Board of Adjustment — Boone, NC
Date: 2025-12-16

Town of Boone
 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting
 5:30 PM, November 6, 2025
 Town Council Chambers
 1500 Blowing Rock Rd.
 Boone, NC 28607


 I. Call to Order

 II. Approval of Meeting Minutes

 1. April 3, 2025, Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes

 III. Case A25-0693 Charles & Barbara Cerullo - Notice of Appeal

 1. Case A25-0693 - Barbara & Charles Cerullo - Notice of Appeal
 For Action

 IV. Other Matters

 1. Discussion of Chair and Vice-Chair Positions

 V. Adjournment




Town of Boone Board of Adjustment November 6, 2025
 1

Boone Board of Adjustment
 Thursday, November 6, 2025
 Meeting Minutes


Board Members Present: David Welsh-Vice-Chair, David Luther, and Pam Williamson
Board Members Absent: Benjamin Ray and Barbara Yale-Read
Town Staff Present: Jane Shook-Director of Planning & Inspections, Brandon Wise-Deputy Director of
Planning & Inspections, Luis Aguilar-Zoning Code Compliance Official, and Brenda Henson-Board Clerk
Others Participating: Allison Meade-Attorney to the Board of Adjustment



Call to Order
Vice-Chair Welsh called the Boone Board of Adjustment meeting, held at 1500 Blowing Rock Road and via
WebEx, to order at 5:30 p.m. and provided a brief synopsis of the Board of Adjustment, its makeup, and its
function.
Approval of Meeting Minutes
Board Member Williamson made a motion to approve the April 3, 2025, Board of Adjustment meeting
minutes. Board Member Luther seconded the motion.
VOTE: Aye – 3
 Nay – None
 Absent – 2 (Ray, Yale-Read)
The motion passed.
Case A25-0693 Charles & Barbara Cerullo – Notice of Appeal
Barbara & Charles Cerullo, owners of 110 Westbrook Drive, have appealed a notice of violation issued by the
Town of Boone on August 14, 2025, regarding compliance with the Town’s occupancy regulations (UDO
Subsection 14.05.04). The appellant is requesting an extension of the timeline for compliance and a
suspension of penalties during that period.
Vice-Chair Welsh asked if there were any objections to the materials contained in the agenda packet. Mr.
Christopher Clark, attorney for the appellant, replied that there were no objections.
Board Member Williamson disclosed that she received an email from someone who lived in the area near
the subject property. The individual asked for advice on what she needed to do to participate in the hearing.
Board Member Williamson stated that she had contacted Town Attorney Allison Meade to ensure she
followed proper protocol under the circumstances. Board Member Williamson emailed the individual that it
would be inappropriate for her to make any comment on the case. Ms. Meade noted that Board Member
Williamson’s contact would not constitute improper ex parte communication. She stated that Mr. Clark was
present on behalf of the appellant. Ms. Meade asked Mr. Clark if he had any objection to Board Member
Williamson continuing with the case, and he stated that he did not.
Ms. Meade asked if anyone else had any concerns about their impartiality in this case or needed to make any
disclosures. There were no additional concerns or disclosures voiced.
Mr. Clark stated that he represented the David and Barbara Cerullo Trust, which was the owner of 110
Westbrook Drive. He noted that they were appealing a notice of violation and penalty issued on August 14,
1|Page
2025, under Section 14.05.04 of the UDO, which related to occupancy limits in the R1 single-family zoning
district. Mr. Clark clarified that he was not arguing that his client’s rights had been unfairly prejudiced or that
they had not been afforded constitutional due process rights. He added that he was unaware of any
inconsistencies or procedures that were not followed correctly, and they were not even disputing the
evidence in this case. Mr. Clark stated that his clients were asking for a reasonable transition period to bring
the property into full compliance and avoid unnecessary hardship for the current residents.
Mr. Clark explained that, in June 2025, the Town sent an initial inquiry about a possible over-occupancy at
