Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

here in 2011.

Thank you. We've got one that's ready to go.

Thank you.

Thank you. They have their standard feed on. It worked out well.

Right.

I used to do those.

Okay. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

and that you will faithfully discharge the duty

Do you, Andrew Medlin, solemnly and sincerely swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States, that you will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the state of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof? and that you will endeavor to support, maintain, and defend the Constitution of said state, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best of your knowledge and ability, so help you God. I will. And do you, Andrew, not once swear that you will well and truly execute the duties of the office as a member of the Union County Languages Board, according to the best of your skill and ability, according to law, so help you God. I will. Congratulations.

Congratulations, sir. Thank you. At this time, we will establish the voting members. Since all seven regular members are here, all seven will be those who vote on any decisions tonight. At this time, is there any additions or deletions to the agenda? Staff, anybody? None? All right. I ask for a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Is there a second? Motion is second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. We have to approve the minutes for the July 21st meeting. They're on the packet. Anybody have any questions? If not, do I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Okay.

All right. Now we have to move on to the approval of the decision letters for the two cases that we heard at our last meeting on July 21st, um, 2,026 sup Oh two sunset Ridge LLC, special use permit. Um, again, those are in our packet. Do I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? motion second all in favor say aye aye any opposed and we have the second one is the 2026 var-01 claude austin road variants do have a motion i'll make the motion to approve their second second all those in favor say aye aye any opposed okay all right moving on to our first uh action item tonight of a 2026 var02 augustine properties variance request let me first before we get there i want to do my little speech that i need to do so that okay yeah um my name is darren green i am the chairman of the union county land use board also alongside me tonight we have vice chairman rick davis that's him right there we have mr derek austin just fine looking gentleman down there with a checkered shirt on we have doug mcclure the bright orange shirt right here mr drew mellon who you just saw swear swear in uh wait a minute did i didn't get the notice Y'all addressed a lot. Mr. Mark Tilley right here, Mr. Charles Walkup, and our alternates, Mr. David Brooks at the end down here, and Mr. Rick Marshfield down here at this end. Also present tonight, we have staff John Ware, who is our senior planner and zoning administrator, Bjorn Hansen, who's our senior planner, Kelly Cope, who's our board attorney, and Ms. Amy Griffin, who is the one who makes sure everything works, our clerk. And she went like that, but she's the only one that knows what's going on. Tonight, we do have a couple of things we're going to be handling tonight. One's a variance, and the other will be a rezoning request. These are totally different things, and our attorney will be talking about the variance here in a minute. But we look tonight both in our... our quasi-judicial position as well as our position as we just, what's it called? Our planning board. We're just giving our opinion to the county commissioners. All parties who plan to give testimony, this is for the variance. Pro or con must complete the green form, which is up here available to you. and you must be sworn in in order to speak on that case. A planning staff member will explain why the permit was denied or why the variance is requested. The board will question the planning staff member. The applicant will then have the opportunity to question planning staff and then the applicant will be able to present testimony in the case. The board may question the applicant and the planning staff member And persons in opposition may also question the applicant. The applicant may present sworn witnesses. They will be subject to cross-examination. Other parties wishing to speak, pro or con, will be given reasonable time in order to present sworn testimony. They will be subject to cross-examination, the planning staff member, and then the applicant will be given opportunity for rebuttal. After hearing the case, the board will review the case and render a decision. This is usually done following the close of the public hearing. and the board's deliberation. However, the board does have the opportunity, if we'd like, to take up to 30 days to render a decision. You may remain present during deliberations, but once the hearing's closed, there will be no more testimony presented. You may call the Union County Planning Department after the session to receive the decision of the board. All exhibits must remain with the board. Please hand them to our clerk, Ms. Griffin. for tagging. If you feel there's a conflict of interest of any member of our board or any association that would prejudice your case, please let it be known at the start of your case, and I will give you that opportunity in a minute. We are a quasi-judicial board for this matter and can only accept sworn testimony. No hearsay evidence is admissible. Appeal of the decision of a variance is to the Union County Superior Court. You have 30 days from the date in which the board's written decision in order to appeal in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 160D-1402. I'd remind everyone to please turn off your cell phones. If you have a pager, please see me later, and we'll talk about your retirement plans. Quorum is, we do have at least four members, so we have a quorum, and I believe that's all I need to say about that. Our attorney, Ms. Cope, would like to Remind the board, we don't see a lot of variances, but we have recently, but she's going to give us some pointers and remind us what we're supposed to do tonight.

Thank you. I know we did have a variance last month, but I think it's especially important tonight to remind you of what a variance is and you operating in your quasi-judicial capacity as opposed to your legislative capacity, which is what a rezoning is. So through a quasi-judicial hearing, Tonight you will hear evidence, you will determine facts, and you will make a decision if the applicant has met their burden of proving those five standards that you will go over by statute that are required to meet. So that's what we're looking at tonight. This is different than a rezoning in which we have a public hearing. Citizens come in and express their opinion about a rezoning and then you make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. So tonight is different at least for for this variance is a more formal evidentiary hearing. As I said, you're looking for the applicant to prove those five standards to you of unnecessary hardship that's required for a variance. So the reason it's particularly important tonight, the applicant and his property was before you previously this year for a rezoning. So you need to take off that hat and put on just understands the different function tonight as what you previously heard the applicant presenting. So this is a again, quasi judicial hearing. You're looking for a competent, substantial evidence to prove those five standards to you in order to grant that variance. The applicant was before the board, I believe, in February of this year on that rezoning. Obviously, we only have one board, so I do need to make sure that the fact that you have heard previous, not evidence, but opinions about that and did make a recommendation that that nobody feels that they are biased in any way or can't make an impartial decision tonight based on the fact that they've heard prior information related to this particular property. So if anyone feels that they can't listen to the evidence and make an unbiased decision, please let me know right now. Also a special function of quasi judicial hearings is that parties have a right for any ex parte communication to be disclosed prior to the hearing. So I want to check in with all of you and see if there's been any ex parte communication with the applicant, with Ms. Mary Clark or anybody else related to this property. Okay. Mr. Walkup, I don't want to single you out, but at the rezoning hearing, You had mentioned in the hearing that you had spoken with Ms. Clark. Is that correct? Can you tell us just a little bit about the substance of that conversation?

Well, that was the afternoon before the meeting, and I went, sort of with the intent to make sure she was coming to speak to it, but she immediately said, She was in dire distress because her son had just died. And what we talked to the son about, what she told me was, she was there by herself. She wanted somebody to build a house on that property. And that's what I shared with the boy before. And I think if we're to render liberty and justice then we've got to consider her as the primary interest in this property. Okay.

Does anything about your conversation with her give you any sort of preconceived notion or a fixed opinion about this variance that's not susceptible to change? It's getting towards a bias. The fact that you've had a conversation with her and discussed previously the property, does that give you a fixed opinion about the outcome of today, essentially that you believe it should be granted no matter what? Yes. Okay. Is that successful to change based on evidence you hear tonight?

Possibly.

Okay. Have you had any conversations with Ms. Clark after that about this variance? No, I haven't. Have you spoken with anyone else regarding the property about this variance?

Well, I did ask someone from Augustine Properties. I made sure they knew, after I talked to staff, I made sure they knew what they could do in terms of the fee rate.

appeal of the decision of this board tonight no appeal since the commissioners of the rezoning okay okay does any board member have questions for mr walkup based on my questions there's any discussion if any board member has an objection to mr walkup's hearing then please all right anybody

Well, the type of meeting that we're having tonight and the fact that you've had conversation and directed the real estate company on what steps to take, that's not a good place to be in in your part tonight on this board.

Well, I told us to make sure They understood what options they had.

Yeah, but that's not our business. We're a board to make decisions about what we hear in the evidence before us. It's not our place to interact in how they conduct their business. They're a realty company out of Charlotte. They have attorneys.

My basic consideration is Ms. Mary gets justice.

Well, in my opinion, your mind has been made up. And I'm not going to say your heart's in a bad spot. I'm just saying your mind's made up.

I think it would be beneficial to have a vote, um, as to whether, do we need to do that now?

