Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we will bring the April 28th, 2026 planning board meeting to order. Um, first thing I'd like to recognize a few guests in the audience. Uh we've got Boy Scout Troop 10 here visiting. Welcome. Uh we also have commissioners Smallwood and Corette. Thank you all for attending. Um first order of business is to consider approval of the March 24th, 2026 meeting minutes. If we could get a motion. So moved. Motion. Second. Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you. And we have no public comments. Correct. Great. Okay. Moving right along on the action agenda. Item 4 A. Consider recommendation on petition number R25-14. A request by Dashian Food Stores Incorporated to reszone 2.6 six acres at the corner of Statesville Road and Hambrite Road from corporate business CB to Highway commercial with conditions highway commercial CD for convenience store with gasoline sales and accessory car wash. Nathan, Mr. Chairman, before you begin?

Yes. I'd like to just disclose I've got an ownership interest in the property that's diagonally across the intersection and I have represented the adjoining property owner but I will be impartial and have no issues u being impartial. Okay. Does anybody have an issue? Okay. Thank you for disclosing that. Moving right along.

All right. Good evening. Uh before I begin, I'll submit my staff report into the record. And uh as already stated, the applicant Dash and Stores LLC is uh submitted a reszoning um for 2.67 acres at the corner of Hambrite and Old Statesville uh for a gas station uh with a convenience store and a car wash. A TIA was required and that was deferred to NC DOT. During the public hearing, the applicants verbally stated that they would um commit to all of the NC DOT requirements. Uh staff just ask asks that that be formalized on the resoning site plan. Uh the applicant does have three modification requests. The first is to allow sideyard parking to occupy more than 45% of the principal frontage. The applicant here is requesting 68%. The second modification request is to allow grading within their undisturbed buffer. This is to allow NC DO's required driveway access. And the last modification request is for the location of their dumpster to be within the sideyard. Um staff is in support of all three of the applicants modification requests. And here is the elevation for the convenience store. Um as you can see on the left side of the screen, that is the side that'll front on the intersection of Hambrite um and Old Statesville. Um, the applicant worked with staff to come up with a a elevation that works to bring a pedestrianized and uh design focus uh to that intersection. Um, and we support

their elevation as well. And then moving on to our recommendation, um, staff could be in support as is consistent with the character area recommendations of the 2040 plan as long as the following conditions are met. The first is that we ask that the convenience stores interior space along the road frontage is clear clearly defined on how it will be activated. U we're looking for is it going to have artwork, architecture or merchandise um being shown. The next condition is for all outstanding TIA recommendation items to be committed to. And then for all developer schematic notes to be replaced with staff's approved schematic notes and then lastly that all minor staff comments are addressed. The final action will be on May 19th. Um and if you have any questions um I'm here to answer them. The applicants are also here and they have a presentation as well. Okay, we'll start with questions for staff. Any questions? Um, so I know it was it's mentioned in the community meeting about the um the TIA with the NC DOT changes and um so I'm just clarifying that there's no light that's going to be there's no arrow that'll be at that intersection to direct traffic that'll be added with that TIA.

Um just give me one moment. I don't believe so, but I'll let the applicant uh verify that. Okay, Jody, I I think that there's already an arrow at that particular Yeah, there's currently one. Yeah. Yeah, very minor, but uh the sidewalks that does then connect to the sidewalk coming from the middle school. Yes. Yep. It's confirmed.

Can you um go into a little bit more detail about the tree requirement? I think we're they're coming up just short of the the 30% required. Yeah. So, they're they're still in they're still in compliance with the the tree ordinance. Um our tree safe ordinance allows um up to 30% mitigation. Um and they're doing that they're going to mitigate that last 5% uh by planting I believe it's 13 additional trees on site. So that's in lie of saving I guess by the number of trees. I think yes save five specimen trees you're only saving four.

So there's one specimen that they can't save um in order to meet the full 30% requirement. So they're mitigating for that one specimen tree which would require them to plant an additional 13 trees on site. Okay. Thank you. And if you all could state your name, please uh as you speak,

Mr. Chairman, um members of the planning board, I'm John Carmichael, um representing the applicant, Dashin uh food stores. We've got Todd Bonnet here. He's a consultant assisting uh the applicant. Chase Smith is a traffic engineer. He can answer any traffic related questions that you may have. Mark Strickland's on the end. He's with Becker Morgan Group. Uh the site civil and then um we've got Matthew Parker with Dash in. And then Mark's going to review the plan with you briefly. But um we appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. The site's about 2.67 acres, southeast corner of Statesville Road and um Hambrite Road. This is an aerial the site. It's it's currently undeveloped. You've got JM Alexander Middle medical middle medical middle medical middle medical middle medical middle medical middle medical middle medical middle medical middle medical middle middle school to the east. Stony Brook subdivision to the northeast. There's the animal hospital to the north. There's an industrial user to the south. And then you've got this um undeveloped parcel at the corner. Then a multif family residential community here. And then this is the colonial pipeline easement right here to the east. Uh the site's currently zoned CBCD. Uh the request is to resone the site to the highway commercial conditional district to accommodate the development of a convenience store with uh gasoline sales and accessory car wash on the site. Additionally, the following uses would also be permitted. Um retail establishments, office uses, uh professional and personal services, restaurants without drive-through windows, healthc care services, and branch banks. Uh the maximum gross floor area of the principal building would be 6,000 square ft. Uh the maximum gross floor area of the accessory car wash building would be 1,350 square feet and then the maximum allowed building height would be 35 ft. Um you want to briefly go over and I will say while Mark's coming up that uh we will address all the comments and uh staff concerns that were in the staff report and we agreed to all the conditions that are set out

in the staff report and those will be addressed in a revised site plan that we'll file no later than than Monday. Hi, I'm uh Mark Strickland, civil engineer for this project. I'll just real quickly run through the site plan and point out a few things for you guys. Um so we'll start off uh biggest building on the site caddy corner to the intersection is the actual uh convenience store building itself. You can see we have the pedestrian connectivity out on the intersection side of the building. And then on the far side of the can canopies in the middle, the far side, this proposed building is actually the car wash. We should have labeled that better. Um, you have the car wash there. And then we have landscaping around all sides except for along the frontage to the intersection. And that was a request by planning to pull that off there. We do have a 30foot undisturbed buffer that runs along the eastern boundary and that is where we're requesting the small encroachment to allow the entrance location to be located here so that it is directly across from the animal hospital. DOT wanted us to line those entrances. So that forced a small encroachment into the buffer right there. But then we pulled the drive valve back into the site to get that buffer back in place. Um to this to the east of our site here, we do have the Colonial Pipeline easement, but we don't expect any impacts uh where we have the buffer between us and them. The improvements along Hambrite Road will extend past the Colonial Easement, but that'll all be just widening at the surface. There's not any utility connections that are on that side of the site. There'll be one sewer crossing that goes below Hambrite up in front of the parking lot to pull sewer into our site uh in front of the parking lot from the animal hospital. Uh the proposed DOT improvements are a right turn lane on

westbound Hambrite as you come up to the intersection here. So, we're putting in a new right turn lane there. There'll be a right turn lane at both of our entrances. So on Hambrite here and then on Statesville on this side and then we have a left turn lane coming in on Hambrite road as you approach our site which requires a little bit of modification on the other side of that access point. So those are all the DOT improvements that have been requested from the result of TIA. TIA's been approved and we're planning on making all those improvements. Um those are pretty much our main aspects of the site design here. We do have a storm water facility on the southern corner of the parcel. If you guys have any questions, happy to go into more detail later.

