Agenda Packet - Recent Notices

Transcription

Currituck County Board of Adjustment Agenda Historic Currituck County Courthouse
Date:
Time:
March 14, 2013
7:30 P.M.
7:30 p.m. Call to Order
Item 1 Roll Call
Item 2 Update to Rules of Procedure
Item 3 Approval of January 10, 2013 minutes
Item 4 BOA 12-01 BORDER STATION: Currituck County’s motion to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal
request that the administrator’s decision that internet sweepstakes are not a permitted use. The
property is located at 101 Caratoke Hwy., Tax Map 8, Parcel 3F, Moyock Township.
Item 5 BOA 12-03 SOUTHLAND TRADE CORP: Currituck County’s motion to dismiss the petitioner’s
appeal request that the administrator’s decision that internet sweepstakes are not a permitted
use. The property is located at 135 Caratoke Hwy., Tax Map 8, Parcel 10A, Moyock Township.
Item 6 BOA 12-05 TOBACCO BARN: Currituck County’s motion to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal
property is located at 7542 Caratoke Hwy., Tax Map 110, Parcel 88, Poplar Branch Township.
Item 7 BOA 12-08 STATE LINE INTERNET CAFÉ: Currituck County’s motion to dismiss the petitioner’s
appeal request that the administrator’s decision that internet sweepstakes are not a permitted
use. The property is located at 126 Caratoke Hwy., Tax Map 8, Parcel 3B, Moyock Township.
Item 8 BOA 12-09 THOMAS HANSON: Currituck County’s motion to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal
property is located at 109E Forbes Loop, Tax Map 107D, Parcel 1B, Poplar Branch Township.
Item 9 BOA 12-13 BINGO EQUIPMENT SERVICES INC.: Currituck County’s motion to dismiss the
petitioner’s appeal request that the administrator’s decision that internet sweepstakes are not a
permitted use. The property is located at 134 Caratoke Hwy., Tax Map 8, Parcel 5, Moyock
Township.
Item 10 BOA 12-14 SPIN N WIN: Currituck County’s motion to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal request
that the administrator’s decision that internet sweepstakes are not a permitted use. The property
is located at 385 Caratoke Hwy., Tax Map 9, Parcel 34, Moyock Township.
Item 11
Old Business
Item 12 Adjournment
Currituck County
Planning and Community Development Department
Planning and Zoning Division
153 Courthouse Road, Suite 110
Currituck, North Carolina 27929
252-232-3055 FAX 252-232-3026
To:
Board of Adjustment
From:
Planning Staff
Date:
February 4, 2013
Subject:
BOA Rules of Procedure Update
Staff is proposing updating the Board’s Rules of Procedure to reflect the standards of the new
UDO and current practices. The update will amend the Rules of Procedure in regards to member
appointments, removal of conditional use permits, quorum size, and hearing procedures and
notification requirements. The Board must vote by a majority to amend the Rules of Procedure.
Attached are the proposed Rules of Procedure. Should you have any questions regarding the
update,
please
contact
Brad
Schuler,
Planner
I,
at
252.232.6033
or
[email protected].
CURRITUCK COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE
I. GENERAL RULES
(A) The Board of Adjustment shall be governed by the terms of Article 18 of Chapter 153A345 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. All members of the Board shall familiarize
themselves with these laws.
II. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(A) Application Review and Decision:
1) Variances
B) Appeals of administrative decisions by the Planning Director or the Technical Review
Committee.
(B) Other Powers and Duties:
The Board is authorized by the Unified Development Ordinance to carry out any other
powers and duties delegated to it by the Board of Commissioners, consistent with state
law.
III. APPOINTMENT AND TERMS
(A) The Board of Adjustment shall consist of five regular members and two alternate members
appointed by the Board of Commissioners. Each County Commissioner may appoint one
member from any electoral district in the county, two of which shall be alternate members.
(B) Regular members leaving the Board shall be replaced by existing alternate members;
likewise, newly appointed members shall be assigned as alternate members, when
practicable. In situations when this can not be met, seats shall be determined by the Board
of Commissioners.
(D) Board of Adjustment members shall reside within the county. A change in residence to a
location outside the county shall constitute a resignation from the Board of Adjustment,
effective upon the date a replacement is appointed.
(E) An alternate member may sit in-lieu of a regular member upon recusal by a regular
member and assignment by the Chair. When seated as a regular member, alternate
members shall have the same powers and duties as the regular member they replace.
(F)
Board of Adjustment members shall be appointed for three-year, staggered terms.
Members shall continue to serve until their successors are appointed. Members may be
appointed to a maximum of two successive terms.
BOA Rules of Procedure
Page 1 of 5
(G)
Vacancies occurring for reasons other than expiration of terms shall be filled for the
period of the unexpired term only.
IV. OFFICERS AND DUTIES
(A) At its first meeting in January of each year, the Board of Adjustment shall elect a Chair
and a Vice-Chair from among its members, each to serve a one-year term (eligible for
reelection). Vacancies may be filled for unexpired terms only. If both the Chair and ViceChair are absent, the Board of Adjustment shall vote to determine who shall serve as
Chair for the meeting.
(B)
Chairman: The Chairman shall rule on all points of order and procedure, unless directed
by a majority of the Board in session at the time. The Chairman or any member
temporarily acting as Chairman may administer oaths to witnesses coming before the
Board. The Chairman may take part in all deliberations and vote on all issues.
(C)
V
ice-Chairman: The Vice-Chairman shall be elected in the same manner as the Chairman.
He/she shall serve as acting Chairman in the absence of the Chairman and at such times
have the same duties and power as the Chairman.
IV. RULES OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
(A) Members of the Board may be removed by the Board of Commissioners for cause,
including violations of the rules stated below.
(B) Faithful attendance at all Board meetings and conscientious performance of the duties
required of Board members shall be considered a prerequisite of continuing membership
on the Board.
(C) No Board member shall take part in the hearing, consideration, or determination of any
case that he/she is personally or financially interested.
(D) No Board member shall vote on any matter that decides an application or appeal unless
he/she has attended the public hearing on that application or appeal.
(E) No member shall vote on any matter when said member has such close personal ties to the
applicant that the member cannot reasonably be expected to exercise sound judgment in
the public interest.
(F) No member shall vote on a matter if participation in the matter might violate the letter or
spirit of a member's code of professional responsibility.
(G) A member of the Board may be allowed to withdraw from the entire remainder of a
meeting by majority vote of the members present for any good and sufficient reason
other than the member's desire to avoid voting on matters to be considered at the
meeting.
(H) No Board member shall discuss any case with any parties thereto before the public
hearing on that case; provided, however, that members may receive and/or seek
Page 2 of 5
information pertaining to the case from any other member of the Board, the Secretary, or
Clerk before the hearing.
(I) Members of the Board shall not express individual opinion on the proper judgment of any
case with any parties thereto before that case has been determined. Violation of this rule
shall be cause for dismissal from the Board.
V. MEETINGS
(A)
Regular Meetings: Regular meetings of the Board shall be held on the second Thursday of
each month at 7:30 P.M. in the Historic Courthouse board room; provided, however, that
meeting may be held at some other convenient location in the County if directed by the
Chairman before the meeting.
(B)
S pecial Meetings: Special meetings of the Board may be called by the Chairman at any
time. At least 48 hours written notice of the time and the place of the meeting shall be
given, by the Clerk to the Board or the Chairman, to each member of the Board.
(C) Cancellation of Meetings: If there are no applications for an appeal or variance; or other
business for the Board, or if so many regular and alternate members notify the Clerk that
they cannot attend and that a quorum will not be available, the Chairman may dispense
with a regular meeting by giving written or oral notice to all members not less than 24
hours before the time set for the meeting.
(D)
Quorum: A quorum shall consist of four members of the Board. No official business of the
Board shall be conducted without a quorum present.
(E) Conduct of Meetings: All meetings shall be open to the public. The order of business at
regular meeting shall be as follows:
1) Roll call. 2) Approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. 3) Hearing of applications. a. Presentation by planning staff.
b. Applicant Presentation.
c. Public Comment.
d. Applicant Response to Comment.
e. Staff Response to Comment.
f. Closing of Hearing.
g. Board Review and Decision. 4) Other business.
(F) Voting: All regular members may vote on any issue unless they have disqualified
