is only 22 to 24 feet and everything that we've read about designing garages says that if you can get the 24 feet that won't go for it so you don't need your car doors opening them up on the sides if you have stuff there so that was the reason for the 24 foot width of the garage just to get some colors to reasoning behind our decisions thank you you know I gotta I'm going to share my same sentiment as as Ian he actually put it more eloquently than I did um you know this is there is there is no opposition to this case and I you know the people who impacted the most are the obviously the property owner and the adjacent property owner so I I've got to agree with you Ian um I think Mr. Lacey did you have something? Brian Wardell did have his hand raised as well staff just wanted to chime in real quick to know that he did have his hand raised. All right I'm Mr. Lacey and then Brian um you're gonna have a heck of a big shop aren't you uh in there because my garage is about 26 by 26 and I have room for both our cars and a workbench but it seems like you're going to be super craftsman guy with the lint that's my problem was the length of it and then you would explain that you wanted a workshop I just have workshop ending right now yeah um so that that's a good point and that's entirely true that's one of the biggest draws for us it's less um it wasn't originally excuse me the impetus was less to have a garage for cars and more to have a workshop in general um so my wife and I are very crafty or hands-on people we have flipped houses before and we wanted a place for all our tools currently we're using a bedroom that's sort of stuck to the brim with tools and things like that so that was the reason for the length is to say okay we know we're going to want a shop and we know that the shop we have has to be big enough to do all the things we want to do um okay in that case let's see what we can do with the the well setbacks and so on um so that was the reason for the length it's just to have a shop that is big enough for everything we want to do Mr. Wardale yes uh just wanted to remind the board that uh any representation as to you know how the neighbors feel you know whether or not the neighbors are concerned about it uh is really not anything you can consider or have use of as evidence uh because the burden approved is on the app it presents substantial and competent evidence that they've met all the review criteria and if they've done that that's fine uh I think that there are some questions some outstanding questions about whether or not there is a substantial hardship uh that was created by the topography of the land um and whether or not they were present when you when they when they actually bought the property um and so you know the UDL is um you know it's there as sort of an objective standard to protect everyone so it doesn't matter whether or not the neighbors are concerned about it or not their protection is the UDL so uh it's the board's responsibility to just look at the evidence that's been presented um and see whether or not in fact for a variance you know design a use permit this is a variance uh and it requires a you know sort of a super majority for approval so um you know you've got to look at it and you got to you got to look at the review factors and whether or not there are other alternatives that can be done uh to fit this design into the property if there's some alterations that can be made uh very good to remind the board about that very good points uh and and I wasn't taking the applicant's testimony as for someone else into I was actually thinking of their absence uh even in the way of knowing that that this hearing is happening to think of you know assuming that that they are uh must be okay with it um Mr. Drews I don't know if you have your votes um and the second thing you know you're you're welcome to if you want to continue this and then we can hear this again later uh and you can maybe bring your neighbor who has some more evidence to the to the board um I don't think you have your votes today we can we can we can call it but we can um I I do have a question when we were going through the planning process I was told that if there was a if the votes didn't go my way um that we would have some sort of guidelines to come back and say hey if it matched these requirements these we would get the votes um and so that was sort of what we were is that still the case where if the votes didn't come you'd say okay if it fit these requirements then it would are um a circle anyway. Planning department Eliza Monroe here that Kelly um Mr. Drews is still the case um if the votes don't go your way you can come back and resubmit it is um a new application new case um so it would be a new application fee new application with new documents and attachments um and um but the chairs were asking or suggesting as possibly continuing the case in order to get the information um I will say that with the other one coming back through there is no assurance of approval with that one as well it'll be once again you have your burden of proof to ensure that the findings next y and z um the four findings and review factors have been met. Yeah I'm leaning on continuing if that is okay with and that would be I guess a by vote of the of the board um Mr. Drews and you know I don't uh I don't want to ask you know what are your thoughts on continuance? So um I if we have to I would prefer obviously to continue than to reapply with a brand new fee and so on um and I understand that um I can't just found on behalf of the neighbor um uh in terms of meeting the requirements as far as I understood it there was a requirement of um unnecessary hardship from survey trick application part of the issue is that um as I mentioned there's nowhere else really on the property that um this could go due to either having um a well there or a septic there unnecessary excuse me very large trees that would cause danger if we had to follow them for either ourselves or the neighbors um as for the um the hardship being there before we you know it wasn't hard doing well the property was built in 1977 and we haven't changed anything since we've moved in September of 2019 so the conditions haven't changed um as for the the size of the garage possibly the design changing a little a bit um that may be possible however regardless of the design that ultimately happens we would need to have a variance um because of the distance so I understand you know and maybe what would help is is some uh pictures that you take of this property and and where you know I'm trying to think of oh I didn't see but so these are um these are pictures of the surrounding area to show that it was supposed to be in harmony when we originally were planning on doing this it was going to be a um a minor special use permit and then over the course of the application we had already submitted and that we were told we just switched it to a variance and so on um so originally we were trying to show that it wasn't harmony with the neighborhood being um sort of garages next to the house and some of which have breezeways attached