110 Westbrook Drive. His clients took the investigation seriously and hired him to represent them. Mr. Clark
responded to the Town in writing on July 21, 2025, confirming that four unrelated tenants lived in the home
and requested a 12-month compliance period to allow the two tenants time to secure new housing. The
Town declined and gave the Cerullos six weeks, until September 25, to comply. Mr. Clark noted that the
appeal was submitted within the required time frame. He stated that the four tenants were all senior
student-athletes on the Appalachian State football team: tight end Cole Becker, cornerback Ethan Johnson,
safety DJ Burks, and cornerback Luke Lair. Mr. Clark noted that each of these young men was in good
academic standing, had made the honor roll or Chancellor's list, and Mr. Lair was a member of the Honors
College. The tenants could not be at the hearing tonight because there was a home football game. Mr. Clark
added that these young men had been good tenants and neighbors. They did not have criminal records, and
there had been no citations or arrests at the property. Mr. Clark noted that the home at 110 Westbrook
Drive previously hosted the App State football team's Bible study. There were two occasions when the
number of cars parked outside the residence was so significant that the police stopped by, but no citations
were issued, and no arrests were made. After the complaint, the team immediately moved the Bible study
to a new location. Mr. Clark stated that many of the surrounding neighbors had no objection to the tenants,
and on the few occasions when parking issues caused an inconvenience, his clients had personally apologized
to the neighbors. He added that both the property owners and the tenants had acted in good faith by being
prompt and transparent throughout the investigation.
Mr. Clark noted that a fifth tenant was supposed to have moved in, but was told he could not after the owners
and tenants learned of the occupancy limitations. He stated that the owners and tenants had kept open
communication with the Planning staff through him. Mr. Clark pointed out that the UDO gave the Board of
Adjustment the authority to amend an administrative order and extend compliance deadlines when fairness
and good faith warranted it. He stated that requiring two of the seniors to relocate mid-semester, or even
by the end of the year, would cause significant hardship. He noted that Boone's rental market was extremely
tight, with most landlords requiring a 12-month lease that began in August. Mr. Clark stated that finding
safe, affordable housing mid-semester or even mid-year was almost impossible for student-athletes who had
to manage practice, travel, and full course loads. College students often lacked the means to pay fines or
cover unexpected moving costs.
Mr. Clark respectfully asked that the Board modify the notice of violation. He stated that they had previously
requested an extension of the compliance deadline until August 2026. However, they would revise the
request to extend the compliance deadline until May 31, 2026, which would be after the end of the academic
year and well after the end of the football season, allowing these students to graduate before relocating. If
the Board were unwilling or could not grant the extension to May 31, 2026, he suggested a less desirable
compliance date of January 31, 2026. Lastly, Mr. Clark requested that the daily penalties under UDO Section
12.07.01 be suspended during the transition period, provided that no additional occupants were added and
that the property remained well-maintained and in compliance with all other applicable requirements. Mr.
Clark requested that the UDO requirements be applied with compassion. He noted that the Town's goal of
preserving the character of single-family neighborhoods was legitimate and respected, and that these goals
would not be compromised by allowing the four college seniors to complete their final year without
unnecessary disruption. Mr. Clark stated that the ordinance could be enforced and could achieve its purpose