And then these are the elevations that we worked pretty diligently with town staff. The key was to make the elevation facing the intersection the same as elevation facing the fuel canopies. Um this is facing this elevation here is facing the fuel canopy. Uh this is facing the intersection and it's uh it's brick uh glass. You've got metal up here and then you've got some uh cement fiber board here. But these are the sides. This is facing Statesville facing u Ambright and then these are building perspectives and I know that uh Nathan shared these with you there. There would be outdoor dining here. And then this is another building perspective. This is facing the intersection. There would be a a pedestrian door so you can access the store from the intersection, the sidewalk as well as the fuel canopy side of the building. And then this is an actual dash in store. I'll just fly through these briefly, I promise. Um you can see this the building and the architecture. And then this is the accessory car wash. And then um Dashian has a heavy emphasis on food. Uh they prepare made to order fresh food and it's it's so they almost consider themselves to be a restaurant that sells gas. But this is uh where you would order your food and then they do have an indoor dining area as well as the outdoor dining area that I shared with you a moment ago. But this is the indoor dining area. Um but uh we're happy to answer any questions. Once again, we have our traffic engineer. We have Todd Bonnet and Matthew Parker that are available to answer any questions. We appreciate your consideration.

Thank you. Um, do we have questions for the petitioner? Yes. Thank you for your presentation. Um, can you elaborate on the uh street side of the glass, what that's going to look like when you're looking into the building? Well, that's something we need to address. And so that's we got Nathan's suggestions and so Todd's going to talk to Dash in but we will we will meet the the request of the town but I'm not sure how you're going to address it yet. Do you know? I don't right now if we'll do it there'll be some kind of mural or some kind of art on that in that

but you'll work with staff on on agreement. Okay, perfect. Thank Thank you. That was the only question I have. I don't think itchy.

Yeah.

Questions. Scott, small technicality. I'm sure you've cleaned it up. Um, I know a previous application did not have a height limit on the car wash. Not that I'm concerned that's going to exceed it, but just cleaning things up. Has that already been addressed? I think the ordinance has a 36 foot height. We can make we could I think I think the note says any building, but I'm not I'm sure. Yes, we'll clean it up. Again, I assumed it was going to be just want to make sure. Yeah, it won't be taller than the the Yeah, we'll take care of that. Yeah, just to clarify their their uh car wash, the secondary building couldn't be taller than their primary structure. Yeah, we'll make sure the notes are clear on that. Thank you. Do you have another point? No, I'm sorry.

Okay, Michael. Yeah, this just kind of caught my attention. You mentioned about the easement for Colonial. Where exactly is the distance from the structure or from your your tanks to the Colonial Pipeline? That's I don't know the top of my head the exact distance. I mean, it's several hundred feet. So, we'll go back and show you a perspective to point it out. Uh yeah.

Yeah. So yeah, I don't know if we have a specific dimension to tell you exactly. The tanks are this concrete pad over on the west side of the canopy. So the opposite side. This buffer is 30 feet thick there at a minimum. So just guessing probably about 200 feet away from that boundary. Um, the Colonial Pipeline is off of our property all the way on the other side. So, it's about as far as it could possibly be from the Colonial easement. Sorry about that.

I don't It's not wanting to pop up. So, if you're trying to look at the plan on there to the left side of the big orange box in the middle, there's a little gray box. That's the fuel tank pad. Sure. Now, uh, does either the state or the federal require some special regulations when you build a gas station next to an oil a a pipeline? There's some special regs that it doesn't just apply like anything. There's some special requirements. Is that not true?

I mean, we're not having any impact on like we're not close enough to it that it hasn't required any unique permitting because of the proximity to that easement. I was just noticed like in in Fort Mill for example, they don't permit it within like a thousand yards. At least the great debate was as to how close do you allow a pipeline to be to a gas station because obviously the nature of the fuels that you're dealing with. Uh when one or both of those interact, that's a huge issue, particularly sitting next to a middle school. So it'd be great if there's some clarity with respect to the impact that this could potentially have because of proximity. Don't have a problem with the with service station at all. What I got a concern with is the close proximity of a gas station next to a major pipeline.

Well, I mean, we can we're not aware any regulations. We certainly can can look into that for you. Um, but it's it's there's a generous there's a generous separation. We have once again we haven't been made aware of any special regulations that would apply by anyone, but we can look and see if there are. Yeah. I mean, but I think there's enough cities that I've encountered, at least I I I read about that had that very same concern. For example, like in Mon, Georgia, same thing. Uh, proximity pipeline to gas station. Uh, Stratton, Virginia, same thing. proximity gas line to gas station. Are those are those local ordinances that you're referring to or Yes. Okay. Yeah. I don't think there's anything in in your ordinance.

No, I can't. It's it's not a question. I I know we don't have one. Okay. Okay. But I think in deliberation as to whether not you allow it to happen is one that we should probably consider uh with respect to the likelihood of those two interacting particularly adjacent to a middle school. So again, I have no problem at all with everything else, right? But I got a concern with and I think the concern should be laid to rest before the town finalizes anything with respect to those that one particular issue. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

Okay. If not, we can um call for a motion. I have a motion ready. Okay. Thank you.

In considering the proposed resoning application R25-14-N, the planning board recommends approval of the reszoning plan with the following conditions. The convenience stores interior space ha has a clearly defined plan. All outstanding TIA items are addressed. All developer schematic notes are replaced with staff staff approved ones and all other minor staff comments are addressed. The planning board finds the reasonzoning requests to be consistent with the Huntersville 2040 community plan including policies LU5.1, LU7.1, LU8.1. Because the 2040 plan allows more intense development where infrastructure and utilities already exist. This plan follows design principles that reinforce the vision for this town. It is reasonable and in the public interest to approve the resoning because this is also consistent with the overall character of adjacent properties.

Okay. And for my clarification, you said TIA requirements in your motion. Okay. Thank you, Michael. Do I need to add your question. It would be a good idea, I think, for the public to know that this board gave consideration to that before it's done. I mean, Colonial does have a history in the town of Huntersville, and it's not a very positive one given the history. So, I think any citizen that looks at us ought to know that we asked about that pipeline before we approved the gas station. So we um including the following modifications um

or the following conditions. Sorry, I said uh yeah, I'm not sure you can really honestly I think this is more one where um the final approval uh is going to need to factor in a risk factor uh based on work that they should do in confirming the level of risk associated with the gas station and pipeline adjacent to each other.

Okay. So, you're comfortable with me leaving that out? If you simply uh add in the fact that they will do due diligence to present a risk assessment associated with gas lines in proximity of the gas station and present it to the appropriate commissioners. I don't know that risk assessment would be appropriate, but I think to um carry out what your intent is is that you're asking them to consider whether or not they are satisfying all applicable regulations and rules in terms of proximity to the pipeline. And that would be something that they could communicate with NCDEQ about given that they are the permitting authority and would not issue them a permit if that was not a proper location for the gas station.

Just probably a little little bit of clarity. The board is also tasked with assessing what's deemed to be reasonable risk within the community. Even though it may not be by statute, we should still factor in a reasonable assessment. So, I expect they're going to probably find that, yeah, you can build it. That's not an issue. Real question is whether or not we feel comfortable as a community building with those three things in place. That's all. Okay. And that would ultimately be a board decision, right?

Okay. All right. The end. What she said is fine. Okay. Can we capture that Tracy and in the motion or do we need to add that? Does it need to be in the motion? So ultimately the board is going to do the risk assessment themselves as to whether they feel it is appropriate in that location. If you want to add a condition that they communicate with NCDO DEEQ, read their permit. They're already doing that, but we can add that in if you would like. I don't think I feel like the permits required like

Okay, perfect. So, we're going to leave it as is and then we just need a second. Okay, we need we got a motion. We need a second. I'll second.