like we were planning um so property pictures of it right now I could pull one up I suppose um hang my one but well you know what I was thinking is you know pictures of your property and how the topography I think that that would be something to help um you know is there is there a motion to continue the case or does anybody else have any thoughts any board members the lazy if with that except if the uh applicant approved with the applicant's consent I move to continue this case um until such time uh as the applicant comes back with something that um would be more in keeping with the uh the UDO yeah or more evidence and I would more evidence yes um you know can this be Eliza or Jessica is this something that can be put on next week's agenda uh Brian Wigel is raising his hand so I'm gonna let him kind of chime in with the language of that motion that was introduced because I do think that was a motion introduced so uh Brian right so uh any motion to continue would have to be to a date certain since the hearing has already been opened um the date certain could could be uh the 30th however I would personally feel more comfortable with at least 30 days uh because of notice requirements so forth and so on uh and getting it back on the agenda so I would say that you it would be more appropriate to set it for the the next 30 day hearing so that you know my advice would be if you are going to continue it to continue it to whatever the next schedule 30 day agenda would be uh uh staff uh Bladsman road planning department um the next meeting would be July 21st that one if staff has any um would like to provide any context that one has the 28th or um yes excuse me the 28th um that one has not yet been advertised um the date the meeting after that uh to give more context would be the 4th of Tuesday in August which is August the 25th Mr. Drew's thoughts on continuance um I mean it it sounds like it probably the best option for us moving forward um rather than forcing a vote today um that so um in favor of the continuance uh so as far as to make sure I understand um for the continuing we should come back with more pictures and sort of more evidence that backs up the claims of the hardship as well as possibly um having the neighbor themselves testify um we do have a question on that so our neighbor is a bit elderly and may not have zoom capabilities or the ability to easily understand how to perform zoom does what some sort of written document work or do they have to be sort of in person um it has to be okay it has to be in person okay um and that I personally I think that would be helpful uh just to to see that um um Chair Rogers uh Mr. Wardale has his hand raised I can't yeah sorry Mr. Wardale please right so since since that meeting uh may be virtual they can I think there's an option to uh to phone in I believe uh for a virtual meeting as long as they take the oath um I think that is an option if it's a live meeting then of course they would have to they would have to show up and be present um and I don't think it's clear whether or not it's going to be virtual or it's going to be live so I just wanted to point that out and uh and just a recommendation from Mr. Drew's uh I would I would probably think about options or maybe uh some alternate designs as well but I think staff can probably help you with that uh more more than anyone else all right well we've got a motion to continue this case until July 28th is that right Mr. Lacey you're on mute you're still muted you're muted okay sorry um I withdraw my earlier motion and uh request uh the I move that we continue this case to the date certain of August 25th in order to give the applicant sufficient time to make modifications I know a week is short um a month is might be pushing it okay go ahead I should say if it's I mean if it's just on our benefits have the August date we would actually refer July I mean I feel like we can turn it around in time if it's just a question of better scheduling or the reason it has to be um August for whatever reason on on the the council's end and we understand um but if the only question of pushing it back until August would just be for our benefit I we'd prefer July actually okay then uh I move I withdrawing the second motion uh I move that we continue this case to the date certain of July 28th is there a second I hope yes is there a second right for a second all right um Madam clerk what you call the board Ms. Burnham yes Mr. Lacey yes Mr. Kip yes Mr. Meadows yes Mr. Rogers yes Mr. Redschluss yes Ms. Wymore yes motion carries seven to zero all right um Mr. Drew's we will continue your case and we'll re-hear it or we'll uh again on July 28th appreciate your time this morning thank you Madam clerk will you call the next case B2 0 I'm sorry B2 0 0 0 0 0 5 a request for a variance from the 10th no build setback requirement for the construction of an additional onto an existing single family dwelling the subject site is located at 21 Copper Hill court is zone planning planned development residential is in the falls of the news Jordan Lake protected area in the suburban tier the case has been advertised for the required period of time and the property owners within 600 feet have been notified notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and the letter mailings are on file chair Rogers I I moved to take a break for 10 minutes before we start this case please all right well let's reconvene it's 10 0 8 at 10 18 is everybody okay with that thank you do we need a second for that motion now I think the chair it's at chairs this okay thank you we'll get started again in about uh one minute all right I think everybody is back with us um so Eliza would you like to take it over uh did you want to uh for the applicant Megan and Jason all of us um do the oath sure yeah I was going to do that after your test your presentation but yeah we can do that um so uh I'm looking at trying to go through the screen here so the applicants are Megan don't be daily on the second screen my second screen um and Jason's on the rally so if you'll uh raise your right hand and do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence evidence shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do I do thank you and do you consent to using this remote platform I do I do all righty thank you um okay thanks so much um Eliza Monroe representing the planning department um staff planning staff requests that the staff report and all materials submitted here at the public hearing be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted so noted thank you so much case b200 0005 is a request for a variance from the 10-foot no-build setback requirement for the construction of an addition onto an existing single family dwelling the applicants and property owners are Megan don't be daily and Jason's on the rally the subject site is located at 21 copper hill court the case area is highlighted red on the screen the site is in the suburban tier zoned plan development residential or pdr located within the falls of news Jordan lake protected area watershed protection overlay district and is within the city's