Close Close

    Minutes of 02/13/2007 Board of Adjustment Meeting [adopted]

REGULAR MEETING
WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
9:00 am, Room 700
Wake County Courthouse
316 Fayetteville Street Mall

Members Present (5): Mr. A. Thomas Anderson, Mr. James Compton, Mr. Art Odom, Mr. Ronald Raxter, Ms. Genevieve Sims

Members Not Present (4): Mr. Billy Myrick, Mr. Tim Sack, Mr. John Welch, Mr. Jeffrey Willis

Staff Present (3): Mr. Keith Lankford (Planner III), Mr. John Schodtler (Planner II), Ms. Stephanie Gilligan (Secretary to the Board)

County Attorney Present: Mr. Scott Warren (Deputy County Attorney)

Item 1, Call to Order: Chairman Raxter called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. with five (5) members present.

Item 2, Approval of Minutes of January 9, 2007 meeting. Chairman Raxter asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. Ms. Sims made a motion that the Board adopt the minutes as written. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion. All members present voted aye. So ordered.

Item 3, BA A-2055-06 delayed
Mr. Odom made a motion to continue this case at the next meeting in order to serve proper notice upon the Dews. Mr. Compton seconded the motion. All voting members voted aye. So ordered.

Revision of agenda: Item 5 on the agenda will be Item No. 4 and Item No. 4 on the agenda will be Item No. 5.

Item 4, BA V-2070-07

Petitioner: Marlane Klintworth
Landowner: COC Properties, Inc
PIN: 0799.01 28 9439 and 0799.01 28 8881
Location: 11000 Norwood Road
Zoned: Residential-40 Watershed (R-40W)
Land Area: 5.21 acres

Northeast intersection of Norwood Road and Creedmoor Road in the northern part of Wake County. The following members of the Board heard and decided this petition: Chairman Raxter, Vice Chairman Odom, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Compton, and Ms. Sims.

In this case, the petitioner requests a variance to allow up to a 37.5 percent reduction of a required bufferyard.


SYNOPSIS OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED

Documentary Evidence: Staff report, PowerPoint slide presentation and videotaped presentation of the site; Variance Application dated 12/22/2006; Statement of Justification; Existing Conditions Map; Preliminary Site Plan dated 12/19/2006; three photographs: (1) Northeastern view at site (2) looking south toward proposed site; and (3) looking north down Creedmoor Road from proposed site.

Testimony: Mr. Lankford entered the staff report for BA V-2070-07 into the record and stated that this is a variance request to allow a 12.5 percent reduction of a required bufferyard. The petitioner is Marlane Klintworth. The landowner is COC Properties, Inc. The property is located at 11000 Norwood. The site is located at the northeast intersection of Creedmoor and Norwood Roads, in the northern part of Wake County. The property is located within the Residential-40 Watershed (R-40W) zoning district and consists of 5.21 acres. The site plan shows a screening fence and a 60-foot Type C bufferyard along the northeastern property line. The northeastern perimeter property line is showing a 37.5 percent (15 feet) reduction of the required 40-foot Type C bufferyard. A 12.5 percent variance from Section 16-10-2 (G) Depth Reduction for Walls, Fences, or Berm is requested for the proposed development.

Notification letters to adjoining property owners were mailed on January 19, 2007. A public hearing placard was placed on the site on January 19, 2007.

Ms. Marlane Klintworth, 11509 John Allen Road, Raleigh, NC 27614 was properly sworn. Ms. Klintworth stated that when the project began, the previous ordinance required a 50’ bufferyard; however, with the new ordinance (Unified Development Ordinance) those conditions were changed to 45’ bufferyard; hence, she stated that they were not aware they were not in compliance.

Mr. Raxter asked if there were any opposition to the variance.

Cindy Wolf, 11036 Creedmoor Road came forth. She stated that her property is immediately adjacent to the proposed development. Ms. Wolf stated her opposition to the proposed development and she also said that she had not heard anything about the meeting.

Mr. Sack reminded the Chairman that Ms. Wolf needed to be properly sworn in.

Mr. Raxter apologized and she was sworn in.

Ms. Wolf continued and said that she never heard anything about the meeting and that Ms. Klintworth made it sound as if everything is OK with everybody. She said she doesn’t know why they need a CVS at that property and she doesn’t know of anyone who wants it, except for the person who wants to build it, so the only thing that they are looking for is financial gain.

She expressed concerned about her well and noted that Ms. Klintworth had said that people who have wells out there would benefit by having the cleanup. She said that she knew about the tanks under the ground. She testified that she had people come to her house and test the water, and she was told that the wells were fine. She stated that she is concerned with them turning up the ground. She expressed her desire to keep it the way it is and doesn’t understand why they need a CVS there.

She also expressed her concern with what Ms. Klintworth proposes to do with the road. She said that it is hard enough for her to get out of her driveway and the development will only increase traffic and change the road around making it even harder for her.

