Raleigh board of adjustment minutes



Download 89.44 Kb.
Date conversion07.11.2017
Size89.44 Kb.


RALEIGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES

The Raleigh Board of Adjustment met in regular session on Monday, February 9, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Room 201 of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 W. Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina with the following present:


Board Staff
Charles Coble, Chairman (City) John Silverstein, Attorney to the Board

J. Carr McLamb, Jr. Vice Chairman (City) Assistant Planning Director Travis Crane

Tommy Jeffreys, Secretary (County) Planning Administrator Eric Hodge

Gene Conti (City) Assistant Deputy Clerk Ralph Puccini

Timothy Figgins (City)

Karen Kemerait (City Alternate)



Brian Williams (City Alternate)
These are summary minutes unless otherwise indicated:
Chairman Coble called the meeting to order, introduced members of the Board and staff present at today’s meeting and read the rules of procedure.
Assistant Planning Director Travis Crane and Planning Administrator Eric Hodge were both sworn in with Mr. Hodge using a PowerPoint presentation in aid to presenting testimony, and the following items were discussed with actions taken as shown:
******************************************************************************

A-10­15 – 2/9/15
Decision: Approved as requested.

WHEREAS, Uleys Jasper Beard, Jr., property owner, requests a 5’ side yard setback variance and a 20’ rear yard setback variance from the standards set forth in Section 10-2075 of the Part 10 Zoning Code to legalize the existing accessory structure and expand it vertically resulting in a 0’ side yard setback and a 0’ rear yard setback on a .23 acre property zoned Special Residential 30 and located at 613 Wills Forest Street.

Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn) pointed out several alleys serve the properties on this block. He stated Part 10 requires 5 foot setbacks for accessory structures and that the existing accessory structure did not qualify under the Special R-30 zoning. He stated the Applicant proposes to add a second story to the structure, and pointed out the alleys are not the required 18 feet wide.
Chairman Coble questioned whether trash pick-up takes place in the alley with Mr. Hodge responding trash pick-up takes place along some of the alleys; however, utility easements also come into play with this application.
Chairman Coble questioned the City’s position on the application with Mr. Hodge responding if the building were less than 500 square feet it would be allowed within the 5 foot setback. He went on to talk about automobile access to the alleyway and indicated Staff would prefer a 4 foot setback for the expanded utility structure to allow for better sight distance along the alley.
Discussion took place regarding the subject accessory structure’s existing square footage with Mr. Hodge pointing out the existing structure is 600 square feet and will have up to 1,200 square feet with the second story addition.
Applicant

Uleys Jasper Beard, 613 Wills Forest Street (sworn), confirmed Mr. Hodge’s testimony adding there is no trash collected in the subject alley and there is utility work taking place at this time. He pointed out the western part of the alley is all grass and soft ground with neighbors’ fences and sheds encroaching. In response to questions, Mr. Beard stated he parks on the street and has no off-street parking at his residence currently. He talked about nearby new residential construction wherein the structures have attached garages and pointed out which portions of the alley are automobile accessible. He noted he talked with his neighbors and indicated they were in support of the proposed 0 percent setback and that there is plenty of room in the alley to access the structure.

Chairman Coble questioned the accessory structure’s distance from the new construction with Mr. Beard responding the nearest new structure is approximately 50 feet away and went on to point out the developer took a nearby sharp corner in the alley and rounded it off. He also asserted this would be a good opportunity to improve a dilapidated structure.
Opposition
None.

Requests for Notification
None.
Findings of Fact

1. Applicant seeks a variance from Raleigh City Code Section 10­-2075 to legalize the existing accessory structure to expand it vertically.

2. The Board has considered Applicant's verified application and the evidence and testimony adduced at the hearing.

3. In order to comply with Raleigh City Code Section 10-2075 and the Special R-30 zoning district, Applicant would have to provide a 5 foot minimum setback and limit the size of the accessory structure to no more than 500 square feet.

4. Applicant is unable to comply with Raleigh City Code Section 10-2075 because the accessory structure is currently on the side and rear property lines.

5. The accessory structure is at the corner of property lines that abut alleys that are not used for access by other property owners.

6. There is no garbage pick-up or other services that utilize the alleys.

7. The garage is dilapidated, and is in need of repair for safety purposes.

8. Applicant proposes to add to the height of the garage, which will be 1200 square feet, with 600 square feet on each level.