jurisdiction on the site is currently an existing single family dwelling the applicant requests of variance from a unified development ordinance section 8.5.9 c which requires that buildings and other features that require grading construction shall be set back at least 10 feet from the edge of a riparian buffer henceforth referred to as the no-build setback to the rear of the law is an intermittent stream as shown on the screen here which requires a 50-foot buffer on either side of the bank per unified union section 8.5.4 b1 an additional 10 feet no-build setback is also required for the stream buffers per union section 8.5.9 c the plan provided by the applicant showing the existing single family home and the proposed addition indicates that the addition will encroach completely within the 10-foot no-build lastly the subject site is located within the falls of news jordan lake protected area watershed protection overlay district and is subject to impervious surface limitations the request does not exceed the impervious surface limits since the property receives a credit for impervious surface constructed prior to 1994 and the request for the addition is less than 24 percent of the maximum impervious surface total allowed for the parcel per union section 8.7.2 b union section 3.14.8 establishes four findings that the applicant must make an order for the board to grant a variance these findings requiring approval identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings are identified in the application both are within your packet staff will be available for any questions throughout the hearing process i would like to start by um megan brought to my attention this morning that there might have been some issues with compressing of the file so i don't know if everyone was able to see the red box that noted where the addition will be located i'm not sure if everyone can see where my mouse is moving on the screen i see some heads nodding yes the addition would stop directly at this line here which is in line with the 10-foot no-build setback which is set back 10 feet from the 50-foot right period buffer and i'm open for any questions any questions for aliza this is chad thank you aliza for clarifying that was going to be my first question was i couldn't tell where on the site the addition was proposed will the uh the imaginary red box that you drew on the screen does that uh go for the entire rear elevation or only a portion of the rear elevation um it will go for the entire relevation i'm going to quickly go to the rear elevation which is one of the very last portions of the pdf um don't want to give anyone a headache so i apologize for going through this specifically um i believe this is the proposed rear elevation and this here is kind of um the um floor floor plan layout for it um so it will go all the way to the entire relevation will be across that 10-foot no-build in the back um side of the property any other questions for aliza i'm trying to monitor raised hand so if i don't see your hand um oh i think there is mr lacy yes aliza are you saying that it's going to go into the no-build setback but not the riparian setback that is correct it will go just to the no-build setback if it was to go into the riparian with the state required um 50-foot riparian buffer the applicant would be required to provide mitigation um so in an effort to stay out of that buffer um they are within encroaching or proposing to encroach within the city mandated and required 10-foot no-build setback but stay completely out of the riparian buffer okay thank you very much i was making the fence for the uh the sides of the bill um i heard someone else speak so um i apologize i didn't see who that was i apologize it was jessica would you please use the annotation tools and show a box roughly where this edition will be on this drawing this i can do i apologize in advance for any crooked lines um they are not to scale sorry it's not looking good so far everybody but aliza it's jessica again you can use a box oh i am learning something every day today i'm gonna undo and delete that because it is not uh i turned this box having a little bit of an issue turning the box once it is drawn um it was not going to picture an area as a child um but this is the gist it will not be in the riparian buffer it will stop in line with the no-build setback um it'll be in addition to not coming onto the deck but along with the what's my left side probably your right side because my screen is mirrored on the screen um onto that back side i apologize once again for the not to scale drawing it gives us an idea um i do i've got a question so we've got i was thinking that there is a state legislation that that addressed this a few years ago i didn't know that municipalities could add to the riparian buffer so there there's a 50 foot and then there's you you've got an an extra 10 feet is that what we're saying within germ that is crack the udl section 859c requires that additional 10 foot in addition to the 50 foot so in some cases it can be 60 or if you have a hundred foot it could be 110 feet okay um all right any other questions for eliza all right uh would the applicants come forward there is a raised hand so sorry i'm just checking off chair rogers uh jessica dockery has her hand raised adjusted chair rogers to clarify it is not in addition to the buffer there are some restrictions to what type of construction or grading can take place in that 10 foot but it is not as restrictive as the buffer the buffer itself that is state regulated yeah okay thank you you're welcome a clarification all right um the applicants thank you good morning my name is meg and done fee daily and i'm present with my husband jason summarily um as eliza mentioned we live at 21 copper hill court within the city limits of germ we're a growing family when we first moved here we were a family of three um our oldest daughter now is four and a half and our second child is two and i'm pregnant with our third due in august um we love our house and our neighborhood but we're filling out our house quickly that's the need for an addition so we want to build a second floor bedroom and bathroom um off to the rear of our existing home as eliza drew for us um the addition we proposed is at the back of our house and the need for the variance is due to the uniqueness of our property and the 10 foot no build set back from the edge of the 50 foot state riparian buffer the addition will be a minimal intrusion it will cross into the 10 foot no build but not into the 50 foot riparian buffer as eliza mentioned the buffer exists to protect an intermittent stream at the very back of our property line um this is an intermittent stream with a very deep embankment over 10 feet um it has little or no water flow depending on the season the stream does not flood and it's not listed as being in the flood zone by fema um the hardship created is due to the topography and uniqueness of our lot its size and the location of the house on it in relation to the stream so building on the front of the house we put us too close to the road and there's a