Okay, discussion. Do you have any comments on discuss? I appreciate that you guys are bringing some fresh food to that particular area. It needs it desperately. Um I like I like where it's located um because it it does satisfy so many um needs. So yes, let's figure out if this is far enough from a middle school and move forward. Jody, since you Who second? Jody, if you want to

I'm definitely in favor. I love that there. I think this is an easy place to get food and gas, especially for me personally. I think it's fabulous and um it's just easy easy in and out and we need something like that on the south side that's easy to get in and out. Thank you, Scott. I have a proposed amendment which I think is necessary. Tell me if I'm wrong. Did you put in your modifications? There were three requested modifications. Were they included in your motion? Uh, not the modifications. I think you had staffs.

I I said all I said um convenience store interior space has a clearly defined plan. All outstanding TIA items are addressed. All developer schematic notes are replaced with staff approved ones and all other minor staff comments are addressed. I think this also requires three modifications. If you don't mind, I'd like to make amendment. Absolutely. I'd like to add the three

include the following modifications. One, permit sideyard parking to occupy up to 68% of the principal frontage line as generally depicted on the plan. Two, allow the Hamrite Road driveway to encroach into the 30-foot undisturbed buffer. And three, allow the dumpster to be located within the sideyard. So, you accept that? Yes. Okay. and a second. But can I add some What about tree mitigation? Did we mention that? I think it was by the ordinance. It's by the ordinance. Thank you. I second. Thank you.

Um any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Those opposed? Okay. Great. You had one. Abain. Thank you.

Thank you all. Um okay, moving to the next item. Uh before we before we get into the next item and to the section where it asks for disclosures, I would like to disclose that that our firm has worked uh with the client on this project in the past and I feel like that it would be appropriate for me to recuse myself, but I will ask the board for I feel there's a conflict Uh I'll make a motion to recuse uh chairman from this uh staff report.

Second. So this I want to make sure that we get this on the record. You are asking to be recused from items 4B and 4 C. Correct. That's correct. Both items. So we'll need a motion to recuse him for both. And you can make it simultaneously. Yes. Both uh items on the agenda. Second. And those in favor? Goodbye. Those opposed. Great. Thank you. Hand me the G. Give me the power. You got it in your hand.

Um, as part of this process, um, we do have an alternate. Alyssa, we'd like to, uh, I don't think we need to make a motion, but we'd like to sit the alternate for Jay. Alyssa, would you Alyssa here? Yeah. Please come forward. You can sit in the chairman seat.

You get an easy one on your first one. You make her read all the stuff, too. Start start right here before I agreed to this. Alyssa, welcome. Thank you.

Um, as you guys know, the next two agenda items are uh closely related. So, um, what we've decided to do is, for the record, the script being read to begin the quasa judicial process is being read and incorporated by reference into both variance requests V2601 7609 Venus Lane and V26027415 Venus Lane as if fully stated therein. Get comfortable. Um, we will now begin the quasi judicial hearing for petition V6 2601. This is a quasi judicial hearing, which means a board must base its decision only on competent, material, and substantial evidence. Overview of the rules. Only parties withstanding may fully participate in this hearing. This includes the applicant, the property owner, the local government, and anyone who can demonstrate special damages. Special damages must be particularized, separate, and distinct from the public at large. Proximity alone is not enough to establish standing. Parties may present evidence, call witnesses, and make legal arguments. Others may be allowed to speak as witnesses, but may not examine witnesses or call their own. Witnesses must swear or affirm their testimony, and testimony must be factual. Personal opinions are not permitted unless given by a qualified expert. Expert topics such as property values or traffic impacts require expert witnesses who must explain the factual basis for their opinions. We now identify parties with standing. The board recognizes the applicant and the property owner as parties. Anyone else who believes they have standing to participate as a party may come forward and briefly state how this project affects you differently from the general public. If you do not wish to participate as a party, please wait to

come forward until after we have identified parties with standing. Is there anyone here that believes they have standing beside the staff and the applicant? Correct. It's we're Yeah. Um identifying witnesses, parties withstanding. Please tell me the witness you intend to call will be. Are there any individuals who wish to testify as witnesses even though you do not qualify as parties? Now we'll u start with the oath. If you are offering testimony, please stand where you are and raise your right hand to be sworn in. And we have three. Please respond aloud. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you give shall be truth, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Excellent. Thank you. Disclosures, conflicts, and exparte communication. The parties of this case are entitled to an impartial board. A board member may may not participate in this hearing if he or she has a fixed opinion about the matter, a financial interest in the outcome of the matter, or a close relationship with an affected person. Does any board do any board members have a conflict of interest to disclose? I see none. The parties to this case have the rights for any exparte communication to be disclosed. Exparte communication is any communication about the case outside of the hearing. That may be an email communications as well as conversations with party staff or the general public. Does any board member have an exparte communication to disclose? I see none. Based on these disclosures, does any board member or any party wish to object to a board member's participation? I see none. Uh, moving along. Staff report. I will now call on the planning staff to present the staff report. You may present your staff report.

Good evening. Lawrence Bait for staff. If I'd like to enter the staff report for V2601 for 7409 Venus Lane into the record. Uh we have two similar cases as has been mentioned. Um both have been submitted by Habitat for Humanity of the Charlotte region. Um unless the Yeah. Um so I'd like to also kind of go ahead and thank uh town engineering department and Meckllinmberg County for consultation on these cases. The first property is in the hatched area. Uh it is located in the general residential zoning district in the community subdivided as Norman Park. The property is also located within the Mountain Island Lake protected area regulated drinking waterhed. As some context, uh the parcel which you can see um toward the uh the top of the screen here is near Batty's Ford Road um and Hambrite Road as well as Hopewell High School. The highlighted two parcels um were the original parcels that were created in 1963. um that were later subdivided, excuse me, that were later recombined um into one parcel. This exhibit that was presented as a part of the applicant's um application shows the request by the applicant. The existing um stream and buffer are uh demonstrated by the exterior red dash line and the interior red dash line is the current location of the stream. The

highlighted property um being the property highlighted in yellow is 7409 Venus Lane. The applicant is proposing to relocate the stream which is where the interior blue dash line with the solid black lines are shown and the exterior um blue dash line is where the buffer would be um relocated to. Additionally, because of the existing location of the stream buffer, the applicant is proposing to shift the location of the home toward the front property line. So, they're also requesting a setback from, excuse me, a variance from the front yard uh setback requirement. And I'll go through each of these um in a couple moments as well. So, as was previously mentioned, the property is located in the Mountain Island Lake protected area regulated drinking watershed and article 3.3.2-BF establishes the buffer sizes that apply um in that watershed for low density. So, this property would be um subject to the low density option of 50 feet of buffer on both sides of the stream. and subsection G of the same article establishes what is allowed to take place within the buffer and what the exceptions are. So um as a blanket statement, no permanent structures impervious cover, septic tank systems or any other disturbances of vegetation um are allowed within the buffer with a list of exceptions and the scope of work that the property is proposing does not meet any of the exceptions that are there.