Or do we need to wait until I ask if there's a, I'm sorry, do we need to do that now? Or do I need to wait until I swear in the planning member and asked, uh, if there's a conflict, I would do it now. Do it now. Okay. Okay. If, if there's any concern about any member at this time, uh, please let it be known and, uh, we'll need a motion. to either, I guess, suspend that member for this case.

I think Charles kind of went too far on the subject. And I personally, I would say that you shouldn't have a vote.

Okay. All right. Well, I guess we're going to need a motion in that case. Someone wants to make a motion to exclude. How would we say that? To exclude him or to remove him from this? Well, how do I word that? How do we need to word the motion? I would make a motion to recuse. Recuse? Okay. Okay, is there a motion?

I make a motion that we ask Charles to recuse himself based on the information he's given publicly to this board tonight about his prior interactions with this subject.

That's what your motion wants to be. That's fine. That kind of puts it on Mr. Walkup to recuse himself or not to the board. in your capacity can vote for him not to.

Okay, then I'll make the motion that Mr. Walker not participate in this variance meeting tonight.

Okay. Do I have any other discussion? All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Mr. Walker, what do we do now? Does he need to have to leave the diocese?

Yeah, I'm sorry. You want to?

Now you can come back for the next hearing.

Yes.

Yes. All right.

Now this time, Mr. Brooks, you are the next up member to take his seat as an alternate. So you'll be voting on this matter. Okay. All right. At this time, we do have a variance. Petition number 2026VAR02. This is location at 3810 Richardson Road. Tax partial number is 04-198-014A. Okay. There you are, Mr. John. Is the petition complete? Yes. Again, I will ask again, does anyone have a conflict with this item? Hearing none, I ask for a motion to hear the petition. Is there a second?

Second.

All right. Uh, I need to swear you in, sir. I'm going to get back to that page. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the matter at hand? All right. So please present this matter.

All right. This is 2026, uh, variance. Oh, two Augustine properties, 38, 10 Richardson road. I'm entering into evidence the Union County Development Ordinance, the agenda packet, the site plan, which is in the agenda packet, and the applicant provided a packet that I passed out to you a little bit ago. That'll be entered in as well. The applicant, Augustine Properties, is requesting a variance from the lot and building regulations, more specifically shown in Table 5-2, our district lot and building regulations for conventional development of the Union County Development Ordinance. They're seeking relief of 21,702 square foot from the lot size requirements of 40,000 square foot. And I kind of showed my math down here because in a little bit you'll see the survey, and I just want to make sure that we're citing the correct numbers as far as how much the relief is. So the 21,781 square foot total, there's 3,483 square foot in the right of way, which leaves 18,298 square feet. So that's where that 21,702 comes from. Again, the property is located at 3810 Richardson Road and more specifically identified by parcel number 04198014A. The owner is Augustine Properties. The applicant or agent for Augustine Properties is Christopher Dugan. And the property is zoned RA40, residential agricultural, which requires a 40,000 square foot minimum lot requirement. The parcel is located in the west side of Richardson Road, south of Griffith Road. It has been zoned RA40 since zoning was initiated. The parcel was created by deed and does not meet the lot requirements of RA40 district and would not be able to be utilized for single family residential without a variance. There's previously a manufactured home on site that was placed in the property in 2006 and removed sometime in 2013. The lot does have an existing septic and well permit approved by Union County Environmental Health, so it will accommodate a home if it can meet the setbacks. The property wasn't originally approved through a subdivision process, as in it didn't go through our office to be approved as a subdivision, so this will require subsequent subdivision submittal to make it a buildable lot, so that will be possible once this variance is passed and approved. proposed use as a single family residence on a single family tract of land which is consistent with the current use of many of the adjacent properties this is the physical survey of the property and those are the numbers that I was citing earlier you can see it's about half an acre it's twenty one thousand seven hundred eighty one square feet but our ordinance doesn't allow for the right-of-way to be counted within a lot so that three thousand four hundred eighty three square foot in the right-of-way was subtracted These are the existing conditions on the lot. So the top left hand is the lot itself. The top right is north of the site looking down Richardson Road, south of the site looking down Richardson Road on the bottom left, and then opposite the site on the bottom right. There is currently not a structure on the property. There is a house next door. That is the house that is sitting on a larger lot that surrounds this lot. That is the lot that this was deeded from and the original owner before it was sold to Augustine Properties. There is some open space around farmland and residential. There's some manufactured home parks to the north and to the south of the property down Richardson Road. For environmental features, there are no wetlands or streams on the property, though there is a stream that runs around the edge of the original property. The zoning is RA40. You can see it's surrounded by RA40. To the south, down the road a bit, is the R8 zoning district, the district they used to use to allow for manufactured home parks, and to the north as well.

I have one question. Back to that picture of that lot where the house is on. Am I saying that correct? Does that road split that lot up and there's a little triangle right there where you got that on the other side of that road?

Yeah, sometimes you'll get leftover from subdivision, I mean from a road coming through an existing parcel years and years ago. Um, I don't know that that part is part of that parcel though. I don't believe it is.

Okay. It's just shows where it was, I guess.

Yeah. That's a remnant leftover from something else.

Okay.

Transportation wise, the average daily trip is 500. And land use map shows this as future rural residential. This is the new site plan that they've provided showing a proposed house on the lot where the septic tank is going to go and the lot layout itself. It does meet setback requirements. Staff does not give it a recommendation in the case of a variance. So there is no staff recommendation. And of course you'll need to have your findings and conclusions required for approval, which is listed here.

you have any questions for me so I think the the issue with that and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong is that she had the owner of that property has a

reverse mortgage so they aren't they don't have the ability to sell anymore yeah this would be the only path to make this lot develop yes anything else all right

Thank you, sir. This time I'd call Mr. Dugan. I have to swear you ain't even know you're a lawyer, I think. We've thought about that.

I'm glad I'm giving any testimony. I'll be asking you that. Okay. You're not giving any testimony.

I'll ask my attorney. In the past, we've had issues, and they always tell me. I will listen to what she says. What do you say?

So we do have attorneys that come in that do want to provide evidence, but it sounds like Mr. Duggan will be just forecasting evidence. Okay. If there's something he forecasts that is not into evidence, then you don't consider it. So it sounds like he is purely advocating for his clients here. As long as you don't give evidence. Or your capacity.

All right, so I will need your, I'll need your clients to come and be sworn in then. All right. We'll do you both at the same time. Left hand, raise your right. All right. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the matter at hand.

Thank you, and we will I guess mr. Duggan units going to introduce it or her yes, sir if I may May it please the board chairman green vice chair Davis members of the board staff Yes, sir, my name is Chris Duggan, I'm an attorney here in town right up the road here I represent a Augustine properties in this variance application. I believe that the evidence in this matter is going to show, if I had all my papers it'd be helpful. It's gonna show that this strict adherence to the ordinance is gonna create an undue hardship upon the property. The evidence will further show that the hardship is unique to this parcel of property and that the hardship relates to conditions peculiar to the subject of the property. The hardship is not the rest of the actions taken by the applicant subject to the property. By granting the variance, the spirit of this ordinance will be observed and we intend to present evidence to you tonight to reach the threshold by providing this board evidence of substantial proof that a variance is requested and is appropriate for this property. I'd ask Mr. McCouch? McCouch. Please come on up if you would, please.

If you could just state your name, please.

Edward John McCouch, but I go by Ted.

All right, Ted.

Mr. McCouch, do you mind if I call you Ted today? Please. Thank you. What is your relationship to the applicant, Augustine Properties? We are business partners. And how long have you been business partners?

Since December of 2019.

And is Augustine Properties a subsidiary of another company? Yes. And what is that? Team Properties. And is that the same individuals that are a part of Augustine Properties are a part of Team Properties? Correct. Okay. And do you work with Augustine Properties to purchase property? Yes. Who is Amy Augustine?

She's my business partner.

And what is your relationship to her?

Business partner.

Since when?

Since December 2019.

Okay. Do you work with Ms. Augustine to purchase property and specifically worked with Augustine Properties to purchase this property for which you're here today? Yes. And the property is located at 3810 Richardson Road in Monroe, is that right? Correct. And this property was purchased in what year? I believe it was June of last year. Okay. So June of 2025. I'm going to show you what I'm marking as exhibit one. Applicants exhibit one for the record. Can you tell me what this document is?