steep slope down toward the house meaning that any addition would be below road level to the east and the west there's not enough room to build due to property line setbacks and the copper hill court site plan requirements for distance in between vertical structures um we're both environmental scientists who are faculty at duke and we're very passionate and thoughtful about preserving the environment we're trying to do something that works with the property that we already have at a minimal effect to the natural environment the primary purpose of section 8.5 riparian buffer protection standards is to maintain land adjacent to the surface waters in a vegetated state to maintain water quality and wildlife habitat and mitigate erosion um due to the unique slope and shape of the lot building the addition behind the existing footprint of the house will have the least effect on water flow and drainage additionally we've already been planting native vegetation throughout the property and we plan to continue this before during and after the construction to enhance the existing vegetation of the the buffer and the property thank you for your consideration all right thank you uh are there any questions for the applicants uh wrenches has his hand raised mr wrenches uh yes you're not planning putting a deck off the back of that like you already have off the house are you no we're not going to add any additional structure beyond that um what was shown in the rear elevation um and i just want to point out as eliza mentioned so we will fully encroach the 10 foot no build on one part of it but because the stream is angled we won't fully encroach in the 10 feet on the west end of the addition got you thank you any other questions thoughts mr chairman mr chairman uh is there anyone speaking against it do we know well that's why i was just about to thank you for saying that uh just uh just to make sure our is anybody on the call who is uh opposing this application anybody on the call who wishes to speak in favor of this output application other than the applicant i can't really see um jessica dockery has her hand raised mr dockery mr rogers just to clarify we have no registered opposition for any of these cases today okay if you want to save a step thank you all ready um this is a variance we're not getting a recommendation from staff does anybody want to make a motion or are there any further thoughts or discussion meadows i'll make a motion please do i hereby make a motion that application number oh boy b2 000 0005 an application for a request for a variance from the required 10 foot no build setback on property located at 21 copper hill court has successfully met the applicable requirements of unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application we have a motion is there a second wretch was second all right we have a second mr wretch was uh susan would you call the board mr kibb yes mr meadows yes mr lacy yes mr wretch was yes miss bernum yes mr rogers yes miss wymore yes motion carries seven to zero by a vote of seven to zero your variance has been uh approved um thank you come in before the board of adjustment this morning thank you for your time ma'am clark would you call the next case case b2 000 0007 a request for a variance from the street yard setback requirement for the addition of a coverage onto an existing legal non-conforming single family dwelling the site is located at 49 15 mont velle drive is zoned residential rule and in the rule tier and this case has been advertised for the required period of time property owners within 600 feet have been notified and notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter bellings are on file all right uh well we can go ahead and minister the oath is the applicant with us do we have video yes all right uh and let's go ahead and go and minister the oath do you firmly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do and do you consent to um using this remote platform for this i do and i would you like to take over uh staff wants to interject really quickly can you all hear me yes um yes uh there is someone that it's also signed up to speak here so i will need um mr gully i do believe you're in here um you'll also need to um unmute yourself and do the same thing that miss monday just did all right i'm mr gully uh do you strongly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes mr chairman i do and and uh do you also consent to using this remote platform for this meeting i do all right event Eliza i'll turn it over to you thank you so much elizabeth here with playing department once again um planning staff requests that the staff report and all materials submitted the public hearing to be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted so noted thank you chair bonkers so case b-2-0-0-0-0-0-7 is a request for a variance from the street yard setback requirement for the addition of a covered porch covered porch onto an existing legal non-conforming single family dwelling the applicant and property owner is martha monday the subject site is located at 4915 motfield dry the case area is highlighted red the site is in the rural tier zoned residential rural or rr and within the county's jurisdiction i will clarify that the reason there is a white piece along the side here is where we're no longer in derm county so the zoning district is not registered there um the site area is currently a single family dwelling per udo section 6.2.1a.1 the required street yard setback for a single family detached house in the residential rural zoning district is 50 feet the applicant is requesting a 15 foot variance from the required 50 foot street yard requirement in order to construct a front porch that will wrap around the front facade of the house the existing single family dwelling is considered a legal non-conforming structure as it is encroaching six feet into the required street yard also the law is less than half an acre in size and the minimum lot size for the rr zoning district is two acres per udo section 6.2.1a.1 which would deem this site then of legal non-conforming structure it was in existence prior to the development of the unified development ordinance poor udo section 614.4.1 no enlargements or reconstructions shall create new non-conformities or encroachments without the approval of a variance hence while we're here today and that's required in udo section 3.14. Udo section 3.14 also establishes the four findings that the applicant must bank in order for the board to grant a variance these findings require approval identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings are identified in the application both which are within your packets staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process and I will quickly scroll through a little bit I have had this up so you all can kind of see the proposed covered porch area in relation to the existing structure and there are also some other attachments including some elevations to show what the porch would look like the existing main floor with the new covered porch and utility room as well as a photo of the current