So um as a part of the variance application request, the applicant is requesting to uh construct new builtupon area within the buffer. Um and they're proposing disturbance in that buffer area. And as you're aware in the regulated drinking waterheds, builtupon area is restricted to protect the drinking water supply and disturbance of the buffers is also regulated to protect the drinking water supply around Mountain Island Lake, Lake Norman um and the streams that are in that area as well. Because the buffer takes up such a large uh portion of the property, the home location is not able to be compliant with the minimum front yard setback of 40 ft. So, the applicant is requesting a minimum front setback of 20 ft. So, under the current rules, this is what um this is where the home would have to be located. which you can see is almost in the middle of the buffer. Um, but this is shown compliant with the 40ft front yard setback and where the home would be located would be on top of the current stream location. So in considering a variance request there are four standards that have to be met. The first standard is that unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that in the absence of the variance no reasonable use can be made of the

property. So there are three applicable ordinances that this that the applicant is requesting relief from. The first um we'll go through is the setback requirement. So under the current rules, if the home were placed at the minimum 40ft front yard setback as shown, it would be within the buffer. Um the buffer area consumes almost the entirety of the property. So um that adds to the hardship of the placement. Additionally, a new home would be built upon area um in the buffer area. So, the combination of these three prohibits the location of a home on the property. Staff finds that this standard has been satisfied. Standard two, the hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property such as location, size, or topography. hardships resulting from personal circumstances as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public may not be the basis for granting a variance. So, a couple items to note. As I'm sure you are all well aware, streams are not uncommon within the town. Generally, buffer requirements are not uncommon within the town. What we do find that is uncommon is that in this particular case, we have a subdivision that was created in 1963. It is still not 50% built out. Um, and then the buffer standards were uh made effective 30 years after the uh the properties were created. And in addition to all of those factors, the buffer consumes almost the entirety of the property. So there are some lots that are in this subdivision that do have the presence of buffers on the

property at in some um to some capacity, but for the buffers to consume the entirety of the property we find to be particularly unique. Standard three, the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. So in considering the date of the lot creation the and the effective date of the buffer regulations, the current property owner and applicant did not um subdivide the property including the entirety of the buffer to create this hardship. Um, one thing that we did want to additionally note is that as you saw at the beginning of the presentation when Norman Park was subdivided, uh, the the lots were mapped at 50 ft wide each. So the current standard for developing in that neighborhood is that when two properties are in uh the same ownership, they are expected to um develop as one to meet the minimum standards of that of the zoning district requirements to the extent practical because the GR zoning district was kind of a um a catch-all zoning district from the development that took place under county rules. So a lot of times those subdivisions have larger lot sizes. So this best so combining the two lots best meets that minimum for the general residential zoning district and the applicant is developing on two 50- foot wide lots combined together. The final standard is that the requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance such that public safety is secured and

substantial justice is achieved. Uh the spirit purpose and intent of the ordinances. We have the setback ordinance which um helps to establish um some aesthetic guidelines for where the placement of homes are. Um it can also provide a separation between uses or structures and then obviously the watershed requirements help to protect the drinking water supply in this particular case because the request to uh seek relief from the setback requirement helps protect the drinking water supply by relocating the buffer. staff is far less concerned about the set setback request than we are about the impact to the drinking water supply in the stream. Um in this particular case, the applicant has already initiated the process to um apply for the required 401 and 404 permits for the relocation of the stream. and they are also amendable to the condition that staff proposes for revitation of the future buffer area. So in that regard we find that the applicant is initiating to um protect public safety with regard to the integrity of the stream. And then finally, substantial justice. Um, as has been mentioned, because of the scope of the buffer, um, a home could not be placed on the property. So, with the relocation of the home, even though it would still encroach into the future buffer and it would need the relief from the setback requirement, we find that the one single family home on the combined two lots would satisfy that

element as well. uh staff recommend the following conditions as a function of approval. Um so the relocation of the stream which the applicant had initially proposed and mitigation per the level two requirements of the Charlotte Meckllinburgg water quality buffer implementation guidelines approve clean water act section 401 and 404 permits which the applicant is already initiating. Um, additionally, um, in coordination between the town and the county, staff proposed that a survey showing the delineation of the stream and buffer, um, is to be provided to future property owners and that there is no new built upon area allowed after the first home build. I'm happy to take any questions at this time.

Thank you very much. Any um any questions for staff at this point? I just want to make sure that I understood in 1963 there were two 50 foot lots. Yes. And then what we're doing now is we're combining those with one house on it. The the lots have already been recombined. Okay. Yep. And the applicant is proposing one home, right? And we're doing two variances because it's the two lots. No. Well, yes, but okay, let me go back so I can explain.

So, this presentation was just for V2601. Okay. Um, and I'll have to do this another for V2602, but essentially the majority of staff's findings are going to be exactly the same. I'm just going to point out differences for the second lot. So, both of the lots that you see with the darker um black dash line are the subject cases for this evening. When they were originally subdivided, there were four lots. Now there are two. Perfect. Thank you. It is a little confusing, but yes. Thank you. Sure.

Any other questions? I'll I'll start on the end. If we grant the U 20 foot set back as opposed to the 40, how far then is the structure into the watershed buffer? The home would be a little over 30 feet away from the stream future stream location, but it was not not the 50 that's required. No. Okay. So they need no matter where they put this thing they need variance on both setback and stream watershed buffer whatever the term is watershed buffer.

Yes. Yes.

Okay. My question center centers around the u likelihood that there is any other applicants that could come in at some subsequent time make the same claim such that now we've got a bit of a precedence that's being set and others are likely to take advantage is based on the community development that's there and what potentially can happen does this in any way open up the possibility that the board is creating a precedent that others can then take advantage of. So of of course anyone can request um can submit a variance application. Um staff looked at the next so on your screens here um the subsequent four 50 foot wide lots based on the size of the of the homes that are proposed here. We find that the next four lots, they could propose homes that are compliant that don't go into the buffer. Um there are sufficient s space to locate a home that is compliant. What we find with those is that it would then more so depend upon the size of the home that the person preferred rather than the proportion of the property that is consumed by the buffer. That's just for Venus Lane. Now, there there is another area of this subdivision that is significantly impacted by buffer as well. Um but there is no public street that has been proposed or constructed there. So, they would also have to request um a variance there. One additional thing that is unique in this case is that

can I okay um so this is the beginning of the stream here in this particular case. So re relocating the beginning of a stream is quite a bit different than relocating the any like interior sections or the end. So at the end of this block, the stream does continue and it continues across the street. Uh in consultation between town engineering and Meckllinmberg County, uh the last lot that is impacted by that stream, town engineering and the county found that it would not it may be significantly more challenging to reroute the stream in that location. They obviously can't make a statement as to whether or not they would support a variance because one hasn't been submitted, but they find that it would be more challenging there. So, there is another area. Yes. Um, but we find that quite a bit more of this particular subdivision does have the ability to locate a home. It may not be the size that the person prefers, but it could be compliant. could have saved you a lot of time if I had simply said, in other words, this is the only one that's likely have a hardship as a result of being able to not get approval. In other words, these others can still build on their parcel. May not be what they like, but they can still build on. Does that is that a good way to look at it?

On this street, yeah, the majority of the remaining lots we do find could build. There is another section of the development that we do think would have a hardship. Okay. Okay. Got it. Last last question for you. Any assessment for what the environmental impact actually is by making the change?

So that would be evaluated by uh the Army Corps of Engineers. Um and through that permitting process, the town engineering and Meckllinmberg County did not express significant concern because of the level of engineering that's going into the stream location. so far they have to evaluate that and with the reveation they believe that the integrity of the stream will be preserved. Um I will add one other thing though today as you know under current standards you couldn't subdivide a sub like in this manner um with streams taking up the entirety of of a lot. So, the likelihood that there are um other subdivisions in town with this is low.

Thank you. Sure. Um can you talk a little bit more about this idea of when you recombine the lots, you expect them to be developed under common o ownership? You mentioned that a little bit, but I'm just want to make sure I understand. Sure. The town expects. So the go back here. Yeah.

So the original subdivision had 50 foot wide lots, right? Um decades later when the town established the general residential zoning district, we established lot size minimums and setbacks that were consistent with the existing development under county zoning, which were generally larger lots with larger setbacks. So, what we found in previous years was that um if two of the home lots were under common ownership, because we can't force you to recombine with if you don't own the property, but if two were in common ownership and you recombine, you could meet the minimum to the extent practical. It might not meet the actual minimum of the zoning district, but you could get close enough to where a home location would not be particularly cramped. So, the general residential zoning district has large setbacks. The front is 40 feet, the rear is 50. That's a significant amount. Um, and I believe that these lots are either I think they're about 100 feet deep. So, that or 150. Um, so it takes up a consist a considerable amount of the property,

right? So that's that's why they're Okay. Yeah. I guess the reason the reason I ask is just because looking around the neighborhood and I don't know when all of these lots were developed, but there are a lot of developments, single family houses on just the 50 foot lots themselves. Yes. So, I'm just trying to understand I'm trying trying to get consistency among, you know, this this plan for these two lots versus the rest of the neighborhood.

