Board of Adjustment Minutes July 12, 2018

Transcription

1 Board of Adjustment Minutes July 12, 2018 Members Serving: David Nail, Chairman Steve McGlothlin, Vice Chairman Mark Brady Rosalind Campbell Danny Martin Also Present: Rawls Howard, Planning & Community Development Director Craig Culberson, Senior Planner Jackie Thompson, Administrative Specialist Joan Hutton Mitch Abraham John Robertson Alan Johnson Mr. Nail called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. 1.) Approval of the minutes from the June 14, 2018 Board of Adjustment meeting. ACTION: A motion by Mr. Brady, seconded by Ms. Hutton to approve the minutes. The motion was unanimously approved. 2.) Consider a VARIANCE request from R2 Development. The property is located on West Maranta Road, further referenced by Iredell County Tax Map PIN# The request is for the maximum cul-de-sac length, minimum street connectivity requirements and maximum block length. Mr. Culberson and Mr. Howard were sworn in. Craig Culberson: The property is located on West Maranta Road. Property is zoned R3 (Single Family Residential-3). The owner of the property is Luigi and Dawn Maola. The applicant is R2 Development. The property is adjacent to the Enclave Section of the Winslow bay subdivision. The property is adjacent to existing single-family homes and an inlet to Lake Norman. Currently, there is only one entrance platted into the entire Winslow Bay subdivision. The property is approximately acres. The applicant is seeking three variances. 1. The ability to construct a cul-de-sac that exceeds the maximum distance of 400 feet in accordance with the attached exhibit. a. The cul-de-sac would be an extension of Maranta Road, which, is a cul-de-sac that exceeds the maximum length under the current ordinance. b. The applicant has researched the possibilities and determined that a road extension to town standards for grade and slope could not be made. 1

2 c. The property has limitations on it due to town water line easements and topography associated with the site s location to the shores of Lake Norman. 2. A variance to the required connectivity ratio to allow a ratio of 1.0. The connectivity ratio requirement is 1.2. in this case, the ratio that is offered by the development is A variance to the maximum block length of 800 feet in accordance with the attached exhibit. a. The existing Maranta Road predates the ordinance requirement and exceeds the 800-foot maximum length. b. Public utilities will be installed per town requirements. c. Single family homes proposed on the new street will be sprinkled to comply with the NC Fire Code. The Applicant has submitted a Concept Plan for review and approval. Approval of the plan does not indicate staff support of the variance request. It indicates that if the variance is approved, the town provisions have been met on the site plan. The property to the north is zoned R-3 (Single Family Residential-Town). Property to the east is zoned R-3 (Single Family Residential-Town). Property to the west is zoned RA (Residential Agricultural-county). Property to the south is zoned HB (Highway Business- Town). In a variance case, the findings of fact must be answered in the affirmative: 1. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in application of the Ordinance requirements; and 2. Any Practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships are not the result of the actions of the applicant; 3. The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of a Variance, and that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible the reasonable use of land or structures; and 4. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit; and In the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done. Peter Elmer with R2 Development was sworn in to give his testimony. I think Mr. Culberson did a great job offering a summary of what we are looking for. I think it is important to point out that all 3 of the variances are all the cause and effect of how the property surrounding us was developed before the ordinance changed. So, the block length the node ratio and the cul-de-sac length are all because we can only access this property with one cul-de-sac. I want to address that in my experience the cul-de-sac length requirement often has to do with fire safety. One of the things that we have agreed to do, should we get the variance, and should our plan be approved is put individual residential fire sprinkler in every single house. Not only will that mediate any fire risk it will probably make it better than if we did have that second connection. The fire sprinkler advertise that they can contain or extinguish a fire in 90 seconds. 2

3 The average response fire time is 9 to 12 minutes. That is a great thing we can offer our home owners. I want to let you know how much work we went into to try and work this plan out before seeking the variance. Everything to the north is fully developed. There are homes there and no connectivity options. Everything to the west is fully developed except for that stub road that exists. Everything to our east is a very large track owned by the Winslow Bay Homeowners Association. We discussed approaching them at one point to see if we could do a fire service road. It was 1,800 feet. The representative from the fire department that sat in our TRC meetings really does not like the option of fire service roads anymore. His experience after a few years is that they are not maintained properly, and they are hard for the fire trucks to access. As we looked to the property to the south. I have some pictures and maps that I would like to show you in a minute. Even if we own or could purchase an easement from the adjacent property owners to access this site from Ervin, the topography is so severe we could not grade the roads to make that connection. To make it even more difficult, the raw water line that the town has it goes to the property. It is 3 to 5 below grade. I do not know how we could make that happen. Now we would have connectivity to Ervin Road and 150 to a residential subdivision. That would probably increase traffic verses this simple extension of the cul-de-sac. In the drive that you have there is a map that shows surrounding connectivity. If we look at how residential subdivisions are being developed today not only in Mooresville but all over the place typically you see sub streets that exist planning on future development. You can see that one at Water Oak and the one at Trillium. I did not have to go far to find these examples. You can see the subject property right there. As the bird flies it is a couple hundred yards. The way the ordinance was back in the late 90 s when these subdivisions we developed it just was not required. So, we can only work with what we have here. I thought that was important to point out. The stub street off West Maranta is the only way in. It is the only way to access this property. To address the specific questions that are to be considered for the variance, if the owner complies with the previsions that he can secure no reasonable return or make no reasonable use of this property. I will submit that without the variance only one house could be built on this site which is 13 ½ acres, smack dab in the middle of Mooresville, smack dab in the path of growth. It is just not the highest and best use for this property. The highest and best use for this property is by right zoning of R-3. Three residential units per acre. The hardship of which the applicant complains, results from unique circumstances related to the land. Even if we look at this GIS map not only do we have development all the way around us blocking off secondary access, we have extreme topo to our east, Lake Norman to our north. There is no other way to do this. The hardship is not a result of the actions of the owner. The Maola s have owned the property for 5 years and they have not done anything to the property. We have not done anything to the property. This is how they took ownership of it. The reason set forth in the application justify the granting of the Variance, and that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible the reasonable use of land or structures. We tried every which way to avoid coming and ask for a variance and there is just no other reasonable way to do this. We are boxed in from how the Ordinance use to be. Are we in harmony with the surrounding properties? Absolutely. Surrounding properties are single family residential detached. We are proposing single family residential detached. We are talking about sidewalks, curb, gutter and streets. Lastly if granting the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice been done. I think that the fact that we are going to sprinkle the homes speaks to the safety and to the welfare we are looking at a low density upscale residential subdivision that is exactly in line with what is surrounding areas. As far as the justice it would allow the Maola s to 3