existing porch as well as a distance from the street with that so just wanted to quickly go through we can go back to them as the board or the applicant or Mr. Gully request thank you Eliza are there any questions for Eliza from the board all righty do you any hands raised all right uh would the applicant come forward yes um I we I started talking about this about a year ago wanting to do a front porch across the front of the property and as well at the same time to move my current laundry room which would be in the the addition on the side between the house and the garage with the possibility of moving a full downstairs bathroom downstairs just trying to do what I might be able to do to stay in the property as long as possible I moved into the property in 1992 with my ex husband and children uh the I was surprised I was so when I the the in our neighborhood we know we have an architectural review committee so once I had these plans drawn submitted those and got approval and then the contractor submitted the plan to the county and of course we got the bad surprise um as uh Ms. Monroe mentioned it's we don't I'm not close to a two-acre lot if anything I'm probably one of the lot sizes it's this one of the smaller ones in the neighborhood because I'm right off curly road uh there's really no way to to build out I think that the a covered uh front porch uh would not put me right on top of the street I think there still would be playing that's a visual judgment I um I don't have landscape architects to testify on my behalf um but um I think that it's consistent with the neighborhood all of the comments that I've heard from other neighbors have been positive so it's my hope that I'll be able to sit on this lovely front porch um and use my new mud room uh soon thank you and we have Mr. Gully do it I believe Mr. Gully um is either here as a proponent or an appellant um so I don't know if this would be that time if you want okay well then we'll wait I don't mind and um any questions for the applicant from board members all right well Mr. Gully sorry there's a hand raised miss why more does have her hand raised sorry sorry I didn't do the official uh real quick is the garage the detached garage is that in existence now or yes I wasn't clear okay and will that that will not be connected to this mud room it's separate completely already it's it's separate right right now the garage is not I'm sorry is not in the same orientation it's canted a little bit and but there is a covered pathway a covered walkway between the garage and the house as is current exists currently exists I think that there will still be a covered walkway from the door exit from the garage to the house onto the porch um but that that hasn't been drawn where uh you might be able to see it on that landscape plan where you can see the orientation of the garage which one do you need me to pull up Martha sorry the one that's the the landscape architect drawing from a long long time ago because it shows that's it there you can see the the garage I'm sitting here moving my mouse like I have control but yes there is there's a a walkway between the garage and the house it is covered and is attached that the walkways attached okay thank you any other questions for for the applicant Mr. Retchless has his hand raised right Mike hi I'm Ms. Mundy um on the porch part of this structure is that going to be just like a raised deck with pylons and a mansard roof kind of over it is that what you're proposing like a deck a wood deck I'm not sure what a mansard roof is that's what you got oh okay thank you yes a mansard roof a new vocabulary for me uh the the plan what I had requested that it would be open and my the contractor said because of the height because it's so close to the ground my lot's pretty flat in the front that it would be possible to do that so more open and an open yes with some with landscaping in front of it got you so that is like a wood deck is what we're talking about as far as your porch yes yes any other questions for the applicant all right well Mr. Gully um would you like to say a few words I'd be glad to Mr. Chairman do you want to swear me in or I did you're good Mr. Gully we're good all right thank you Mr. Chairman members the board it's good to be with you this morning and I appreciate your all's time and attention to this and all the other cases that I've listened to this morning I I had the joy of serving on the board for a couple of years back last century and it's good to be with you this morning I have been a resident of the Montvale neighborhoods since 1993 along with my wife and and kids and I've served as chairman of the architectural committee for pretty much that whole time it's a committee required under our restrictive covenants Montvale you all may know all this but it's it's a 28 home subdivision with the relatively active homeowners association and so I'm going to share some information not technical evidence for the board to treat technical but still information maybe that would be helpful to the board so I sent out an email a couple of weeks ago to the everyone in the neighborhood I love Martha off but I sent it to everybody else I said I'm planning to appear before the board and just share the fact that my wife and I support her but if there's any objections or any questions or any concerns with people please let me know because I'd like to try and express that as well I received no objections no questions no concerns you all know how your inboxes are flooded these days and so most people I didn't expect to respond at all but 17 of the 28 families wrote me back to say things like we supported 100 we supported it looks very good it looks wonderful totally support so on and I was surprised that folks would take the time to respond like that I think that and you all I know see this a lot but we're feeling like the front porch will encourage interaction in the neighborhood community building a neighborhood building as you all know these days a pandemic we're out walking neighborhood streets a lot more and we everybody that I've talked with and everybody that responded seems to think it would be a greater addition especially valuable during a pandemic so those are my comments Mr. Chairman I'd be happy to respond to any questions if there are any all right well thank you Mr. Goley all right any discussion among the board um Mr. Wardell has his hand raised Mr. Wardell sorry just once again wanted to remind the board that this is a variance request and what the review factors are and that you do need a majority supermajority in order to approve the the variance I'm not sure that well I don't know if there was material competent evidence presented on all the review factors but that's up to the board to decide I'm not sure what the hardship is with the property itself that they caused this problem but I just want to remind the board what the review factors are and to apply the review factors you know it's not it's not really relevant what the neighbors believe what the neighbors think it's just whether or not this is in compliance with the UDO and whether or not there