This is a general warranty deed.

Okay. And that general warranty deed is dated what date?

Recorded June 13th of 2025.

And that deed is a transfer of the subject property at 3810 Richardson Road? Correct. And who transferred that property to Augustine properties? Mary E. Clark. I'd like to refer you to page two, if you couldn't, it's a front and back and each one of you has it in your packet there. Yep. You're going to see here at the first paragraph of page two, it has a date or has a description of this specific piece of property at 38, 10, richston road. and that property is described by way of a survey dated when?

Dated January 20th of 2004.

Okay. Is it your understanding or belief that the property was parceled out from a larger parcel property in or about that time?

That is correct, yes.

Okay. Did you have anything to do with the parceling off of that property? No. And do you know whose larger property it was parceled off from? Mary Clark and Ms. Clark's here today. She is. Uh, I'd like to, and this is a true and accurate copy of the deed that was filed with the union County register of deeds. Is that correct?

Correct.

I'd like to move exhibit one into evidence now, sir. Um, the property, when you were, Looking at this piece of property, did you perform any due diligence when looking at this property?

We did.

What did you do? What type of do-do?

We did a few things. First and foremost, what I always do is I called Planning and Zoning Department and asked what are allowable uses, what setback requirements are. Also, we learned that there was an existing septic on site, so we had the septic system inspected and found out that it was in need of some repairs, so... did include that once we moved forward after that and did therefore pursue a septic repair.

And if I can just take it one step at a time, the property at the time you purchased the property, was there a mobile home on the parcel?

There was not.

Do you know, and we've heard from staff tonight that the mobile home was removed in or around 2013. Do you have any information one way or the other exactly when that happened?

I don't, so I have to go for that.

All right. Other than contacting Union County Planning, what else did you do?

That was the extent between that and then having septic inspected.

Okay. You performed some other due diligence on the property, is that right?

aside from just planning and zoning and asking allowable uses and setbacks, than just the septic component.

Okay. And that component, after you've purchased the property, did you apply for a septic permit?

We did.

I'm going to show you what I'm marking as Exhibit 2. Can you tell me what this document is?

This is actually the well permit.

We have also a septic repair. Is that correct? Yes. All right. Exhibit two is a septic repair permit for the property. Is that correct?

Yes.

And on the backside of the show where the drainage field is on the property.

Correct.

Okay. And after you purchase the property, you obtain this permit. Is that correct? Correct. How many bedrooms would this septic provide for?

Two bed.

Okay. So you applied and received a septic permit, and this is a true and accurate copy of that permit, is that correct?

Yes, it is correct.

I'd like to move exhibit two into evidence. Did you also apply for a well permit? We did. I'm going to show you what I'm marking as exhibit three for identification.

Excuse me, gentlemen, I have a question.

Yes, sir?

It says here that the property wasn't originally approved through the subdivision process and will require a subsequent subdivision to make it a buildable lot. Mr. Taylor, were you aware of this when you bought this lot?

No, it was not related to me, no.

Did you check into it?

When I called the Planning and Zoning, I asked what allowable uses were and could we build on it, and I was told yes, we could. It was grandfathered in.

So you were told by the planning board that it was acceptable to be built on according to your information.

Not the board. It was an individual that I spoke to within the planning and zoning department.

Do you remember that individual was?

I don't.

That kind of raises a question. OK, thank you. Go ahead.

Sure. So you also applied for a well permit, is that right? I'm going to show you what I've marked as exhibit three. What is that document?

This is the well permit. Okay.

And is that a true and accurate copy of that well permit?

Yes.

I have another question. Yes, sir. When you're talking about the well permit and the septic permit, what information or papers did you use to be able to get this permit for the septic tank and for the well did you just go talk to them or how were you able to obtain this or did you use legal documents for the deed to ask for this i'm not sure i fully understand the question how do we go about pursuing them yes what what information or what papers or what legal papers did you use to go into the Sent the department to get a second permit and the well.

We actually used Eagle Engineering, and they submitted the permits on our behalf.

Was there a survey done by Eagle Engineering for the property in order to determine where to place the septic drainage field?

That was done by a different organization, but a survey was conducted, yes. Okay.

and then you also submitted that as part of exhibit two on page two of exhibit two, which is on the back side, that survey for the approximate drainage field, that was submitted as part of the application? Correct.

So are you saying that Eagle Engineering gave you the paperwork to be able to access these permits?

No, they submitted them on our behalf. Oh, they submitted them? Yes, ma'am.

Okay, and nothing was mentioned to you then about the lot size?

No, sir.

I have one question before you all go any further, just to satisfy something in my brain. You're a real estate company. Have you ever done any business in Union County or any other county in North Carolina?

Yes, sir, we have, which I do want to be clear, we're a real estate investment company.

Okay, but are you not aware of the rules of zoning for North Carolina and Union County as to what the requirement is to build a house?

That is why I called to get clarification, because it had its own physical address, and I said, is this buildable? And I was told it was grandfathered.

So now somebody that you don't know who it was told you that you could, but now that, and then we're here, correct? Correct. Okay.

Yes.

I just, I don't quite understand, with the more legal paperwork that was shown, how you were able to get a well permit and a septic permit.

Was there a well pre-existing on the property? Not a well, just a septic. Okay. There was a septic on the property, correct? And that septic had to be repaired in order to construct a home? Correct. Because the mobile home used a septic? Correct. So there was a septic system on file with Union County, is that right? That is correct. And that septic system, after inspection, needed to be repaired?

Yes, that's correct. Okay. On the septic permit, or the septic permit that was on file, Were they legal paperwork for it? What we're reading here is that the mobile home was put on this property and it was illegal when it was put there to start with. So now I'm back in question that how did the assembly tank come about when the property didn't meet the requirements to put a mobile home on it at that time? This grandfather thing has really bothered me because if it If there's not documentation from the land use board or whatever giving them the authority to put the mobile home on it, it's not making sense. Maybe I'm just not following the information that I'm hearing.

Well, there was a septic on the property. that subject needed to be repaired.

I understand the subject was there, but I'm just trying to figure out if the mobile home, according to some of the reason we're reading here, that the property wasn't originally approved through the subdivision process, how were they able I'm lost in this on putting a septic tank on it. And I know it was there. But there have been some mistakes in the past with the environmental. And in the past, there's been some issues with the land use board or board of adjustment or whatever, on how the mobile home was put there. And just because the mobile home was put there, it just makes everything legal. I'm not understanding that how it automatically makes it legal to go back in and build a household.

Well, and I don't necessarily, uh, I'm not certain if I can argue, uh, at the point, but, uh, so what happened with union county environmental health to approve that septic tank? You know, that's, that's not a part of his, his process. He was just going to repair the subject. So we, we acknowledge that the property, uh, should not have been parceled off the way it was. the attorney, and I'm not going to throw any attorneys under it, but whoever parceled out that parcel of property at the time the deed was filed should have gone to planning to get a minor subdivision or whatever for that parcel of property. For whatever reason that wasn't done, attorneys can all day long go and draft up deeds for parts of property, go to the Register of Deeds office, clock in that document that was drafted and that parcel then has a different tax number because tax will pick it up from then register of deeds. It just, whether the communication between the departments, goes and catches it before approvals or, you know, something is done. I think what would have had happened or what would have had to have happened is there should have been a code violation of some type issued for the property back in when it was parceled off in 2004 for a, uh, you know, just a violation that says, okay, you've got to go fix this.

Okay, but what you're saying now, you're admitting that it wasn't right then, but since it's there, it's automatically right now. That's kind of what I'm hearing you all say.

We're not saying that it's automatically right, but now we have an existing parcel of property that has been existing and been paying taxes since at least about 2004, 2005, been paying taxes on this property as a separate parcel. And I can certainly argue it now or I can go into it a little later. Let me just pull up my sheet here.

While you're looking for that, I got a question.

Yes, sir.

Did you say that there wasn't a well on it?

No, there is no well.

Okay, so you bought a piece of property that was not a stand-alone piece of property for a home when you bought it. It had a septic tank on it but not a well. Wasn't that a red flag? Because obviously, every who had the mobile home there was having to share the water with somewhere else if they had water in it.