themselves. If a member does not disqualify himself or herself or withdraw from the
meeting, subsequent failure to vote shall be recorded as an affirmative vote.
Alternate members shall be called on to vote on cases only during those meetings and
hearings which one or more regular members are absent or unable to participate. Except
at the election of officers, at no time shall more than five members participate in any
meeting or hearing. A non-voting alternate member shall sit in the audience and may
participate as a member of the audience during the public hearing.
Page 3 of 5
(G)
A
ttendance: Regular Board members may be removed by the Board at any time for
failure to attend three consecutive meetings or for failure to attend thirty percent (30%)
or more meetings within any 12 month period.
VI. HEARINGS
(A)
Time: Appeals and variance applications received prior to the cutoff date for the next
regularly scheduled Board meeting shall be heard during said meeting. If deemed
necessary and required notification is given, a special meeting may be called by the
Chairman.
(B)
Public Notification: The Board shall give public notification of hearings by the following
means:
1) Published notice of the hearing once a week for two successive calendar weeks, with
the first notice between 10 and 25 days before hearing, in a newspaper having
general circulation in the county. This provision only applies to appeal applications.
2) Mailed written notice of the hearing to the owner, applicant, owners of land within
200 feet of the property lines of the land subject to the application, and commanders
of military bases within five miles of the land subject to the application, between 10
and 25 days prior to the hearing. This provision applies to variance applications, and
appeal applications in cases where the appeal pertains to a specific parcel of land.
3) Posted notice of the hearing at least 10 days prior to the hearing. This provision
applies to variance applications, and appeal applications in cases where the appeal
pertains to a specific parcel of land.
(C)
Applicant Attendance: Any person filing an application to be heard by the Board shall be
required to attend the hearing or have an agent or attorney appear on their behalf.
(D)
R ehearing: An application for a rehearing may be made in the same manner as provided
for an original hearing. Evidence in support of the application shall initially be limited to
what is necessary to enable the Board to determine whether there has been substantial
change in the facts, evidence, or condition of the case. The Board shall deny the
application for rehearing if, from the record, it finds that there has been no substantial
change in facts, evidence, or conditions. If the Board finds that change has occurred, they
shall treat the request in the same manner as any other application.
VII. DECISIONS
(A)
Time: Action shall be taken as promptly as possible in consideration of the interests of the
applicant, the citizens of the county, and shall include a decision of approval, approval
with conditions, disapproval, or other appropriate action.
(B)
F orm: The final disposition of the case shall be recorded in the minute of the Board and
signed by the Chairman and the Clerk. Such record shall show the reasons for the
determinations, with a summary of the evidence introduced and the findings of fact made
by the Board. Written notification of the final disposition of a case shall also be mailed to
the applicant as soon as practicable after the case has been decided.
Page 4 of 5
VIII. AMENDMENTS
(A) These rules may, within the limits allowed by law, be amended at anytime by an
affirmative vote by a majority of the membership of the Board of Adjustment, provided
that such amendment is presented in writing at a regular or special meeting, proceeding
which the vote may be taken.
Date Presented to the Board of Adjustment____________
Date Adopted____________
Signature_____________________________, Chairman
Page 5 of 5
1/10/2013 BOA Minutes: Page 1
CURRITUCK COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING
January 10, 2013
REGULAR MEETING
The Currituck County Board of Adjustment met on January 10, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. in the
Historic Currituck County Courthouse. The following members were present: David
Palmer, Christian Conner, Cameron Tabor, Michael Painter, Theresa Dozier and Vivian
Simpson. Brad Schuler, Planner; Stacey Smith, Code Enforcement Officer; and Ben
Gallop, Board of Adjustment Attorney; were also present.
Mr. Conner called the meeting to order and announced a quorum have been met with
five regular members and one alternate member.
Mr. Conner presented Bryan Bass with a plague of appreciation for his dedication to the
Board of Adjustment.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Mr. Connor nominated Cameron Tabor for Chairman. Theresa Dozier 2nd that motion
and the motion passed unanimously.
Mrs. Dozier nominated Christian Conner for Vice Chairman. Cameron Tabor 2nd that
motion and the motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 8, 2012 MINUTES
Mr. Connor motioned to approve the November 8, 2012 minutes with no changes. Mr.
Palmer 2nd the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
Item 4: BOA 13-1 NTELOS: Conditional use permit to allow a telecommunications
tower more than 50 feet located at 702 Northwest Backwoods Road, Tax Map 3, Parcel
1A, Moyock Township.
Glenn Hampton and Mr. Brad Schuler appeared before the board and were sworn in.
Mr. Schuler presented the following case to the Board:
Case Number:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
PIN:
Address:
BOA 1301
Richmond 20MHz, LLC. (dba Ntelos)
Vernon P. Garrett, III
0003000001A0000
702 Northwest Backwoods Road (proposed)
*Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
Zoning District: Agricultural (A) Township: Moyock Request Conditional use permit to allow a 199 foot telecommunications tower in the Agricultural (A) zoning district, pursuant to the Table of Permissible Uses of the Currituck County Unified Development Ordinance. *Application reviewed under the Unified Development Ordinance adopted and effective on September 4, 2007 (1989 UDO), and amended through the date of application, November 21, 2012. Narrative 1. The 199 foot monopole tower will be within a 75’ x 75’ lease area approximately 940 feet from the front property line. 2. The tower and supporting ground equipment will be surrounded by an eight foot security fence within the leased area. 3. The tower will be accessed by a 12’ gravel road. 4. The tower itself will provide four antenna array and colocation opportunities. Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Staff Findings The Board must find that the applicant meets all criteria in order for a conditional use permit to be approved. Following is the staff suggested findings for each criterion (as is required by the UDO). In granting a conditional use permit, the Board of Adjustment may attach to the permit such reasonable requirements in addition to those specified in this ordinance as this will ensure that the development in its proposed location meets the following: (a) The application is complete. 1. The application is complete. (b) The proposed use is among those listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as a conditional use indicated with a “C.” 1. The proposed use is among those listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as a conditional use indicated with a “C.” (c) The conditions proposed meet or exceed the minimum requirements of this ordinance. 1. The conditions proposed meet or exceed the minimum requirements of this ordinance. (d) The conditional use will not endanger the public health or safety. 1. The proposed use should have no impact on public heath or safety. (e)
The conditional use will not injure the value of adjoining or abutting property and will be in harmony with the area in which it is located. *Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
(f) 1. The proposed location of the tower is surrounded by wooded area and farmland. The use will not injure the value of adjoining or abutting property and will be in harmony with the area in which it is located. 2. The surrounding land uses include: a. North: Undeveloped Zoning District: A b. South: Undeveloped Zoning District: A c. East: Undeveloped Zoning District: A d. West: Undeveloped Zoning District: A The conditional use will be in conformity with the Land Use Plan and other officially adopted plans. 1. The conditional use is in conformity with the Land Use Plan and other officially adopted plans. 2. The 2006 Land Use Plan classifies this property as Rural within the Moyock subarea. The Rural classification emphasizes lowdensity development and preservation of agricultural areas. (g) The conditional use will not exceed the county’s ability to provide adequate public facilities. 1. The proposed use will not exceed the county's ability to provide adequate public facilities. TRC/Staff Recommendation:
The Technical Review Committee and staff recommend approval of this request subject to the
findings of fact as presented above and the following conditions:
1. A 10 foot buffer of the existing vegetation shall be preserved around the perimeter of the facility or adequate landscaping be installed to screen the facility from surrounding properties; provided however, that vegetation that causes interference with the antennas or inhibits access to the facility may be trimmed or removed. 2. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicable NCDENR stormwater permit shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department. DISCUSSION