is a substantial hardship to allow a variance to the UDO could I say something uh the uh when I moved into the property there were no regulations saying that would have prohibited this uh and that was in 1992 I think the zoning was changed in the mid was 2005 2006 um that then specified the 50-foot setback the 50-foot street setback is my understanding is a requirement for a two-acre lot my lot is not near two acres um so that the the if there's a hardship that I'm I'm is that the rules got changed on me um that I'm not I'm not doing this because I uh well there's some personal reasons why I want to do this but then I know that that's not part of the UDO either uh but um I would have I would have been allowed to do this if the lots if you know maybe I had maybe I'd already be 50 foot farther back if I did have a two-acre lot but I don't it's not even half an acre that's all sorry thank you it's helpful uh does anybody have any questions or anybody anything to to discuss for discussion on the board about this case scanning the make sure no one's raising their hand but if I miss you please feel free to unmute and speak all right well this is a variance so we are not getting a recommendation by um staff uh if if you have any concerns about this case I'd I'd really like to know what they are all right well is there a motion am I on mute all right meadows I hereby make a motion that application be two zero zero zero zero zero zero seven an application for a request for a variance from the required street street required street yard setback on property located at 4915 Montville Drive has successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application we have a motion is there a second lacy second we have a second um madam clerk will you call the board miss walmore yes mr. redschluss yes mr. rogers yes mr. meadows yes mr. kip yes the lacy yes miss bernham yes motion carries seven to zero by a vote of seven to zero your variance has been approved um you'll get an order from planning department shortly we appreciate you coming for the board of adjustment this morning thank you very much thank you all right we've got one case left well the madam clerk would you like to call it case b2 zero zero zero zero zero nine a request for a minor special use permit to allow for an eight foot tall fence in the street frontage of the subject properties industrial light it's in the falls of the noose jordan lake protected area watershed protected overlay and in the suburban tier this case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet they've been notified notarized do you consent to uh this um remote meeting platform yes thank you uh lisa would you like to take it over it's actually me and mr rogers oh thank you you're welcome um good morning i'm cold renegar representing the plan department uh planning staff requests to the staff board and our material submitted to public hearing to be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections is noted so noted thank you welcome um um oops um case b two zero zero zero zero nine is a minor special use permit for an eight foot um tall zinc coated chain land fence in the 50 foot street frontage of both parcels along junction road the site is located at 250 and 804 junction road and is zoned industrial light and in the suburban tier the applicant is lend Mitchell um representing Horvath associates the case area is highlighted in red the site is in the suburban tier zoned industrial light and it's within the city of derms jurisdiction uh the site area is currently being used as a self storage facility um as you can see right here in this area um a fence greater than four feet in the height located between the structure and the street except as exempt by unified development ordinance section 9.9.1 b requires improved through an ms up by the port of adjustments pursuant to udo section 9.9.1 fences and walls height this minor stressor use permit requests to allow the fence located in the street frontage of the lots to be taller than four feet the applicant is requesting an eight foot uh high chain link fence um ud or 3.9.8 a and b established four findings and 13 review factors that the applicant must meet in order to grant a use permit these findings and review factors are identified in the staff report for the and the applicant's responses to findings and review factors are identified in the application both within your packet staff will be a layover of questions as needed during the hearing process thank you col any questions for col um just and just to start off land if you do need me to reference the site plan let me know i can pull that up for you this this is chad um i'm i'm sorry i'm having a very hard time figuring out where the fence is i think the site already has a fence but some or all of it is coming down there's new fence coming in and i had a very hard time figuring out what's being proposed can you help me call um i'm gonna let lin discuss that um i'll pull up the site plan so she can point it out um here it is uh lin is there a certain page you'd like me to go to to show this or zoom in or she i think she has to be moved to panelists or she's muted at the moment thank you sorry for that trying to unmute um if you can pull up uh the first sheet of the site plan 201 c 201 and goat sorry oops i have to move my panel quick sorry site plan west i'm trying to it's just i understand it's taking a while would before we get a little bit too much further um lin mrs menschel sorry elizabeth staff we would need to swear you in before you start providing testimony she she's already been sworn in but i was going to ask her if if all of her written in oral testimony she would like it to be part of the record yes please thank you this is the correct sheet plan 201 actually that's the landscape escape plan um i think it would show a little better on the site site plan which is further up this one 101 101 there you go yeah this is yes okay okay all right so there is an existing fence that extends from the i wish i could use a mouse from the um upper corner of the site down across the frontage it turn turn turn it's down it follows the edge of that exactly and continues on across an existing driveway then turns and goes if if this were the existing conditions it would terminate there and go back toward the back of the property this site plan is expanding um the self storage into a vacant lot down on the bottom far left so what we will be doing is removing a portion of the fence that currently crosses the middle driveway and the fence that goes back toward the back of the property and we will connect well if you could point just to the right of the the proposed driveway the other right just above it anyway the the fence will will connect to the existing fence before it reaches the driveway um and will run perpendicular to that fence down to a new gate that is down a little past mid building right so effectively we are moving um the gate from not an ideal there there wasn't stacking for it there's you have to wait for a gate access we're moving it further into the property and making a public space making it