Right. Could have been just...

Okay, but I mean, I don't know. I mean, it just looks to me like a real estate person. That would have been a red flag that you was buying a piece of property that wasn't a stand-alone piece of property in the beginning.

I have never encountered where something has a physical address...

Well, I mean, you do know in order to have a working home that you have a septic or a place for your sewer to go and an input of fresh water in order for your home to function properly, right?

Yes.

Okay.

It was sourced from Mary was providing the water.

Okay, but what I'm trying to get at is that piece of property that you're saying basically needs to be grandfathered in was never ever a functioning piece of legal property for a home to begin with because it had to have its water from another source, not on that piece of property.

I agree with what you're saying, but that didn't raise any red flags for me at the time. Wow, OK. Except it seems to be the one that seems to be more of the requirement needed. The water source was provided.

And may I just direct this board to its required findings under 80.12, what's this, 0.12D? 0.12H. Finding number four, the hardship is not a result of the actions taken by the applicant. The applicant didn't take the actions to subdivide this property. That was taken by somebody else.

OK, but wait a minute. Now, since you read that, would it not be the applicant's responsibility to make sure what they bought didn't have the problem to begin with? If I buy somebody's problem and I know there's a problem, I automatically get forgiveness for that because I was not right? I have a quick question.

And I'll come back to you in a moment. I'll read you the rest of that section.

Sir, you testified that you do understand zoning.

Yes.

And in Union County, R40 means $40,000. That's correct, yep. If I could, if you could, on this Exhibit 1, Page 2, this is the deed. Page two under property one our property. I guess it's got a one or an eye. I don't know whatever Could you read the last two sentences?

Of that paragraph property one can we start after a beginning point?

Well, he can't if you want to read the whole thing. That's fine I just need you to read the last two sentences.

I believe that's right here beginning right here and where it says containing I

containing okay beginning point and containing 0.5 acres as shown on unrecorded plot therefore are there of by Carol L rushing registered surveyor dated January 20th 2004 so you purchased this property and I don't even read that it clearly says 0.5 acres can you build anything on 0.5 acres if it's zoned or for If something is grandfathered in, which we have encountered in other counties.

And do you have evidence that it was grandfathered in?

Just what I was told.

Okay, and you don't know who told you that?

I don't. All right. And may I just read the rest of that paragraph as part of the required?

Sure, absolutely. Go ahead.

So the hardship is not the result of the actions taken by the applicant or the subject of property owner. Although the act of purchasing the property knowing that that a variance may be needed or required does not constitute a self-created hardship. So the ordinance is clear. You can buy a piece of property knowing that you might need to get a variance on it, and that's okay. That's what the ordinance says. You're allowed to do that, and it should not be held against the applicant. So in this case here, it wasn't created by the applicant. there's a parcel of property there that's now parceled off has no viable use to it. As we heard from staff, uh, that the only way forward to put a parcel or a home or anything onto this property is through a variance. And that's, that's why we're here today. So, um, if I may, when you apply for the building permits, uh, or did you apply for a building permit for the property?

Our building company submitted it on our behalf, yes.

Okay. I'm going to show you what I'm marking as Exhibit 4. And is this a copy of the building permit application? Yes. And when you submitted for that building permit application, what were you told?

It was declined.

Okay. And it was declined because it didn't meet the? Size requirements. Size requirements, okay. Is that the first time that you were given notice by the county, according to your sworn testimony, is that the first time you were given notice by the county that you would not be able to develop this property? Yes. And is this a true and accurate copy of the building permit that you submitted to the county?

Yes, it is.

I'd ask to submit Exhibit 4 into evidence.

Now, if I could miss Griffin, you, you have that correct. We have, I believe that's the four, right? There's four. You submitted four, right? Yes. Yes, sir. Make sure she has it for tagging purpose.

Yes. I've got it and I'm marking them here and I'll give her the exact number. Make sure.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir. Um, so this parcel was parceled out of a larger property next door. Is that correct? Correct. When you ran into this problem, did you try to find some solutions to this problem?

Anything possible? Certainly the first thought was, can we possibly obtain any more land surrounding, which has been shared. Ms. Mary Clark unfortunately can't, and that is, it is completely horseshoed in. And I even asked about buying land across the street. Can that be combined? And I was told, no, it can't. It has to be one continuous parcel. So we... exhausted all known avenues possible.

Did you also file a zoning application? We did a rezoning application. Yes. And, uh, that rezoning application was before the land use board, uh, on February 24th, 2026. Is that right? Correct. Um, and that vote of the land use board asked to take a judicial notice of, of the minutes of the board that was approved for rezoning. Is that correct at that time? That is correct. and when it went to the county commission that rezoning was denied, is that correct? Correct. So you're left with a piece of property that you can't buy any other additional property to combine into this, is that right? Correct. And apparently there's no appetite for rezoning of this property, is that correct? Apparently so, that's correct. What would be the use of this property at this point?

Absolutely zero.

And Ms. Clark is here tonight, is that right? Yes. And I'll have Ms. Clark come up and talk. Have you decided what kind of home you want to put on the property?

The goal is a site built, so stick built, two bedroom.

I'm going to mark exhibit five if I could. Can you tell me what this is?

This is the build model. So it's called the Columbus, 1311 square feet, with covered porch, which is 120. It's a total of 1431, two bedroom, two bath.

All right. That front page shows three bedrooms. Is that right? That is correct. There's a second page to exhibit five. Is that correct? Yes. And that exhibit five shows two bedrooms, is that correct? That is correct. What is the septic size allow for on that property? Two bedrooms. And you would have to have an inspection done in order to have approval for a certificate of occupancy, is that correct? That is correct. If the variance is granted, is that correct? Yes, correct. And is that a true and accurate example of what you intend to build on that home?

That is, yes.

And you're offering this for demonstrative purposes, is that right? Correct. and offer Exhibit 5 into the evidence as demonstrative. Now we've heard some conversations regarding the site plan of the property, and I can pull this back up if I figure out how to go backwards. There it is. That's the old site plan. All right. And this is a copy of the new site plan, is that correct?

Correct.

And I'm going to show you what I'm marking as exhibit six. Is that a true and accurate copy of the site plan which you intend to put on the property? Yes, correct. And that site plan, will it meet all setback requirements in an R40 district? It does. Okay. So you'll have all the setback, meet all the setback requirements. You'll have a septic tank, a drainage field, a well. Everything on the property is just that the property is a half an acre. Is that right? Correct. And you're seeking this variance tonight in order to relieve the unnecessary hardship on the property. Is that right? Correct. Do you feel that by granting such a variance, you would fulfill the spirit of the ordinance? Sure. But if the board grants this variance, do you believe that the granting of the variance would fulfill the spirit of the ordinance? Yes. Involving variances. This property, it has its own parcel address.

It does.

It has its own tax address. It does. It has its own PIN address. It does. Um, this property, when you bought it, you didn't, uh, know that you were not being able to obtain any kind of variance on this property or, or build on this property. Is that right? That is the correct statement. Um, have you considered other uses for this property?

Open to anything. If we can't build on it, I can't find any other use that we can use it for. Um,

All right, sir, thank you. If you have any questions for Mr. Ted, anyone?

Why did you initially buy the property?

To build the model home that you saw.

To build a home on it?

Yes, sir, a single family residence.

Knowing it takes basically an acre to build a house on in Union County.

I operate in a good faith based on what I was told, which is what I do with any county that we built in. I always call, regardless of what's written, I always like to get it verified over the phone, and I was told that it was grandfathered in.

Did you know that you would need to get a variance on the property to do what you wanted to do?

Wouldn't have even pursued it. Wouldn't have been worth it.

Any other questions?

Were there any other surveys done prior to you guys having a survey done on this property to make you feel like this property was previously split apart? Have you seen any other kind of surveys?

Just a reference to the one on the D that was done before, but I hadn't seen it at the time.

Did the staff have any kind of previous surveys on file for this area of land?

I wasn't here when this originally started, but no, I don't believe we had a previous survey.

Okay.

Anything else? All right. At this time, if... I guess you would like to bring up Ms. Clark.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

I'm going to move this thing over a little bit so we can hear you loud and clear, okay?