9. Applicant currently parks on the street, as he has no off-street parking.

10. Strict compliance with the provisions of the ordinance would deprive Applicant from the reasonable use of the property.

11. The Applicant's actions did not create the hardship.

12. The character of surrounding properties would not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance.

13. Denial of the variance would result in insignificant public benefit but would greatly harm Applicant.

14. Pursuant to Raleigh City Code Section 10-2141(b), the Board has considered the following relevant factors:

(a) The character and use of buildings and structures adjoining or in the vicinity of the property mentioned in the application.

(b) The number of persons residing, studying, working in or otherwise occupying buildings adjoining or in the vicinity of the property mentioned in the application.

Conclusions of Law
1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance.

2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property.

3. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the Applicant or property owner.

4. This decision is subject to review for fraud, material misrepresentation, or other misconduct at the proceeding or for violations on the subject property of either any provision of Chapter 10 of the Raleigh City Code or an imposed limiting condition, and if such a determination is made by the Board, its prior decision may be reversed, modified, or affirmed.


Motion
Chairman Coble moved to approve the variances as requested. His motion was seconded by Mr. McLamb and received the following vote: Ayes – 4 (Coble, McLamb, Conti, Figgins); Noes – 1 (Jeffreys). Chairman Coble ruled the motion adopted on a 4-1 vote and the variances granted.
A-11-15 – 2/9/15
Decision: Approved the variance with the condition the proposed new mud room is placed in the same location as the existing enclosed stoop per revised drawings submitted by the applicant as well as an agreement signed by the Applicants and the adjacent property owner.

WHEREAS, Richard and Tammy Cook, property owners, request a 3’ primary street setback variance, both a 9’ and 12’ side yard setback variance and a 3.9’ aggregate side yard setback variance from the regulations set forth in Section 2.2.1 and Section 5.4.3.F.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance to legalize the existing structure and allow for the construction of a rear facing addition to a Detached House resulting in a 55’ primary street setback, a 7.8’ southern side yard, a 4.3’ northern side yard and a 12.1’ aggregate side yard setback on a .39 acre property zoned Residential-6 and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and located at 305 Forest Road.

Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn) indicated the Applicants were about to reach an agreement regarding one of the issues with this case and asked that the item be held over to the end of the meeting. Without objection, Chairman Coble announced the item held over.
Later in the meeting, Planning Administrator Hodge indicated the subject property is located in the Cameron Park Overlay district which regulates building height as well as front yard setbacks. He stated the overlay district did not affect the existing dwelling; however, the Applicants are requesting a front yard variance anyway to legalize the dwelling so they may expand. He stated there are no plans to expand the existing accessory structure (a detached garage); however the applicants propose to replace an existing 1-story addition with a 2-story addition. He noted the average side yard setback in the neighborhood is approximately 21 feet and talked about the neighbor’s concern regarding the shared driveway. He pointed out the Applicants are negotiating with the neighbor regarding the driveway.
Applicant

Attorney Michael Birch, Morningstar Law Group, 630 Davis Drive, Suite 200, Morrisville (sworn), representing the Applicants, reviewed the variance request. In response to questions, Mr. Birch noted the addition will be set back 5 feet further from the southern side property line than the existing dwelling. He talked about the shared driveway and the portion of the new mud room affecting the side yard setback. He pointed out his clients have amended their plans so that the new mud room would remain within the same side yard setback as the present addition, which is currently an enclosed stoop, and also relocated the new rear steps. He presented a photograph of the rear of the dwelling with lines indicating the location of the proposed addition’s footprint including the amended mud room location. He indicated his clients have signed an agreement with their neighbor addressing the shared driveway issue. He also submitted notarized letters from 5 area property owners in support of the proposal.

Attorney Tom Worth, P. O. Box 127, Raleigh, NC 27602 (sworn), representing the adjacent neighbor, affirmed the agreement was executed and notarized. He pointed out an agreement regarding the shared driveway existed since 1925.
Spencer Maymandi (sworn) stated he was a member of the Cameron Park Neighborhood Board and expressed his support for the proposal.
Discussion took place regarding proposed conditions for the mudroom and whether to include the agreement as part of the record with Mr. Silverstein indicating the agreement will be included as part of the record.
Opposition
None.
Requests for Notification
None.
Findings of Fact

1. Applicant seeks a variance from UDO §§2.2.1 and 5.4.3.F.2 to legalize an existing dwelling and accessory structure, and expand the dwelling.