So, um if a an individual or entity purchases just the 50 foot wide lot, we can't preclude them from issuing zoning approval for a building permit if they're compliant with all the rules. That is not the intent of the general residential zoning district. If someone is knowingly doing that, we may find that they are subverting the intent of the zoning ordinance. Um, but that's obviously under, you know, has to be in consultation with the planning director. Um, and it requires quite a bit of research. But, um, there are some properties that have done that. They've just bought the single lot.

Um, we have no ability to regulate who buys the property. So, but this proposal here is what the town would like to see as opposed to developing those 50 foot lots for definely small square footage properties with small narrow sideyards and that sort of thing. Yes, it's very challenging to locate a home with the current setback requirements on the 50 foot wide lot. Um, and with the with the infrastructure of the neighborhood, we would find it part it would probably be quite overwhelming honestly if all of those were developed in that manner.

And thank you. And kind of along those same lines, you know, I think we're talking about a 20 foot setback versus a 40 foot setback here. Um, is that just looking around the rest of the neighborhood, is that consistent inconsistent with the general development scheme of the other lots? Are the other ones at 40 foot as well? So, the other home lots were developed at 40 ft. Um, these would be the only two this case in the following, right? So, they'll look a little out of place, but given the constraints of the lot, I I understand the the issue there. I'm just trying to get a picture of it. So, yes. And additionally, the corner lot has an increased sideyard setback. Okay.

So, it would be respecting that um setback, but it would be the front yard that would be a bit closer. Um and there was a question earlier about the the number of variances that would be required. So, one of the reasons why staff are supportive of the reduction to 20 ft is because we have a minimum length requirement for driveways. So, if the home were placed any closer, they would need an additional setback from the minimum driveway length as well. Um, which it poses additional challenges because if someone has cars, they are they're they need to park somewhere and we would prefer them not be on the public street, right?

Um, especially in this case because the roads are narrow in this subdivision. Okay. Thank you. Sure. any

so I would like to go back and talk about the water. Um I think with the conversation we just had about the pipeline and then on the heels of Helen, can we have in the report a definition of watershed versus flooding and does the Army Corps of Engineer have any ideas that this area once more developments come in and that landscaping is is reduced that there could be more flooding in this area especially for the sensitivity of this area? Sure. So we can in terms of a definition of a watershed versus flooding. Can you

Yeah. I just want to have a discussion about it because the water is starting to come up and and I don't want to purposely put a house in an area that could flood. Sure. Um, and just just to clarify, even if you guys do approve the variance for these properties tonight, they cannot move forward until the Army Corps of Engineers signs off and they get their final permitting. So, that would be incorporated into that analysis. That that satisfies me. I just want to on for the for the discussion that it's that it's brought up. Sure. Yes.

Yep. And um in this analysis there there was no flood plane um delineated for this subject property or the following case

and um with the removal of vegetation to relocate this stream. I'll go through a bit here. So I know staff intending to include this was a lot of information this evening. Um, some of the reveation requirements for level two include a minimum number of trees planted for every thousand square feet. Um, a minimum caliper. Um, the species that are required um where there are understory trees that are required, no pine trees or other evergreen trees that are allowed to be used. There is a minimum number of shrubs that is required for the reveated area and minimum size for those as well. And there is a requirement that is 100% ground cover of all exposed soil. Um the trees and shrubs must be maintained in perpetuity and replaced as necessary. So to the extent of the disturbance, there will be reveation there as a part of staff's recommendations. um as as a part of staff's recommend conditions for the approval of the variance.

Perfect. Thank you. Sure. Anyone else?

Um Lauren, can you go to your um I think re clarification recommendation slide conditions rather. Um, number three, a survey showing the delineation of the stream and buffer to be provided to future property owners, have you thought about actually recording that? Because often, you know, how can we assume that as this property is sold multiple times that a survey is actually handed down versus if it was actually recorded, then it's actually on the public record and every owner would be just a thought. and maybe it's a legal question. Okay.

So, just to clarify your question, you're asking uh at bullet point number three, the survey um of the delineation. You're asking if that can be recorded. Correct. Um I don't see a reason why it couldn't be recorded. I don't know if that's a typical recording. Um, but is the applicant willing to record that if the register of deeds will accept that recording? They've they've nodded in agreement. Yes. Okay. And I get that it's not, but again, if the intent of this condition is that all future property owners, we have no way of knowing that. This is a way that we know is certainty that it's on the record. That's

So, we can add that in um that it be provided to future property owners, but that it also be recorded if the register of deeds will accept the recording. Okay. Sure. Okay. Lauren, thank you. Excellent job. Sure. Um, moving right along. Our next would be if there is an applicant presentation. Is there an applicant presentation? The applicant doesn't have a presentation, but they are here and available to answer any questions that you that the board may have. If you'll state your name.

Good evening. My name is Ryan Pal. I'm land entitlement manager with Habitat for Humanity of the Charlotte region and uh I just thank you for the opportunity to present this and happy to answer any questions you have. My my engineer is sick tonight. Um so I will do the best I can with anything that relates to that and again we not not required. Thank you for making yourself available. Is anyone have Lee? Do you have a question for the Hey, thanks for coming. Um I guess my question was um we heard earlier this this neighborhood This subdivision has been 50% built out. Why were you not offered? No. What was the number that was? It's less than 50%.

Less than 50%. So that means there's a lot of other lots sitting around unused. Do you any idea why you weren't offered a lot that was a little more suitable to build on?

I can't answer that question. What I can uh say is to give you some context. These two parcels that we're looking at tonight are a part of of a a little bit of a bigger plan. Uh adjacent across the street, there's going to be five other uh well, I guess 10 lots, I think, um that are going to be built sort of in the same manner. Uh with some of them, one of them I believe was already recombined uh just like these two. The remaining are actually two 50- foot lots that we're going to place one house on. So it' be two lots, one house. Um, and so currently we've already been through land development on those. Uh, any development on these lots would go through an RTAP uh that we have to go through. Um, but we've already started work on the roaded uh for that that's going to service that entire street. Um, and we are in works uh with Charlotte Water uh to install infrastructure uh sewer and water down that way too. Okay. And it's probably none of my business, but is um are you receiving these as a donation, these lots, or is it a discounted

rate from the original owner? I guess I assume was be the subdivision builder. Personally do not know offhand the history of how we acquire these lots. I don't have that information. Um uh what I can say is that we'll be uh paying for the roaded infrastructure that's going in and then we're it's a part of uh Charlotte Waters Um there's there's a program where they donate so many feet of infrastructure uh to service an area and that's how that's coming online. Okay, that's all I've got for the applicant. I I'll go back to Lauren when I get an opportunity.

Okay. Um any other questions for the applicant? Moving right along. Um, this is an opportunity if we had other parties withstanding, which we've already determined we do not. So, there's no testimony for other parties. Um, non-party witnesses. Again, we've determined there are no nonparty witnesses. Um, rebuttal. Parties withstanding have an opportunity to offer rebuttal or closing argument. As a reminder, please focus your response or legal arguments and new or clarifying evidence. Please avoid mere repetition of the evidence. We have already heard. Again, we've got no other standing parties other than the applicant and staff.

Uh, point of order, please. I've got a few more questions for Lauren. If I could work that in your agenda there somewhere. Thank you. Yes, sure. Yes. Hey, Lauren, I got Can we go back to the standards for a minute? No, actually, I think we will have an opportunity. No, I'm sorry. We will have an opportunity during deliberation. Oh, to ask more questions. Yeah. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, I I will I will recognize you.