Cameron Tabor asked any activity been done on this property.
Mr. Schuler stated that there had been no activity yet.
David Palmer wanted to clarify that this application is under the old UDO and
questioned when they would use the new UDO for the record.
Mr. Schuler advised that it would depend on when the application submittal date.
Mr. Gallop stated that the new UDO is effective January 1.
Glenn Hampton representing NTELOS explained to the board that they are attempting
to come into this area for the customers to give more coverage. There are 9 sites in the
future along Hwy 17 and 8 of those sites to be handled by co locate. This location is
important as it covers the gap between the areas in Currituck to the other side of Hwy
17. It will be 199 feet and will provide NTELOS and possibly three other major carriers
to co locate to provide a wider coverage for their customer base. It is an attempt to bring
in better coverage to the customers.
Cameron Tabor asked if any personnel would be on site.
Glenn Hampton stated that no personnel would be on site only monthly checks by the
engineers.
Cameron Tabor asked if the tower would be lit.
Glenn Hampton stated that the tower would not be lit and the FAA does not require it to
be lit due to the height.
David Palmer asked if there were any concerns in the area from citizens.
Glenn Hampton stated he emailed the president of the Crown Point HOA and hasn’t
heard from anyone.
Theresa Dozier asked if notification is still the same.
Mr. Schuler advised that every landowner within 200 feet received a letter in the mail
and the county advertised the agenda in the newspaper.
ACTION
David Palmer motioned to approve the conditional use permit as presented. Theresa
Dozier 2nd that motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Item 5: BOA 13-2 WORLD MOTORS LLC: Conditional use permit to allow automobile
sales & rental located at 1383 Caratoke Hwy, Tax Map 23, Parcel 10, Moyock
Township.
Joseph Hellstern and Richard Green appeared before the board and were sworn in.
Mr. Schuler presented the following case to the board:
Case Number: BOA 1302 Applicant: World Motors, LLC Property Owner: Judsky, Inc. PIN: 002300000100000 Address: 1383 Caratoke Highway Zoning District: General Business (GB) Township: Moyock Request Conditional use permit to allow a auto sales and rental in the General Business (GB) zoning district, pursuant to the Table of Permissible Uses of the Currituck County Unified Development Ordinance. *Application reviewed under the Unified Development Ordinance adopted and effective on September 4, 2007 (1989 UDO), and amended through the date of application, November 20, 2012. Narrative 5. The operation will use an existing building on the property. Additional asphalt will be added to the vehicular area in compliance with the standards of the UDO. 6. The proposed hours of operation are 9am to 7pm, Monday to Saturday. Sundays would be by appointment only. Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Staff Findings The Board must find that the applicant meets all criteria in order for a conditional use permit to be approved. Following is the staff suggested findings for each criterion (as is required by the UDO). In granting a conditional use permit, the Board of Adjustment may attach to the permit such reasonable requirements in addition to those specified in this ordinance as this will ensure that the development in its proposed location meets the following:
(a) The application is complete. 2. The application is complete. (b) The proposed use is among those listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as a conditional use indicated with a “C.” 2. The proposed use is among those listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as a conditional use indicated with a “C.” (c) The conditions proposed meet or exceed the minimum requirements of this ordinance. 1. The conditions proposed meet or exceed the minimum requirements of this ordinance. (d) The conditional use will not endanger the public health or safety. 1. The proposed use should have no impact on public heath or safety. *Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
(f)
(f) The conditional use will not injure the value of adjoining or abutting property and will be in harmony with the area in which it is located. 3. The proposed location is within a commercial and industrial zoned area. The use will not injure the value of adjoining or abutting property and will be in harmony with the area in which it is located. 4. The surrounding land uses include: a. North: Office Building Zoning District: GB b. South: Undeveloped Zoning District: HM c. East: Undeveloped Zoning District: HM d. West: Undeveloped Rail Road R/W Zoning District: GB/HM The conditional use will be in conformity with the Land Use Plan and other officially adopted plans. 2. The conditional use is in conformity with the Land Use Plan and other officially adopted plans. 2. The 2006 Land Use Plan classifies this property as Rural within the Moyock subarea. The Rural classification emphasizes lowdensity development and preservation of agricultural areas. Land Use Plan policies that are relevant to this use: POLICY TR6: HIGHWAY 158/168 shall receive special attention concerning the proper development of land and properties adjoining and/or accessing this critical area. POLICY CD7: Attractive, environmentally beneficial LANDSCAPING shall be provided by new commercial or office developments, and in the rehabilitation and upgrading of existing developments. Appropriate BUFFERING or other effective DESIGN FEATURES may be employed to allow less intensive forms of commercial and office development to adjoin existing or planned residential uses. POLICY CA1: The important economic, tourism, and community image benefits of attractive, functional MAJOR HIGHWAY CORRIDORS through Currituck County shall be recognized. Such highway corridors, beginning with US 158 and NC 168, shall receive priority attention for improved appearance and development standards, including driveway access, landscaping, buffering, signage, lighting and tree preservation. POLICY ML4: Currituck County recognizes that the appearance and traffic moving function of the NC 168/ US 158 CORRIDOR is of exceptional importance to both the near term quality of life and longterm economic prospects for residents and property owners in the Mainland Area. The Transportation and Community Appearance policy sections of this plan shall be implemented to give priority to this issue. *Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
(g) The conditional use will not exceed the county’s ability to provide adequate public facilities. 1. The proposed use will not exceed the county's ability to provide adequate public facilities. TRC/Staff Recommendation:
The Technical Review Committee and staff recommend approval of this request subject to the
findings of fact as presented above.
DISCUSSION
Cameron Tabor asked if there were any conditions.
Mr. Schuler stated there were no conditions
Joseph Hellstern explained that they wanted to open a car lot as was in the past on that
property. The dealership will be bringing in local people to detail cars and work at the
facility.
Christian Connor asked how many cars would be on the property.
Joseph Hellstern stated about 30 to 40 cars.
David Palmer questioned where the cars would be located.
Joseph Hellstern stated that the vehicles would be located in the display area as shown
on the site plan.
Christian Conner questioned if there was a sign already on the property.
Mr. Schuler confirmed that the property already had a freestanding sign.
Cameron Tabor asked if there were comments from any citizens.
Mr. Schuler stated that Mr. Innes had called asking the time of the meeting was the only
one.
James Innes appeared in front of the board and was sworn in.
Mr. Innes explained that he owned the property next door. I do not have a problem with
a car lot next-door, as there has been one there before however, I just do not want our
property blocked by cars and are unable to pull out safely. The daycare located on our
property has two school buses and 60 -100 parents that pick up and deliver kids daily
and it is hard to see cars coming from the south and when cars are parked out front on
the car lot it is hazards getting in and out of the property. I request a set back from the
front for the visibility coming and going from our property.
Cameron Tabor stated that he was familiar with the property and it does sit higher than
Mr. Innes’ property.
Christian Conner asked how far off the road to the display area.
Mr. Schuler stated that the display area has a set back of 20 foot from the front property line.
Joseph Hellstern stated that from the road to the line is 20 feet and we are back another
10 feet from that.
Cameron Tabor stated he was concerned about that curve in the road and not being
able see an on coming car.
Vivian Simpson asked if the board could give them a guideline.
Mr. Schuler stated that the board could add a condition to the permit.
Vivian Simpson agrees with Mr. Innes as safety is very important. That could be a very dangerous situation.
Mr. Schuler stated that the county requires 20 feet and at any time, if they are in
violation we could send them a notice of violation.
