1. 2. Agenda 160317-1 Documents: 160317-1 STAFF REPORT.PDF 3. 160317-2 Documents: 160317-2 STAFF REPORT.PDF 4. 160317-3 Documents: 160317-3 STAFF REPORT.PDF 5. Minutes Documents: 3 17 16 BOA MINUTES.PDF
IREDELL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Division VARIANCE STAFF REPORT BOA CASE# 160317-1 STAFF PROJECT CONTACT: Alex Swift EXPLANTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting relief of 1.45 feet from the 8 foot height limit for fences and walls per Chapter 3, R 15 of the Iredell County Land Development Code in order to allow the existing wall around the property to remain up to 9.45 feet in height in some sections. OWNER/APPLICANT Owners: Greenbay Electronics LLC Applicant: Andrew Connell 192 Raceway Drive 192 Raceway Drive Mooresville, NC 28117 Mooresville, NC 28117 PROPERTY INFORMATION LOCATION: 448 Greenbay Road in Mooresville, NC; more specifically identified as PIN 4627954999 DIRECTIONS: Highway 150 West, left on Paradise Peninsula, left on Greenbay, property is before Molly Rex Lane. SURROUNDING LAND USE: This property is surrounded by residential uses and Lake Norman. SIZE: The property is.91 acres. EXISTING LAND USE: The property is currently vacant. ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-R (Resort Residential District)
FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The request is for relief of 1.45 feet from the 8 foot height limit for fences and walls per Chapter 3, R15 of the Iredell County Land Development Code in order to allow the existing wall around the property to remain up to 9.45 feet in height in some sections. 2. The property is.91 acres located at 448 Greenbay Road in Mooresville, NC; more specifically identified as PIN 4627954999. 3. The property is currently zoned RR (Resort Residential District) 4. The application was filed on 2/5/16. 5. The adjoining property owners were notified on 3/4/16. 6. The property was posted on 3/3/16. STAFF COMMENTS The staff was made aware of the wall by way of a complaint from neighbors. This is an addition to an existing wall; which previously had a complaint filed for, but was determined compliant by the planning staff. The wall surrounds 3 lots, all owned by Greenbay Electronics, LLC. The wall ranges in heights from 7.4 to 9.45 depending on the topography. EXIHIBITS Staff Exhibit 1. Staff Exhibit 2. Staff Exhibit 3. Staff Exhibit 4. Staff Exhibit 5. Variance Application Survey Chapter 3, R15 Adjoining Owners and Zoning Map 2014 Aerial Map
Staff Exhibit 1
Staff Exhibit 2
Staff Exhibit 3 Chapter 3: Performance Requirements R15 Fences and Freestanding Walls Unless otherwise specified within this Ordinance, fences and walls shall be exempt from setback and yard requirements provided they comply with the visibility requirements of Section 2.2.8 and do NOT exceed eight (8) feet in height. Fencing greater than eight (8) feet in height is allowed when it is an integral part of a recreational use and where no visual obstruction occurs.
Variance Check Sheet 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship. Dellinger Brater Gregory Johnson Boyce McCombs West Leach Total 2. The circumstance giving rise to the need for the variance are peculiar to the parcel and are not generally characteristic of other parcels in the County s jurisdiction. Dellinger Brater Gregory Johnson Boyce McCombs West Leach Total 3. The hardship suffered is NOT a result of the applicant s or property owner s own actions. Dellinger Brater Gregory Johnson Boyce McCombs West Leach Total 4. The granting of the variance will be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. Dellinger Brater Gregory Johnson Boyce McCombs West Leach Total
IREDELL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Division VARIANCE STAFF REPORT BOA CASE# 160317-2 STAFF PROJECT CONTACT: Rebecca Harper EXPLANTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting relief of 6.6 feet on one side and 3.4 feet on the other side per Section 15.3 A(2) of the Iredell County Land Development Code in order to raise the roofline on an existing home 4 feet on each side within the 15 foot setback for utilizing more space on the second story of the home. OWNER/APPLICANT Owners/Applicants: Sukasa Real Estate Investments LLC 245 Ease Main Avenue, #A Gastonia, NC 28052 PROPERTY INFORMATION LOCATION: 2005 Mecklenburg Highway in Mooresville, NC; more specifically identified as PIN# 4654278462. DIRECTIONS: Highway 115 south, on the left past Presbyterian Road. SURROUNDING LAND USE: This property is surrounded by residential uses. SIZE: The property is.28 acres. EXISTING LAND USE: The property has an existing home. ZONING: The property is currently zoned RA (Residential Agricultural).
FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The request is for relief of 6.6 feet on one side and 3.4 feet on the other side per Section 15.3 A(2) of the Iredell County Land Development Code in order to raise the roofline on an existing home 4 feet on each side within the 15 foot setback for utilizing more space on the second story of the home. 2. The property is.28 acres located at 2005 Mecklenburg Highway in Mooresville, NC; more specifically identified as PIN#4654278462. 3. The property is currently zoned RA (Residential Agricultural). 4. The application was filed on 2/12/16. 5. The adjoining property owners were notified on 3/4/16. 6. The property was posted on 3/3/16. STAFF COMMENTS This lot was part of a subdivision from the 1940s. The lots were originally 25 feet wide. This lot is made up of lots 16 & 17 of that subdivision. The home on the lot was built in 1954. Both occurred well before the current minimum lot width requirement of 100 feet, making this a legal non-conforming situation. Section 15.3 A(3) does not allow you to add onto the home either up or out within the setback. EXIHIBITS Staff Exhibit 1. Variance Application Staff Exhibit 2. Survey Staff Exhibit 3. Section 15.3 Staff Exhibit 4. Adjoining Owners and Zoning Map Staff Exhibit 5. 2014 Aerial Map
Staff Exhibit 1
Staff Exhibit 2
Staff Exhibit 3 Non-Conforming Occupied Buildings or Structures This category of non-conformances consists of occupied buildings or structures at the time of the passage of this Ordinance, that fail to comply with minimum requirements for area, width, front yard, side yard, rear yard, height, unobstructed open space and other requirements for the districts in which they are located. Structures and buildings may be improved, enlarged, extended, and replaced provided as follows: A. Non-conforming Principal Buildings or Structures (excluding mobile homes and signs) 1. Normal structural repair and maintenance may be performed to allow the nonconforming structured to be used. 2. Any improvement, enlargement or extension, vertical or horizontal, of principal buildings or structures shall comply with minimum requirements as to front yard, side yard, rear yard, height and unobstructed open space and other requirements for the district in which they are located. 3. Replacement of the structure is permitted provided the original foundation is used and the replacement does NOT create new non-conformities with respect to setbacks and height. 4. The existence of a nonconforming condition on a lot, parcel or tract of land shall NOT prevent the construction of additional buildings or structures on said parcel, lot or tract so long as the new building or structure meets the requirements of this ordinance.
Variance Check Sheet 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship. Dellinger Brater Gregory Johnson Boyce McCombs West Leach Total 2. The circumstance giving rise to the need for the variance are peculiar to the parcel and are not generally characteristic of other parcels in the County s jurisdiction. Dellinger Brater Gregory Johnson Boyce McCombs West Leach Total 3. The hardship suffered is NOT a result of the applicant s or property owner s own actions. Dellinger Brater Gregory Johnson Boyce McCombs West Leach Total 4. The granting of the variance will be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. Dellinger Brater Gregory Johnson Boyce McCombs West Leach Total
IREDELL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Division SPECIAL USE PERMIT STAFF REPORT BOA CASE# 160317-3 STAFF PROJECT CONTACT: Rebecca Harper EXPLANTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit per Chapter 3, R 64 of the Iredell County Land Development Code in order to construct a cell tower. OWNER/APPLICANT Owners: Christ UMC Applicant: Nexsen Pruet PLLC 2146 Zion Church Road 4141 Parklake Avenue, Suite 200 Hickory, NC 28602 Raleigh, NC 27612 PROPERTY INFORMATION LOCATION: 189 Sullivan Farm Road in Statesville, NC; more specifically identified as PIN# 4736211037. DIRECTIONS: Highway 115 north, right on Sullivan Farm Road, on right. SURROUNDING LAND USE: This property is surrounded by residential uses and vacant land. SIZE: The property is 14.37 acres. EXISTING LAND USE: The property has an existing church on it. ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-20 (Single Family Residential).
FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The request is for a Special Use Permit per Chapter 3, R 64 of the Iredell County Land Development Code in order to construct a cell tower. 2. The property is 14.37 acres located at 189 Sullivan Farm Road in Statesville, NC; more specifically identified as PIN# 4736211037. 3. The property is currently zoned R-20 (Single Family Residential). 4. The application was filed on 2/12/16. 5. The adjoining property owners were notified on 3/4/16. 6. The property was posted on 3/3/16. STAFF COMMENTS A Special Use Permit is required for cell towers in the R-20 District. The staff has reviewed the site plan and associated documentation that has been provided and the tower meets the requirements for a cell tower per Chapter 3, R64 in the Iredell County Land Development Code. EXIHIBITS Staff Exhibit 1. Staff Exhibit 2. Staff Exhibit 3. Staff Exhibit 4. Staff Exhibit 5. Staff Exhibit 6. Special Use Permit Application Site Plan Elevation View of Tower Chapter 3, R64 Adjoining Owners and Zoning Map 2014 Aerial Map
Staff Exhibit 1
Staff Exhibit 2
Staff Exhibit 3
Staff Exhibit 4 Chapter 3: Performance Requirements Wireless Telecommunication Towers and Facilities Wireless Telecommunication Towers are required to have a Special Use Permit in the R- 20, R-12, R-8, RO, and OI zoning districts. A. A site plan shall be submitted containing the name of the tower owner, property owner, scale, north arrow, and latitude/longitude coordinates. Existing site conditions, including contours, any unique natural or man-made features such as vegetation and ground cover. Exact boundary lines of the property containing the proposed tower construction, fall radius and any associated guide wires. Description of adjacent land use and all property owners(s) and their addresses. A front and side elevation profile, drawn to scale, of all existing and proposed towers and their antennas to be located on the property. B. Towers shall be sited to contain all ice-fall or debris from tower failure within the setback area. The minimum distance from the tower s base to the property line shall be one foot to each vertical foot of the tower s height. However, a lesser setback shall be permitted upon certification by a NC Registered Professional Engineer which ensures that the fall area of the tower and any appurtenances will be within the setback area proposed. C. Towers shall NOT be located within a one-half (1/2) mile radius of any other wireless telecommunication tower, unless concealed in a church steeple, farm silo, or other architecturally designed encasement (the ½ mile radius does NOT include water towers with collocation). Furthermore, towers located beyond a one-half (1/2) mile radius and NOT exceeding three (3) mile radius from any other wireless telecommunication tower shall NOT be permitted, unless the applicant can prove that collocation is not a viable option and no stealth location is possible. D. Towers shall be no closer than 500 feet from any existing residential dwelling, excluding any dwellings located on the same parcel of land as the tower. E. Towers with a height of 250 feet or greater shall be subject to Board of Adjustment approval as a Special Use Permit. F. Towers shall NOT exceed 350 feet in height as measured from ground level.