Um closing arguments. Uh again, we've got nobody, no rebuttals, no. Um each party may now make a closing argument if they so choose. The applicant may choose to go first or last. Not required. Would you like to make a closing argument, Mr. Applicant? I don't believe it's any secret uh that what Habitat for Humanity is for. Um you know, we're trying to to make an impact in this community, a positive impact uh by bringing affordable, attainable housing, whatever whatever you want to call it. And uh I've been with Habitat for Humanity Charlotte uh for right at six months now. Worked in other affordable housing areas. And I will say that the product that Habitat for Humanity of Charlotte Region puts out far exceeds anything that I've been involved in in the past. And so I think it would be a welcome addition to your community um and serve a need that we're seeing all over the place. Uh and I just thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for the comments. Um is there a motion and continue? Does any party or board member believe a continuence is warranted? Is there a motion to continue? I see none. Deliberation. Does the board have any further questions before we deliberate? Lee, I'll call on you for questions. You for staff. Hey, thanks. Can we go back to the standards? I'm having a a little who did what here. Which one? All the way back to number one. Sure.

So, let's see. I'm trying to figure out when the unnecessary hardship was created. And if I can do that, I can figure out who did it and then figure out, you know, if if this is is something we need to address since it was um since it was known. So in in your view, I mean, if that that the the plat that you showed, if if that was brought to the board with those two lots on it that had a stream running right through the middle of them, we would not have approved that. So, I'm trying to figure out if if if this unnecessary hardship was created in 1962 by the plotting of this thing and it was it's been known for 60 70 years that those lots or the lot are were what we used to call unbuildable or didn't perk or whatever that we're trying to do something now to fix that past trans transgression or I'm trying to figure out how that how that foots we now can can wave some of our you know our major ordinances here to allow the the project to go forward.

Sure. Help me with that. So staff also find that this is a significant um variance request.

Um however the the original subdivision which I cannot attest that the stream was present in 1963. However, we know that it has been present for for decades at this point. Um, and at the time that the lot was originally created, if some there were no buffer standards, it would have just if there was a stream there at that time, it would have just been a stream. Um, and we are not aware that there were any environmental restrictions at that time. Um, so presumably someone would have just been able to just build a home there. And under the current standards, one of the challenges that the applicant has is that the um article 3 uh.3.2 establishes that you cannot have any new built-upon area. However, there are exceptions that are allowed for certain types of expansions when there is existing built-upon area. So, there are homes that are in the Mountain Island Lake protected area that were built a while ago that today could not be built because of the current standards. Um, and that's all over honestly our regulated drinking waterhed,

right?

And they are allowed certain types of expansions. So they're allowed to expand BUA on those lots, but the buffer standards um h are applicable um without vest like there's no vesting from the buffer standards and that was one of the particular challenges in this case. So it's not just that they want built upon area, it's the disturbance of the buffer as well. So in staff's view the hard if we were trying to identify when a hardship was created it would have been with the uh effective date of the buffer regulations at that time um which was in 1993. So that would have been when it would there would the cha the initial challenge of developing on those properties was created

in what what year was that? 19 93. So in 93 they still didn't desire to build on build on those yet either. Well for the sure. So okay so another very another unique challenge to this subdivision is that the majority of the public streets are not constructed

right. So, more of the challenge with developing in this neighborhood has to do with the fact that there is no existing um compliant frontage than the environmental standards because if you don't have a compliant frontage, which in for this neighborhood would be the public street, you can't get zoning approval for a building permit. So, as um the applicant mentioned, part of the requirement that they're satisfying is that they're building the public street so that they can get zoning approval for the home lots on the opposite side of the street. And then then that kind of uh resolves the first major major hurdle for construction. So, the majority of the the remainder of this subdivision doesn't have public street. So you can't you just can't get zoning approval for a building permit without compliant access and frontage.

Sure. Yeah, I got that. I mean, yeah, it's a slowm moving subdivision probably for I don't know, for whatever reason, but just to to to disregard our ordinances in this kind of a major fashion for a hardship that we, you know, that's always been there that that stream. Well, let's just, you know, I don't know if it's spring. You said that the the stream actually started on that piece of property. So, you'd assume the spring was there. And if it's always been there, then maybe something doesn't need to be built on that lot. Not every lot is buildable. And if you look at the plat, I mean, that's way before we set set aside open space. And this would have been considered open space. I'm buying this property and realizing that I'm not going to be able to fully build it out. So, therefore, the price is this instead of that. And we we've set the standard already for environmental protection comes along and yeah you it needs to it needs to adhere to the property the undeveloped property especially at that point it needs to it needs a stick it needs to be the ordinance.

Sure. So that's I'm just and and the first thing of our book we learned this you know when the hardship was created is who created it and you know first identified of course which you have but who created it and when did it get be get created and if the applicants creating it then it's an I'm sorry right

yes but in this case they aren't because they didn't sub they didn't subdivide the lot so if they would have subdivided the lot with the knowledge that there was a stream with a buffer, then they are creating the hardship. They purchased a lot with the existing stream there. So, even if it weren't the current property owner, the original property owner would have still been in the same situation. So, what we see a lot in this neighborhood and other places is that family members inherit the properties um have inherited the properties since 1963. So if you were to have a an original property owner where the the property were subsequently inherited, that original person also didn't create the hardship. So their heir who may own the property today wouldn't have created the the hardship and they could also request the same variance. In this case, the difference is that the applicant purchased this property that included this environmental um challenge. But

that logic though, if I if I purchased property before 1990 and didn't develop it and then the environmental ordinances went in and I decided to develop it, wouldn't I be bound by the new environmental ordinances? You would. And you would also have the option to request a variance from them as well. Okay.

But to the so we find in some cases the variance request like in this case like with a setback requirement essentially what would be issued is just essentially a piece of paper that's saying like you get relief from the setback requirement and there's not really much that the applicant is doing with the setback. But with the environmental requests that they're making as a part of the variance application, they are meeting a number of kind of mitigation requirements to preserve the integrity of the stream with relocating it. So one of the challenges with the their request um go back here which so subsection G I didn't include all the exceptions is that certain exceptions are allowed that prescribe what type of mitigation is required um when you're disturbing a a stream that's for an allowed use of disturbance. In this case, we don't have the prescribed mitigation because the use is not allowed as an exception. But what they are what the applicant is proposing is consistent with other forms of mitigation that are included in this subsection. So reveation required environmental permitting um required local or local reviews. So, and the um the replanting as well because that subsection references the buffer implementation guidelines that other allowed disturbances have to comply with as well. Standard number two.

Sure.

If you would. Yeah, that's another place I they're not it's not peculiar to the property, right? It's it's a stream running through land. I mean, it's it's pretty common place. So, I I don't see where it it meets that hurdle either. So we we agree that streams are not uncommon, but we do find that properties subdivided almost 70 years ago that haven't been fully developed that don't have infrastructure and have the presence of the streams is uncommon. And but additionally in this particular case, it's not just those factors. It's the factor that like because this subdivision, which I would probably would have been helpful, I can imagine in my mind. Um, let me go back to the map here. I can maybe point it out. So this this stream this is a stream that is that's currently delineated in Polaris here today and it goes through this section of the development and it's it's mapped there in 1963. Um the section that we're talking about it starts over here and it kind of snakes around and then across and feeds into the stream over here. So, we don't find that the streams are particularly unique, but in this neighborhood, the impact that the stream has on these lots is is unique about how much of the lot is taken up by the buffer today. Um, and comparatively, because I know there was another question about um someone potentially coming back, the lots that I was referring to are are these right here where the stream cuts through the center

of those of those lots. Yeah. Are those built? No, those are unbuilt. That's what my my guess would have be. I mean, whoever developed this thing said, "Okay, there's my open space and there's my open space and and move on." So there Yeah, it's not labeled as open space. No, it wouldn't be back then. They just plat the whole thing and if if it comes a time where they can figure out that the the lot is in demand, then they would probably that time they'd put the the creek in a in a pipe and and move on. Yeah. But we what we do see is that these lots are developed down on this side. Let me see. So, okay. But it's either in their backyard. It's all it's in their backyard at that point.