Okay.

I ask you to come stand right in the middle here.

Okay.

Can you please state your name for the record?

Mary Matthews Clark.

And ma'am where do you live?

3814 Richardson Road.

We're here to talk about this piece of property that was sold to Augustine Properties. Are you familiar with that property? Yes. Is that property, was that formerly a part of the large property of yours?

Yes, it was. Well, yes.

Okay. At some time, did you decide to parcel off this section of property?

I did. I let my son move a trailer on it.

Okay. So you parceled out this property for your son?

Mm-hmm.

Okay. And he lived in a trailer on that property, is that right? Yes. We heard some questions regarding water. Do you know where he got his water from? From my well. Okay. So he used your well almost like as an easement to get water onto the property. Is that right?

That's right.

Okay. And he had septic on his property too. Is that right?

Yes. He put a septic tank in.

And your son lived there for how long? How many years?

I don't know. Probably a couple of years. Then he had my

granddaughter lived in it or there's another couple lived in it and then my granddaughter lived in it last and they towed it off moved it and we heard some some testimony that was about 2013 is that that that's probably right okay um and the purpose uh did you hire an attorney to help you get this parcel uh parceled off for you

I don't know I think the trailer company held it or whatever.

Okay so there was somebody else that that did this for you helped you get do this right? Yes. Did you know that you cannot parcel off a piece of property this small and make it an R-40?

I didn't know at the time.

Had you known that would you have done that?

Well my sister sign for the trailer, and then I'd give him the property to move that trailer on it. That was a big mistake.

Okay. And if you knew you had to give him a bigger-sized piece of property, would you have done that?

I don't know. Probably not. Mr. Dugan? Yes, sir?

Now, she just said that that was a mistake. What was she referring to when she said that was a mistake when she gave him the property to move on to?

Well, it was just... Well, it went from him to another couple moved in, then my granddaughter moved in. It was just aggravation, you know? It really was.

So you regret you ever did that then?

In a way, yes.

Okay. I have a question. Did these other people, did your, you said the first person was your son or grandson? Son.

My son, then he let another couple move in, and then my granddaughter was the last one. And it was towed out.

So was he, did your son, was it put in his name? Did it become his property in his name?

No.

Well, how do we have a separate piece of property here?

Well, my sister signed for the trailer, and I let them put the trailer on the property.

Why have we got a separate piece of property?

I don't know.

Where's the title to that property?

The deed to that property?

Yes, sir.

The deed to the property, it's just parceled off in that description. I was unable to locate that.

Recorded?

Yeah. There's some kind of recordation. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a separate tax parcel number for it.

Mr. Duggan, your property description. And your deed references an unrecorded flat from Carol Rushing. Right. Is it your contention that that was recorded to parcel that off in 2004?

There was something recorded in order to create the tax office to create this extra parcel to give it a separate PIN number.

Well, whose name was on the property that you bought it from?

Ms. Cook's.

I mean, Mr. So it was still in her name.

Yes, sir. So the property was in her name when you bought it. No, it was in my name.

That's what I meant. It was in your name when he bought it from you.

Yeah.

But it was a separate deeded property.

The trailer company got the property, I guess, to lean on it to get the trailer. I don't know.

So the deed was in her name. That's how they were able to record the taxes and record everything because even though it was a separate deal, it was still in her name.

But it's a separate tax parcel, though, isn't it? But it was still in her name. Right. Right. I understand what you're saying. Yes.

Here's the issue I have with all this. I understand your point of wanting somebody besides you. I get it all. I totally understand what you're coming from. But you've made several statements tonight in representing this to us that really flew up a lot of flags for me of what we're going to see in the future. Well, number one, a reverse mortgage company someday will own this. the other part, correct?

Yes.

Okay. Now, you're bringing this half acre that we've already established, Shunton been there to begin with, according to the county, and a really and truly a realty person that know anything about it, Shunton bought it. A lot of Shunton's here. But the other problem is you bring up hardships and all that. Now let's go back to the slide here that's got this whole piece of property.

Right here. Right there.

There you go. That cut up a bunch of stuff there. What I see is, is years down the road here, you may be the one that does it. This piece of property here was such a mess that we had to get a variance or a special, you know, on this piece of property for this. Now we got property on the other side of it and this side of it. And in order for this property to be usable at this point, we need to split it up some more. And then you're going to end up with a little half acre subdivision right there on that.

On the parcel.

OK, look on the other side. You got that little strip of land there that ain't worth a hoot for nothing on the other side of that property. Then you got there, you got to where the house is. Then you got that other part. Now just really and truly, let's just say that you built your house on there. Do you know how hard that piece of land for the original house would be to sell when the property horseshoes around the house beside of it?

I don't know. I think.

OK. Well, I can tell you that it would not be a good viable piece of property. Somebody would want to split it up again to make it a viable piece of property, in my opinion. That's just my opinion.

And I've been on this board for over 20 years. Right. But just with all due respect, there's no evidence that that could happen. I'm just. Okay.

I'm just going by the evidence you presented with words like hardship and all that. I'm using your words to come to this conclusion. With all due respect, I'm using the words of your ordinance.

Okay. So this is an ordinance that was passed by Union County, goes through review by the Union County Planning Board. After review by the Union County Planning Board, the Union County Planning Board then takes it to the commission. The commission then approves whatever language is added to it. But as it sits right now, the five findings of fact that strict application of the ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me just finish with her so I can have her sit down. Yes, please. Thank you. Would you like to have the home built on the property?

Yes, I would. I'd like to have a neighbor.

All right, ma'am. That's all the questions I have. Does the board have any other questions?

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. Do you have any other witnesses?

No other witnesses, just a simple closing, if I may.

Okay, sir. I think. You want to go ahead?

I have one more question. Yes, sir. I think the way that ordinance was meant to be read, and maybe we're reading something in it that's not supposed to be there, is that if I already owned a piece of property and I had a house on it and I wanted to do something to move around it, I couldn't because the hardship of the way it was set up, that would be a hardship to me. because I already own the property, I already had a house on it. And we have ran into this before, that a person owned the property and they wanted to do something else, but they couldn't because the structure of the land was laid out to where it was a hardship. And we have had these come before us before, but I think the way the ordinance is being read now is, it doesn't, I don't know, I think we're reading, you were reading something into that ordinance, that doesn't make sense. The hardship is, if the property was already his, and he already owned it for whatever time, and there was a building already on it, then he tried to add something to it is where the hardship comes into it. That's just my feelings on it.

I mean, basically what it is, he purchased the hardship and then wants forgiveness for buying a hardship.

Does that make sense? But the ordinance says that you can't hold that against the applicant. So maybe the language of that ordinance should be changed.

So, I mean, does the ordinance say that whenever people does something that's not smart, we just go ahead and forgive them for it?

Well, the ordinance says although the act of purchasing the property, knowing that a variance may be needed or required, does not constitute a self-created hardship. That's what the ordinance says. I'm not interpreting it any other way than to read it.

Okay, but it says he realizes there could be a variance needed. It doesn't guarantee him a variance. It just says it could be needed.

It could be needed.

That's correct.

Right. I'll agree with you there that the property variance may be needed or required. It does not. even if it's required, right? It may be needed or required, one of the two. But with him being a realtor. It's not a both. It's one or the other. So you have a disjunctive. Go ahead.

I'm sorry. All right.

Go ahead. If you could wrap up, please. We would argue that the strict application of this ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. Find the fact one. The hardship is unique to the subject property. rather than common to the neighboring properties. That's number two. This property is a half an acre. The only way you can put a home on it is a variance. The hardship relates to conditions peculiar to this subject property rather than personal circumstances of the applicant. This property is a restricted development property. You can't do anything else with this property. You tried the zoning. You tried to purchase. You can't do anything else with this property. The hardship was not a result of the actions taken by the applicant and was not here by granting this variance. The spirit of the ordinance will be observed. Public safety and welfare will be secured and substantial justice will be done. I'd like to also read from you and the ordinance 80.1 to a, a variance is a grant of relief to a property owner from strict compliance with regulations of this ordinance. The intent of the zoning variance is not to simply remove an inconvenience or a financial burden that may result from compliance with applicable zoning requirements. Variances are intended solely to help alleviate an unnecessary hardship that would be caused by strict application of the subject regulations. They are intended to provide relief when the requirements of this ordinance render the property extremely difficult or impossible to put to reasonable use because of some unique special characteristic of the property itself. Extremely difficult or impossible to put to use. There was an ordinance tried or a rezoning tried. There was attempted purchase of additional property tried. We're here for a variance. This is the last stand in order to have some reasonable use of this property. Otherwise it's gonna sit as a vacant field. half acre vacant field. We'd ask that this, duly request that this board approve the application request of 2026-VAR-02, approve the variance request of Augustine Properties to allow for the construction of a single family home.