G. Towers with a height greater than 150 feet shall be constructed to permit the capability for the co-location of additional provider antennas as follows: 151 feet to 200 feet -two additional antennas 201 feet to 250 feet -three additional antennas 251 feet to 300 feet -four additional antennas 301 feet to 350 feet -five additional antennas H. The applicant shall be required to provide written documentation showing that no proposed tower lies within a thirty (30) foot to one (1) foot run to rise ratio from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a private airstrip or airport registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). I. No business signs, billboards, or other advertising shall be installed on a tower, nor shall any tower be painted or have a color considered obnoxious or offensive. J. No offices or outdoor storage of equipment or materials are permitted on tower sites located in a residential district (equipment cabinets are not considered structures). K. Accessory or component buildings shall be setback fifty (50) feet from all property lines and rights-of-way. However, if the required setback of the primary tower is less than fifty (50) feet the required setback for accessory structures shall be the same as that of the tower. L. All structures shall be enclosed by a chain link fence at least eight (8) feet in height. M. The applicant shall be required to provide written documentation stating that the tower is in compliance with all applicable Federal and State regulations. N. Notice shall be provided to the Planning Department when any telecommunication tower is placed out of service. Towers not used for a period of six (6) months or more shall be removed by the owner within 120 days of receipt of notification to that effect. The applicant shall also provide the County with written documentation substantiating that the applicant has and will sustain the financial ability to disassemble and remove the tower, once no longer in operation. O. Additional provider antennas and equipment shelters associated with an approved telecommunication tower site are permitted, provided said changes do not increase the setback- requirement beyond the allowable limit according to tower height.
P. Tower lighting shall NOT exceed the minimum for red obstruction lighting as administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Q. All permits, for the construction of a wireless telecommunication tower are issued in reliance upon a presumption that the tower will in fact conform to the plans which are submitted as the basis for the permit. Once constructed, the tower must continue to be maintained in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. R. The applicant shall be required to notify all property owners within a one-half (1/2) mile radius of a proposed tower with a height greater than 250 feet. The notice shall be by certified mail and shall include tower height and design type and date, time and location of proposed meeting. S. The applicant shall be required to provide written documentation stating that it is not viable to co-locate on existing facilities within the coverage area. Facilities include other towers, elevated tanks, electrical transmission lines, or other structures. T. The applicant shall provide the County with proof of liability insurance which protects against losses due to personal injury or property damage resulting from the construction or collapse of the tower, antenna, or accessory equipment. Such proof shall be supplied to the County by the applicant at the time of application. U. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department an inventory of its existing antennas and towers that are either within the jurisdiction of the County or within three (3) miles of the border thereof, including specific information about the location, height, and design type of each tower and antenna. The applicant shall also provide an inventory of potential future tower sites within the jurisdiction of the County. The planning department may share such information with other applicants; however, that by sharing this information, it is not in any way representing or warranting that such sites are available or suitable.
Special Use Permit Check Sheet 1. The Special Use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as proposed. Dellinger Brater West Johnson Boyce McCombs Gregory Leach Total 2. The Special Use meets all required criteria and specifications of the Iredell County Land Development Code. Dellinger Brater West Johnson Boyce McCombs Gregory Leach Total 3. The Special Use will not substantially injure the value of the adjoining or abutting property or it is a public necessity. Dellinger Brater West Johnson Boyce McCombs Gregory Leach Total 4. The Special Use will be in harmony with the area in which it is located and will be in general conformity with the plan of development of the county. Dellinger Brater West Johnson Boyce McCombs Gregory Leach Total
IREDELL COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Iredell County Zoning Board of Adjustment met at a regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Commissioners Meeting Room of the Iredell County Government Center (Old Courthouse) at 200 S. Center Street in Statesville, NC. MEMBERS PRESENT Roy West, Chairman Alan Boyce, Vice Chairman Tom Gregory Alan Boyce Tim Johnson Bill Leach Mac McCombs Jon Madison STAFF PRESENT Rebecca Harper Amy Anderson Alex Swift ABSENT Bob Dellinger Chairman West called the meeting to order and Mr. Gregory had opening prayer. Chairman West declared the public hearing open. He then swore/affirmed in those wishing to speak in regard to the following cases. Ms. Harper presented the following cases: BOA CASE NO. 160317-3; Greenbay Electronics (owner), Andrew Connell (applicant) EXPLANTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting relief of 1.45 feet from the 8 foot height limit for fences and walls per Chapter 3, R 15 of the Iredell County Land Development Code in order to allow the existing wall around the property to remain up to 9.45 feet in height in some sections. OWNER/APPLICANT Owners: Applicant: Greenbay Electronics LLC Andrew Connell PROPERTY INFORMATION LOCATION: 448 Greenbay Road in Mooresville, NC; more specifically identified as PIN 4627954999 DIRECTIONS: Highway 150 West, left on Paradise Peninsula, left on Greenbay, property is before Molly Rex Lane. SURROUNDING LAND USE: This property is surrounded by residential uses and Lake Norman.
