Planning Board/Board of Adjustment — Cornelius, NC
Date: 2024-07-02

Minutes

 TOWN OF CORNELIUS PLANNING BOARD MEETING
 Assembly Room
 June 5, 2024
 6:30 p.m.

Members Present Staﬀ Present
Phil Bechtold-Chair Rox Burhans, Planning Director
Michael Buttner Aaron Tucker, Senior Planner
Ava Callender Heather Barﬁeld, Planner
Mamie Lee Rechelle Ward, Administrative Assistant
Colin Furcht
Travis Julian
Rachel Bernard
Fred Westaway

VISITORS
Reagan Devine
Chris Webb

INSTALLATION OF OATHS
Ms. Ward administered the Oath to the new board member; Mamie Lee

DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Chair Bechtold called the Planning Board meeting to order at 6:27 p.m. and noted a quorum was
present. All members will be voting. Chair Bechtold identiﬁed the members voting tonight: Phil Bechtold,
Michael Buttner, Ava Callender, Colin Furcht, Travis Julian, Fred Westaway, Rachel Bernard, and Mamie
Lee.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to approve the May 13, 2024, meeting minutes. Mr. Westaway
made a motion to approve, and Mr. Jullian seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Buttner, Ms. Callender Opposed: None
 Mr. Furcht, Mr. Julian, Ms. Bernard, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Westaway

Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to suspend the Planning Board meeting and open as the Board of
Adjustments. Mr. Westaway made the motion, and Mr. Buttner seconded. All were in favor and the
motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Buttner, Ms. Callender Opposed: None
 Mr. Furcht, Mr. Julian, Ms. Bernard, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Westaway

Chair Bechtold stated the Planning Board meeting is now closed and the Board of Adjustment is
open.
Chair Bechtold read the deﬁnition of a variance and the procedural process for the quasi-judicial
hearing. See attachment.

Chair Bechtold entertained a motion consideration for Variance 03-24 21312 Rio Oro Drive, Inﬁll Setback
Variance. Mr. Westaway moved, and Ms. Callender seconded. All were in favor and the motion was
approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Buttner, Ms. Callender Opposed: None
 Mr. Furcht, Mr. Julian, Ms. Bernard, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Westaway

Mamie Lee will be designated alternate for voting for the ETJ seat.

Chair Bechtold called forward those wishing to testify. The oath was administered to Heather Barﬁeld
and John Devine.
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL
Variance 03-24 21312 Rio Oro Drive, Inﬁll Setback Variance

Chair Bechtold asked if any board members visited the property or had a conﬂict of interest in this case.

No conﬂict of interest was reported.

Chair Bechtold recognized Ms. Barﬁeld and asked if he was ready to present Variance 03-24.

Ms. Barﬁeld presented Variance 03-24 21312 Rio Oro Drive, Inﬁll Lot Development, which is for a setback
variance. Staﬀ would like to enter into evidence part of the Planning Board/Board of Adjustment packet
which includes the Staﬀ Report, Exhibits 1-11, and Findings of Fact sheet, as well as tonight’s
presentation. The property which is located at 21312 Rio Oro Drive, is in one of our older subdivisions in
Bahia Bay recorded in 1966. The applicants, John and Raegan Devine, are seeking a variance from
Section 2.6 Inﬁll Lot Development Section 5.5.2 B, and Section 5.5. 4 of the Land Development Code to
allow a 25 ft front yard setback. The side and rear setbacks will remain unchanged. The additions must
comply with the setbacks. The variance applies solely to the front setback.

What is Inﬁll Lot Development as deﬁned in Section 2.6 of our Code? The construction of a new home or
expansion of an existing home in an established area, where infrastructure and services are already in
place and there are no setbacks on the associated recorded plat.