Christain Conner asked the applicant if they would make any adjustments to meet his concerns.
Joseph Hellstern stated that they we will be happy to adjust but if you move too far back then wont be able to see the cars however I don’t mind meeting with the neighbors and
establish a safe distance.
James Innes will be happy to meet with them on the property.
Vivian Simpson asked who decides what is safe.
Cameron Tabor asked if the county would have the authority to enforce their decision.
Mr. Gallop stated it would be a gentlemen’s agreement between them.
David Palmer stated that we have to make a legal decision with the evidence that has been brought before us, everything they have submitted complies with our UDO, and I
understand there are concerns however they comply with the UDO. He questioned if
Mr. Innes’s driveway was placed in the wrong location as this building was there first
and with that being said I cannot see a reason to turn them down as they have done
what is required of them.
Mr. Gallop advised the board that if they meet all the requirements they must grant the
permit however, the board may place reasonable conditions on the permit.
ACTION
David Palmer motioned to approve with the findings of fact as presented. Theresa
Dozier 2nd the motion.
Vivian Simpson stated she would like to see a condition to make sure it is safe.
Cameron Tabor asked how would we determine what is safe.
Mr. Schuler stated it would be the applicant’s burden to bring back the evidence if you
were to continue the case.
Cameron Tabor called for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 with Vivian Simpson nah.
Item 6: BOA 13-3 RICHARD COULTIER: Variance request for a reduction to the
minimum lot size, the minimum lot width, and the right-of-way requirements. The
property is lot 8 in the Lewark-Bender Subdivision, Tax Map 101B, Parcel 8, Fruitville
Outer Banks Township.
Lars Simonsen, attorney for the applicant appeared before the board and was sworn in.
Mr. Schuler presented the following case to the board:
To: Board of Adjustment From: Planning Staff Date: January 2, 2012 Subject: PB 1303 Coulter Variance Richard Coulter is requesting a variance from Sections 3.4.4.F and 10.3.3.B.6 of the new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for parcel 101B00000080000 in order to establish it as a buildable lot. Background Local governments regulate land use through zoning and subdivision ordinances. Zoning ordinances establish zoning districts with standards such as permitted uses, minimum lot size, and *Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
setbacks, etc. Subdivision ordinances establish standards all subdivisions (the division of a parcel into two or more lots) must meet including open space and street requirements. Since 1989, Currituck County has combined its zoning and subdivision ordinances into one document: the Unified Development Ordinance. All new subdivisions proposed in the county must be reviewed by staff for compliance with the standards of the UDO prior to being approved. Lots that have been reviewed and approved through the subdivision process established in the UDO are called a “lot of record”. The UDO defines “lot of record” as the following: “EXISTING LOT (LOT OF RECORD) A lot which is a part of an approved subdivision, a plat of which has been recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Currituck County, or a lot described by metes and bounds, the description of which has been so recorded and which at the time of recordation and the time it was originally subdivided met all applicable subdivision and zoning regulations then in effect. In addition, this definition shall include lots for which a plat and/or deed is recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds and the lot was created prior to August 2, 1965; a lot upon which an existing structure is located provided a valid building permit was obtained for the construction; or, a lot which at the time of creation met all subdivision and zoning requirements provided a plat is approved by the administrator and recorded with the Register of Deeds containing a certification as to having met the then existing regulations in effect.” Sometimes, lots are created that are not reviewed for compliance with, nor meet the requirements of the UDO. These lots are typically created by a court order or by deed. Lots created that do not meet the standards of the ordinances at the time of its creation are not considered to be a “lot of record”. In order to ensure proper implementation of the UDO, Currituck County, pursuant to the North Carolina General Statutes, does not issue any building permits to lots not considered to be a “lot of record”. Coulter Request Mr. Coulter owns a lot in the offroad area of the Outer Banks; zoned SingleFamily Residential
Outer Banks Remote (SFR). The lot was created in 1977 when a larger piece of property was divided by a court order, in accordance with a will, to 11 heirs. At that time, Currituck County had both a zoning and subdivision ordinance. The lot in question did not meet all of the applicable requirements of the subdivision ordinance. Therefore the lot is not considered to be a “lot of record” and a building permit can not be issued for any development proposed on it. Mr. Coulter is seeking a variance from the standards of the UDO that are preventing the lot from
being approved through the subdivision process and thus being considered a “lot of record”.
Those standards involve lot size, lot width, and lot access. Specifically:
Chapter 3: Zoning Districts Section 3.4.4.F Dimensional Standards
Requires lots in the SFR district to have a minimum lot area of 120,000 square feet and a
minimum width of 125 feet. According to a survey prepared by Coastal Engineering &
Surveying, Inc. in 2006, the lot has an area of 20,003 square feet and a width of 118.32 feet.
Chapter 10: Definitions and Measurement – Section 10.3.4.B.6: Lot Access Requires lots to abut a public or private rightofway. The lot does not abut a rightofway. The plat creating the lot in 1977 illustrates a 15 foot easement for access. “(6) Lot Access
(a) (b) No lot shall be established which does not abut a public or private rightofway as permitted in these regulations unless the parent parcel has been planned for development in which the resulting lots are provided direct access to a public or private rightofway across common property perpetually maintained for such purposes. Examples include townhome, condominium, or multifamily developments, and office park and shopping center developments. Every lot shall be configured so as to maintain at least 20 feet for ingress/egress of emergency service vehicles.” In 2007, Mr. Coulter requested a variance from lot size, lot width, and rightofway requirements
for the same lot in question. The Board of Adjustment denied the request, finding that the hardship was shared by the applicant and neighbors, therefore not meeting the criteria necessary to grant a variance. Variance Criteria The purpose of a variance is to allow certain deviations from the dimensional standards of the UDO (such as height, yard setback, lot coverage, or similar numerical standards) when the landowner demonstrates that, owing to special circumstances or conditions beyond the landowner’s control (such as topographical conditions, narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of land), a literal application of the standards would result in undue and unique hardship to the landowner and the deviation would not be contrary to the public interest. A variance shall be approved on a finding the applicant demonstrates all of the following standards are met: Strict compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance results in no reasonable use of the (1) land; *Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
(2) The alleged hardship is suffered by the applicant as a result of the application of this Ordinance; (3) The hardship relates to the applicant's land, rather than personal circumstances; (4) The hardship is unique, or nearly so, rather than one shared by many surrounding properties; (5) The hardship is not the result of the applicant's own actions; and (6) The variance will neither result in the extension of a nonconformity nor authorize the initiation of a nonconforming use of land. Staff Recommendation Below are staff’s suggested findings and recommendation. (1) Strict compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance results in no reasonable use of the land; Suggested finding: Strict compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance does result in no reasonable use of the land as a building permit can not be issued. The alleged hardship is suffered by the applicant as a result of the application of this (2) Ordinance; Suggested finding: The alleged hardship is suffered by the applicant is a result of the application of this Ordinance. The UDO considers this lot not be a “lot or record” and therefore can not be issued a building permit. The hardship relates to the applicant's land, rather than personal circumstances; (3) Suggested finding: The hardship does relate to the applicant’s land, specifically its size, width, and access. The hardship is unique, or nearly so, rather than one shared by many surrounding (4) properties; Suggested finding: The hardship is not unique, or nearly so, rather than one shard by many surrounding properties. All lots in the county not considered to be a “lot of record” can be denied building permits pursuant to North Carolina General Statute §153A334, including the other adjacent vacant lots created by the court order with the lot in question in 1977. The hardship is not the result of the applicant's own actions; and (5) Suggested finding: The hardship is the result of the applicant’s own actions. The property was divided by court order when the county had a zoning and subdivision ordinance regulating the property. The original property could have been legally subdivided through the subdivision process. The variance will neither result in the extension of a nonconformity nor authorize the (6) initiation of a nonconforming use of land. Suggested finding: The variance will not result in the extension of a nonconformity nor authorize the initiation of a nonconforming use of land. The applicant is requesting relief from the existing nonconformities of the lot and will not increase any of the existing nonconformities. Staff is recommending denial of this request as it does not meet all six criteria needed to be granted. *Minutes are not official until approved by the board.