Page 2 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes SIZE: The property is.91 acres. EXISTING LAND USE: The property is currently vacant. ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-R (Resort Residential District) FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The request is for relief of 1.45 feet from the 8 foot height limit for fences and walls per Chapter 3, R15 of the Iredell County Land Development Code in order to allow the existing wall around the property to remain up to 9.45 feet in height in some sections. 2. The property is.91 acres located at 448 Greenbay Road in Mooresville, NC; more specifically identified as PIN 4627954999. 3. The property is currently zoned RR (Resort Residential District) 4. The application was filed on 2/5/16. 5. The adjoining property owners were notified on 3/4/16. 6. The property was posted on 3/3/16. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO STAFF Chairman West asked if a building permit was issued for the wall. Ms. Harper said she did not know. Zoning permits are not required for fences and walls. The height limit requirement is reflected in the Land Development Code. Chairman West asked how close the wall is to the 760 line. Ms. Harper said that distance is not reflected on the survey. Walls and fences are considered de minimis as far as the impervious coverage goes and would be allowed to go further into the buffer. Mr. Boyce asked if the previous wall was less than 8 foot tall. Ms. Harper said yes. Ms. Harper then showed the first wall on the aerial view of the property. Mr. Gregory asked if the property had the same owner during the complaints that were received. Ms. Harper said yes. THOSE SPEAKING FOR THE REQUEST Andrew Connell, applicant spoke in favor of the variance request. He said the wall is more than 50 feet from the water line. Mr. Connell said there were no complaints made until after the wall was completed. Mr. Connell explained that the construction crew was not permitted onto the adjoining owner s property so measurements could only be taken on one side.
Page 3 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes Mr. Connell said he did inquire about a building permit, but one was not needed as the wall is considered a fence. Chairman West if he was told about a height limit while trying to obtain a building permit. Mr. Connell said no. Mr. Connell said that he looked into the height requirements after a complaint was made and that is when a survey was done and heights were marked. Mr. Gregory asked if the zoning staff mentioned the height limit after the initial complain on the first wall. Mr. Connell said he did not work for the owner at that time. Chairman West asked Mr. Connell s capacity. Mr. Connell said he is a construction manager. Mr. Boyce asked if anyone in the construction company was aware of the 8 foot height requirement. Mr. Connell said it was not brought to his attention. Chairman West asked if the highest peak of the wall impedes the view of the adjacent property owner. Mr. Connell said the view is of the owner s personal home. Chairman West asked if the lot is vacant. Mr. Connell said yes, the previous home has been removed. Chairman West asked if there are plans to build a residence on the vacant lot. Mr. Connell said yes. Chairman West asked what type of materials the wall is made of. Mr. Connell stated it is block wall with a two foot wide 12 inch deep footing. The wall is pargy coated on one side. Chairman West then asked how much of the wall is out of compliance. Mr. Connell said between 70-80 feet. Mr. Connell asked which side of the wall should be measured to determine the height. Ms. Harper said the wall should have been measured from the ground to the side with the highest point. Mr. Boyce asked if the wall was completed by a certified contractor. Mr. Connell said no the work was subleased out. Chairman West asked how difficult it would be to shorten the wall. Mr. Connell said the wall would have to be cut on both sides. The rebar would have to be cut through and the wall would have to be recapped. Mr. Boyce asked why the wall was heightened to 8 foot. Mr. Connell said the topography adjusts the height of the wall and gives the appearance of the wall being higher. THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THE REQUEST Charles Schmidt, adjoining property owner, spoke against the request. He said 250 of the 270 foot long wall is out of compliance. He has lived on the lake for 30 years. The wall restricts his view of the lake. Mr. Schmidt explained that during construction of the wall he went over and told Mr. Connell that the wall was over the height limit. Mr. Scdmidt said he contacted the zoning department when one third of the wall was complete and staff came out and spoke with someone on the property. He said the owners knew the wall was out of compliance well before the wall was completed. Mr. Schmidt said the owner or a
Page 4 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes representative of the owner assured him that would be in compliance. Mr. Schmidt entered pictures of the wall and examples of an acceptable wall into evidence as Exhibit 1. He explained that the wall is inappropriate for the neighborhood and it obstructs views of the lake for numerous neighbors. Mr. Schmidt said the owners had time to correct the height of the wall but chose not to. The side of the wall on his property is plain unfinished cement block. He said the wall looks like something that would be around a jail. Mr. Schmidt stated the wall should be below 8 feet and a concrete wall is not appropriate in a residential neighborhood. He said he expects the owners to build another wall as they now own another lot on the other side of the property in question. Mr. Schmidt shared his concerns on what impact the wall may have on adjoining property values. Chairman West stated a wall is allowed in the county ordinance. The board cannot make the owners take the wall down but it is in the board s prevue to have the owners lower the height of the wall. Chairman West asked Mr. Schmidt if a foot and a half would affect his view and enjoyment of the lake. Mr. Schmidt said yes. The wall blocks the sun half of each afternoon. Mr. Leach asked Mr. Schmidt if he can see the lake from the back of his home. Mr. Schmidt said the wall obstructs his view. Mr. Johnson asked if the wall blocks the view more than the previous home did. Mr. Schmidt said yes, the wall is 30 feet from his home and 10 foot from his picnic shelter. Chairman West asked what staff told the owners when they went out to the property after receiving the complaints. Mr. Swift said he has visited the property three times. He went