Thank you. Oh, you have a question?

Mr. Dugan?

Yes, sir.

I want to say it right. Mr. Dugan, is that correct?

Dugan.

Dugan.

Dugan. Mr. Dugan. One of them Dugans, dude. In your professional opinion, who created this hardship?

It was the prior owner that... ended up parceling off the property. I mean, without going through subdivision or without getting approval of the subdivision, then this property is now in existence. Now what do we do with this piece of property? We either sell it as a vacant lot. We hope that somebody who buys Ms. Clark's property down the line might buy this piece of property as part of that sale. But you're just holding us and paying taxes on it. So the hardship was created in 2004 when a survey was done, an application was made to the tax department and they created a separate parcel on this. Whether that application was done by the mobile home company or not, I don't know. I wasn't there in 2004 to see them do it. But somebody before the applicant created this difficulty on this parcel. And that's why we're here today for this variance, to get some use out of this parcel.

Good. Thank you, sir. All right. At this time, anyone else would like to speak in favor of this variance? We do have one person who signed up to speak in opposition. Mr Mitch Griffin, if you could come forward and we will swear you in, sir. Left hand on the Bible, raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and the matter at hand? I do. All right, sir, could you please just come forward and state your name?

Name is Mitchell Griffin. My wife and I own some land just down Richardson Road. We're not adjacent to the property, but we're close to it. We have been neighbors with Miss Mary. We love Miss Mary. She's a good neighbor. We were kind of shocked when they did this. We don't want to be telling people what to do with their land. I don't believe in that too much unless you're causing problems. But part of our land does adjoin that large field beside of it. And as we know, there is no water or sewer down there. At one time, there's a 1.82 acre lot there we were considering building a house on but it wouldn't perk and it's just a couple hundred well maybe not a couple but a hundred and 150 feet from that lot what really concerns us is we're afraid that we think that the one acre lot is a good role It's good for the environment. It's good for water and wells. But what concerns us, and we've talked to some other people in the neighborhood, what concerns them is that half acre lot, if it's given a variance, it could be a foot in the door for that 30 acre field. I think it might be 33 acres. But can you imagine? 60 houses with 60 wells and 60 septic tanks on that lot. Now, I know we need to preserve our farmland. I love having it farmed over there, but I know one of these days it may not be. But if we grant that half acre variance there, what's to stop them saying, hey, we want half acre lots on our subdivision here? That's basically what we were concerned about. That's all I really got to say.

Mr. Griffin, the property you're talking about is the bigger property right behind the subject property?

No, that's the farm field. It's in corn right now. Yes, sir.

And how close of proximity do you live to Miss Mary? Where are you?

Well, we own the property. That's my wife's family land. We live in town, but... There's a couple houses on our property, and there's people that do live there, but that one long lot, I wish I had a laser pointer. I can't show it to you, but that's what actually joins the property, but we've got that little 10-acre plot right there. It was subdivided by my wife's mom a year or so ago.

Okay. All right, anything else? All right, thank you, sir.

Okay, thank y'all.

Any other questions that we need to have asked before we close the hearing?

Okay.

If you come forward, sir, please. If you're going to present evidence, I need to swear you in, sir. Left hand on the Bible, raise your right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth at the matter of hand. All right, please come forward and state your name, sir. And I'm going to need you to fill this out. There should be one up there. You'll need to fill it out when you're done. You'll have to do it now. Just make sure you turn it in to Mr. Griffin right here. Come with a microphone.

I'm Rex Perry. I'm really Thomas Perry, and I own the 165 acres across from this.

Okay.

And I have a cattle farm and a sheep farm and have tried my best to preserve land and to add more. And I just feel that with the lack of water in this area, my wealth has gone because they built houses on the corner and I had to water cattle from county water, which was a hardship for me, if somebody wants to talk about hardship. Because I didn't have my well, when I built the house, I didn't have much water, and then when they built the other houses, my well went. the ones on Griffith and Richardson Road at the corner that Allison Helms built, which is very nice and very good. But anyway, I just feel like this shouldn't have gotten this far. I came to the meeting in February about this, and after hearing the meeting and observing the meeting, you all don't take it, I called my son, who at that time was a lawyer for the Department of Interior, and he said that the young lady that stood up here and said that she would get friends, find good friends for Miss Mary and put it in, he said that was a violation of the Fair Housing Act.

I'm sorry, sir, you can't testify as what your son told you.

Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry. You can only present evidence, sir, so if you're safe, it's not acceptable, so the board don't take that into account.

But I just feel like in everybody's best interest that they would be setting a precedent. Yes, sir. Like Mr. Griffith said, and that was brought up at the meeting. All right. And it was both allowed to get this far anyway.

Okay. All right.

And I do thank you for that. Thank you, sir. And I tell you, I'm not confident that I'll be. I appreciate you speaking.

All right, thank you, sir. I remind the board that hearsay evidence is not acceptable in this matter, so only evidence. Anything else? Anyone else? The board is satisfied we can close the hearing? Okay. The hearing is hereby closed. The board will now go into deliberations. We need to look at the findings of fact, or the findings of conclusion required for approval. Number one is the unnecessary hardship. What say the board?

I think that the denial would be because of a strict application on the minimum lot area requirement does not create an unnecessary hardship because the dimensional requirements of the ordinance are shared by the public as a whole and does not unfairly burden one property owner, therefore does not impose a hardship sufficient to justify a variance.

Okay.

Can I add a light in this to look at just a different looking at it? Yes, sir. from all the evidence we heard here tonight. Really and truly, Miss Mary was kinda duped in a way when the trailer company got involved and this got drawed up the way it did. And if she still owned the property, I could see where there would be a hardship that was put on her. Now the other problem is the fact that the land that she owns around it was given to or turned over to a reverse mortgage thing. Unfortunately, her doing that helped create additional hardship on it because can't nothing be done to the land. So I struggle with this all the way around because everything about this from every party in my view from this testimony is self-inflicted. I mean, the land was bought. I'm not a realtor, I wouldn't have bought it. The land was lotted out and it didn't adhere to the county.

somebody that we don't know told somebody it was uh grandfathered in i guess struggle with all of it okay um so mr davis your conclusion then is that that number one uh does not meet the requirement as an unnecessary hardship yes all right any other discussion with regard to that um All right, so do I need to make a motion or how you want to handle it?

Yeah, you can make a motion.

Okay, so we're going to go through each one of these findings just so everybody understands these five. We need to vote each one. Yeah, each one of them has to be voted on. So the first one, you're going to make a motion that it does not meet the requirement based on what you read. That's correct. Is there a second to that motion? Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Hold on just a minute.

Okay. Restate your motion. Restate the motion. If you just say it does not meet the requirement based on.

Denial of reasonings.

Okay, the strict application of the minimum lot area requirement does not create an unnecessary hardship because the dimensional requirements of the ordinance are shared by the public as a whole and does not unfairly burden one property owner, therefore does not impose a hardship sufficient to justify a variance.

Okay. Is that sufficient? Does the second still stand? Yes. Okay. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Unanimous. Number two, the hardship is unique to the property.

okay the the hardship is not unique to the subject property because similar dimensional limitations may affect other undersized or non-conforming partials within the surrounding area okay so it's not a hardship subject to that particular property because it would be hardship to anybody you make that motion yes i do is there a second second

Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. Number three, hardship results from conditions peculiar to the property. The hardship results from conditions peculiar to the property.

All right, again, it goes back. The applicant has not demonstrated that the hardship results from a physical condition peculiar to the property rather than simply from the desire to develop a partial that does not meet current ordinance requirements.