Yes, that's correct. And so, and the lots on this side of the stream would also be impacted by a 50-ft buffer as well, but there is enough space to locate a home on this side obviously if you have frontage. So while we do see like here there is impact to these to these lots, we find that this section here and these homes right here are the ones that might need relief. But the problem with these is that we don't know where you could relocate a stream here. That is that wasn't a request we made of the so I can't we'll be back here,

you know, but maybe not. Um because the current estimation is that it it this section might not be able to be realigned. That would have to be evaluated if someone submitted a request. Yeah.

But what we do find is just those two sections where we find the significant impact where the buffer is taking up the buildable area of the lot. So we agree it's not the streams aren't unique, the buffers aren't unique. Um those are very common throughout the town. What's unique is the date, the fact that the development wasn't built out because there is a comparative comparable development in town known as Builtmore Park that is I think it's almost 100% built out and it was mapped around the same time. So, those streets were built. I think there's one little section of Builtmore Park that's not built out. Um, and it's near here and um it had the 50 foot wide lots similarly, but this is the only one in town that was mapped this long ago that has this much vacant um land and lots that have not yet been built that have these environmental impacts as well. the ones that hadn't been built in block D and block E, will those also need a setback modification?

We don't find that um from approximately this location east, we don't find that these should need a modification that someone can request one, but we find that would be more dependent upon the preference of the person with the size of the home, not the um impact of the buffer. Okay? And again, that's not really part of the petition we're hearing tonight. That's correct. Yeah. Lee, anything else or anyone else have any other? Yeah, I got one more there. There's actually in our handy quasi dud book, this example is listed in there. Sure.

And if you want to look to page 77, I guess I'm going to have to read the thing. And it's the the play between restrictive covenants and other legal limitations. So it says may factor in the termination of hardship considering get over the mic. Consider a property that has limited development ability due to the privately imposed covenant for street setback and a publicly imposed stream setback. Can the owner seek a variance from the public stream setback? In one particular case, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the board of adjustment should consider physical and legal conditions of the property, including restrictive covenants. To reiterate, covenants and other legal limitations may be a factor. In the case mentioned above, the covenants were in place prior to the adoption of the stream setback. The decision was based on the local development regulation and the decision predated the statutory variant standards. A self-imposed legal limitation that was created after the zoning regulation limitation became effective. For example, an easement across a property that limits buildable area may be viewed as a self-imposed hardship and no variant should be granted. That's what we're doing, right?

This is not a restrictive covenant. Isn't the setback from the road a restrictive covenant? This is not a private restrictive covenant covenant akin to an easement or like something that you'd find in CCRs. Okay. So, easement for example, you'd have to you'd have to yield to the easement, but you could make an adjustment on the public imposed stream setback if those two things conflicted.

So, public versus private. Gotcha. Okay, Lee, any any other questions?

I'm done. Good. Um, I'll make a statement that my limited experience with the core is that this stream that will be relocated will be healthier most likely than the existing stream. So, I find um comfort in in knowing that. Um, we are still in deliberation. Is there any other questions for anyone before we I see no questions hearing? None. We will now begin deliberation. The evidentiary hearing remains open for clarifying questions. The board must determine whether the applicant has met the burden of proving the standards using competent material and substantial evidence. If the applicant meets this burden, meets their burden of producing competent material and substantial evidence that the standards in the ordinance will be met. The burden shifts to the other parties opposing the application to show by competent, material, and substantial evidence that the standards in the ordinance will not be met. If conflicting evidence as to the standards presented, the board will weigh the evidence and determine which side's evidence is more credible and more reliable. If the applicant does not meet their burden of producing competent material and substantial evidence that the standards and ordinance will be met, the board must deny the application. Lauren, um, before we get started in deliberation, I think it would be helpful for the board if you would advance your slid set to the proposed conditions that staff are proposing because I don't believe that those were fully set forth in the staff report or if they were, I don't think they're as evident as they would be here on the screen.

Sure. So, um, to to several of the questions that have been posed, staff find, um, like I said, that the request is not inconsequential. Our recommendation for approval is significantly hinged upon the conditions that are included here. So in considering the application for B2601, uh a request by Habitat for Humanity of the Charlotte region for the variances from article 3.3.2-BFNG and article 3.2.3D3 of the zoning ordinance. The planning department recommends approval of the variance request based on a finding of fact that the request meets all of the four criteria outlined in the zoning ordinance for granting a variance. Staff additionally recommend the following conditions as a function of approval. Um so as mentioned um we recommend that the if the board find that the four uh conditions have been satisfied. We recommend that the relocation of the stream and mitigation per the level two requirements of the Charlotte Meckllinburgg water quality buffer implementation guidelines is required. Uh the approved Clean Water Act section 401 and 404 permits are required and a survey showing the delineation of the stream and buffer is to be provided to future property owners and staff are amendable to the additional request that a survey showing the stream and buffer is recorded with the Meckllinmberg County Register of Deeds if they will accept such a recordation and that there is no new builtupon area to be allowed after the first home build.

Thank you, Lauren. And the reason I asked for you to go back to this slide is I want to make sure that any motion that is made, if it is for approval, not only does it incorporate staff's findings of fact, if the board so chooses to incorporate those findings of fact, but also includes in the motion the recommended conditions that staff is proposing as well. Thank you, Miss Lud. Um, we're in the discussion phase. So, if anyone has any further discussion, we've obviously had some already. Any further discussion um before we look for a motion?

I'm just going to say I support this. I I think that the there was, you know, there were different laws, different rules in 1963. And I don't think that these lots in particular were considered in 1993. So I don't see where the fault lies with the current owner. That's my take on it. That Well said. Any other discussion, Prince? Please. Do we know when the current owner uh obtained this land?

Yes. the applicants. Sorry, let me go to the correct staff report. The applicants purchased the property or per the Meckllinburgg County Register of Deeds, the most recent deed according to the county um shows it was purchased February 6th, 2022. Okay, Michael,

I think Scott said something uh albe it sounded small I think is hugely important in terms of our determination. Uh it's not only about the buffer but the ultimate objective because the buffer is sit there the reason the buffer is there is to ensure the quality of water going into the uh usable water for the resident. uh to his point he pointed out that the core of engineers will ultimately confirm that the quality of water is not impacted and as a result the primary objective of not impacting water quality is being met through this through this particular request and the core of engineers will confirm it. So I'm with Scott in that I strongly believe that that's the objective of the core to ensure that you don't have a water problem and if they do have a water problem then we don't have to worry about the development. Right.

Can't get past the core of engineers, right? Um, again, I will I'm in support of it. Um, Lee, thank you for the deep dive. I appreciate it. Um, but I am and it's um I don't think we should be influenced by who the applicant is. Um, because again, this is evidentary and I think the evidence is clear that we should grant it, but above and beyond that, I love the mission of Habitat for Humanity. So, you know, and I also like to thank the staff like Lauren, excellent job. This is a heavy lift. I can't imagine the the time and effort put forward with the applicant to get through this, but you know, at the end of the day, we'll have hopefully at least one new affordable housing unit, and we'll find out here shortly if we have two. So, just my general comments. Sure.

Um I'll accept a motion now if we I'm going to go ahead and say I can't support it. I still think that the uh the hardship is self-inflicted. Um, but I do appreciate Habitat for Humanity and whatever they do and I know that the stream was approved and the stream gets handled by the board of engineers, it'll be better off. Just a little worried what's going to happen after it leaves the property, but that's where I stand.