out for the first wall that surrounded the first two lots and the wall was in compliance. He went back out during construction of the second wall and it was under 8 foot. He told the person on site that the wall could be no higher than 8 foot. Mr. Swift said the violation process started after finding out the wall was over 8 foot during his third visit. Mr. Leach asked Mr. Swift who he spoke with during the first visit. Mr. Swift said he did not contact anyone because the wall was in compliance. Mr. Leach asked how much of the new wall was completed during his third visit. Mr. Swift said the cinderblocks were nearly completed but the inside of the wall was not completed. Chairman West said the wall was finished after the owners became aware of the height limit. Leanne Pupchek, a homeowner in the community, spoke against the request. She said the Schmidt s have lost views of sunsets and sun in the afternoon. She explained the wall is not appropriate for the community. Nancy Lindsey, a homeowner in the community, spoke against the request. She said she moved into the neighborhood 26 years ago for the beautiful trees and lake views. She explained Green
Page 5 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes Bay Road is beautiful winding road and the wall is not in harmony with the area. Ms. Lindsey said she fears that the wall may set a precedence in the neighborhood. Tom Pistone, adjoining owner, spoke against the variance request. He said he chose his lot because of the panoramic water views and it is now gone due to the wall. He said the owner intends to purchase more lots and erect walls around them until a compound is created. Mr. Pistone said a tone needs to be set before it reaches that level. Mr. Pistone said the wall has the appearance of 15 foot tall when standing on the Schmidt s property. He further stated that Mr. Schmidt s property has been destroyed by the wall. Mr. Pistone said the Schmidt s have a beautiful oasis that is now ruined by a cement wall. He said the owners are trying to drive the Schmidts out of the neighborhood so they can purchase his property. Mr. Pistone said the initial wall in front of the property was 15 foot tall and has since been lowered and is now at the three different heights. Mr. Pistone told me the board that is imperative that something be done to negate the affect the wall is having on adjoining owners and the neighborhood. STAFF COMMENTS The staff was made aware of the wall by way of a complaint from neighbors. This is an addition to an existing wall; which previously had a complaint filed for, but was determined compliant by the planning staff. The wall surrounds 3 lots, all owned by Greenbay Electronics, LLC. The wall ranges in heights from 7.4 to 9.45 depending on the topography. The Board went over the Variance check sheet 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship. Johnson: Gregory: Leach: Boyce: Madison: West: FALSE No unnecessary hardship as the wall is ornamental not structural. FALSE The hardship would not be unnecessary considering the case. FALSE Information was relayed to the owner. FALSE - Information of the height limit was relayed before the wall was completed. FALSE Height limit was known. The wall should have been corrected. FALSE Owners assured staff the wall would be only 8 foot tall. FALSE BY A VOTE OF 6-0 2. The circumstance giving rise to the need for the variance are peculiar to the parcel and are not generally characteristic of other parcels in the County s jurisdiction.
Page 6 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes Johnson: Gregory: Leach: Boyce: Madison: West: FALSE There is nothing peculiar about the parcel. FALSE - The variance is not peculiar to the parcel. FALSE - The situation is not peculiar. FALSE There is no need for a variance to construct an 8 foot wall. FALSE - There is nothing peculiar to the situation. FALSE - There is nothing peculiar to allow the wall to be higher than allowed by code. FALSE BY A VOTE OF 6-0 3. The hardship suffered is NOT a result of the applicant s or property owner s own actions. Johnson: Gregory: Leach: Boyce: Madison: West: FALSE The property owner had oppurtunity to get a proper survey. FASLE - The hardship is due to the owners actions. FALSE The hardship is a result of the owner s actions. FALSE The owner built the wall out of code. FALSE The hardship is a result of the owner s actions. FALSE The owner and/or contractor was warned of the height limit. FALSE BY A VOTE OF 6-0 4. The granting of the variance will be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. Johnson: Gregory: Leach: Boyce: Madison: West: FALSE Granting a variance would not ensure public safety. FALSE Granting a variance would be inconsistent with the ordinance. FALSE Granting a variance would not achieve substantial justice. FALSE Granting a variance would impact the community in a negative manner. FALSE Granting a variance would be inconsistent with spirit of the ordinance. FALSE The variance is very inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. FALSE BY A VOTE OF 6-0 DECISION: Mr. Gregory made a motion to DENY the Variance based on the Findings of Fact, and the evidence submitted. Mr. Boyce seconded said motion favor. Motion passed. VOTES: 6-0 At 6:50 p.m., Jon Madison left the meeting. At 6:55 p.m., Mr. McCombs entered the meeting. Mr. McCombs was not present for the first case.
Page 7 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes BOA CASE NO. 160317-2; Sukasa Real Estate Investments EXPLANTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting relief of 6.6 feet on one side and 3.4 feet on the other side per Section 15.3 A(2) of the Iredell County Land Development Code in order to raise the roofline on an existing home 4 feet on each side within the 15 foot setback for utilizing more space on the second story of the home. OWNER/APPLICANT Owners/Applicants: Sukasa Real Estate Investments LLC PROPERTY INFORMATION LOCATION: 2005 Mecklenburg Highway in Mooresville, NC; more specifically identified as PIN# 4654278462. DIRECTIONS: Highway 115 south, on the left past Presbyterian Road. SURROUNDING LAND USE: This property is surrounded by residential uses. SIZE: The property is.28 acres. EXISTING LAND USE: The property has an existing home. ZONING: The property is currently zoned RA (Residential Agricultural). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The request is for relief of 6.6 feet on one side and 3.4 feet on the other side per Section 15.3 A(2) of the Iredell County Land Development Code in order to raise the roofline on an existing home 4 feet on each side within the 15 foot setback for utilizing more space on the second story of the home.