4 seek the highest and best use of their property under it s current zoning. That is all I have. Are there any questions? The following were sworn in. Raif Todd: I have lived there since May I am also the President of the Winslow Bay owner s association. I do not feel that there is a hardship. Mikawato Red Arrow: I have lived in the subdivision since I oppose the application. The owner can suffer no hardship. There is only one way in and out. The construction traffic would not be safe. Concerned about the park that the construction traffic would be passing. Michael Sullivan: Agree with the two previous speakers. Chris Carney: Does not think this is a hardship. This lot was sold for an estate lot. Joe Presing: Does not think there are difficulties developing the land as it was intended. Dustin Law: Agree with the people before me. We do not see any hardship. The only hardship is not wanting to spend the money to connect to Skybrook. Barry Rimler: I am against the Variance. Joe (Inaudible): I own lots on Ervin Road and Lynnbrook. I live in Matthews. I am for growth in this area. I understand the concerns of cul-de-sacs. I do see a hardship for the developer. I see this as smart grown to maximize the land. Sandor Szatmari: We moved to Mooresville two years ago. This proposed development has the potential to put 60 cars passing our house every day, and my three daughters and dog playing in the yard is a concern. Preserving some of the land in Mooresville is good. Lanette Saxton: Concerned with the length of the cul-de-sac to be extended. It already extends the length now. Ronald Shuler: I agree with all the previous people. This must be denied. Jon McGraw: Does not think that the developer has looked at all options for an entrance. Julie Moretz: Lives at the end of the main entrance. If the developer had reached out to the HOA a lot of questions could have been answered. Concerned with the construction traffic. John Oakes: General Counsel with R2 Development. We are hearing a lot of opinions tonight. We have not heard any evidence. Peter Elmer: Explained that when the Maola s closed we were not in the room and heard what they were told. The recorded plat shows that W. Maranta as a stubbed road with an easement for a turn around. Regarding the CC&R s about purchasing a house to tear down for an access road. That was the most obvious plan from the get-go. The CC&R s forbid that. The CC&R s forbid 4

5 the HOA board from granting a Variance to any of the restrictions. So, we could not meet with that Board and have them say we will go ahead and grant you that Variance. There is not a way to tye into the Sam s club property. Debbie Szatmari: Agree with everything that the neighbors said. Build more homes and there will be more traffic. Cameron Kerr: Concerned with the number of cars and the length of the road. 7:05 Public Hearing was closed Variance #1 Section (6) Cul-de-Sac and Dead-End Streets (D) Maximum Length (i) Cul-de-sac streets shall not extend for more than 400 feet as measured from the center of the culde-sac turn around to the neatest right of way boundary of the adjoining street right-of-way intersection. ACTION: A vote of 5 yes to items A-D and 5 no on item E to approve the Finding of Facts and recommend denial of the request. Variance #2 Table 9.2.4: (8) Internal Street Connectivity (A) All development shall achieve an internal street connectivity score in accordance with Table 9.2.4, Minimum Street Connectivity Index: ACTION: A vote of 5 yes to items A-D and 4 (Mr. McGlothlin, Mr. Martin & Ms. Campbell) no and 1 (Mr. Nail) yes on item E to approve the Finding of Facts and recommend denial of the request. Variance # Block Design (1) Block Length (A) The average block length in a development shall not exceed 600 linear feet between the right-of-way edges of intersecting streets. Except in cases where environmental or topographic constrains exist, or the property has an irregular shape, no individual block shall exceed a maximum length of 880 linear feet. ACTION: A vote of 5 yes to items A-D and 4 (Mr. McGlothlin, Mr. Martin & Ms. Campbell) no and 1 (Mr. Nail) yes on item E to approve the Finding of Facts and recommend denial of the request. 7:16 5-minute break 7:21 meeting called back to order 3.) Election of Officers ACTION: A motion by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. Robertson to name David Nail as Chairman of the Board of Adjustment. The motion was unanimously approved. ACTION: A motion by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Brady to nominate Steve McGlothlin as Vice Chairman of the Board of Adjustment. The motion was unanimously approved. 5

6 ACTION: A motion by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Brady, to adjourn the July 12, 2018 Board of Adjustment meeting. The motion was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 7:22 P.M. 6