Ms. Barﬁeld explained the purpose of Inﬁll Lot Development. It helps in our older subdivisions like Bahia
Bay. We have established neighborhoods that don’t have uniform setbacks. This often causes irregular
street frontages. As you can see in the exhibit of Bustle Rd, we have a few houses that are up towards
the road, and some are further back. Inﬁll Development helps preserve the fundamental characteristics
of the street in the neighborhood. There are also several key beneﬁts that address common challenges in
older subdivisions. One of them being optimization of the existing infrastructure. Inﬁll Development
makes eﬃcient use of that existing infrastructure. It accommodates current easements, utilities, and
 Planning Board Meeting
 June 5, 2024
 Page 2 of 13
their access, while also minimizing environmental impacts. This approach may also help in dealing with
older lots that may be constrained due to a non-conforming use or structure. Inﬁll development
setbacks ultimately help create setback uniformity across the neighborhood.

How does this tie in with us in Cornelius? We have adopted this code in 1999, Section 5.5.2 Single Family
Districts. Front yard setbacks for inﬁll lot development shall be equal to the average for similar principal
structures on the same side of the street and within the same zoning district within 300 feet of either
side of the lot in question. What we do is take an average of 300 ft on each side and we generate that
average for the front yard setback.

Ms. Barﬁeld presented Exhibit 1-The application submitted by John and Raegan Devine. They also
submitted examples of their calculations for the street frontages for each of the lots. They gave an
example of the property as it stands today and an example of where they want to put that addition.
Provided ﬁrst, second, and third-ﬂoor plans for the demolition, and then a proposed plan. There is a
second-ﬂoor plan with the demolition as well as the proposed second ﬂoor, ﬂoor plans. There is the
third-ﬂoor plan, there are some elevations with the new proposed addition.

Exhibit 2- Zoning Map, they are in the middle of General Residential

Exhibit 3- Vicinity Map, Rio Oro, and Verano PL

Exhibit 4- Aerial View of the property

Exhibit 5- Property Map

Exhibit 6- Birdseye View, which gives you a general view of the street frontages as today looks like.

Exhibit 7 -Property Picture Front as it is today, Property Side View, Property Picture Street View, and
Property Picture Rear View
Exhibit 8- Staﬀ Calculated Inﬁll Setbacks, 300 ft to the right, 300 ft to the left. Our calculations came out
to 50 ft for the frontage. Our calculations are extending past what we have it to be currently, which
would be at 40 and that would be non-conforming.

Exhibits 9,10 and 11- Reiteration of the Land Development Code

We do have Section 5.5.4 which is our minimum required setbacks.

Ms. Barﬁeld asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Furcht asked if the variance request is for 10 ft?

Ms. Barﬁeld stated that they are asking to reduce the front setback to a minimum of 25 ft.



 Planning Board Meeting
 June 5, 2024
 Page 3 of 13
Mr. Westaway asked if they are already outside the 50 ft setbacks, no matter what they are outside of
the variance, they are just asking for another 10 ft correct?

Ms. Barﬁeld stated, Yes, that would be non-conforming and create an issue in general with adding to that
existing structure they would have to make it compliant.

Mr. Westaway stated that a point you made earlier is about the current utility placement, are they in that
path that they are currently building out or is it a diﬀerent spot on the property?

Ms. Barﬁeld stated those utilities are usually water, gas, electrical, or private entities and we don’t
typically have access to their locations.

Mr. Westaway stated that you mentioned the side setbacks wouldn’t be changing but looking at the
topography of that property, it looks like the front corner with the build-out would be less than what is
currently in the rest of the house, and what is the side setback, what would it be with the addition?

Ms. Barﬁeld stated that side setbacks will be 10 ft which is our minimum, as far as the structure itself will
not be encroaching into that current setback.

Ms. Barﬁeld referred back to the slide 11 that shows the structure is not encroaching onto that setback.

Chair Bechtold stated we shall now hear from the applicant.