The County submits the following attachments: 1. Attachment 1: Variance application submitted December 7, 2012. 2. Attachment 2: Sections 3.4.4: SFR District and 10.3.4.B.6: Lot Access of the UDO. 3. Attachment 3: Plat Cabinet A, Page 106, recorded in the Currituck County Registered of Deeds office. 4. Attachment 4: Survey prepared by Coastal Engineering & Surveying, Inc. on February 3, 2006. DISCUSSION
Cameron Tabor questioned how you would get to the property without a right of way.
Mr. Schuler stated that he has an easement to the property however; it is just not a
buildable lot.
Christian Connor stated it was not legal at the time of record.
Mr. Schuler stated that was correct.
David Palmer asked if the court order took precedent over our ordinance.
Mr. Gallop advised it does not when it comes to zoning.
Lars Simonsen talked about the lot being a lot of record; a statue of the governing
subdivision and zoning, but most counties use a UDO; he doesn’t think he needs a
variance, they need a correct interpretation of the ordinance; the lot is subject to zoning
which we are going to use as residential however this is a partition of land and not a
subdivision.
Mr. Gallop and Mr. Simsonsen discussed how the property was divided, how a piece of
property is a lot of record, and how the property must meet the zoning regulations at the
time of record.
David Palmer asked if it meet the easement requirements.
Mr. Schuler stated that it does not apply to this section.
Mr. Gallop clarified that this is not an appeal. The board has to look to see if it fits in the
variance requirements and does it meet the six finding of facts.
Mr. Gallop asked Mr. Simonsen if his client would be willing to continue the case to the
next meeting to allow him the chance to meet with the county attorney Ike McRee.
Mr. Simonsen stated that his client would like to continue the case to allow time to meet
with Mr. McRee.
ACTION
David Palmer motioned to continue the case til the February 14th meeting. Theresa
Dozier 2nd the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss Mrs. Dozier motioned for adjournment. Mr.
Connor seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting
adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Smith Code Enforcement Officer
Currituck County
Planning and Community Development Department
Planning and Zoning Division
Currituck, North Carolina 27929
252-232-3055 FAX 252-232-3026
To:
Board of Adjustment
From:
Planning Staff
Date:
February 28, 2013
Subject:
Internet Sweepstakes Dismissals
The county is requesting the Board to dismiss the following applications appealing staff’s
determination that internet sweepstakes are a prohibited use in the county:
BOA 12-01
BOA 12-03
BOA 12-05
BOA 12-08
BOA 12-09
BOA 12-13
BOA 12-14
The Border Station Southland Trade Corp Tobacco Barn State Line Internet Café Thomas Hanson Bingo Equipment Services, Inc. Spin N Win In 2010, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law banning internet sweepstake
machines. Internet sweepstakes businesses were allowed to operate after a Superior Court Judge
and an Appeals Court ruled the law to be unconstitutional. During this time, the county issued
notices of violation to the above operations for using their property with a use prohibited by the
Unified Development Ordinance.
Last December, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the Appeals Court ruling and
upheld the law banning the sweepstake machines. Therefore, the applicants’ use of property for
internet sweepstakes is unlawful under state law and the Board of Adjustment does not have the
authority to allow such use.
NORTH CAROLINA
BEFORE THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
File No. BOA 12-1
CURRITUCK COUNTY
In the Matter of the Appeal By:
THE BORDER STATION, INC.,
MOTION TO DISMISS
Petitioner.
NOW COMES the County of Currituck, (the "County"), moving for dismissal of the
appeal in the above captioned action. In support of its motion the County shows the following:
1.
On January 19, 2012 the County's Code Enforcement Officer Stacey Smith issued
Petitioner a Notice of Violation upon determination that use of Petitioner's property for internet
sweepstakes is not a permitted use of property in the County and that such use is not accessory to
the principle use of Petitioner's property.
2.
Petitioner appealed the Code Enforcement Officer Smith's determination and
Notice of Violation on January 23, 2012.
3.
On December 14, 2012 the North Carolina Supreme Court in held in Hest
Technologies, Inc. v. State ex rel. Perdue (N.C. 2012) that N.C.G.S. § 14-306.4 constitutionally
bans the operation of electronic machines that conduct sweepstakes through the use of
entertaining display.
4.
Accordingly, Petitioner's use of its property for internet sweepstakes is unlawful
under state law and the Currituck County Board of Adjustment is without jurisdiction or
authority to allow a use of property that is illegal under state law.
WHEREFORE, the County moves that the Currituck County Board of Adjustment
dismiss Petitioner's appeal.
Thi~
day of February, 2013.
Don~Ati,~
N.C. State Bar No. 13922 153 Courthouse Road, Suite 210 Currituck, NC 27929 Telephone Number (252) 232-0300 Facsimile Number (252) 232-3551 Attorney for the Plaintiff County of Currituck OFFICIAL USE ON
~ LY:
Case Number:
.,...
Date Filed:
_
Gate Keeper:
Amount Paid:
·
APPEAL·
INTERPRETATION
Application
!
Contact Information
PROPERTY OWNER:
Name:
Address:
Address:
Telephone:
Telephone:
Fax Number:
Fax Number:
E-Mail Address:
bDrde rs+ore C:: tY:d . com
E-Mail Address:
LEGAL RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY OWNER: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
Property Informa tion
Physical Street Address:
r
o,
Location:
Parcel Identification Number(s):
O
An appeal to the Board of Adjustment from the following adverse decision of an administrator in the Planning
Department:
O
0008-000- oo3F- oooO
Cl,/5~ .:f::/:.-
lJ/ L -
L
An interpretation of the zoning map.
Appeal - Interpretation Application
Page 2 of5
9/10
Appellant Statement
State the facts you are prepared to prove to the Board of Adjustment that should lead the board to conclude
that the decision of the administrator was erroneous.
io
~o
,&aoo11.,
~·~ ~~
I:
/lC:~5A~
,o->
I, the undersigned, do certify that all of the information presented in this application is accurate to the best of my
knowledge, information, and belief.
Further, I hereby authorize county officials to enter my property for purposes of determining zoning compliance.
All information submitted and required as part of this application process shall become public record.
Appellant/Applicant
Date
Owner Verification
If the person who is requesting the Board of Adjustment to take action on a particular piece of property is not
the owner of the property, or under contract to purchase, then the actual owner of the land must complete this
section. If the owner is the appellant/application please do not complete this section.
Dear Sir or Madame:
I am the owner of the property located at - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---------------------------------------~· I
hereby a u t h o r i z e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
to appear with my consent before the Board of Adjustment in order to request an appeal or interpretation at the
above location. I authorize you to advertise and present this matter in my name as the owner of the property.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at the following at the address, phone number, or email address
listed on this application.
Respectfully yours,
Owner
Date Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __, 20_ _. Notary Public
Page 3 of 5
9/10
NORTH CAROLINA
CURRITUCK COUNTY
BEFORE THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
File No. BOA 12-3
HARRELL & SONS, LLC, and
LINDA MAE, LLC,
MOTION TO DISMISS
Petitioners.
1.
Petitioners a Notice of Violation upon determination that use of Petitioner's property for internet
2.
3.
Technologies. Inc. v. State ex rel. Perdue (N.C. 2012) that N.C.G.S. §14-306.4 constitutionally
4.
Thisc2% day of February, 2013.
N.C. State Bar No. 13922
Currituck, NC 27929
Telephone Number (252) 232-0300
Facsimile Number (252) 232-3551
Attorney for the Plaintiff County of Currituck
..,ucK c '" ?.
<.,
'
/668
OFFICIAL USE ONLJj
~d
Case Number:
-GA--VQ
Date Filed:
_ _•_ __
Gate Keeper:
Amount Paid:
APPEAL·
INTERPRETATION
Application
,•
!