I'm not here to change your mind, but I do think that the hardship was created when additional regulations have continued to be layered on these sites. So I look at whether it's Habitat Humanity or my grandmother who may have owned that is that for these additional regulations to prevent her or them or anybody else from developing it. I think it's a hardship that they did not create. But again, I'm not here to change your mind. I got to and I can't change your mind anyway. I've I know you. I've known you too long, Lee. I I get that.

Um I would love to accept a motion if someone has a motion. I'll give it a try. Um, in considering the application for V26-01, a request by Habitat for Humanity of the Charlotte region for variances from article 3.3.2BF and G and article 3.23D3 of the zoning ordinance. The planning board approves the variance request based on a finding that the request meets all four uh criteria outlined in the zoning ordinance. Incorporates staff finding of facts into the motion and includes staff's recommendation uh recommended conditions as part of the motion. The planning board finds the request meets the four criteria for granting a variance based on the four findings of facts.

Second, I'm sorry. Do we need to amend that condition to require the recording of the plat or the I'm sorry, the survey if is that or that is that already because it's not on the it's not listed on the conditions. Staff said that they were open to that and as long as staff is recommending that be added, the incorporation into the motion of staff's proposed condition suffices. Just making sure. And we have a second um before discussion. Um Miss Loop, you're comfortable that her entering that in without reading those um conditions is acceptable motion.

Correct. she can incorporate staff's findings of fact as set forth in the staff report and also the staff recommended conditions as set forth on the screen and as amended verbally by um Lauren.

Great. We have a motion and valid second. Um any discussion? I see no discussion. I will call for the vote. Those in favor, please raise your hand. And those opposed. Okay. up in favor and those opposed one. Thank you. Staff will prepare the written decision which I will sign on behalf of the board. Thank you to everyone for attending the hearing for this petition V2601. Moving on, next agenda item is quasi judicial petition petition B2602 7415 Venus Lane. as we've already entered into the record um the rules and identifying parties. I think we have determined that the only um parties are the town and the applicant. Um is that sufficient?

Correct. I do just want to um one more time um vice chair if you could ask and confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for this matter. Um before moving on, are there any um board members here that feel like they have a conflict of interest on this petition? I see none. Um we can move into the staff report despite welcome back.

Thank you. I'd like to enter the staff report for V2602 7415 Venus Lane into the record. Um I'll highlight differences with this property um compared to the previous and with the understanding that the majority of the other findings of fact are summarily the same. Um they've been outlined in the staff report. So I'll just highlight the differences with this property. Um it is the the neighboring property. It's in the same zoning district in the same subdivision. So um here you see the subject property of B2602 highlighted in yellow. Um this is the um summary um exhibit showing what the applicant is requesting for this lot. Um the significant difference is that the applicant is not requesting to relocate um a significant portion of the existing stream on this subject property. As you can see here, the existing section is just is is comparatively smaller that is being proposed to be relocated. However, the property is similarly impacted by stream and by buffer. So um there will be less um change and disturbance on this property compared to the previous um the same articles are requested for relief. Um so article 3.3.2-B FNG as well as article 3.2.3D3 2.3d3. So with the um current standard, this is

where the home would have to be located for the subject property, which um is still within the buffer, but less in the buffer than um less of an impact to the stream than the previous property. Whereas the previous lot would be on top of the stream, this lot would not be on top of the stream, but it would be in the buffer. Um staff find that this property meets the first standard for the granting of a variance. Um the difference as mentioned is the stream location on this property in with respect to the proposed home location. However, we find that the unnecessary hardship with the buffer and builtupon area are the same as the previous case. As noted in the staff report, we find that the uh peculiarity of the property is similar with the exception of the stream location with respect to the proposed home location and that this lot also meets standard two. we find that the third standard is also met and that the applicant did not um create the hardship. And we also find that with the proposed conditions of approval um that the spirit purpose and intent of the ordinance um is consistent with the requested variance and that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved in considering the application for V2602 a request by Habitat for Humanity of the Charlotte region for variances from article 3.3.2-B 2-B FNG and article 3.2.3D3 of the zoning ordinance. The planning department recommends approval of the

variance request based on a finding of fact that the request meets all of the four criteria outlined in the zoning ordinance for granting a variance. As a function of the approval, staff recommend that the board um require the the reloca relocation of the stream with mitigation per the level two requirements of the Charlotte Meckllinmberg water quality buffer implementation guidelines, the approved Clean Water Act section 401 and 404 permits, a survey showing the delineation of the stream and buffer to be provided to future property owners, and a recordation of the stream and buffer area if Meckllinburgg county will accept such a recordation in addition to um the condition that no new built upon areas to be allowed after the first home build. Happy to take any questions about this case.

Thank you. Sure. Any additional questions on this petition?

I see none. Um we do have a process that we have to continue to go through so it keeps me out of jail. So um applicant would you um have a presentation or have anything further to say again? Understood. Um we have previously determined that there are no other parties withstanding. Let me know testimony. We've also determined there's no non-party witnesses. Um opportunity for rebuttal. Again, there are no um other parties. If the applicant would like a make a closing argument, this would be an opportunity time to do it. No. Um does any board does any party or board member believe a continuence is warranted? Is there a motion to continue? Are y'all trying to get out of here? Um hearing none. Uh deliberation. Does the board have any further questions before we deliberate? just because you expected it. How far into the stream buffer is this one with a 20 foot set back off the road because your diagram I think has a 40 foot setback.

Sure. So the requests there it is. You said how far from into the stream buffer or how far away from the stream into the stream buffer does the into the stream buffer. It would be about 20 feet into the stream buffer. Okay. The blue line is the stream buffer. Yes, that is the proposed location of the stream buffer if the stream is relocated.

Alyssa, just confirming we're requesting the exact same two variances on this slot. Yes. The applicant is requesting relief from the same three standards of the ordin of the zoning ordinance. Okay. Gotcha.

Seeing no other questions hearing none, we will now begin deliberation. The evidentiary hearing remains open for clarifying questions. The board must determine whether the applicant has met the burden of proving the standards using competent material and substantial evidence. If the applicant meets their burden of producing competent, material, and substantial evidence that the standards in the ordinance will be met, the burden shifts to the other parties opposing the application to show competent, material, and substantial evidence that the standards in ordinance will not be met. If conflicting evidence as to a standard presented, the board will weigh the evidence and determine which side's evidence is more credible and more reliable. If the applicant does not meet their burden of producing competent material and substantial evidence that the standards in the ordinance will be met, the board must deny the application. Um, is there any further deliberation? Lauren, again, if you don't mind, can you please advance your slides to show the proposed conditions that staff would like incorporated into any motion approving?

Thank you. Sure. Looks like we have no further deliberation. Is there a motion regarding this request? Jennifer, if you did Alyssa, you have a Yeah. All right.

In considering the application for V26-02, a request by Habitat for Humanity of the Charlotte region for variances from article 3.3.2-BF 2-B FNG and article 3.2.3 uh D3 of the zoning ordinance. The planning department recommends approval of the variance request based on a finding.

Oh, sorry. The planning board recommends approval of the variance request based on a finding that the request meets all four of the criteria outlined in the zoning ordinance for granting a variance. uh staff recommendations um are also required to be followed as conditions of the approval. And I want to clarify in your motion, you are adopting staff's findings of fact as set forth in the staff report as to why the variance requirements are satisfied. Correct. Correct.

We have a valid motion. Is there a second? A second. Now we have a valid motion. Um, any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor? And any opposed? One opposed. Staff will prepare the written decision which I'll sign on behalf of the board. Thank you to everyone for attending the uh petition B2602. Thank you, Lauren. Excellent job. Thank you.

Uh moving along. Uh any other business? No, he's he's gone. We kicked him out. It's a power grab, like I said. Uh I see no more no other business. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second.