Page 8 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes 2. The property is.28 acres located at 2005 Mecklenburg Highway in Mooresville, NC; more specifically identified as PIN#4654278462. 3. The property is currently zoned RA (Residential Agricultural). 4. The application was filed on 2/12/16. 5. The adjoining property owners were notified on 3/4/16. 6. The property was posted on 3/3/16. QUESTIONS FROM BOARD TO STAFF Chairman West asked if a variance can be granted for a non-conforming building. Ms. Harper said the ordinance states that a non-conforming cannot be made more non-conforming but it does not prevent approving a variance. THOSE SPEAKING FOR THE REQUEST Carlos Betty, owner/applicant spoke in favor of the variance. He said he would like build the roof up to allow use of the second floor to utilize the house to its potential. No one wished to speak against the request. STAFF COMMENTS This lot was part of a subdivision from the 1940s. The lots were originally 25 feet wide. This lot is made up of lots 16 & 17 of that subdivision. The home on the lot was built in 1954. Both occurred well before the current minimum lot width requirement of 100 feet, making this a legal non-conforming situation. Section 15.3 A(3) does not allow you to add onto the home either up or out within the setback. The Board went over the Variance check sheet 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship. Johnson: Gregory: Leach: Boyce: McCombs: West: BY A VOTE OF 6-0
Page 9 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes 2. The circumstance giving rise to the need for the variance are peculiar to the parcel and are not generally characteristic of other parcels in the County s jurisdiction. Johnson: Gregory: Leach: Boyce: McCombs: West: BY A VOTE OF 6-0 3. The hardship suffered is NOT a result of the applicant s or property owner s own actions. Johnson: Gregory: Leach: Boyce: McCombs: West: BY A VOTE OF 6-0 4. The granting of the variance will be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. Johnson: Gregory: Leach: Boyce: McCombs: West: BY A VOTE OF 6-0 DECISION: Mr. Johnson made a motion to APPROVE the Variance based on the Findings of Fact, and the evidence submitted. Mr. Leach seconded said motion favor. Motion passed. VOTES: 6-0
Page 10 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes BOA CASE NO. 160317-3; Christ UMC (owner), Nexsen Pruet PLLC (applicant) EXPLANTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit per Chapter 3, R 64 of the Iredell County Land Development Code in order to construct a cell tower. OWNER/APPLICANT Owners: Applicant: Christ UMC Nexsen Pruet PLLC PROPERTY INFORMATION LOCATION: 189 Sullivan Farm Road in Statesville, NC; more specifically identified as PIN# 4736211037. DIRECTIONS: Highway 115 north, right on Sullivan Farm Road, on right. SURROUNDING LAND USE: This property is surrounded by residential uses and vacant land. SIZE: The property is 14.37 acres. EXISTING LAND USE: The property has an existing church on it. ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-20 (Single Family Residential). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The request is for a Special Use Permit per Chapter 3, R 64 of the Iredell County Land Development Code in order to construct a cell tower. 2. The property is 14.37 acres located at 189 Sullivan Farm Road in Statesville, NC; more specifically identified as PIN# 4736211037. 3. The property is currently zoned R-20 (Single Family Residential). 4. The application was filed on 2/12/16. 5. The adjoining property owners were notified on 3/4/16. 6. The property was posted on 3/3/16. STAFF COMMENTS
Page 11 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes A Special Use Permit is required for cell towers in the R-20 District. The staff has reviewed the site plan and associated documentation that has been provided and the tower meets the requirements for a cell tower per Chapter 3, R64 in the Iredell County Land Development Code. EXIHIBITS Staff Exhibit 1. Staff Exhibit 2. Staff Exhibit 3. Staff Exhibit 4. Staff Exhibit 5. Staff Exhibit 6. Special Use Permit Application Site Plan Elevation View of Tower Chapter 3, R64 Adjoining Owners and Zoning Map 2014 Aerial Map QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO STAFF Mr. Boyce asked the height of the tower. Ms. Harper said 184 feet high. Mr. Boyce also asked about a potential fall zone. Ms. Harper said the tower is engineered to buckle and not fall outside of the property line. The engineer sets the fall zone based on the construction of the tower. Mr. Leach asked if the tower is within 500 foot of residential property. Ms. Harper said no. Mr. Boyce stated it is within 500 feet of the church. Ms. Harper said the ordinance states a tower cannot be placed within 500 foot of a residence but a tower can be placed within 500 of a residence on the same property. The church is aware that the proposed tower would be placed within 500 foot. THOSE SPEAKING FOR THE REQUEST Tom Johnson, attorney with Nexsen Pruet representing Tower Com, spoke in favor of the proposed request. Mr. Johnson stated he agreed with the staff report and asked that the application and supporting documents be admitted into evidence. Mr. Tom Johnson said that large tracts of land near churches and schools are often used as tower sites due to the setback. This also benefits the community. The proposed tower is for Verizon Wireless although it is designed to house multiple carriers. Mr. Tom Johnson said as demand increases the coverage that a tower handles decreases and service goes down. Most citizens use wireless devices for communication and data service. The more that are used the more towers are required. Mr. Tom Johnson said citizens demand good service as some have even done away with landline telephone service. Good service is also important in order to obtain 911 during an emergency. On an average, more than 70% of calls to 911 are from mobile devices. Mr. Tom Johnson presented a coverage map of the area. There is an American Tower Site to the west of the proposed site, but there is still a gap in service. Cell service and data providers aim to have a continuous strong coverage.