She said that the land that goes out to Creedmoor Road has a lot of trees and she expressed concern about what they would do with those trees; stating that she doesn’t like all the trees being cut in Wake County. She said that regarding the trees near her property; they would have to talk to her about a fence between the proposed site and her property. She said that more has to be done and that she opposed the development - they do not need it and do not want it.

Ms. Sims asked Ms. Wolff to show on the map where the trees are that she is concerned about.

Ms. Wolff showed on the map where the trees are located.

Ms. Sims asked Ms. Wolff where her well is located.

Ms. Wolff points to where her well is located.

Chairman Raxter asked if there were any other questions for this witness.

With no more questions, he proceeded to ask if anyone else wanted to speak in opposition to the petition. He asked Ms. Klintworth to come back up to the stand and address Ms. Wolff’s concerns.

Ms. Klintworth apologized for Mr. Wolff not being aware of the meeting. She said that the letters went out within the required area and she thought it was pretty well publicized. She stated that they would be willing to add more vegetation than what is already there. She said that the area that Ms. Wolff was pointing to is an open area going north and it was one of their concerns, as it has become an asphalt dump out there and they want to know what they are going to do about that.

She noted that before they got started with the project, they discussed it with the property owner and it has to be removed because it will be their area of retention; it will be planted. She noted that the area next to Ms. Wolff’s house is a natural buffer area, not to be touched. The only area that trees will be removed is that little area where the variance is and they would be adding more than what is there right now. She said that as far as the roadway improvements on Creedmoor, they are adding a right turn lane to turn into the site and closing one of the driveways per DOT requirements and the County. She said that Kimley-Horne did their traffic study and they also met with DOT to discuss the driveways and their use is of lesser trips than that of the service station.

Ms. Sims asked if she or any of the other individuals have a list of the people who attended the neighborhood meeting.

Ms. Klintworth responded that she did and handed the list to Ms. Sims.

Mr. Odom stated that he was completely confused by the variance request – the footage did not add up.

Chairman Raxter asked the engineer to come up and clarify.

Mr. Odom asked if it is a 60-foot required setback or is it a 40-foot.

Mr. Lankford responded that his understanding is that it is a 40-foot requirement.

Chairman Raxter asked if the requirements changed last summer.

Mr. Lankford stated that the County adopted the new development ordinance, on April 17, 2006, which included the zoning module and that a stand-alone ordinance amendment had been adopted that had the buffer requirements prior to that.

Ms. Sims asked Mr. Lankford to repeat what he just said.

Mr. Lankford repeated that the County adopted the UDO as a whole which included the zoning module on April 17, 2006, but prior to that they had adopted a stand-alone ordinance amendment that dealt with the bufferyards.

Mr. Compton asked if the bufferyard was reduced anywhere else; have commercial to residential zoning buffers been reduced from 60 to 40?

Mr. Lankford responded that the ordinance expanded the types of buffers – the width and the level of intensity. He said that it used to be just basically 2 to 3 types of buffers and it went up to 6 or 7, got more intensive and made it more of a custom fit.

Mr. Compton said that they needed to know what is required from commercial to residential, is it 60 or 40?

(Mr. Lankford began reviewing the ordinance requirements and the site circumstances to determine what was correct.)

Ms. Klintworth stated that when they first sat down with Brenda Coats and the engineer, the required buffer was 50 feet and it could be reduced by 50% to 25 feet and they were OK with that because they had the amount. She said that all the comments received throughout the process never addressed this and it was never actually made known to them. She said that the only time they realized it, was during the final submittal in November when they were looking at some other items they all of a sudden saw the buffer and saw that it had gone to 60. She said that they went back and did a little more research and she found that yes, on April 17 there was a change and it changed from 50 feet and 50% reduction to 60 feet and 25% reduction.

Chairman Raxter commented that they were not asking for 37.5%, they were requesting the 59%.

Mr. Compton asked since they are leasing the property, how will they get them to cleanup the asphalt mess that is there now.

Mr. Klintworth responded that it is a requirement of the owner or someone to clean up, before they would qualify under the impervious surface requirements, because what is out there now will put them way over.

Chairman Raxter had the engineer sworn in and asked him to explain his understanding of what is the situation as far as the required buffer.

The engineer was properly sworn in - Peter Damon, 4060 Watkins Lane Drive, Woodstock, GA 30189.

Mr. Damon stated that when they first started negotiations on the property, there was a 50 foot buffer requirement and it could be reduced by 50% and that they were in compliance with it. He said when the code was changed, the requirement was 60-foot and therefore, they requested a variance.

Chairman Raxter asked what is the County asking the buffer to be.

Mr. Damon responded that it is 25 feet.

Chairman Raxter asked if they had moved from the 25 feet.

Mr. Damon responded that they did not.

Chairman Raxter asked Mr. Odom if he was now clear on the variance request.

Mr. Odom responded that he was and that the application now made sense. He asked if it was 25 feet or 24.

Chairman Raxter noted that the fence did not have to be 25 feet.

Mr. Compton responded that it is a planted landscape buffer, it’s not a setback.