2|Page
without being unnecessarily punitive. Granting this short extension ensured compliance, maintained
goodwill, and reflected Boone's reputation as a compassionate town.
In conclusion, Mr. Clark stated that the owners and residents had acted immediately and cooperatively with
the Town. The tenants were upstanding students with no violations or criminal history. The request was
temporary, reasonable, and fair. Mr. Clark, on behalf of the Cerullo Trust, respectfully requested that the
Board extend the compliance deadline to May 31, 2026, or at a minimum, January 31, 2026, and suspend
penalties during that period.
Ms. Meade asked Mr. Clark if he had any witnesses. Mr. Clark replied that he had hoped and intended that
the residents would be in attendance, but they had a football game. Ms. Meade asked Mr. Clark if he had
requested a continuance of the hearing on that basis. Mr. Clark stated that he did not request a continuance
because he did not want it to appear as if his clients were intentionally delaying the process. Ms. Meade
asked Mr. Clark if he had reviewed all the materials in the hearing agenda packet. Mr. Clark stated that he
had reviewed the agenda packet and had no objections to the content. Ms. Meade asked Mr. Clark if he
would agree to the admission of the agenda packet into evidence. Mr. Clark agreed. Vice-Chair Welsh
accepted the agenda packet into evidence.
Vice-Chair Welsh asked if the property owners had a property manager. Mr. Clark replied that they did not.
Vice-Chair Welsh stated that the agenda packet mentioned that a “property manager” went to Planning &
Inspections. Mr. Clark reiterated that the property owners had never told him about a property manager.
He explained that the trust that owned the property was controlled by the grandfather of a former student,
and the tenants reported directly to either the grandfather or the grandson.
Board Member Williamson referred to packet page 23, Section III. D. Due Process in Enforcement Sequence.
She wanted to make it clear that Mr. Clark was not arguing that there was a due process violation or that the
Town had not provided information in a timely manner. Ms. Meade explained that Mr. Clark had already
orally abandoned that particular claim. Mr. Clark added that neither he nor his clients were aware of any
due-process violations or of any procedures that were not followed correctly.
Board Member Williamson asked Mr. Clark if his clients were the property owners, and he replied that they
were. Board Member Williamson asked Mr. Clark when his clients purchased the property. Mr. Clark did not
know.
Vice-Chair Welsh asked who prepared the lease. Mr. Clark replied that, to his understanding, there was no
written lease. Ms. Meade asked Mr. Clark if he knew when the unwritten lease ended. Mr. Clark assumed
that the lease would not extend beyond the beginning of the next school year.
Board Member Williamson again referred to packet page 23, which contained a complaint that staff failed to
include all documents pertaining to the formal complaint. She asked Mr. Clark what document he was
referring to. Mr. Clark replied that neither he nor his clients had been provided with a copy of a formal
complaint. Board Member Luther added that a complaint could be filed through the Town’s website,
anonymously if desired. Ms. Meade reminded Board members that Mr. Clark had already orally abandoned
any claim that proper procedure was not followed.
Board Member Williamson stated that it was unfortunate that the property owners were not present at the
hearing to answer questions about the history of this situation.
Board Member Luther asked if the person who may or may not be the property manager lived in town. Mr.
Clark stated that he was not aware that this person even existed. Board Member Luther asked Mr. Clark if
he had any idea who would handle the lease or the arrangement for the tenants. Mr. Clark restated that the
grandfather of a former App State football player controlled the trust that owned the home.