Ms. Reagan Devine presented her name and outlined the rationale for seeking a variance, as well as
explaining the proposed plan. The intent is to extend a section of the property on the right side.
Currently, the garage and other structures are situated on the left side, and the aim is to enhance the
home's functionality by creating a diﬀerent elevation. Our objective is to maintain the overall footprint of
the residence due to the limited width of the lot. Pursuing an extension to the rear is not feasible, as it
would obstruct the neighbors' view to the right.

The ﬁnancial constraints make it diﬃcult to pursue a large-scale expansion, hence the focus on
addressing a small section of the structure. It has come to our attention that the initial property survey,
conducted at the time of purchase, led us to believe that the proposed extension was permissible,
without taking into account the setback variance enforced due to the surrounding neighbors. Notably,
the neighboring property to the right is closer to the street than ours, and therefore, the extension will
not infringe upon their space. The neighbor to the left, on the other hand, is in closer proximity to our
property. It is worth noting that there are other properties within the vicinity that are positioned closer
to the street than ours.

Our intention is to enhance the visual attractiveness of our property without fundamentally altering its
character.

Chair Bechtold asked Board members if they had questions for the applicant.


 Planning Board Meeting
 June 5, 2024
 Page 4 of 13
Mr. Furcht asked what is the position of your neighbors?

Ms. Devine stated she has letters from both left and right neighbors.

Mr. Furcht- Is there any opposition to it?

Ms. Devine stated, not any that she knew of and that she had spoken to the neighborhood association
and said it looked great and that was it.

Mr. Becthold asked if there were any other questions.

None

Mr. Becthold entertained a motion to close the public hearing for Variance 03-24 21312 Rio Oro Drive,
Inﬁll Setback Variance. Mr. Buttner motioned. Mr. Westaway seconded. All were in favor.

Chair Bechtold asked do we have any deliberation among the board?

Chair Bechtold- We will read each ﬁnding of fact. I will entertain a motion to approve or deny each
ﬁnding of fact.




 Planning Board Meeting
 June 5, 2024
 Page 5 of 13
Mr. Westaway- Read ﬁnding #1
FINDING #1

 Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be
 necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of
 the property.
I move that ﬁnding #1 has been met because based on the evidence submitted a hardship does exist.
Mr. Furcht seconded the motion.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Buttner, Ms. Callender Opposed: None
 Mr. Furcht, Ms. Bernard Mr. Julian, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Westaway


Ms. Callender- Read ﬁnding #2
FINDING #2

 The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or
 topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from
 conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for
 granting a variance.
I move that ﬁnding #2 has been met because of the property location, the size of their neighbor’s
property, and the requested setback is reasonable.
Ms. Bernard- Seconded the motion.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Buttner, Ms. Callender Opposed: None
 Mr. Furcht, Mr. Julian, Ms. Bernard, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Westaway


Ms. Bernard- Read ﬁnding #3

FINDING #3

 The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of
 purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a
 variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship.
I move that ﬁnding #3 has been met because the hardship was not created by the applicant.

Ms. Lee- Seconded the motion.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Buttner, Ms. Callender Opposed: None
 Mr. Furcht, Mr. Julian, Ms. Bernard, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Westaway




 Planning Board Meeting
 June 5, 2024
 Page 6 of 13
Mr. Furcht- Read ﬁnding #4

FINDING

 The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such
 that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.
I move that ﬁnding #4 has been met and that the requested variance is consistent with the spirit,
purpose, and intent of the ordinance.

Mr. Westaway- Seconded the motion.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Buttner, Ms. Callender Opposed: None
 Mr. Furcht, Mr. Julian, Ms. Bernard, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Westaway

Chair Bechtold- Entertained a motion to Variance 03-24 21312 Rio Oro Drive, Inﬁll Setback Variance. Mr.
Westaway motioned, and Ms. Callender seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Buttner, Ms. Callender Opposed: None
 Mr. Furcht, Mr. Julian, Ms. Bernard, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Westaway

Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to close the Board of Adjustment, and a motion to open as the
Watershed Review Board and Mr. Westaway seconded.

Mamie Lee was the designated alternate for voting.