Contact Information
!
Property Information
/
3 C ~ Tl> CC
~~/bl?'
I 3 ~
Location:
!'
'frt-t'} h IO~
fr} ~ ,,de_ /Yf>vTh G-p ~
o~
~ ~
6b()'i(-r0{)(), 7} (04- .. ()ooo
.
f(J frlUJ!Wlfl /-- µ ~ hereby request: <t" Ir / NOA L Wit I tfrn,'\~ I,
~ A n appeal to the Boord of Adjustment from the following adverse decision of on administrator in the Planning Deportment:
O
I
'
Request
/"·
V IO Lki- I .UY'
c ft~ t'.,
#
VI d-- - 3 An interpretation of the zoning mop.
Page 2 of 5
9/10
! Appellant Statement
~
..
,· I, the undersigned, do certify that all of the information presented In this appllcatlon is accurate to the best of my
I
Dy te
6 Y ?YG/ d'()
!
Owner Verification
section. If the owner ls the appellant/application please do not complete this section.
Dear Sir or Madame:
I am the owner of the property located at - - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - -- -
hereby authorize - - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - --
to appear with my consent before the Board of Adjustment In order to request an appeal or Interpretation at the
Respectfully yours,
Owner
Date Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___, 20_ _ . Notary Public Appeal • Interpretation Application
Page 3 of 5
9/10
12-
• Attachment to APPEAL-IN
RPRETATION Application by Harrell & Sons, LLC et al.
Page 1
Appellant Statement:
I/We appeal the Planning/Zoning decision, as presented in a letter regarding notice of Violation Case
#V12-3, 135 Caratoke Highway, Parcel 008-000-0lOA-OOOO, signed by Ms. Stacey Smith, Code
Enforcement Officer, that " ...the sweepstake operation in Southland is not customarily incidental and
subordinate to the principle use, and therefore is not an accessory use."
Background
Our operation includes selling internet and prepaid phone time, which allow the customer to reveal a
sweepstakes prize via an electronic machine. We are in the GB-General Business zoning district. Using
the Use descriptions in the "Permitted Uses Table" of your Unified Development Ordinance, our principal
uses are "Convenience Stores", "Retail Uses" and "Restaurants (without drive-through)". From a
broader point of view, Southland is a distinctly unique 3 acre retail complex consisting of 3 retail
buildings operating as one combined entity, Southland Trade Corporation. We have evolved and grown
over the last four decades.
Description of Overall Southland Operation
Throughout our retail operation we sell thousands of items in relation to convenience merchandise,
gifts, apparel, novelties, tobacco products, lottery, fuel and food. A visit to Southland is, by design, a fun
experience; this is by our design, and we know that our customers consider us a "fun" place. That is part
of what we mean when we say Southland is a "destination," for travelers and locals alike.
Foot traffic here is over 2,500 guests in the summer months on a weekend day. We employ over 100
workers with a multitude of tasks. Our snack bar seats 56 patrons and our restaurant 112. Our gift shop
and tobacco shops are part of the "destination" experience for our customers.
The UDO on Accessory Uses
In the violation letter, Ms. Smith quotes the UDO definition of an "Accessory Use". From that definition,
there are two key terms: "customarily incidental" and "subordinate." As we read it, to be "customarily
incidental" doesn't require that the accessory use is found connected to the principal use in the majority
of cases ("more often than not"); there just has to be "common acceptance of their relatedness."
"Subordinate" clearly connotes a matter of size; the accessory use clearly must be smaller in area, size
and scope than the host principal use.
We believe our situation at Southland passes both those tests.
Before we make our points on those two tests, let us describe our "sweepstake operation," as Ms. Smith
labeled it.
Description of "Sweepstake Operation"
Within the context of our overall destination retail operation, as described above, we offer the sale of prepaid phone and internet time via a self-service kiosk. Much like a standalone lottery vending machine, the customer can make the purchase independently or seek the assistance of a cashier who will handle the purchase for them. • Attachment to APPEAL-IN ERPRETATION Application by Harrell & Sons, LLC et al.
Page 2
With the product now in hand via a PIN-based receipt, the customer has completed his/her purchase.
By purchasing this product they have now entered a sweepstakes. Cash prizes are pooled together and
can be revealed by accessing an electronic machine, of which we now have approximately 45. These
machines are located within a segregated, age-restricted area that is near where many other retail
products of an age-restricted nature are sold, such as cigarettes, tobacco, fireworks, and the NC Lottery.
As mentioned, our foot traffic is rather heavy during particular times of the month, seasons, holidays, or
just a favorable weekend. This can be unpredictable. Knowing this, we recently made a decision to
expand the games to an accessory building on our property that also is engaged in retail operations such
as fireworks, tobacco sales, and large household goods, to name a few. The intent is to lessen the
amount of traffic on one general area, although some games have remained in their original location.
The Accessory Use Passes the test of "Customarily Incidental"
While gaming in its many forms is not for everyone, it is a fun pastime enjoyed by many. The North
Carolina General Assembly has seen fit to embrace gaming, with itself as the offerer, in the form of the
NC Lottery. Both "Lotto" type games and scratch tickets are customarily, almost universally offered at
convenience stores, as well as many similar retail outlets. The provision of this entertaining activity is
complementary to our identity as a fun destination, where the customer can enjoy fine sit-down dining,
faster food such as ice cream or barbecue, shop for gifts or souvenirs, among other activities. The same
could be said if we introduced a number of video games, "skee ball" or similar activities. The free
market itself has spoken that this type of sweepstakes is customarily incidental to retail activities, in that
we are only one of many who have added it to our operation.
The Accessory Use Passes the test of "Subordinate"
The retail operations at Southland Trade cover a very substantial amount of goods and services. The
"sweepstakes operation" that is in question is only part of a broad population of products and services
we sell. Less than 18% of the gross floor area of our building complex is devoted to it. On a typical, busy
day, about 10% of our customers may be associated with the "sweepstakes operation." Southland
existed before the "sweepstakes operation" was added, and, if it were to be removed, we would
continue after it's gone. Persons driving by on Caratoke Highway would not know the difference. This
underscores how incidental the operation is to Southland overall.
We believe that if North Carolina and Currituck County are going to allow "sweepstakes operations" such as ours, the public is better served that they be dispersed in small, accessory operations such as ours than in large, casino-like halls dedicated to gaming. Other Issues Mentioned in the Violation Letter
There were other points made in the letter which don't bear directly on the question of this appeal of the finding that our "sweepstake operation" is not an accessory use; we will touch on two of them briefly. The letter suggests that the "occupancy has been changed from mercantile to assembly without a design
professional consultant." We disagree. We believe that the Building Code allows small operations such
Attachment to APPEAL-IN
RPRETATION Application by Harrell & Sons, LLC et al.
Page 3
as ours, with less than 50 machines, not to trigger a change from our Group B occupancy to an A-3
Assembly occupancy. We will pursue this issue with appropriate County officials.
The letter mentioned that we have done "extensive work without permits." That certainly was not our
intent. We have done some minor painting, remodeled a bathroom to make it ADA compliant, and
installed a divider wall (non-load bearing) with our own forces in the belief that we could do such work
ourselves without a permit. We will, in consultation with County staff, either remove unpermitted work
or have it permitted and inspected after the fact. Because of the age of our complex, some things may
not be up to current code. We are willing to work with County staff, and to engage an architect, to
review our buildings and look for cost-effective ways to bring them up to code, or at least closer to code.
Conclusion
We think we have earned the right to be considered a good corporate citizen of Currituck County, and
the County should working WITH us toward improving the vitality and viability of our business
operations.
We respectfully ask that the decision by Planning staff that we are not in compliance to the UDO, and
specifically that our "sweepstakes operation" is not an accessory use,, be overturned and that we be
allowed to continue this operation within the confines of our establishment so long as it is legal to do so
in the state of North Carolina.
NORTH CAROLINA
CURRITUCK COUNTY
BEFORE THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
File No. BOA 12-5
ANGELA D. WHITE, and
MARJORIE D. DYKE,
MOTION TO DISMISS
Petitioners.
1.
2.
3.
Technologies, Inc. v. State ex rel. Perdue (N.C. 2012) that N.C.G.S. § 14-306.4 constitutionally
4.
This ) ~
Don~ =