3|Page
Board Member Luther disclosed that he looked up the property in the tax records, and it was purchased on
November 1, 2022. He asked Mr. Clark whether he had any idea how long the property had been rented.
Mr. Clark did not know. Board Member Luther asked if the property owners or tenants were aware that they
were in violation of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Clark replied that he was told they were unaware they were
in violation of the zoning ordinance. Board Member Luther noted that the current property owners had
owned the property for 3 years and that they may have been in violation of occupancy regulations for quite
some time. Ms. Meade noted that while that was possible, there was no evidence before the Board to
support that theory.
Mr. Clark stated that he had communicated to the owners and current tenants that they should attend the
hearing.
Board Member Luther noted that the Bible studies were moved after the complaint. He asked whether that
was because of neighbors' complaint about the parking or because of the Town's notice of violation. Mr.
Clark did not know.
Board Member Williamson asked what action the property owners had taken since receiving the notice of
violation to find other housing for the tenants. Mr. Clark replied that he was not aware of any action taken
since that date to find additional housing for the tenants. He stated that there were multiple examples of
them taking this seriously and wanting to address it. Mr. Clark noted that the property owners hired him
immediately and asked him to communicate with the staff, write a letter, and file an appeal within the
specified timeframe. Board Member Williamson pointed out that Mr. Clark had mentioned a hardship for
the tenants in relocating to an alternative living arrangement that could be unsafe or unlawful. She asked if
there was any evidence to support that claim. Mr. Clark replied that he had had several conversations with
his clients and the tenants and had also conducted some of his own research. He stated that it was difficult
for college students to move into new housing, similar to what they had in a location as safe as where they
currently resided. Board Member Williamson asked Mr. Clark if he had any evidence to back up his findings
from his research. He stated that he did not.
Board Member Luther noted Mr. Clark’s statement that it was challenging to find housing mid-semester. He
pointed out that the complaint was received in June, and the property owners waited until the start of the
semester to pursue compliance and find new housing. Mr. Clark stated that the tenants thought they had
their housing all worked out for their senior year. When the property owners were notified of the occupancy
issue, they asked him to contact the Town to delay enforcement so the tenants could stay in the house. Board
Member Luther inquired about the rent the tenants were paying, noting that, according to tax records, the
house had sold for $1.25 million. Ms. Meade cautioned that this question was beyond the scope of the
appeal.
Board Member Williamson thanked Mr. Clark for being in attendance and for his honest answers.
Luis Aguilar, Zoning Code Compliance Official, and Brandon Wise, Deputy Director of Planning & Inspections,
were sworn in by Vice-Chair Welsh. Vice-Chair Welsh asked who the property manager was. Mr. Aguilar
replied that on July 18, 2025, an older gentleman came into Planning & Inspections and identified himself as
being associated with the Appalachian State football team and whose sole job was to find housing for the
students. The gentleman told Mr. Aguilar that four people were living in the house, but it was not really out
of compliance because it was a duplex-style house. Mr. Aguilar stated that the gentleman did not give him a
name. He requested that the gentleman provide copies of the leases, but the gentleman said there were
none.
Ms. Meade asked Mr. Aguilar if he was the staff member responsible for handling the investigation and
communications in this matter. He responded that he was.