Chair Bechtold recognized Mr. Tucker and asked if he was ready to present BUA Application #2.

Mr. Tucker presented an application for a property located at 18608 Town Harbour Road. Sandpiper
Homes is requesting 1000 sq. ft. of impervious area. A plat has also been submitted that meets all our
requirements and shows that 1000 sq. ft. to be received from the donor lot on the left and the recipient
on the right. Mr. Tucker provided an aerial view of the recipient lot, which shows they are over the
maximum impervious area allotment. The Donor lot on Nantz Road has also provided a copy of their
deed. After this transfer, the donor lot will have 14,835 sq. ft. of impervious area remaining for future
allocations.

Mr. Tucker asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Furcht asked if the plat shows a correct illustration of how much impervious is remaining on the
donor lot?

Mr. Tucker states yes, the number does change but the color does not change. The Board requested in
the future if the lot can be shaded.

Mr. Buttner asked how you ensure there is never excess being requested?


 Planning Board Meeting
 June 5, 2024
 Page 7 of 13
Mr. Tucker answered: To transfer, it has to come through the Planning Department and get staﬀ
signatures before approval.

Mr. Burhans stated each plat is recorded and follows the chain of title at the Register of Deeds.

Chair Bechtold asked if the area was designated with a sign that states it’s an environmental
conservation?

Mr. Tucker stated that it will not, but the conservation area has been surveyed. It may have stakes in the
ground and ﬂagged oﬀ, other than that there are no other identiﬁers. The deed includes a meets and
bounds description.

Chair Bechtold asked how much land in our town is designated as a conservation area?

Mr. Tucker stated we have quite a few with parcels designated as greenways. The Mayes Meadow
property owner worked with a company called Water and Land Solutions to implement a conservation
easement. In some ways, our portions of our parks could be viewed as a conservation area.

Chair Bechtold asked if the applicant decided to take back the property, could he do it?

Mr. Tucker stated that he would have to transfer all the rights back, but it's not likely to happen.

Chair Bechtold asked if there were any more questions for Mr. Tucker.

None

Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to approve BUA Averaging Certiﬁcate Application #2
Mr. Westaway made the motion and Mr. Buttner seconded. All were in favor and the motion was
approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Buttner, Ms. Callender Opposed: None
 Mr. Furcht, Mr. Julian, Mr. Sykes, and Mr. Westaway

Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to close the Watershed Review Board and move back to the
Planning Board. Mr. Westaway moved, and Ms. Lee seconded.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Buttner, Ms. Callender Opposed: None
 Mr. Furcht, Mr. Julian, Mr. Sykes, and Mr. Westaway




 Planning Board Meeting
 June 5, 2024
 Page 8 of 13
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Burhans has presented the requested updated Gantt Chart. This Gantt Chart outlines the timelines
for Land Development, rezoning, and major development approvals about Transportation projects. It
includes estimated durations for each project, whether it's a road project or development project, as
well as the estimated construction start (if not already started), and the estimated construction end. I
will email this to everyone for their review.

Please keep in mind that several development projects have not yet started and do not have permits. We
are making rough estimates based on discussions with the developers and previous projects of similar
size. The same applies to Transportation Projects, with schedules provided by NCDOT, although these
dates are subject to change. These estimates are for discussion purposes and to provide an overview.

The I-77 shoulder lane project: This project came about when the toll lanes were approved. They were
going to harden the shoulders of I-77 to allow traﬃc to use them during peak hours. We are not sure if
this project will come to fruition. I just wanted to highlight that with a question mark. This is entirely a
DOT project.

Mr. Furcht asked how frequently or how reasonably could we get an update?

Mr. Burhans stated we traditionally have updated this twice a year.

Mr. Furst also asked once the approvals are made, how long does the developer have to do something?
My understanding is that there is no language that they must do or start by a certain time, however,
there is a language that says there needs to be a certain amount of activity on the project within a
speciﬁed time period. Is that correct?