2. The Board has considered Applicant's verified application and the evidence and testimony adduced at the hearing.

3. Applicant participated in a pre-application conference with a Planning and Development Officer to review the Application.

4. Public Notice requirements of UDO §10.2.1.C. have been met.

5. In order to comply with UDO §§2.2.1 and 5.4.3.F.2, Applicant would have to meet all minimum front yard, side yard and aggregate side yard setbacks for both structures.

6. Applicant is unable to comply with UDO §§2.2.1 and 5.4.3.F.2 because the house and garage were erected prior to the enactment of setback requirements in the Raleigh City Code, and are therefore legal nonconformities.

7. In this zoning district, the setbacks are related to the relationship of the setbacks of other structures on the block face.

8. The Applicants propose to erect an addition in the rear that triggers the variance requirement.

9. Applicants share a driveway with the adjacent property on the same side as the addition is proposed.

10. Applicants have proposed to minimize the impact of the addition on the shared driveway by limiting the encroachment of the addition to the area currently occupied by an enclosed stoop, and this limitation is acceptable to the adjacent property owner.

11. Strict compliance with the provisions of the ordinance would deprive Applicant from the reasonable use of the property.

12. The Applicant's actions did not create the hardship.

13. The character of surrounding properties would not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance.

14. Denial of the variance would result in insignificant public benefit but would greatly harm Applicant.

15. The Board has also considered the following relevant factors:

(a) The character and use of buildings and structures adjoining or in the vicinity of the property mentioned in the application.

(b) The number of persons residing, studying, working in or otherwise occupying buildings adjoining or in the vicinity of the property mentioned in the application.

Conclusions of Law
1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance.

2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property.

3. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the Applicant or the property owner.

4. The variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.

5. It is necessary and appropriate to impose the following conditions and safeguards on the issuance of the variance: the new mud room must be placed in the same location as the existing enclosed stoop per the revised drawings and the signed agreement with the adjacent property owner.

6. This decision is subject to review for fraud, material misrepresentation, or other misconduct at the proceeding or for violations on the subject property of either any provision of the UDO or an imposed limiting condition, and if such a determination is made by the Board, its prior decision may be reversed, modified, or affirmed.

7. If the condition hereto or any part thereof shall be held invalid or void, then this decision shall be void and of no effect.
Motion
Chairman Coble moved to approve the variances with the condition the new mudroom is placed in the same location as the existing enclosed stoop per the revised drawings and the signed agreement with the adjoining neighbor. His motion was seconded by Mr. McLamb and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (Coble, McLamb, Jeffreys, Conti, Figgins); Noes – 0. Chairman Coble ruled the motion adopted and the variances granted with the condition.

******************************************************************************__A-12-15_–_2/9/15_Decision'>******************************************************************************


A-12-15 – 2/9/15
Decision: 1. Approved the front yard setback variance with the condition the width of the proposed front porch not exceed 12.5 feet and the proposed 2-car carport will not be enclosed in the future; and

2. Approved rear yard setback variance as requested.


WHEREAS, S&S Memory Realty, LLC, property owner, requests a 5’ primary street setback variance and a 10’ rear yard setback variance from the regulations set forth in Section 2.2.1 and Section 5.4.3.F.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance to construct a Detached House resulting in a 12.5’ primary street setback and a 10’ rear yard setback on a .09 acre property zoned Residential-10 and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and located at 115 E. Aycock Street.
Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn) noted the subject property was once part of a larger lot that was subdivided. He stated the subject lot is not typical to the neighborhood as it is more wide than deep. He indicated staff supported the request.
Applicant
Attorney Ken Edwards, Gwynn & Edwards, 5909 Falls of Neuse Road (sworn), representing the Applicant, confirmed the lot is not typical to the neighborhood as most lots are deep. He indicated his client proposes to build a 2-story dwelling and pointed out a nearby dwelling was located closer to the property line than the proposed dwelling.
Opposition
Chad Eckhardt, 108 East Aycock Street (sworn), indicated he was speaking on behalf of himself and his neighbors at 108 East Aycock Street, 1608 Sunrise Avenue, and 1545 Sunrise Avenue.

4 people raised their hands in support of the opposition.