Page 12 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes The towers are designed so that all requirements are met. Towers also meet wind and ice standards for this area of the country. There is a point on the tower that is weaker than the rest. If there is some event the tower would bend over at the weak point. If a tower were to fall it would stay on the property. The proposed tower would be 175 feet high. The remainder to reach 184 feet is a lightning rod so that if there is lightening in the area it is dispersed below the tower so it does not harm the tower or surrounding property. The tower would be surrounded by a chain link fence with barbed wire atop the fence. Mr. Tom Johnson shared some computer generated pictures of the property with the tower. The tower is not alone in terms of tall structures in the area. There are light poles in the church parking lot and it blends in with nearby infrastructure. Mr. Tom Johnson said that the tower would not adversely affect adjoining properties. The use would not materially endanger the public health or safety. The tower would actually help public health and safety because it provides better more reliable service in the area in case of an emergency. The proposed tower meets all required criteria and specification of the Iredell County Land Development Code. By definition of state law if a tower is allowed by Special Use Permit within the district it is presumed that it is in harmony with the area. Mr. Tom Johnson said if the tower was proposed in a RA, Residential Agricultural it could have been placed by right administratively. Mr. Boyce asked if there is any evidence from the community that the current service is inadequate. Mr. Tom Johnson said that is a part of the decision making process. Verizon Wireless ranks tower sites based on consumer complaints and issues with service in the area. Verizon visits the site to analyze the signal. Mr. Boyce asked if emergency personnel are having issues due to improper coverage. Mr. Johnson said they are or will because if there is not sufficient coverage or capacity calls could be dropped. Mr. Boyce asked if there is any evidence of that. Mr. Tom Johnson referred to the map of coverage that was provided and said that the white areas on the map indicates there is not reliable service in the area. Mr. Boyce asked what kind of lights would be placed on the tower. Mr. Tom Johnson said the tower is not required to have lights because it is below 200 feet in height. Initially Verizon Wireless desired a 195 foot tower but it was decreased to 184 foot due to setbacks. Mr. Boyce asked if antennas could have been placed on church steeples and/or tall buildings instead of constructing a tower. Mr. Tom Johnson said not in this area. The American Tower Site is the closest available tower but it did not meet the objectives. Mr. Gregory asked if water towers are ever acceptable. Mr. Tom Johnson said yes in certain circumstances. Water towers are lower in height therefore have a smaller footprint. Typically those lower structures do a better job when located in a more urban area. Making a tower shorter will limit the availability to other carriers. Mr. Tom Johnson said a water tower in the area was examined but it would not fill the coverage gap. Mr. Boyce said there are areas within the county that has improved coverage using shorter towers
Page 13 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes and are placed in wooded areas. He asked why that is not an option for this tower. Mr. Tom Johnson said because the proposed location is more rural. Shorter towers are more viable in a densely populated area. Shorter towers are a supplement to taller towers not a replacement. Michael Berkowitz, a certified general appraiser for 14 years with an Economics Degree from Duke University stated the tower would not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. There are two very large towers with lighting to the east of the proposed tower. There are several subdivisions surrounding those towers. The towers can be seen from some of the properties. Mr. Berkowitz said he looked at 250 sales in those subdivisions that could and could not see the tower. He concluded that the proposed tower would not injure the value as consistent with those which he considered much more visually intrusive. Mr. Berkowitz said there are no noise, traffic, or odor impacts of the tower. The intersection to the north of the proposed site is considered rural commercial. Towers do not typically impact commercial property values. Mr. Berkowitz further said the tower is in harmony with the area in which it would located. Mr. Leach asked if the tower could enhance the value of properties in the area. Mr. Berkowitz said some people will not buy a home without cell coverage in the area. It is a matter of personal choice. He said the market does not show a diminution of value for those around the proposed cell tower compared to the adjacent and abutting properties. Mr. Gregory asked the names of the subdivisions that were compared. Mr. Berkowitz said Timberlane, Stonebridge, Clearview Acres, Willow Brook, and Beverly Heights. Mr. Gregory asked how many sales were looked at. Mr. Berkowitz stated he looked at 250 sales from 2009 2015. Several factors and variables were considered in the report. Without cell tower consideration there was a 94% probalility within one standard deviation. There was a 91% probality was found when a tower was considered. Mr. Berkowitz stated there was added uncertainty by adding the extra variable as to what the value of the properties would be. An appraiser likes to see added certainty not take away. Therefore, it statistically proves that the impact of the tower does not apply. Mr. Boyce asked if the towers were existent in 2009. Mr. Berkowitz said yes. Mr. Boyce asked if new technology would negate the need for new towers. Mr. Johnson said it is in the carrier s best interest to limit the number of towers they have to add. The carriers will utlitize existing towers once technology improves allowing them to meet the capacity and coverage needs. Currently, Verizon Wireless is using the best available technology to meet the need in this area. Based on current technology and demand in the area a tower is needed now. The areas further north of Statesville are less densely populated will receive improved coverage as they become more densely populated. Mr. Tom Johnson said the quality of data service is also important. Chairman West asked about abandoned towers. Mr. Tom Johnson said abandoned are usually ones from military facilities or old AT&T microwave towers where that technology is no longer used. Those towers often become candidates for wireless coverage. Mr. Tom Johnson said he has not seen any abandoned wireless cell towers in 30 years once they are put to service. Ms. Harper