Mr. Burhans stated that if the Town Board issues a conditional zoning approval you're probably stuck
with it because there are a lot of rights in the State of North Carolina granted to property owners and
developers to hold on to their development approvals.

The question is: What rules do we have for projects that just never get started? Our Land Development
Code provides the Town with the ability to investigate a project after three years. If nothing has
happened, no permits have been submitted, and sometimes there are things behind the scenes that we
don’t see, but the Town has the right to ask the developer for a status on the plan.

Mr. Westaway asked if we have a behind-the-scenes way to see where projects are in the hopper?

Mr. Burhans mentioned that our website features a development projects map displaying three
categories: Approved, Under Construction, and Proposed, including rezoning projects. The map uses
color-coding and contains links to applications, key dates, and details about community meetings,
Planning Board sessions, Town Board meetings, and more. Additionally, there is a separate map
speciﬁcally for transportation projects, providing information on NCDOT and developer projects,


 Planning Board Meeting
 June 5, 2024
 Page 9 of 13
including those associated with Atrium Hospital. This provides a comprehensive view of projects from a
map and detail standpoint.

NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Burhans discussed the Text Amendments requested by Town Board and others, as well as the
challenges within development reviews and the ordinance. Moving forward, we will be bringing
ordinance amendments to the Planning Board to gather your thoughts and feedback, and we will follow
up with that request.

Hospitality Use Parking Requirements
Mr. Burhans provided some background information.

 • Prior to 2018, the LDC had speciﬁc parking rates based on use
 o Conventional approach
 • All required square footage was based on leasable space
 • Required parking could include on-street parking in front of buildings or public lots within 300’ of
 primary building entrances.
 • Residential:
 o Apartments – 1 space per bedroom
 o Attached & Detached Homes – 2 spaces per home

The discussion centered on the fact that the developers had a better understanding of parking needs
than the government. As a result, parking rates were signiﬁcantly reduced. There were also potential
environmental considerations associated with this decision. To address this, they mandated a minimum
of 2 parking spaces per 1000 square feet regardless of the use, and also established a maximum of 4
parking spaces per 1000 square feet.

The developers of Mills Market debated how much parking is realistic, which started the thought process
for this parking rate discussion particularly in downtown. The Fruitful Roots brewery project was
another project that continued this discussion.

Mr. Burhans shared research from peer communities on parking requirements for food and beverage
type uses. This research indicates signiﬁcantly more parking is being requested by our peers.

Mr. Burhans requested feedback on potential parking rate increases for food and beverage uses and
feedback on downtown rate adjustments for these use types.

Mr. Westaway commented that if we are speaking about how many parking spaces are required in
downtown, or the size of the parking footprint, then options should be considered.

Mr. Furcht asked if handicapped parking was included in that number? Mr. Burhans conﬁrmed that the
handicapped parking number was not included and will not change the numbers.

 Planning Board Meeting
 June 5, 2024
 Page 10 of 13
Mr. Westaway inquired about electric cars and charging stations. Are we going to put somewhere in our
code that requires new parking facilities to have charging facilities?

Mr. Burhans stated it is not currently in the ordinance, but that does not mean we shouldn't be looking
at it.

Mr. Westaway recommended if we are going to update it, we should consider looking into it.

The Planning Board agreed that staﬀ should continue with the hospitality use parking rate research.

Sight Triangles
Mr. Tucker provided details on Sight Triangles and challenges that are faced here in the Town of
Cornelius.

 • Current standard does not work well for urban areas.
 • Our code it built to encourage buildings to be constructed closer to the street.
 o Parking in rear only
 o 0’ setbacks in commercial areas
 o Frontage build out % requirement 75% minimum in TC
 • Recently approved projects have had trouble meeting the current standard.

Mr. Jullian- Are there other examples besides OMB and Greenway Gartens.

Mr. Tucker stated Main Street, some neighborhoods but primarily commercial buildings, we would not
enforce this on a single-family residential home.