Mr. Eckhardt indicated he and his neighbors are fact-finding noting they are not opposed to new development, but have concerns regarding the proposal. He questioned the location of the front property line in relation to the proposed dwelling and whether the setback was measured from the street or from the sidewalk with Mr. Silverstein pointing out the area 10 feet from the curb is part of the street right-of-way, so the City owned that portion of the land
Planning Administrator Hodge pointed out an overlay existed and that the minimum front yard setback would be 12.7 feet and the Applicant is proposing a 12.5 foot setback.
Mr. Eckhardt questioned the setback regulations for front porches as well as cantilevered parts of the dwelling and expressed concern the proposed front porch would encroach further into the front yard and be extended across the front of the dwelling with Mr. Hodge noting the proposed front porch could encroach up to 2 feet from the front property line and Mr. Silverstein pointing out any further expansion of the porch would require an additional variance request.
Mr. Eckhardt expressed concern regarding a possible adverse effect on property values; especially those homes built within the setbacks. He indicated his neighbors believed a house could be built on the lot without deviation from the setback regulations, and questioned the Applicant’s hardship. He expressed concern with the possible amount of stormwater drainage due to the increased amount of impervious surface. He submitted photographs of the subject lot and nearby properties in support of his concern.

Mr. Eckhardt went on to express concern the variance may set a bad precedent for the neighborhood with Chairman Coble pointing out the Board considers each variance on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Eckhardt also expressed concern about density as well as privacy and noise issues.

Chairman Coble talked about how State statutes limit the type of testimony the Board of Adjustment can receive and thanked the neighbors for expressing their concerns.
Planning Administrator Hodge noted the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay sets a 17 foot front yard setback.
Adam Pryor, 1603 Sunrise Avenue (sworn), expressed concerns the proposed structure would have an adverse effect on his property value and talked about developers building large homes on small lots.
Rebuttal by Applicant
Walter Heath, 2802 Wayland Drive (sworn), indicated he is the project manager. In response to questions, he stated the front porch would be 6 feet of the front of the dwelling and 12 feet wide. He indicated he would be pleased to limit the porch’s size to address the neighbors’ concerns. He stated the main body of the house would be 50 feet wide with a 20 foot wide open carport with living space above. He talked about drainage issues in the area noting he is a civil engineer and pointed out the creek drainage issue stems from a wide area of which the subject property is only a small portion.
Discussion took place regarding the porch’s size with Mr. Heath pointing out a portion of the porch will be recessed.
Mr. Conti questioned whether the current structure had a carport with Mr. Heath responding in the affirmative and went on to talk about meeting City Code requirements for off-street parking. Mr. Heath also asserted a carport was more in keeping with the neighborhood’s character.
Planning Administrator Hodge talked about a possible condition preventing the 2 car carport from becoming enclosed in the future.
Rebuttal by Opposition

Mr. Eckhardt talked about the proposed rear yard variance and affirmed the neighbors oppose the request as they believe the dwelling would be too close to Mr. Pryor’s property.
Planning Administrator Hodge pointed out the proposed dwelling will be located 10 feet off the rear property line.
Discussion took place regarding the lot’s size.
Requests for Notification
None.
Findings of Fact

1. Applicant seeks a variance from UDO §§2.2.1 and 5.4.3.F.3 to construct a dwelling on a vacant lot.

2. The Board has considered Applicant's verified application and the evidence and testimony adduced at the hearing.

3. Applicant participated in a pre-application conference with a Planning and Development Officer to review the Application.

4. Public Notice requirements of UDO §10.2.1.C. have been met.

5. In order to comply with UDO §§2.2.1 and 5.4.3.F.3, Applicant would have to provide a 17.5 foot primary street setback, and a 20 foot rear yard setback.

6. Applicant is unable to comply with UDO §§2.2.1 and 5.4.3.F.3 because the existing lot is wider than it is deep, and a structure cannot be erected that meets UDO setback requirements.

7. Applicants desire to erect a two-story house that is comparable in size to surrounding structures.

8. Neighboring property owners testified regarding property values and potential erosion, but such non-expert testimony was irrelevant pursuant to N.C.G.S. §160A-393(k)(3).

9. The proposed dwelling is 50 feet wide with a 20 foot wide open carport.

10. Strict compliance with the provisions of the ordinance would deprive Applicant from the reasonable use of the property.