Page 14 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes shared that the Land Development Code requires that if a tower is out of commission for six months once the owner is notified they have 120 days to remove the tower. Mr. McCombs asked if there are any nearby airfields. Mr. Johnson said no, FAA has already given approval for the tower. Mr. Boyce asked if anyone from Iredell County is going to testify on behalf of the tower. Mr. Johnson said the appraiser is from Concord. The tower company is based out of the triangle area. Mr. Johnson said the church is in support of the tower. The money from the lease will directly benefit the community. Mr. Berkowitz has performed approximately 30 appraisals in relation to the Statesville Airport. George Davis, a representative from Tower Com, said careful consideration goes into a tower site. Technology has improved but towers are still not able to offer broader coverage. There is a potential of towers being able to serve a broader area with lesser towers. The density, number of towers, height of towers have come down all at the same time the ability and capability of the equipment have increased. Mr. Davis said this is one of many sites that Verizon Wireless is looking into. The sites that used to cover Iredell County are no longer sufficient to provide 4G and 5G coverage and beyond. Mr. Boyce said areas around the world have excellent cell phone service but have alternate method to the tall towers. Mr. Davis said antennas can be added to taller buildings, but the proposed site is a residential area with no infrastructure available to add onto. Mr. Davis reiterated the fact that the tower could be placed across the road in a different zoning district by right. THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THE REQUEST Cecil Stallard, adjoining property owner, spoke against the request. Mr. Stallard said Meadow Oaks and Fort Dobbs communities are nearby. The homes and yards in both are very neat. He owns a farm across the road from the proposed site. He said the adjoining owners would have an ugly view of the tower. Mr. Stallard said the owners of the property are not present to speak. The tower officials make the tower seem like it is going to improve the community and how property values are not going to be affected. He said the tower company and cell phone users are going to benefit. Mr. Stallard said he is a Verizon Wireless user and has excellent coverage at his farm. Mr. Stallard said the appraisal analysis from 2009 is not current. Mr. Stallard said the tower is going to affect the entire county. He said Statesville can only expand on Highway 115. Residential and commercial growth should be considered when voting on the tower. He said the tower is going to take up 15 acres that could be developed in the future. The tower will create a pocket for Statesville. Mr. Stallard asked the board to consider the effect of the tower to the economic growth in the county. Mr. Stallard said he is not against cell towers but is opposed to this location.
Page 15 of 18, 03/17/2016 BOA Meeting Minutes Mr. Stallard said the applicant has answered every question in a positive way. The proposed cell tower is not good for Iredell County. Mr. Boyce asked Mr. Stallard if he has any problems with dropped calls at his farm. Mr. Stallard said no. The service is great. There is property north of the area but no one is willing to sell because they do not want a cell tower on their property. He said 90% of the church members do not live in the area. Chairman West said the proposed tower meets the criteria in Chapter 3 R64 in the Iredell County Land Development Code which means the County Commissioners have approved these type towers. It is not in the Board of Adjustment s purview to change the rules. Mr. West said there are numerous cell towers that are taller than the proposed. Mr. Stallard said the cell tower will prevent the building of more homes in the area. He said no one wants to live near a tower. Jim Cartner, adjoining property owner spoke against the Special Use Permit. Mr. Cartner owns nearby Scotts Creek Animal Hospital. He said cell service is inadequate one mile down Scotts Creek Road until the Old Highway 90. Cell service is spotty north of Yadkin Baptist Church on Wilkesboro Highway. Mr. Cartner said it took him two years to get past zoning issues in order to build his veterinary clinic. His clinic took the place of three mobile homes in which two were owned by drug dealers. The community has a come a long way in 10 years. The church was not there when he built his clinic. Mr. Cartner stated that are better places for the cell tower to be placed that will provide even better coverage in the area. He said that no one wants a tower beside their home. The aesthetics of a cell tower does not match what the community hopes to be. Mr. Cartner said he is a Verizon Wireless customer and has no issues at his clinic. He has no experience with dropped calls. Mr. Cartner said the tower does not enhance the community. A tower would be detrimental to the appearance of the community. There is tower in downtown Morganton that is in the appearance of a tree, so it does not appear as a cell tower. Mr. Cartner asked why that technique cannot be implemented. Chairman West stated usually the meeting room is filled with neighbors when a cell tower case is being heard. Mr. Tom Johnson said that Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial board. When certain specific requirements are met as in this case, the board must approve it unless there is some other legal information that would be contrary. Any comments in respect to economics or values must come from experts. It is in the purview of the service provider to determine where cell service is and is not available. The need of a tower cannot be determined by the board. There has been no contrary evidence presented by an expert of the analysis report presented by Mr. Berkowitz. Mr. Tom Johnson stated the cell tower will only take up one quarter of an acre. The church may expand and adjoining properties can expand as well.