Mr. Burhans added that we know what type of development we anticipate in downtown and are actively
seeking, and that our sight distance tools are inadequate for the downtown area. We want to make sure
we have the right tools to accommodate the vision that we have for our downtown area.

Mr. Julian expressed concerns about the vision for the downtown area. While we are working on the
Downtown Masterplan, we seem to be approving individual projects without considering the bigger
picture. For example, we approved Townhomes that are set 3 or 4 feet back from the sidewalk before I-
77. Is this the vision for the entire downtown? Hopefully, the Masterplan will provide clarity on the
overall vision so that future approvals align with it.

Mr. Westaway asked: Why would we amend this until we have a Master Plan?

Mr. Burhans stated that we have a Land Use Plan which sets a broad vision for what downtown should
be. This plan outlines features such as taller buildings, buildings closer to the road, and parking to the
rear. There are also development standards for the downtown that mandate the same type of
development pattern. We have a broad vision as well as detailed regulations that tell us how things

 Planning Board Meeting
 June 5, 2024
 Page 11 of 13
should occur in our downtown. The Master Plan is going to help us reﬁne the generalized vision and
tighten it up.

The Planning Board recommended bringing this ordinance amendment back after completion of the
Downtown Master Plan that is currently in progress.

Breweries Vs. Brewpubs
Issue: Is the Brewpub use distinction still needed?
Mr. Burhans provided the diﬀerence between Breweries Vs. Brewpubs

There are three beer making use types;

Brewery, Large
Brewery, Micro
Restaurant/Brewpub

 • A brewpub is a hybrid between a restaurant and a brewery
 o Sells at least 25% 40% of its beer on-site in combination with food services
 o Beer is primarily brewed for sale inside the restaurant or bar
 o Brewpubs may sell beer to go or distribute it to some oﬀsite destinations
 o May be a craft beer holdover classiﬁcation from 1990s/2000s (Hops, Rock Bottom, etc.)
 • Is a Microbrewery with a restaurant (OMB, etc.) diﬀerent than a Brewpub?
 • How is a beer-centric Restaurant that diﬀerent from a Brewpub (Duckworths) ?

The question is: Should the use of Restaurant/Brewpub be eliminated and should the deﬁnition of a
microbrewery be clariﬁed to allow for a restaurant? We, the staﬀ, feel that this is a redundancy in the
code.

Mr. Buttner asked about the noise these establishments may generate? Mr. Burhans clariﬁed that there
is an existing noise ordinance that addresses this.

Mr. Westaway asked when will the Land Use Plan and Land Development Code could be aligned?

Mr. Burhans stated that has been discussed with the Commissioners for some time but no movement
with this alignment has occurred.

The Planning Board agreed that staﬀ should continue developing this code amendment.




 Planning Board Meeting
 June 5, 2024
 Page 12 of 13
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bechtold made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Mr. Westaway seconded the motion.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Buttner, Ms. Callender Opposed: None
 Mr. Furcht, Mr. Julian, Mr. Sykes, and Mr. Westaway

NEXT MEETING
July 8, 2024

Respectfully submitted:


___________________________ __________ _________________________ _________
Phil Bechtold Date Rechelle Ward Date
Chairman Administrative Assistant




Enc: Town Staﬀ PowerPoint Presentation




 Planning Board Meeting
 June 5, 2024
 Page 13 of 13
Planning Board
 June 5, 2024
VAR 03-24
 21312 Rio Oro Drive
Infill Setback Variance
 Board of Adjustment
• Staff would like to enter into evidence part of the Planning
  Board/Board of Adjustment packet for June 5, 2024 VAR 03-24,
  which includes the Staff Report, Exhibits 1-11, and Findings of Fact
  sheet, as well as tonight’s presentation.

• The property is located at 21312 Rio Oro Drive

• The Applicants, John & Reagan Devine, are seeking a variance from
  variance from Section 2.6 (Infill Lot Development), Section 5.5.2 (B)
  and Section 5.5.4 of the Land Development Code, to allow a 25’
  front yard setback.