11. The character of surrounding properties would not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance.

12. The Board has also considered the following relevant factors:

(a) The character and use of buildings and structures adjoining or in the vicinity of the property mentioned in the application.

(b) The number of persons residing, studying, working in or otherwise occupying buildings adjoining or in the vicinity of the property mentioned in the application.

Conclusions of Law

1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance.

2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property.

3. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the Applicant or the property owner.

4. The variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.

5. It is necessary and appropriate to impose the following conditions and safeguards on the issuance of the variance: (i) the width of the front porch cannot exceed 12.5 feet and (ii) the carport must not be enclosed.

6. This decision is subject to review for fraud, material misrepresentation, or other misconduct at the proceeding or for violations on the subject property of either any provision of the UDO or an imposed limiting condition, and if such a determination is made by the Board, its prior decision may be reversed, modified, or affirmed.

7. If any of the conditions affixed hereto or any part thereof shall be held invalid or void, then this decision shall be void and of no effect.
Motion
Chairman Coble move to approve the front yard setback variance request with the condition that the width of the front porch not exceed 12.5 feet and that the carport not be enclosed. He also moved to approve the rear yard variance as requested. His motion was seconded by Mr. McLamb and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (Coble, McLamb, Jeffreys, Conti, Figgins); Noes – 0. Chairman Coble ruled the motion adopted and the variances granted with conditions.
******************************************************************************

A-13-15 – 2/9/15
Decision: Approved as requested.

WHEREAS, Ashkan Hosseini, Sayed Hosseini, Cynthia Hosseini and Taraneh Bayani, property owners, request a 10’ front yard setback variance and a 10’ corner lot side yard variance from the standards set forth in Section 10-2075 of the Part 10 Zoning Code to construct a single-family dwelling resulting in a 10’ front yard setback and a 10’ corner lot side yard setback on a .11 acre property zoned Residential-20 and located at 616 Wynne Street.

Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn), in response to questions, indicated the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) would require a 10 foot side yard setback for R-10. He talked about previous variances granted for adjacent properties along South Street especially with regard to off-street parking. He noted the subject property can have parking in the rear with a garage off the South Street side, and stated the Applicants propose to demolish the existing structure replace it with a larger structure with better setbacks. He stated staff is not opposed to the request.
Applicant
Ashkan Hosseini, 933 North Oremwood Drive, Atlanta, GA (sworn) noted both the R-6 and R-10 UDO front yard setbacks are 10 feet. He noted houses along nearby Lenoir Street have an average front yard setback of 10 feet.
Claude Trotter, P. O. Box 14241, Raleigh, NC 27620 (sworn) stated he was speaking for his daughter and son-in-law who own the adjacent lot at 605 East South Street and indicated they have no objection to the request.
Opposition
None.
Requests for Notification
None
Findings of Fact

1. Applicant seeks a variance from Raleigh City Code Section 10­-2075 to erect a new dwelling.

2. The Board has considered Applicant's verified application and the evidence and testimony adduced at the hearing.

3. In order to comply with Raleigh City Code Section 10-2075, Applicant would have to provide a 20 foot front yard setback and a 20 foot corner side yard setback.

4. Applicant is unable to comply with Raleigh City Code Section 10-2075 because the nonconforming lot is too small to accommodate a house that would meet all setback requirements.

5. The dwelling that exists on this lot will be demolished, and Applicants wish to build a new dwelling with a garage.

6. The subject property is located in an R-20 zoning district, which is a legacy district still subject to the Raleigh City Code.

7. If the UDO applied to this zoning district, a variance would not be required.

8. The existing structure slated for demolition does not meet front or side yard setbacks.

9. Strict compliance with the provisions of the ordinance would deprive Applicant from the reasonable use of the property.

10. Applicant's hardship is related to the unique circumstances of the property, namely its small size.

11. The Applicant's actions did not create the hardship.

12. The character of surrounding properties would not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance.

13. Denial of the variance would result in insignificant public benefit but would greatly harm Applicant.

14. Pursuant to Raleigh City Code Section 10-2141(b), the Board has considered the following relevant factors:

(a) The character and use of buildings and structures adjoining or in the vicinity of the property mentioned in the application.

(b) The number of persons residing, studying, working in or otherwise occupying buildings adjoining or in the vicinity of the property mentioned in the application.

Conclusions of Law
1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance.

2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property.

3. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the Applicant or property owner.

4. This decision is subject to review for fraud, material misrepresentation, or other misconduct at the proceeding or for violations on the subject property of either any provision of Chapter 10 of the Raleigh City Code or an imposed limiting condition, and if such a determination is made by the Board, its prior decision may be reversed, modified, or affirmed.


Motion
Chairman Coble moved to approve the variances as requested. His motion was seconded by Mr. Figgins and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (Coble, Figgins, McLamb, Jeffreys, Conti); Noes – 0. Chairman Coble ruled the motion adopted and the variances granted.
******************************************************************************

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE A-1-15 – PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW – ACCEPTED AS AMENDED
Chairman Coble indicated Board Members received copies of the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the City as well as proposed amendments from the Applicant’s attorney. Following brief discussion, the following actions were taken:
Page 4
Paragraph 20 – accept Applicant’s change.

Paragraph 22 – accept Applicant’s change.

Paragraph 25 – accept Applicant’s change; however, change the word “dismissed” to “resolved”
Page 5

Paragraph 31 – Accept Applicant’s deletion.

Paragraph 35 (Applicant’s Paragraph 34) – No change.

Paragraph 36 (Applicant’s paragraph 35) – no change.

Paragraph 37 – No change.

Page 6
Paragraph 39 – delete the phrase “For a long time”.

Paragraph 40 (Applicant’s Paragraph 37) – no change.


Page 8
Paragraph 52 (Applicant’s Paragraph 49) – no change.
Page 9
Paragraph 63 – No change.

Paragraph 64 (Applicant’s Paragraph 60) – no change.


Page 10
Paragraph 86 – Accept Applicant’s deletion.
Page 11
Paragraph 96 (Applicant’s Paragraph 91) – Accept Applicant’s change.

Paragraph 97 (Applicant’s Paragraph 92) – delete paragraph altogether.

Paragraph 99 (Applicant’s Paragraph 94) – delete paragraph altogether.
Page 12
Paragraph 100 (Applicant’s Paragraph 95) – no change.

Paragraph 104 – no change.

Paragraph 105 – no change.

Conclusions of Law Paragraph 2 – no change.


Chairman Coble indicated, without objection, the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are accepted as amended. He expressed his appreciation to both parties for their efforts in submitting the findings in a timely manner.
******************************************************************************

MINUTES – JANUARY 12, 2015 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING – TO BE APPROVED VIA E-MAIL VOTE ONCE BOARD MEMBERS RECEIVE FINAILIZED VERSION

Mr. Silverstein indicated the minutes from the January 12, 2015 meeting took longer than usual to transcribe and he is working on the Findings of Fact at this time. Chairman Coble indicated the Board members can approve the minutes via e-mail vote once they receive the finalized version from the City Clerk’s office.
******************************************************************************

REPORT OF THE BOARD’S ATTORNEY
Mr. Silverstein indicated Attorney Petesch filed a record on appeal with the North Carolina Court of Appeals regarding the Euclid Street case. He noted the Board is still listed on the Record; however, the record does show the Board voted to not participate in the appeal. He noted Mr. Petesch will be filing a brief soon.
With regard to the Greene case, Mr. Silverstein noted no order was filed; however Mr. Greene could file a new Board of Adjustment application as it has been more than a year since his previous application was denied.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Coble declared the meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

Ralph L. Puccini

Assistant Deputy City Clerk

Clerk to the Board of Adjustment




: content -> BoardsCommissions -> Documents -> BoardOfAdjustment -> Archive -> Minutes
content -> Narrative Nonfiction Appeal Factors
content -> Sure Bet Narrative Nonfiction Suggestions
content -> Chapter 15 – Documenting Assistive Technology Into the iep introduction 1 Documenting Assistive Technology into the iep 2 Documenting Assistive Technology into the iep penny R. Reed, Ph. D. With contributions from numerous wati consultants Updated
content -> Section 6—Chapters 24–26 Creative Multicultural Curriculum Preschool
content -> Session Title: a story to Count On Focal Passage: Luke 1: 1-4 Central Teaching/Learning Aim
content -> 1. Introduction 3-4 Purpose and questions 4 Method 4 Material and source critique 5 Disposition 5 Background 5-6 Changing cultures
Minutes -> Raleigh board of adjustment minutes
Documents -> Comprehensive planning committee




The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page