Currituck, NC 27929
c0
\,ucK
1'
u
l2;-5
APPEAL·
INTERPRETATION
•
\
~
166 S
l
OFFICIAL USE ONLY:
Case Number:
Date Filed:
Gate Keeper:
Amount Paid:
Application
Contact Information
~
APPELLANT/APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
Ato.9~\l\
PROPERTY OWNER:
l~
Name:
Ans-€-$;\ ~"'Ae.
Address:
\\4 \N ,e Sl-e1 £lei
4 'f\ t $\,e,, ~d ·
ShUo\o 1 1'\(, 219·,+
252 4-9 I - cg 5 2 3
\\
1
Fax Number:
E-Mail Address:
wb:
I
'
'ke. 'ci> hv\~\,es
Mauon41-t)i
Sh'iloh
Telephone:
49 l - 5 3 8 8
$.)e.S'(Y'lo
+
Fax Number:
E-Mail Address:
I(\~~
l-lC.. 2.1914
2£2 49 l - 8 3 Z.?
4-C:, l - 53 g 8
WecSmo\<'.e.. '@ h~hes I
()'€'.-{
LEGAL RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY OWNER: _ _ _ _tJ'-+'-A_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
l
Location:
154 2... C,~(' a.{o\ce. \:\ Vo\ f
g~l{u lo Qa.WJ {3orv, No<&
J:o\l'l.Jls 'th
~v\.~
NC ZJ'3(g(Q Parcel Identification Number(s): l
Request
M~rjon.c. D 'I I~
I, ..,_P--'n:....:.3'=11-l--=:91.....IOL.._)....
h."-,::k::..o...=._ _ __,. hereby request:
~ An appeal to the Board of Adjustment from the following
Department:
adverse decision of an administrator in the Planning
Jk. 5 weef,5}Ju l>f'et::Gt:b0y, ~ S
{Jfl> ~.b~::k.j
D An interpretation of the zoning map.
Page 2 of 5
9/10
Appellant Statement
I, the undersigned, do certify that all of the information presented in this application Is accurate to the best of my
All informc_itio~itted and required as part of this application process sha~come public record.
111.r,:;,'-,.·
i}n;&
1;}/C"">
Owner
,.,7_,,.
~'d-
~
11~-r,/,z..
Date
Appellant/Applicant
1·27-12.
'/27/rz
Date
Owner Verification
Dear Sir or Madame:
I am the owner of the property located at
Respectfully yours,
Owner
Date Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __, 20_ _. Notary Public Appeal - Interpretation Application
Page 3 of 5
9/10
Attachment to Appeal~lnterpretat, n application by M.A.D.W., INC. T/A North
ver Tobacco Barn
We appeal the Planning /Zoning decision as, presented in a letter regarding notice of Violation Case# V12-7
dated January 19, 2012 which states that the sweepstakes operation in Tobacco Barn is not customarily
incidental and subordinate to the principal use, and therefore not an accessory use.
Tobacco Barn the business has been established in Currituck for well over 30 years. Initially the principal
business was primarily tobacco sales. As the needs and wants of consumers increased Tobacco Barn has added
many accessories to the list ofproducts and services we offer. We are constantly changing our line of
accessories. Tobacco Barn currently offers everything from sour cream to premium cigars. When the state of
North Carolina introduced the Lottery we immediately added that accessory to our list. When the demand for
sweepstakes dictated that we offer them to our customers we added them to our list ofaccessories.
The sweepstakes are a source of pleasure for all who use them. The revenue generated from it helps to
employ county residents as well as pay taxes. The individuals who utilize the machines are voluntarily paying
for and enjoying the convenience of being able to access this form of amusement in their own county.
We believe that the sweepstakes much like the Lottery tickets are customarily incidental and are subordinate
to the principal use, therefore is an accessory use. We hope that the decision to prohibit the sweepstake
operation at Tobacco Barn is reconsidered and we are allowed to continue operating as long as it is legal in the
state ofNorth Carolina.
Thank you for your consideration,
Angela White owner
Marjorie Dyke owner
NORTH CAROLINA
CURRITUCK COUNTY
BEFORE THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
File No. BOA 12-08
FRANK C. BERNARD, JR., d/b/a
STATE LINE INTERNET CAFE
MOTION TO DISMISS
Petitioners.
1.
On April 3, 2012 the County's Code Enforcement Officer Stacey Smith issued
2.
Notice of Violation on April 10, 2012.
3.
4.
This.2..'$Xbday of February, 2013.
Currituck, NC 27929
06::;1~,:;::
APPEAL·
INTERPRETATION
ONLY~
2.
Date Flied:
Gate Keeper:
Amount Paid:
~ISO
Oo
Application
!
Contact Information
ha.n !( °Ea\'\.U.rcl
APPELLANT/APPLICANT:
Name:
:J[A.TG
Address:
Telephone:
Fax Number:
E-Mail Address:
PROPERTY OWNER: /.J,..rJ;;";Ii,.rreJu,tgrf1:-e
/U ~~ Mil II
Mayo,t:.., All ,;,,,1~
tnz
l((JJ /.
tof1I
'&A.Ji:UJ ~TO:,e
Mo~ovei
LEGAL RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY OWNER:
!
IU.,
Address:
262., J/.oS /2;{)(J
UL ~,5 /{lJll
qJU,Jbtfe 01..f}en,
Fe*J.11::- (}
Name:
Ne
./Jw V J-ii§P1
Telephone:
Z62 "1-.!JS"' / 20() Fax Number:
~ -/t8f: E-Mail Addre55:
cjW h,le !)J.(/J)e,nCJd
t'""'· W){ _.S-=-:w.°""""'.C
.. " - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
{!_lc/;,A.TOK.G ./Jw Y
Location:
-r-tc:f... M A:f' 3 B "<I- 3:J
B -cx:::e; -c:oa73 - OOc::)o
Parcel Identification Number(s): ~
!
/
64
Request
• hereby request:
l!1'
An appeal to the Boord of Adjustment from the following adverse decision of on administrator in the Planning
l& /.SW '-ISTEQ ._,.. IS Nor ...5/~li,'kfc Tl> Ar U.S6 /N 71-e -pe/c),{/T[5b
lke /~Le- -rff-E 6rAFFs ~/..J1NA-ntJAJ-m1tT TlfG e w ~
Depo~t:
11-£ 87'47E t.111/e ::rNTEfc,AJeT We ;.5 ,JOr Cl(670MAe1L'I
'
/NtJIDEfJ.,}Tlt.t- le/JO oU.Bc!Rz,,AJATE 7t> 719'6 P~Nt!I~ tJ6c , M/.D I~ 711EP6F?J~ l(!t'J T
()PfE7c,krtt)IJ
1N
M -kl. ~e::.fSo'?:J
O
-
t.A6t::
7
An interpretation of the zoning mop.
Page 2 of 5
9/10
I
Appellant Statement
All Information submitted and required as part of this application process shall become public record •
IHD-IZ
.t/-10-1
Date
Date
Owner Verification
If the person who Is requesting the Board of Adjustment to take action on a particular piece of property is not
Dear Sir or Madame:
I am the owner of the property located at
I 2£,
~ J./.wy.)
JA/)'/0(,K.,
AJt Z7958
----------,----.
I
hereby authorize
FR.ktJt:. . .a. . .,.........,==:-------::,------------------J..·
-;8E1!!!)~
to appear with my consent before the Boord of Adjustment in order to request an appeal or interpretation at the
Date
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the
'\.2:>
R_..__Q_....:.~_\....,._____,, 2 0 ~
day of __
~\-u~~/
Notary Public
Page 3 of 5
9/10
The Truck Accessory Center opened 16 Y2 years ago with a core business of truck
accessories, trailers and service. Over the years we have added Carquest, Outdoor
Equipment, Carhartt Clothing and the Internet Cafe, all of which are part of the Truck
Accessory Center Inc., a Sub Chapter S corporation and meet all the UDO definitions of
accessory use. These additional profit centers have been added due to the extreme
changes in our economy over the past 4 years.
The Truck Accessory Center has 2 buildings that have over 55,970 square feet under roof
and are rented from Frank C. Bernard. The Internet Cafe occupies 4828 square feet,
which is 8.6% of all square footage available and 18.7% of the north building. There are
over 100 parking spaces available just for the Internet Cafe.
All building permits for the Internet Cafe were applied for and approved by Currituck
County prior to opening. We have also had an assembly study completed and passed all
criteria, including a fire door, a new fire wall as well as emergency exit bars on all exit
doors.
State Line Internet Cafe currently has 90 machines and believe the public will dictate if
there are more or less machines needed, within the compliance of the law.
We also believe there should be set opening and closing times. Opening times should be
between 8:00AM and 9:00AM, except Sundays and that should be after l:OOPM.
Closing times should be between 1 :OOAM and 2:00AM .
NORTH CAROLINA
CURRITUCK COUNTY
BEFORE THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
File No. BOA 12-09
THOMAS HANSEN, and
ROCCO PALAZZOLO and wife,
THERESA PALAZZOLO
MOTION TO DISMISS
Petitioners.
1.
On April 3, 2012 the County's Code Enforcement Officer Stacey Smith issued
2.
Notice of Violation on April 16, 2012.
3.
Technologies, Inc. v. State ex rel. Perdue (N.C. 2012) that N.C.G.S. §14-306.4 constitutionally
4.
Thi~
N .C. State Bar No. 13922
Currituck, NC 27929
03/23/2007 11:06
04/12/2012 09:48
~t~~J
;r7~~ E
I
'N
,
.
. '
~.~: .
::.... MURFIN Is MKT
t LLE 0,A
C~ USE O
"i~ :
APPEAL ..
I · ,::·.
:. .
~
Case Number;
Dale Filed:
I.FI
_
Gate Keeper:
Amount Paid:
INTERPRETATION
C, PAGE 02
PAGE 02/05
ALABAMA ATM
2568924878 141
5657
Applicatfon
I Contbct lnf~rmation
Addrom
Telephone,
Fax Number,
Locotlons
.: IO 'f {i &eee:;s L&&>P
A/DY A(C;,
G'&A
.1
'
I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,hereby reque:;t:
D An appeol to the Board of Adtustment fronl tho following adverse decision of on c; lmlnlstrator In the Planning
Department: - - -- - -- -- -- - --
D
-
- --
- --
--------
An Interpretation of the zoning mop.
ppeal • lmsrpl'GtaUon Appncauon
Page 2 of 5
9/10
03/23/2007 11:06
04/12/2012 09:48
ALABAMA ATM
2568924878
141
5657
MURFIN'S MKT
PAGE
PAGE
LLE
! APf.e!lont,Stcitament
State the facts yOJJ are prepared to prove to fhe ~oord of Adjustment that shoul lead the boa rd to conclude
thot the decision of the administrator wos erroneous.
I, the undersigned, do certify that all of the infonttatlon presented in this applic:otl n Is QCCUrote to the best of my
knowledgv, tnformotiQn, and befief.
Further, I h4reby authorize county officials to enrer my property for purposes of c termittlng zonil'lg compliance.
All information submitted and required os port of this application process shall be :>mo public record.
4'
,,.---/,'a ·,. 9
·
{-f~ pellont/A
-
If the person who is requestfng the Board of AdJUSffllent to toke action on a partiet lr piece of property is not