4|Page
Board Member Williamson asked how long the area had been zoned as R1. Mr. Wise replied that it had been
a long time, but he was unsure how long.
Board Member Williamson asked Mr. Aguilar if the unnamed man could have been the property owner. Mr.
Aguilar replied that he had asked the gentleman if he was the owner, and the gentleman stated that he was
not. Board Member Williamson asked if it was correct that staff mailed and emailed a notice of violation to
the owners and their attorney on August 14, 2025. Mr. Aguilar confirmed that the letter for remediation of
the violation was sent on August 14, 2025, with a remediation date of September 25, 2025. Board Member
Williamson asked if that remediation date was when the $100-per-day penalty began. Mr. Wise responded
that it typically would be, but the appellant submitted an appeal, which suspended the penalties. Board
Member Williamson asked if penalties would be applied retroactively if the appeal was denied. Ms. Meade
replied that penalties would not be retroactive.
Board Member Williamson noted that the appellants complained in the argument about the staff's
immediate escalation to a penalty notice. Mr. Aguilar replied that he had followed protocol, noting that once
a complaint was received, he was required to investigate it within 24 hours. If it were a formal complaint, he
would have been required to follow up immediately after taking any action. Mr. Aguilar stated that after the
initial investigatory letter was issued, if the property owner did not respond within five business days, a notice
of violation would be issued. A notice of violation could allow up to 30 business days before fines began to
accumulate. Ms. Meade asked Mr. Aguilar whether he could extend the compliance period beyond 30 days,
based on the terms of the UDO. Mr. Aguilar replied that he could not.
Board Member Luther asked if the duplex-style house was actually a duplex. Mr. Wise replied that R1 zoning
did not permit duplexes, so the property would need to be rezoned to allow a duplex. He added that the
house was remodeled in 2022 and that permits were issued for a single-family home.
Board Member Luther asked if the $100-per-day penalty was assessed to the property owner or the tenants.
Mr. Wise stated that the penalty would be assessed to the property owner. He noted that the fine for
occupancy violations was $200 per day and that staff had mistakenly assessed a $100 penalty instead of the
correct amount.
Vice-Chair Welsh opened the hearing for public comment, noting nine people wished to speak. He asked
that comments be kept to five minutes or less. Ms. Meade added that comments should be relevant to the
issue.
Christine Anderson of 109 Westbrook Drive was sworn in by Vice-Chair Welsh. Ms. Anderson stated that
since the house was purchased, renovated, and then purchased by the current owners, it had been a football
house with multiple football players living there for the past three years. She noted that this had been an R1
neighborhood for many years, which was why she and her husband had purchased their house. Ms. Anderson
added that it had been very distressing that this house had been in violation since 2022. She expressed
concern that allowing an extension or dismissing the fines would set a precedent. Ms. Anderson stated that
she worked for the University and knew that housing was available depending on how much someone was
willing to pay. She mentioned Mr. Clark’s comment that other available housing was not as safe as the
current location, and she felt this was because it was a $1.2 million home. Ms. Anderson stated that the
home was a single-family home, not a duplex. She added that the yard and the trash had not been well-
maintained.
Board Member Luther asked Ms. Anderson why the complaint had been filed this year, given that the
concerns had persisted for several years. Ms. Anderson replied that they had hoped the situation would
resolve itself and had therefore waited to file a complaint. They then had an interaction with Cole Becker,
one of the tenants, when many people were at the house, and it was pretty loud. Ms. Anderson stated that
she and her husband started taking pictures. Mr. Becker saw them and came over, telling them that only two
unrelated people lived in the house, which felt like a lie to them. Ms. Anderson stated that the lying was