Okay. Is that a motion? Yes. Is there a second?

So if you can be specific on your motion, is that the standard is not met?

Yeah, the standard is not met. Therefore, the standard is not met.

The standard is not met.

Okay. Mayor's second.

Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Number four, hardship is not self-created.

is self-created yeah yeah i believe this is the easiest ever ever piece of it is self-created um anybody want to make an official motion on that i'll make a motion on it the applicant has not demonstrated that the circumstances creating the need for the variants are entirely independent of actions taken by the property owner or predecessors in interest therefore therefore does not meet standard okay

That's the motion. Is there a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Announcement number five. Spirit of the ordinance, public welfare, and substantial judgment. Justice, I'm sorry. Does this meet the spirit of the ordinance?

I think this thing, it started out bad with the trailer companies. And it's gone downhill since then, and there's no sense in making it any.

Right, okay. All right, so we have a motion.

I make a motion granting the variance would undermine the minimum lottery standards established by the RA40 district, and the advocate has not demonstrated the allowing development of an undersized parcel is necessary to secure substantial justice.

Is there a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous at this time. We will need a motion for the entire, I believe we have in here. Well, maybe not. Maybe I'm wrong. Yep, I'm wrong. So we need a motion to either approve or deny.

Okay, I'll make a motion to deny the request. Deny the variance?

Second.

Is there any other discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, thank you, board. Thank you all.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Decision will be once it's signed, we'll get to you guys when you need it. This time, if we could take a couple of minutes. I need a bathroom break. Anybody need a break?

Ma'am.

Yeah, the mic is still live, guys. Everybody's is.

Any beach is a good beach.

Any beach means I'm not at work. That's right. Hydrate, hydrate. Yes. I'm leaving right now. Sure.

Thank you all.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. I always feel like I'm forgetting something. See?

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, everybody, all right.

We'll come back into order here, so I'm gonna start about then.

Resigning request RZ2026010. So, one from R.A. Holt, the light and dust room.

Strictly done. There are no cyclical conditions associated with the test. Mr.

yes sir thank you mr green members of the board this is a light industrial rezoning you saw a very similar application last month that was for a heavy industrial rezoning that was withdrawn after the meeting last month and a replacement was submitted for light industrial so we were able to get it on this month's agenda because we did Pretty much all the work for this. There's just some slight tweaks that had to be done. So as was described, this is approximately 26 acres on US 601 South. And there are no conditions or site plan associated with this. This is just straight rezoning. The existing conditions of it. is that there is partially developed you can see looking into the site on the right hand side there is some cleared area that has some commercial equipment stored on it there's also a little bit of construction material periodically stored there further back in the site there's a one acre reclamation landfill that was permitted about six years ago as a result of a code violation that was cleared up It's on U.S. 601, so it's a multi-lane road. Across U.S. 601, you can see the commercial building related to agricultural operations, and further to the south, there is a truck stop. In terms of development status is where you can actually get a feel for the overall site. Hargett Road, where you had the Dollar General rezoned within the last year, is just down here to put things in perspective. But you do have this area cleared for equipment storage. That is in violation of our 840 zoning, but it has occurred for quite a while. And then you have the one acre reclamation landfill in the back portion of the site, which is allowed. Otherwise, it is undeveloped. There's no housing or any other uses on site.

Isn't there wetlands back there somewhere?

Okay.

Thank you.

Anticipated the next map. Thank you. Which shows the floodplain along the northern edge of the property. There is a creek as well. You can see the reclamation landfill may be in violation of the floodplain. And otherwise it's forested. No other environmental features on the site. In terms of zoning, again, the CZ zoning, right, so the Dollar General, that was approved in the last year. The B4 zoning for the truck stop has been there for many years. Otherwise, it's all RA40. In terms of transportation, there's no funded improvements in this area. US 601 is a multi-lane road carrying approximately 14,000 cars per day, and a good percent of that traffic is truck traffic. In terms of land use maps, showing up is all purple because it's an employment corridor. That's an overlay over rural residential. So you have the discretion of saying that rural residential is appropriate or that some sort of employment use is appropriate. And in terms of schools and utilities, because it's commercial in nature, the school system was not consulted and water and sewer are not available to the site. Community meeting was not required. No comments have been received. Did have the neighbor immediately to the south come in this morning and ask some questions about the rezoning. He wasn't in opposition to it. He just wanted to understand the process. And in relation to the letter, the fact that the heavy industrial was withdrawn and the light industrial was submitted. And normally if a rezoning is close to municipal limits, we ask for their input. But this was several miles from Monroe, so they were not consulted. Lots of words here in terms of the positives. It is consistent with the land use plan. It's also consistent with the rural land use plan, which was adopted in the last few months. The size of the land is not small relative to the many uses that are possible for light industrial. Sometimes that is a consideration, like for example, the half acre that we staff recommended denial of that was ultimately approved for highway corridor. a few miles up the road from here on 601. and it is close to other business and commercial uses that have been either approved or proposed in the area and that it in general gives more benefits than negatives but in terms of the negatives we always note that you're generally making a transition from agricultural to industrial uses and there's residential nearby that's always a consideration there may be some uses in light industrial that are are not great for the neighbors i do have a copy of the table of uses if we want to talk about specific uses that are allowed in the heavy industrial versus light industrial versus ra40 because it's not cumulative also the ncdot would require a driveway permit which the the applicant may may have gone through a process to get that approved, but unfortunately the DOT doesn't have any paperwork for that, so can't really say that an official driveway would be approved in its current location for that. I know that was an implication that had to be worked through for the Dollar General just to the south of here, for example. And that public water is not available, as well as sewer, and so that can limit the intensity of uses on the site. Weighing the positives and negatives, we ultimately recommended approval for this rezoning, and you're here tonight to make a recommendation for either approval or denial to take forward to the Board of Commissioners at their September meeting. And so I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. The applicant is here tonight.

For just public information, what is allowed under the light industrial? Could you read that, please? Sure. Thank you for bringing it.

Sure. So light industrial, you could have an airport with a special use permit. You could have a correctional facility with a special use permit. You could have a government service facility, but that's allowed under any zoning district. Natural resource preservation, that's allowed under any zoning district. I'll just focus on the ones that are unique to industrial uses. Sure. The outdoor major entertainment and specter sports would be allowed with special use permit, as well as a bank. No, yes, bank. Office, sports and recreation, vehicle sales and service, so car dealerships, repair, gas station, Equipment and material storage with a special use permit. Trucking and transportation terminals with a special use permit. Warehouse wholesale sales and distribution. General industrial. Construction demolition. Debris recycling facility with a special use permit. Landfill construction demolition landfill on sites allowed under all of them. Reclamation landfill larger than an acre.

So what's already going on could be expanded further, but that would prepare a special use permit Yeah That the environmental side This is currently under a complaint So it's overstepping its bounds already by encroaching in the wetland or what's the?

Well, I don't, I mean, we're just going off the aerial. We have not, a violation hasn't been filed. We're just noting that the initial one that was reported, the one acre was outside of the floodplain.

Okay.

And I'm not saying that the aerials are exactly perfect compared to the orders of the property. So they're close, but they're not exactly perfect. So that's just something to note, is that the landfill appears to be in portions of the floodplain.

Who enforces or solves that complaint?

Someone has to file one. Staff could, and that happens quite a bit actually by the county manager. A lot of our zoning violations are actually noted by the county manager who's a planner as well, so he knows what to look for. So anyone can file one, but as of right now, one has not been filed.

Is that enough to deny this thing?

The board of commissioners can deny it for anything. Provided it's not discriminatory, but the staff, we can't consider that as a part of it. We have to just look at the land use itself. The zoning violations are outside the process. You've had multiple rezonings go through this process that had violations already in place for them. and one of the ways to clean it up was to fix the zoning issues through a rezoning. There may have been other issues, maybe building code or even environmental health, but the zoning was just one component of that.

Okay. With some of the things you were talking about a while ago that are out of compliance, like the truck parking, the heavy equipment parking, going to light industrial, will that resolve that, or is that still out of compliance with light industrial?

