Town of Maggie Valley

Regularly Scheduled Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting

May 12, 2005

MINUTES

Roll Call: Chairman Jay Ring, Ron DeSimone, Larry Dubuke, Connie Dennis, Torry Pinter, Garrett Anderson, and Phil Wight arrived at 5:25 p.m.

Staff Present: Planning Director Kevin Byrd and Town Clerk Vickie Best

Others Present: Approximately ten people

Meeting Called to Order

Chairman Ring called the meeting to order at 5:12 p.m. on Thursday May 12, 2005 in the Town Hall Boardroom.

Appeal of Code Enforcement Officer: Steve Ledford: Operator of Teague’s Grocery and Gas (continuation from March 17, 2005 meeting)

Clerk Best administered the oath to Mr. Ledford.

Mr. Ledford received the following letter dated February 16, 2005 from Planning Director Byrd.

February 16, 2005

James J. Teague Jr.

C/O Steve Ledford

1 Liberty Oak Dr

Asheville, NC 28804

Dear Sir:

Please be advised that your property, Haywood County tax ID# 8606-09-9590, being located at or near 180 Soco Road and being located within the municipal limits of the Town of Maggie Valley is found to be in violation of the Town of Maggie Valley Sign Ordinance. Specifically, the property is found to in violation of the following sections:

ARTICLE III. ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.

A. The Code Enforcement Officer is hereby given the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of this ordinance. He shall be responsible for issuing permits for the erection of all outdoor signs and advertising, identification, business and principal use signs. (He shall be responsible for issuing permits in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance). The Code Enforcement Officer shall refuse a permit for the erection of any sign which does not meet the requirements of this Ordinance. In addition to this requirement, a permit shall be refused if the owner has or possess any outstanding sign violation until said violation is corrected. In the absence of the Code Enforcement Officer, the Manager or an appointee designated by the Manager shall have the authority to act in that capacity.

In keeping with the aforementioned Ordinance since the sign was installed without a permit and the sign appears to exceed permissible height (20 feet), you are hereby ordered to abate the conditions creating the violations upon said lot within twenty (20) days of the date of this notice. You are further notified that you may appeal this finding and request a hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment within the time frame listed below (10 days).

B. Any person, firm or corporation aggrieved by any decision of the Code Enforcement Officer regarding any provision of this ordinance may appeal such decision to the Board of Adjustment. Such appeal may be taken within ten (10) days of the Code Enforcement Officer's decision by filing with the Code Enforcement Officer a Notice of Appeal setting forth either the reasons that the appellant believes that the Code Enforcement Officer's decision is in error or the reasons that the appellant should be granted a variance from the provisions of this ordinance. Upon receipt of an appeal, the Code Enforcement Officer shall transmit the appeal together with any necessary records to the Board of Adjustment for hearing.

The owner or any party in interest shall have the right to file an answer to this notice and to appear in person, or otherwise, and give evidence at the hearing or to request an extension of time to abate the conditions. Any person desiring to do so may attend such hearing and give evidence relevant to the conditions then existing on the property.

If you have any questions concerning the order please feel free to contact me at the numbers listed above. You may obtain a copy of the Town’s Sign Ordinance that contains the provisions listed herein as well as the penalties for failure to comply with an abatement order from the Town Clerk’s office.

Sincerely,

Kevin Byrd

Code Enforcement Officer

Planning Director

Attch: Sign Ordinance

CC: Bob Shepard, Interim Town Manager

February 25, 2005 Mr. Ledford appealed Mr. Byrd’s decision to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Mr. Byrd contends that no sign permit was obtained and the height of the sign exceeds 20-feet.

Chairman Ring questioned if he had to purchase a permit because the face of the sign was changed due to BP buying out Amoco. The Amoco sign was in compliance.

Mr. Ledford provided the history. Phillips 66 changed to Amoco. The Amoco sign was never an issue. Mr. Ledford did not obtain a permit because Amoco cut the post and welded a new sign to the post. The posts are in concrete and a metal plate was welded to the concrete. The sign is below the allowable square footage. If the sign were lowered, people coming across Dellwood Hill will not see the sign and create a negative impact on business. If the sign were lowered to meet the ordinance, it would create a safety hazard due to visibility.

The sign is over the 20 feet limit although the exact footage was not determined.

Mr. Byrd was directed to get the exact measurements, and verify the safety issue if the sign were lowered.

MR. DUBUKE MADE A MOTION TO TABLE THE ISSUE UNTIL NEXT MONTH.

MR. PINTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Ledford will determine who actually owns the sign.

Stoney Ridge: Request for Setback Variance (Frick, Kennedy and Satterfield)

Chairman Ring provided the following information regarding the requested variances.

FINDINGS OF FACT ON THE VARIANCE REQUEST

That due to the towns R-1 zoning that was placed on the subdivision known as Stoney Ridge, it does not allow for setbacks as they have already been established in the subdivision prior to the zoning ordinance established for this property.

The hardship has been created by the application of the ordinance itself to the subject property.

The hardship relates to all lots in this specific subdivision.

The hardship is not a result of the individual owners own actions.

The hardship is common to the subdivision know as Stoney Ridge.

The requested area variance will not change the essential character of the adjoining neighborhood.

The requested variance will have no adverse affect on public safety or welfare and will remain in general keeping with the intent of the ordinance.

The request variance already has complete approval from the Home Owners Association Architectural board that it is in keeping with the allowed attachments and setbacks of the Subdivision, as well as approval from adjoining property owners.

The prime justification for requiring less of an applicant for an area variance than is required in the case of a use variance is that the former does not affect the use of the land.(Viti vs. Zoning Board of Review, 92 RI 59, 166 A2d 211.) An area variance is thought not to threaten adjacent land with the establishment of an incompatible use, or to hazard the maintenance of a use which will change the essential character of a neighborhood. Such a variance has some capacity to impose an adverse effect on adjacent land, and standards must be imposed to insure the protection of neighboring property, but in the case of area variances, it is assumed by most courts that adequate protection of the neighborhood can be effected without the imposition of the stringent limitations which have been developed in the use variance cases. The law relating to area variances finds its justification in policies articulated by the courts.

MR. WIGHT MADE A MOTION TO GRANT THE VARIANCES.

MR. PINTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. and Mrs. Otis Sizemore: Request for Special Exception

Mr. and Mrs. Sizemore want to build a duplex above their business, Homes and Hide-Away. Chairman Ring has done some plans and estimates for the Sizemore family.

Chairman Ring asked if the board would like to make a motion to excuse him from the discussion if the board members so desire.

The board members did not wish for Chairman Ring to be excused.

Residential 1 uses are allowed in Commercial 1 Districts as a special exception.

Mr. Anderson felt any commercial property could be turned into residential.

Mr. Byrd explained that not every case is the same, thus the reason for a special exception, going on to explain the density calculation.

MR. DUBUKE MADE A MOTION TO ALLOW CHAIRMAN RING TO VOTE.

MR. PINTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

The use is permissible by ordinance if the setbacks are met. The property is currently vacant. The proposed use would not have a negative impact on the surrounding areas.

Mrs. Sizemore explained that she desires to bring her ailing mother from Charlotte to watch after her. The other side of the duplex may be retained for her and Mr. Sizemore during inclement weather or the unit may be rented to her mother’s caregiver.

Trees will buffer the duplex.

MR. PINTER MADE A MOTION TO GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROVIDED THE SETBACKS ARE MET.

MR. WIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MR. DEBUKE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 5:45 P.M.

MOTION CARRIED.

_____________________________________

Jay Ring, Chairman

____________________________________

Vickie Best, CMC

Town Clerk