5|Page
frustrating and what eventually motivated them to make a complaint, which she wished they had done
sooner.
Board Member Luther asked Ms. Anderson if she had ever spoken with anyone who wasn’t a tenant, like the
mysterious property manager. She replied that she had not.
Bill Anderson of 109 Westbrook Drive was sworn in by Vice-Chair Welsh. He stated that they lived across the
street from 110 Westbrook Drive when Mary Dunlap lived there. She sold the property, and it was renovated
for two years. Mr. Anderson noted that no one lived in the house during the renovations. The property was
sold again after the renovations were completed. When move-in day came, he went over and talked to
whom he thought was the owner, but it was the grandson. He told the gentleman this was an R1
neighborhood, but the gentleman did not seem to care. Mr. Anderson stated that he was surprised the
realtor who sold the house did not inform the new owners that this was an R1 property. He felt that, at
times, there had been five or six people living in the house, rather than the four mentioned by Mr. Clark. Mr.
Anderson reiterated that Cole Becker told him only two people were living in the house. He stated that the
police had been called twice because there were 20-plus cars at the house for a Bible study.
Andrew Heckert of 123 Hunting Road was sworn in by Vice-Chair Welsh. Mr. Heckert stated that he was an
ASU faculty member who walked by the house daily, and since the students moved in, it had been unclear
how many tenants were actually living there. He felt that the character of the tenants was irrelevant, noting
that the character of the owners and their willingness to follow the rules were what should be of concern.
Mr. Heckert stated that he purchased his property in that area in 2017 and had always striven to follow all
the rules. He added that there were plenty of other houses in that neighborhood that could become rentals
if the rules were not enforced. Mr. Heckert stated that just because someone was a senior did not mean
they were set to graduate in this academic calendar year. While the situation was unfortunate for the
tenants, the property owners were responsible for the problem. Mr. Heckert stated that actions had
consequences.
Fred Hay of 261 Eastview Drive was sworn in by Vice-Chair Welsh. Mr. Hay stated that he served on the
Board of Adjustment for many years. He agreed with Mr. Heckert that the people renting this house, whether
football players, students, nuns, bootleggers, or drug dealers, were irrelevant to the Board’s decision. Mr.
Hay added that when he served on this board, the primary mission was to protect R1 neighborhoods, because
losing them would mean losing the town. He asked that no extensions or reductions in fines be granted.
Eli Bentor of 388 Westbrook Drive was sworn in by Vice-Chair Welsh. Mr. Bentor noted that 4-5 years ago, a
similar situation occurred on Hunting Road, and the town decided not to grant an extension, forcing the
tenants to leave the home in the middle of the semester. He felt a precedent had been set.
Heidi Campbell of 276 Cherry Drive was sworn in by Vice-Chair Welsh. Ms. Campbell stated that she
purchased her property in 1999 and moved there to live in a neighborhood where she could raise her
children. She expressed concern with the lack of property management and sense of responsibility or
commitment to this property. Ms. Campbell asked that the fines not be suspended and the extension not be
granted. She felt that the hardship claim was somewhat ridiculous, considering the property's purchase price.
Lastly, Ms. Campbell noted that the disregard for the community and the rules was concerning.
Terri Waller of 334 Eastview Drive was sworn in by Vice-Chair Welsh. Ms. Waller stated she had lived in this
neighborhood for 41 years and knew at least 70% of the neighbors by name. She thought it was a shame
that the ASU football players had been caught in this, adding that she had no personal animosity against
them. Ms. Waller stated that the property owners had violated the Town ordinance and had dissed her R1
neighborhood.
Gale Buchanan of 254 Eastview Drive was sworn in by Vice-Chair Welsh. Ms. Buchanan stated that she and
her husband had lived in their house since 1987. She noted that a similar incident had occurred several years