Mean you'd have to go through the site plan review process But from a zoning perspective would be okay. Okay, but to get up but to get a parking lot approved to be pretty straightforward Now there may be some mitigation that's required in terms of say a stormwater pond, which is a new Stormwater requirement that we may have so it would have to go through review and and meet all those standards but At the same time, if something's been in existence for long enough, it becomes legal non-conforming and the change is really what you're only allowed to evaluate. So it's a bit of a gray area. We've had to look at a lot of aerials over the years to determine when things had actually occurred on this site.

Okay, but I guess I didn't really understand your answer. So if it goes to light industrial, he's okay to continue parking his equipment and so forth there? Or does that resolve that to be a special use program?

I don't know. I don't know because once something has been occurring long enough on a site, it becomes what's called, we try not to use the term grandfathering. We use the term legal not conforming. So if it's legal not conforming, it means it's been doing it long enough in view of the public that people like us can't go and enforce a zoning violation against them because it's been done without complaints. So it's considered to be acceptable in the eyes of the community that people haven't been complaining.

How long is long enough?

It depends on how visible it is. It could be six or seven years, which we're right at the cusp of that, because the owner has owned it for about, I think, since 2018, 2019? Oh, . Yeah, so in that time frame.

So it'll be okay from under that? Possibly. Okay, I'm just curious. I didn't know if he'd have to come back and get a special use permit for that.

It's not necessarily a special use permit. It's that they just have to get the site plan approved.

Okay, okay, okay. Okay. Any other questions for the chancellor? No, I'm good.

Thank you, sir. And so the applicant's here to answer the questions they have.

All right. If the applicant could come forward. Mr. York, during this kind of hearing, we don't have to swear you in. So you can tell us you don't have to do that.

All right. Well, my name's Randall York. Sorry that I didn't make it to the last meeting. I was in the hospital. I had blood clots in my legs, and I got them in my lungs. Then they put me on my back for three weeks after that, so I've been down. I just didn't want to show up. Lack of care and debt. I wasn't at the last meeting. I'm glad to be, too.

I know you are. So, I guess, explain what's going on and

Well, what I would like to do, and I'm kind of a little bit in shock now that after we pulled back from the heavy duty and now we're going to light industrial, I was told I can build me a shop down there to work on equipment and park my equipment, which is my main goal. And now I may have to go through another hoop to make sure that that's legal. So I thought light industrial was going to get me where I needed to be. Um, so I'm hoping it still is. Um, but that's what I'd like to do. I'd like to be able to, to build me a shop. I don't plan on clearing no more trees or, you know, I know there was a neighbor in here complaining about Me burning down there, and yeah, we burned down there. I'm not gonna say we didn't. We didn't keep a fire all the time, but we did burn. But never once did he come to me and say, hey, this is interrupting my family. My wife can't breathe. Ash is everywhere. Next thing I knew, EPA showed up. But there was no fines. They said nothing. They had to quit burning until this day. That's been about two years ago or more. There ain't been a fire struck down there. So I'm not there to create problems for my neighbors or nobody else. I'm a level-headed person. You come talk to me, we can work anything out. But that's my goal, is that I would be able to put a shop up be able to park some trucks and trailers down there. There'll be no more fires. You're talking about some stuff that may have got into the flood zone, and I'm having that checked out now. There was some concrete that got dumped down there. It was curb and different things. We were planning on having a crusher come in and crush it to use the material for a parking area or whatever. But I realized after we got into this, hey, that's over the line. So we done been in there cleaning that up, and then we'll have that right away staked as to where the limit is so we don't get over the line again into the stream.

Well, that's good. Mr. Hanson, could you come back up just a minute? He's in question by doing the light industrial that open him up to do what he was just asked him to be able to do.

Yes. The zoning is the first step. This does not give you the right to go do all those uses. It just gives you the right to apply. You then have to submit your site plan, your site plans to get to get approved. If you're going to build a building, then your building plans.

Yeah, I'm with you on I know things will change when we get ready to build a building, a silt pond, where the runoff's going, how we're going to detain that.

I get all that.

Quick question, though.

He doesn't have to get a special use permit for a building or nothing?

It depends on the use. Some of them do require a special use permit.

Well, like for working on trucks?

No, none of those do not.

So he's not gonna have another he's just gonna have to like anybody had to do you're gonna submit plans for building or a Bucky's

Oh, we can open up a bunion? We can do that, but you can't open up, you can't open up a parts supply store. Gotcha. Because that's more retail.

So, yeah. My question was just the fact to make sure that he was applying for what he wanted. Yeah, what he needed. So he wouldn't have to have any other. Right. I was trying to help you out. Yeah, gotcha.

I just want to make sure to clarify that. Okay, so you're going to have to jump through a hoop like anybody would to build something, but you're not going to have to get another permit or special use permit. Yes, sir.

I'm just trying to get to where I can get started with it, and this is my first step.

We appreciate you working and kind of cleaning everything in.

It should be easier to jump through a hoop now that you've got your legs fixed.

Yes. Got what?

Now that you've got your legs fixed.

Oh, yeah, right. Yep, for sure.

Yeah, I think that, yeah, so I think you've answered my questions. Looks like your goal is to clean up and be conforming with the rules and regulations.

There was a lot of pipe and stuff got stored. We're cleaning everything up.

Okay.

Yeah, it's going to look like a different place down there. All right. Yeah. Yes, sir.

I have a question. Am I still a voter now or is it going? well uh he wasn't here when it started so you yeah all right any other questions for all right anything else need to be answered anybody got any questions please now uh let me know thank you mr york thank you i'm glad to see you up and running around thank you All right. All right. Do I have a motion there? I'll make a motion. All right.

I recommend the approval of the resulting petition RZ2026-010 and adopt the advisory consistency and reasonableness statement for the recommendation item.

All right. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, sir. Thank you, sir. You'll go to the county commissioners now and talk to them about it.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

We're recommending it, but that don't mean they have to do it. All right, folks. What have we got next? Planning staff report. Mr. Bjorn is still talking. I don't know if he is.

John, you got anything?

Mr. Bjorn, you have anything?

Mr. Tilly, I hope you attend Carpo over the next couple months, that's all.

I'll make sure he's there.

I might go next month. All right. I'll probably go next month, but I don't think I will this month.

Any other comments? Hearing none, do I have a motion to adjourn? Second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you for your service, gentlemen. Appreciate you.

Tomorrow night, they're just going to chew on all of the points assignments for the different projects to get funded. I will tell you the big one for Union County, for Indian Trail, for Hemby Bridge is the two intersections in Hemby Bridge, right there by the bridge restaurant, straddling the creek. That is a... That project is very competitive. It's scoring well, and a lot of people from the public commented favorably on it. So, yeah, that's a thing.

Yeah, it is.

It's unsafe. It's congested. It's, frankly, not very attractive. I mean, it floods. There's a lot of reasons to do it.

Yeah, normally it's like Jason's Deli or something like that.

If you go at Thanksgiving, the one you have at Thanksgiving, the city council members have their big

Thanks. Oh, really? So you go elbow in. So you get the left over. Thanks.

And then in December, it's obviously.

Well, if you have time, they just return that.

Yeah. I hope you can send it. Just let us know. That would be a good one.

All right.

That's like a really important meeting. If you just came over to stay at home.

Cool. The one next month. Yeah. All right. I'll be there. That one.

Tell somebody just to. Oh, yeah. They got it. They got it.

Well, I felt like it would either go real smooth or just go off the rails.

I was real surprised at the 180 they did on August 18th after approving it.

I think that they didn't completely get before they...

You said it, but I don't think they completely understood that the lot was just there.

Yeah. I do feel bad for that lady. I don't think she really understood what was going on when all that transpired and created the lot in the first place.

You could feel bad for her, but on the other hand, she got $15,000 for nothing.

I feel like the, I know that they probably wouldn't, but environmental health needs to have something on their application that almost says approval of well or septic does not contain not constitute a billable lot. Because they kept it, well, we got approved for it.

I don't know.

I was impressed with it. They were at home with everything though.

Do you want me to grab this for you?

Sure. Okay.

Jordan completely forgot to get the room ready today. Oh, he didn't even have it turned on to do any of that. Nothing.

Thank you.