• The side and rear setbacks will remain unchanged. And the addition
  must comply with those setbacks. The variance applies solely to the
  front setback.
Exhibit A – Application
Exhibit 2 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 3 – Vicinity Map
Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map
Exhibit 5 – Property Map
Exhibit 6 – Birds Eye View
Exhibit 6 – Birds Eye View
Exhibit 7 – Property Picture Front
Exhibit 7 – Property Picture Side




Left Side Right Side
Exhibit 7 – Property Picture Side Street View




 Left Side Right Side
Exhibit 7 – Property Picture Rear View
Exhibit 8 – Staff Calculated Infill Setbacks
Estimated Front Setback
Exhibit 9 - Land Development Code Section 2.6
Exhibit 10 - LDC Section 5.5.2 (B)
Exhibit 11 - LDC Section 5.5.4
Hear from the Applicant
Questions?
FINDING #1
• Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the
  ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence
  of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.

• The Board Members shall make statements as to whether the evidence
  supports or does not support this finding. A motion, second and vote as
  to whether this finding has been met. Simple majority will apply.
  FINDING #2
• The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property,
  such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal
  circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are
  common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the
  basis for granting a variance.

• The Board Members shall make statements as to whether the evidence
  supports or does not support this finding. A motion, second and vote as
  to whether this finding has been met. Simple majority will apply.
FINDING #3
• The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the
  property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that
  circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not
  be regarded as a self-created hardship.

• The Board Members shall make statements as to whether the evidence
  supports or does not support this finding. A motion, second and vote as
  to whether this finding has been met. Simple majority will apply.
FINDING #4
• The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and
  intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and
  substantial justice is achieved.

• The Board Members shall make statements as to whether the evidence
  supports or does not support this finding. A motion, second and vote
  as to whether this finding has been met. Simple majority will apply.
FINAL VOTE TO GRANT/DENY VARIANCE
• Were all findings of fact met or not met?
• Six positive votes are required to grant variance.
 Variance Narrative


What is a Variance?
A variance is a request to deviate from current zoning requirements. If granted, it
permits the owner to use his land in a way that is ordinarily not permitted by the
zoning ordinance. It is not a change in the zoning law, but a waiver from the
requirements of the zoning ordinance.
This hearing is a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing. That means it is like a court
hearing. State law sets specific procedures and rules concerning how this board
must make its decision. These rules are different from other types of land use
decisions like rezoning cases.
The board’s discretion is limited. The board must base its decision upon
competent, relevant, and substantial evidence in the record. A quasi-judicial
decision is not a popularity contest. It is a decision constrained by the standards in
the ordinance and based on the facts presented. If you will be speaking as a
witness, please focus on the facts and standards, not personal preference or
opinion.
Participation is limited. This meeting is open to the public. Everyone is welcome to
watch. Parties with standing have rights to participate fully. Parties may present
evidence, call witnesses, and make legal arguments. Parties are limited to the
applicant, the local government, and individuals who can show they will suffer
special damages. Other individuals may serve as witnesses when called by the
board. General witness testimony is limited to facts, not opinions. For certain
topics, this board needs to hear opinion testimony from expert witnesses. These
topics include projections about impacts on property values and projections
about impacts of increased traffic. Individuals providing expert opinion must be
qualified as experts and provide the factual evidence upon which they base their
expert opinion.
Witnesses must swear or affirm their testimony. At this time, we will administer
the oath for all individuals who intend to provide witness testimony.


How Voting Works
State law requires a four-fifths majority of the board to grant a variance.
Built Upon Area (BUA) Averaging
 Certificate Application #2
  18608 Town Harbour Road (Receiving 1,000 sq. ft.)
BUA #2 Recipient
Sandpiper Homes LLC
18608 Town Harbour Road
PID 00184149
Donor Deed
• After this transfer, the donor lot will have 14,835 sq. ft. of impervious
  area remaining for future allocations.
Questions?