6|Page
ago on Hunting Road. Ms. Buchanan stated that there was rental property all around, so she was not
convinced that someone trying to find a place to live would face hardship. She added that she loved that
their R1 neighborhood had changed from older ASU faculty to younger people with kids that she could hear
playing down the street. Ms. Buchanan said that was what they wanted and needed in their neighborhood,
and she asked that the Board help keep it that way.
Richard Gray of 283 Westbrook Drive was sworn in by Vice-Chair Welsh. Mr. Gray stated that he and his wife
had lived in their house since 1989, and the area had been a single-family neighborhood for as long as zoning
had been in effect in Boone. He expressed concern that granting an extension until May 31, 2026, would set
a very dangerous precedent. He suggested allowing the tenants to stay until the final exams were finished,
which was approximately a month away. After that, the tenants needed to find alternative accommodation
and refrain from continuing to violate the R1 status of the neighborhood.
Neither Mr. Clark nor the Town provided any closing statements, and the Board began deliberations.
Ms. Meade stated that the Board's decision was to be based on competent, material, and substantial
evidence. She advised that neither an attorney's testimony nor hearsay was substantial evidence. Ms.
Meade reminded Board members to give weight only to competent, material evidence, such as witness
testimony and the information in the agenda packet. She noted that it was clear from the comments of the
applicant's attorney that there was no claim of arbitrary or capricious conduct, due process, or an inaccurate
application of the UDO. The request was to extend the compliance deadline and suspend the penalties. Ms.
Meade stated that page nine of the meeting packet addressed the issue of penalty reductions and, to some
degree, compliance. She outlined three things that Board members should consider: whether the appellant
acted in good faith, whether the failure of the appellant to correct a violation was a result of circumstances
beyond the appellant’s control, and whether other circumstances made the amount of the presumptive civil
penalty unfair in this case. Ms. Meade advised Board members to be careful about what actual evidence had
been submitted.
Board Member Williamson asked whether the Board could establish a higher penalty than the $100 per day
currently prescribed in the UDO. Ms. Meade replied that the Board could not impose a penalty higher than
that set forth in the UDO. Ms. Meade added that the Board could either affirm the staff’s decision or provide
some relief to the appellant if it found there were grounds to do so.
Board Member Luther inquired whether the penalties would take effect today, based on the Board’s decision.
Ms. Meade responded that she would need to look carefully at the UDO requirements for that answer.
Vice-Chair Welsh stated that it spoke volumes to him to see the whole neighborhood show up and to see a
representative for the appellant attend the meeting without the appellant. Because the appellant did not
make the effort to attend the hearing, he was not inclined to give an extension. Vice-Chair Welsh added that
he did not want to set a precedent that would lead other violators to believe they could obtain extensions
and penalty reductions from the Board of Adjustment. He stated that this would take all of the power away
from Planning & Inspections. Vice-Chair Welsh thought that the property owners created their own hardship.
He felt that having no lease was sloppy. Vice-Chair Welsh stated that granting an extension of time would be
a bad decision, noting that the issue had been ongoing for too long. As for the penalty, Vice-Chair Welsh felt
that it should be affirmed at the maximum amount and should commence as soon as permitted. He added
that rules were ineffective unless enforced, and that it was essential to protect the neighborhoods. Vice-
Chair Welsh stated that students needed to be in a properly zoned area, not in residential neighborhoods, as
this was disrespectful to neighbors.
Board Member Luther noted that the violation was not contested. He stated that he could empathize with
the challenges that student athletes face, as well as with the concerns of the neighborhood in attendance
and the property owners. Board Member Luther was unsure how involved the property owners were in this
process, but the students were aware of occupancy regulations. He noted that the penalties would not be
7|Page
assessed on the tenants but on the property owners. Board Member Luther stated that no one was present
to testify regarding the terms of the lease or rental agreement, and the Board did not know exactly how long
the property had been in violation. He added that he was not as interested in the character of the students
as in the value of the testimony from those who attended the hearing.
Board Member Williamson stated that the zoning violation was not the result of circumstances beyond the
appellant's control, as buyers were responsible for knowing what they were getting into. She felt that there
could be some challenges for the current tenants in finding alternative housing. However, the hardship was
created by the property owners. Mr. Clark stated that the appellants had acted in good faith by promptly
notifying the town of their intent to comply. Board Member Williamson stated that intent was not the same
as compliance. If the owners wanted to demonstrate good faith, they would have started trying to find
housing for their tenants by July 21, 2025, which was when the “property manager” went to Planning &
Inspections. She thought they had already gotten a pretty good bang for their buck. She stated that granting
an extension or relieving penalties would go against the intent of the ordinance regarding the protection of
R1 neighborhoods. The appellant's intent to comply did not address what had already happened and what
was still happening. Board Member Williamson said that the existing and continued violation was having a
direct negative impact on the character of the neighborhood and potentially impacting property values. She
agreed that the town had followed all of the rules and procedures, and that the appellant was provided
proper, timely, and clear formal notice of the proposed action, the reasons for the action, and the availability
to appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment. Board Member Williamson suggested that the Board
uphold the staff’s decision and not grant any extension of the violation or relief from penalties. She thanked
those present for attending the hearing.
Board Member Williamson made a motion to uphold the staff’s decision, noting that the staff had followed
all the rules of the ordinance and that the penalties should be sustained. Vice-Chair Welsh seconded the
motion.
VOTE: Aye – 3
 Nay – None
 Absent – 2 (Ray, Yale-Read)
The motion passed, and the appeal was denied.
Other Matters
Discussion of Chair and Vice-Chair Positions
Ms. Shook noted that any Board member who wished to apply for the Chair or Vice-Chair positions should
complete an application and return it to the Board Clerk by Thursday, November 20, 2025, to be included in
the December BOA meeting packet. Board members would make their nominations, which would be sent to
the Town Council for approval at a subsequent Town Council meeting.
Ms. Shook stated that there were no cases to be heard at the December BOA meeting, so the meeting would
be virtual to approve meeting minutes and the written decision, and to hold the officer election.
Adjournment
Vice-Chair Welsh adjourned the meeting at 7:04 pm.




 David Welsh, Vice-Chair Brenda Henson, Board Clerk


8|Page