the owner of the property, or under contraQ to purchase, then the o~ual ovmer of he land must complete this
Sl!etion, If the owner Is fho appellant/oppllcotlon ploose do not c.omplete this sed n.
Dear Sir or Madame:
c..o
//
-,,;.,.
~
..,.
I ~ lh~~e'J/ the PJBP9"Y I05$fted at
IO '7 /-0;eocS
op, <./,A/~ p(~ '.:!J, -,l,
_ .....6..,..,__._f:....,,.........J9.__€n£..,.L·='O"'"".).,.....(z...__..,e_,4'-""-µ'-'-u.>__.,V_,.,..,.,_,A/"-""C."-'''------- ______.... ,
#'
.::,
heroby a u t h o r i z e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
to appear with my consent before the Board of Adjvstment in order to request an , ,peal or interprctotion at the
above locatlon. I authorize you lo odveni!e and present this motter in my name a: ·he owner of rhe property.
If you hove any questions, you may eonlo~ me ot d1e followlng at the addre~, phc o number, or email address
listed on this o p p l i c ~ o t i o n .
!p;p-'-e~
~~
Owner
//.
";:¢;
I
/,,2.
Dore Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the JJ!-doy of 4(,' j
CONNIE FORRES" :R Notary Publlc • Notan Seal STATE OF MISSOI ~I Notary Publlr;
Lawrence county • Comm# ~406296
My Commlsslon. ~xpl1~ 12, 2013
, ,peat. Interpretation Appllcatlon
Page3of S
9/10
03
03/05
NORTH CAROLINA
BEFORE THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
File No. BOA 12-13
CURRITUCK COUNTY
In the Matter of the Appeal By: BINGO EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., MOTION TO DISMISS
Petitioner.
1.
On July 26, 2012 the County's Code Enforcement Officer Stacey Smith issued
2.
Notice of Violation on August 6, 2012.
3.
4.
5.
Furthermore, Petitioner is a foreign corporation transacting business in the State
of North Carolina and has failed to obtain a certificate of authority as required by N.C. Gen. Stat.
§55-15-02. Petitioner is therefore barred from bringing this action in North Carolina.
This15:\:h day of February, 2013.
. McRee, Jr.
tate Bar No. 13922
Currituck, NC 27929
OFFICIAL USE ONLY:
Case Number:
l'Z-l~
Date Filed:
Gate Keeper:
15(),00
Amount Paid:
2'~
APPEAL·
INTERPRETATION
Application
I
Contact Information
PROPERTY OWNER: APPELLANT/APPLICANT:
Name:
Bingo Equipment Services, Inc.
Name: Address:
10-C Hamric Drive West Address:
Same
Oxford, AL 36203 Telephone:
(256)835-7500
Telephone:
Fax Number:
Fax Number:
E-Mail Address:
E-Mail Address:
LEGAL RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY OWNER: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
134
Caratoke Hwy, Moyock NC
Location:
I
Request
I,
_R_i_ck_T_a.;;..y_lo_r_
, _P_re_s_id_e_n_t_ ___, hereby request:
~ An appeal to the Board of Adjustment from the following adverse decision of an administrator in the Planning
Department:
O
July 26, 2012 Notice of Violation
An Interpretation of the zoning map.
Appeal • Interpretation Application
Page2 of5
9110
I Appellant Statement
State the facts you are prepared to prove to the Board of Adjustment that should lead the board ta conclude
Prior to acquiring and improving the property, Bingo Equipment Services, Inc. ("BES") obtained a building permit
for all improvements to the property, and in applying for the permit openly disclosed the intended use of the
property. The permit application was reviewed and approved by zoning. Further, the Notice of Violation
asserts that the accessory use of the building "is not customarily incidental and subordinate to the principle
use" but it doesn't say what the Code Enforcement Officer determined was the "principle use.• Finally,
we do not believe the enforcement of the UDO is consistent against other owners/operators of similarly
situated businesses, and that the Notice of Violation was selectively enforced against us. We disagree that
the principle use of the building is prohibited.
A~
rmatlon sub ltted and resiulred as P.art of this application process shall become public record.
1.J,1v 9o
f
.,,,,.t;.!(;~, L .
%-'3-J'l-
Io~
Dat~
•
Appellant/Applicant
Date
K<e:$1 clr.:AJ't
Owner Verification
If the person who is requesting the Board of Adfustment to take action on a particular piece of property is not
section. If the owner Is the appellant/application please do not complete this section.
Dear Sir or Madame:
I am the owner of the property located at - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------------------------------~· I
hereby a u t h o r i z e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Respectfully yours,
Owner
Date
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the _ _ day o f - - - - - - - - - - 20_ _•
Notary Public
Page 3 of 5
9/10
NORTH CAROLINA
CURRITUCK COUNTY
BEFORE THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
File No. BOA 12-14
TOM E. ARNEY and wife,
KRISTA R. ARNEY and
DENNIS MANN and LAKESIDE
ENTERPRISE, INC., d/b/a SPIN N WIN
SWEEPSTAKES
MOTION TO DISMISS
Petitioners.
1.
On August 31, 2012 the County's Code Enforcement Officer Stacey Smith issued
2.
Petitioners appealed the Code Enforcement Officer Smith's determination and
Notice of Violation on September 14, 2012.
3.
Technologies, Inc. v. State ex rel. Perdue (N.C. 2012) that N.C.G.S. §14-306.4 constitutionally
4.
5.
Furthermore, Petitioner Lakeside Leasing Enterprise, Inc. is a foreign limited
corporation transacting business in the State of North Carolina and has failed to obtain a
certificate of authority as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. §55-15-02. Petitioner Lakeside Leasing
Enterprise, Inc. is therefore barred from bringing this action in North Carolina.
This
:?,*5lh day of February, 2013.
Currituck, NC 27929
I
POOLE MAHONEY PC ATTORNEYS David B. Oakley, Esq.
Direct Dial: 757/552-6035
Email: [email protected]
Reply to: Chesapeake
February 28, 2013
Donald Ike McRee, Jr., Esq., County Attorney
153 Courthouse Road
Suite 210
Currituck, NC 27929
Re: Lakeside Leasing Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Spin n Win Sweepstakes File No.: BOA 12-14 Dear Ike:
Our office is in receipt of your Motion to Dismiss the above referenced Appeal and
Notice of Hearing for March 14, 2013. We have advised our client of your motion, and at this
time we do not intend to oppose this motion or appear at the hearing unless directed otherwise by
our client.
If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at
the above listed direct dial number.
With kind regards, I am
Very truly yours,
POOLE MAHONEY PC
By
David B. Oakley
DBO/cmj
www.poolemahoney.com
CHESAPEAKE
CHESTERFIELD NORFOLK
VIRGINIA BEACH
860 Greenbrier Circle, Suite 401
Chesapeake, VA 23320-2640
(757) 962-6625 • FM (757) 962-6180
9850 Lori Road, Suite 101
Chesterfield, VA 23832-6623
(804) 778-7265 • FM (804) 778-7943
300 East Main Street, Suite 140
Norfolk, VA 23510-1753
(757) 518-2373 • FM (757) 962-9140
4705 Columbus Street
Virginia Beach, VA 23462-6749
(757) 499-1841 • FM (757) 552-6016
•
OFFICIAL USE ONLfJOA '
Case Number:
Date Flied:
Gate Keeper.
Amount Paid:
APPEAL
INTERPRETATION
z.. t,
j_
Application
Dennis Mann and
Lakeside Leasing Enterprise,
! Contact Information
s p in
APPELLANT/APPLICANT: d I b I a
n win PROPERTY OWNER:
Nome:
Sweepstakes
Name:
Address:
28 5
Addressr
carat Ok e Hwy
Tom E.
(252) 435-2633
& Krista R.
Arney
3 3 7 DO v e Dr i v e
Moyock, NC 27958
Telephone:
Inc. Chesapeake,
VA
23322
Telephone:
Fax Number:
Fax Number,
E-Mail Address:
E-Mail Address:
LEGAL RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY OWNER, ____T_e_n_a_n_t_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
!Property Information
385
Location,
Spinn Win Sweepstakes
Caratoke Hwy,
Moyock,
NC
27958
0009-000-0034-0000
! Request
I,
Dennis Mann andhL~keside Leasing Enterprise, Inc.
ere Yrequest,
S p in n Win Sweeps takes
d/b/a
Cl An appeal to the Board of Adjustment from the following adverse decision of an administrator In the Planning
Department, No tic e
of V i o 1 a t ion at tac he d
hereto as
Ex hi b i t
B
and any other decision, order, interpretation or penalty
made or imposed by the Zoning Administration regarding
sweepstakes operations at Spinn Win Sweepstakes located
at
385
Caratoke Hwy,
Moyock,
NC
27958.
O An Interpretation of the zoning map.
Page 2 of 5
9/10
.. !
Appellant Statement
See Exhibit A -
Notice of Appeals/Statement of Appellant.
I, the undersigned, do certify that all of the information presented In this application is accurate to the best of my
All information submitted and required as part of this application process shall become public record.
~~'z;P(:.-t-n-12_
Appellant/Applicant
Date
Owner Verification
If the person who Is requesting the Board of Adjustment to take action on a particular piece of property is not
section. If the owner Is the appellant/application please do not complete this section.
Dear Sir or Madame:
I am the owner of the property located at - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--------------------------------------_._· I
to appear with my consent before the Board of Adjustment In order to request an appeal or Interpretation at the
Page 3 of 5
9/10

Agenda Packet - Recent Notices

Transcription

Similar documents

Agenda Packet - Recent Notices

Currituck County Board of Commissioners Meeting Agenda Packet

Spring - Currituck County

November - Currituck County

Nuove Frontiere nella Chirurgia dell`Obesità

Official Zoning Map - Town of Carlton Landing

Received 13/01/14

About the Scholarships: General Information

Fast and easy adjustment. Perfect performance. Minimum

How to File an Appeal

LEADERMAC Model LMC 518S Smartmac

A`.IEFoRE - Company Law Board

The Ultimate Boa Constrictor Manual