accessible to the public to reach the the office there and parking I noticed that uh mr. Meadows has his hand raised that was my question was um what you're trying to help me through right now which is where what exactly is being proposed it's kind of difficult to see how the fence the the fence that is the subject of the variance you know what's going on and I understand you're trying to answer that so thank you that was why my hand was raised certainly I think um perhaps to clarify the the portion of the fence that's in question um the existing fence is an eight in excuse me an eight foot zinc coated chain link fence and we will be connecting with an eight foot zinc coated fence and running it perpendicular to the right of way for uh it's about 30 feet until we we get back into into our yard into the site but we are improving um the traffic situation and um and access to the site while still providing some security for our our client any other questions for staff for Cole all righty um well um Lynn I'm going to turn it over to you and you could tell us what's happening more thank you you've got anything else thank you um as we've already said my name is Lynn Mitchell I'm with Horvath Associates at 16 consultant place in Durham I'm a registered landscape architect in the state of North Carolina my license number is 2031 um thank you to the staff for helping us um for your assistance in coordination and preparing our petition and Cole you did a great job of uh presenting our request um and I thank you um for the clarifying questions um so I'd like to only highlight a few specific items um this project is located on Junction Road south of Cheek Road uh the site plan and associated special use permit application are for the expansion of the existing self storage center the request in front of you today is for an eight foot tall zinc coated chain link fence to be located in the 50 foot uh street frontage associated with the site plan and as I said that will be running perpendicular to the right of way um if you visited the site prior to this meeting uh you likely noticed as we said the existing eight foot tall fence on the property running parallel to Junction Road um I realize we've said this um previously but it I think it helps to explain it again the proposed fence will be uh an extension of a portion of the existing fence and will be used for security while the site design and placement of the proposed fence allows better access onto and from Junction Road. Our site plan is improving access to and from Junction Road by relocating the existing gate at the central driveway further into the site and to allow both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to enter the site with not not without needing access through a gate as it exists today. The proposed gates will be siren activated to allow emergency vehicles immediate access to the facility in case of an emergency since the proposed fence will not be any closer to the right of way than the existing fence and the majority of the parcels along the portion of Junction Road are industrial in nature the expansion of the existing fence will not be injurious to the value of properties in the general vicinity. The proposed expansion of the fence will not adversely affect the health or safety of the public. The proposed fence height will have no impact on the site's lighting utilities open space or environmental protection of stream buffers and tree coverage areas. The proposed site plan illustrates project boundary buffers to help screen the new construction from adjacent parcels. The eight foot fence will have minimal impact on surrounding properties and is compatible with the surrounding industrial zone properties and that is in summary. I appreciate your time this morning and I ask that you vote in favor of the expansion of this eight foot tall chain link fence for security of the cell storage center while creating better vehicular and pedestrian flow in and out of the proposed development. I'm available for any questions. Any questions for the applicant? I've got one Cole you're going to have to help me with the hand raises I can't see them but um or whoever is monitoring those um how and you may have said this but I'm I'm I'm going to chat a little bit I'm having a hard time kind of following it um but how much of the frontage or how long what is the how many feet will is this fence are you looking at for the frontage you know for the the purpose of your variance that's a question for me so yeah so I'm with Horvath um I did a terrible job asking it but sorry sorry I thought you might have been asking Cole um currently existing on the side on the frontage there's a 286 linear footage including the uh two gates um 77 feet of that will be removed and then effectively push further into the site and with a perpendicular and and actually we're moving it back 166 feet in which um and so it'll be 286 of feet of eight foot tall fence is that weird that's what's existing now we're take we'll be taking 77 of that away um and turning it perpendicular right yeah it's going inside yes and okay any questions for the applicant any other ones hi uh mike retchels here um miss mitchell is there any constantine razor wire anything like that going on this new fence no sir thank you any other questions thoughts all right um is there well I guess we can ask for the staff's recommendation um before that uh we just would like to recognize is Reggie Oakley an se he's there does he have anything to speak to for this case before we move on did not see that hi this is Reggie Oakley are you able to hear me yes great um my name is Reggie Oakley I'm a licensed uh commercial real estate broker I work for a real estate associate sorry to interject I don't believe he's been sworn in um so I probably want to do that first all right um mr Oakley do you solemnly swear or affirm hold on do we have um I don't have a video of him there we go uh mr Oakley do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do and um just one more thing I think you have to do you consent to this electronic platform yeah all righty um you may continue now did did you have something mr Oakley to say pretty bad Reggie is probably messing up and work and land and development um I work for real estate associates 33 33 mr Oakley can you hear me now sir well the first 10 seconds or so nothing to add sir all right um okay um all right any any discussion questions from board members the lacy mr lacy I believe mr Oakley said something about being um uh real estate enterprises that did he have testimony on that sounded like he was a real estate broker he said commercial real estate broker he he's here in the support capacity um with no prepared remarks but is available for questions from the board all righty any other thoughts questions from board members for for the applicant um is there any discussion all right Cole would you like to give a staff recommendation yeah a staff recommends approval of case b two zero zero zero zero nine so as long as the permit shall be substantially consistent with the site plan d 19 zero zero two five nine and all information submitted to the board is part of the application all right well just I'm gonna ask one more time is there any any discussion any thoughts from board members before we ask for a motion all right is there a motion it's me chad thank you I hereby make a motion that application number b two zero zero zero zero zero zero nine an application for a minor special use permit on property located at 750 and 804 junction road has successfully met the applicable requirements and unified development ordinance and it's hereby granted subject to the following conditions the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the site plan case d 19 zero zero two five nine and all information submitted to the board as part of the application thank you mr meadows is there a second for a second take it Chris Chris has got the second one second yeah so wretch let's have the second uh miss bernum bernum thanks okay roll call mr meadows yes mr bernum yes mr kip yes mr lacy yes mr rogers yes miss wymore yes mr retchless yes motion carries seven to zero my vote is zero your minor special use permit has been approved we wish you the best of luck and thank you for coming to the BOA thank you very much all right well that ends I believe we don't have any more cases do we have any old business all right any new business all right uh is there we our next scheduled meeting is a week from today june 30th and 8 30 same time we've got a I think the agendas are even sent out to everybody hope you've had a chance to over to look over that will be another virtual meeting mr rogers before you end the meeting we do need to vote on orders okay um Jessica I was just looking at the agenda I don't actually see that on the agenda it's not so um lacy I recommend we um I moved that we uh add uh orders to the agenda I know this is late but uh it's better than never can we make that motion to amend the agenda to allow for the approval of orders and I feel comfortable with that Brian do you what are your thoughts well I think it's a little bit problematic uh given the um you know the way we typically approve orders I don't know if we have draft orders in front of the board they do have the draft orders everyone should have a copy of the draft orders okay well if they have copies of the draft order uh I think it's fine it's you just do it under new business not problem all right um all right because she had this motion on do we need to get a second you don't need you don't need a motion you don't need a motion okay nothing all righty well then we'll add those uh I don't I would draw that motion then all right um well I'm guessing we're going to go back to b190032 to approve that order we need a motion and a second for each one of these in a vote from the individuals that voted upon it just all of these were voted seven to zero and Susan will have to call after the motion second has been made okay meadows move approval on the order for case oh my goodness b190032 is there a second lacy um roll call yes miss bernum yes mr. davis he's not here i'm sorry mr lacy yes mr kip yes yes mr meadows yes mr rogers yes mr retchless yes miss wilmore yes let me carry seven to zero all right uh we need a uh motion for b one two zero zero zero zero zero one is there a motion it's lacy all right is there a second to approve that retchless all right Susan go ahead miss walmore yeah mr retchless yes mr rogers yes mr meadows yes mr kip yes mr lacy yes miss bernum yes motion carries seven to zero all right i need a motion for b two zero zero zero zero zero five bernum thank you is there a second that does has it all right uh uh Susan mr kip yes mr lacy yes mr meadows yes miss wilmore yes miss bernum yes mr rogers yes mr retchless yes no she carries seven to zero we're getting through this two more b two zero zero zero zero zero seven is there a motion bernum bernum who's our second one one more it is all right Susan miss bernum yeah yeah mr lacy yes mr kip yes mr meadows yes mr rogers yes mr retchless yes miss wilmore yes motion carries seven to zero one more b two zero zero zero zero zero zero nine lacy bingo yeah who's got the second bernum bernum all right Susan mr rogers yes mr retchless yes miss walmore yes mr meadows yes mr lacy yes mr bernum yes yes motion carries seven to zero and Eliza Monroe playing department we skipped one b two zero zero zero zero three we three was continued that got continued i think we missed five we did five we did five okay and uh six was withdrawn because it's gone threes have continued we don't need to do anything yes christa cool beans i'm gonna go three there was a motion to continue on three i believe and then it was approved so we've we've completed them okay right okay all right uh well we efficient i feel pretty good about this um is there a motion for adjourn wait i have something to say great job you guys um but what i wanted to say is that brian and i have been working on exploring options for contested cases and having those in a remote or in person setting um so you will probably receive an email from me this week kind of laying out the options and what we might be proposing for july or just getting some feedback from you on your level of comfort um with the possibility of an in-person meeting again we are still sort of plotting it out um and so i can't assure you that's exactly what the question will be that that's proposed to you but wanted to sort of get that on your radar has something coming down the pike thank you for doing that and i really appreciate everybody uh being here today and um micah and uh jess goes well so thank you for for taking your time and joining us as well and everyone out delacey i've got uh just a housekeeping um mr chairman if you you hadn't been able to see the hand raising in order to see that you have to click on the participants and you get yourself another box i was going to ask that question regina yeah and where is that at go down to the bottom of your screen you'll see a new stop video participants click on that and magically a sidebar will come about with people's names on them and at the bottom of that is a place on the right hand corner you can click raise hand yeah fantastic good job and so are we gonna have do you have something okay i had one more thing too is on approval orders um are we gonna get that ahead of time so we're not sending it all to chad but he does so well i i could i love this is jessica we had thought that we emailed them to you ahead of time but apparently that email did not make it to all of you so we sent them again before the meeting today we'll make sure to send those even earlier and if you don't see them before the meeting let us know and we will send them again to the individual col sent me a couple of few days ago um so all right all righty that's uh anything else anyone else all right thank you for your time does anybody have a motion for adjourn to adjourn lacy two mangoes i moved to adjourn i'm thinking we need a second all right thank you we could do a voice vote for this right all in favor say hi hi thank you all right we'll see you guys next week say at 8 30 thanks bye guys bye bye