Mr. Odom asked Ms. Klintworth whether or not when they started the process, was it 50% reduction of a 50-foot buffer and had they already signed a lease with the owner.

Ms. Klintworth responded that they had not signed a lease; they had a signed letter of intent and they began negotiations and part of the lease is for environmental cleanup.

Ms. Sims said that she needed to go back to the notification of adjoining property owners. She stated that they had given the board a hand written document and asked what was she to assume from this document.

Ms. Klintworth responded that those are the people that the letters went out to and that that is the list that was actually signed by the people that attended the meeting, it could be one person or a family or homeowners spokesperson or a group of 10 or 15.

Ms. Sims asked Ms. Klintworth if she had a copy of the letter that she sent out.

Ms. Klintworth said that it was not in the package.

Ms. Sims asked if she could also tell them the date of the meeting with the homeowners.

Chairman Raxter asked staff if the normal procedure for a hearing was followed where the notices are sent to the adjoining property owners.

Keith Lankford responded that the notice was sent to the adjoining property owners.

Chairman Raxter said that it is sent to owners within 400 feet, so the petitioner actually sent it to more people.

Keith Lankford responded that directly adjoining property owners would mean across the street also.

Chairman Raxter asked if that’s whom the County sends notification to.

Mr. Lankford said that that’s his understanding and that he had seen a copy of that letter.

Chairman Raxter reiterated that the County sends property owners notification of the board meeting.

Ms. Klintworth reported that the meeting was held on November 9, 2006.

Marcy Darmar of 5808 Greenenvers Drive, Raleigh, NC was sworn in. She stated that she was a homeowner.

Ms. Darmar testified that she had a copy of the original letter that was sent out and the original meeting was held on November 9, 2006, which was an information meeting held at one of the cafés in the local area.

Mr. Raxter asked Ms. Darmar to show on the map where her property is located.

She responded that is not on the map because they are behind Bedford. She stated that her issue is that she was notified of the first meeting, but not this meeting, but her neighbor 3 houses down was notified.

Mr. Lankford responded that the neighbor should have been notified because their property properly backs up or is adjacent to it. He said that she was notified of the first meeting, because the petitioner went above and beyond the notification requirements and the neighbor was notified by the statute by the County.

Chairman Raxter asked Ms. Darmar what was her position with respect to the petitioner’s application.

Ms. Darmar stated that her only concern was the notification. She said that she lived in Stonebridge Subdivision prior to where she lives and that Stonebridge has over 5,000 homes that were not notified and that is a large area that doesn’t know about it, and she is concerned about how many do not know about what is going to be built there. She also expressed concern about the traffic. She said she did not know if it would have increased traffic or not.

Ms. Sims asked Ms. Darmar where her subdivision was and Ms. Darmar responded that if you are going north on Creedmoor, Bedford is the first left after you pass Norwood. She said that she was told that they are going to close that first entrance and the second entrance is closer to the entrance of their subdivision.

Mr. Raxter noted that they would actually have a turn lane for that and that it would not be on Creedmoor; the first entrance would be closed.

Ms. Damar said that there is a turning lane on Creedmoor and right now there is traffic going north, traffic coming south and there is a turning lane in the middle.

Chairman Raxter said that this lane would be on the side.

Ms. Sims addressed Ms. Darmar and said that she was on Bedford Hills Court and Greenevers Drive is a cul-de-sac coming off of Bedford Hills Court, and according to the list, residents of Greenevers Drive received notification, but Bedford Hills Court didn’t. She asked Ms. Darmar if she was aware that some of her neighbors on Greenevers Drive received notification of the meeting held by the petitioner.

Ms. Darmar responded that one of her neighbors and she were the only 2 that she knew of that heard of the meeting.

Chairman Raxter asked if there were any other questions of the witness.

Keith Lankford asked to be heard. He stated that based on existing lots all over that area, 1 acre in size, which would indicate that it is low-density residential development and based on impervious surface limits on this site, it would make it a medium-intensity development. He noted, referring to the table in the new ordinance, that the ordinance amendment came into affect on September 9, 2005, and that that is when it was adopted and during that process staff was told to make sure that as they met with folks to give them a heads up about the pending ordinance. He said he apologized if that was not conveyed.

He said that a low-density usage of the surrounding property and a medium intensity usage of this site should be a 60-foot Type B bufferyard (instead of C) and that be believes that is what is causing some confusion. He said if the special use was approved the applicant would need to agree to make the adjustment to the plan (i.e. 25 foot Type B bufferyard).

Mr. Odom asked Mr. Lankford if there was a 50-foot bufferyard requirement before September 19, 2005.

Mr. Lankford said that that was his recollection.

Chairman Raxter asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak for or against.

Cindy Wolf asked how much of the land would be paved and if it is going to be a 24-hour CVS.

Marlene Klintworth responded that it would not be a 24-hour CVS and the hours will be more likely 8 a.m. – 9 p.m.

Chairman Raxter closed the public hearing.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

If the Board of Adjustment reaches positive conclusions on all of the required findings, that it approve the requested variance subject to the following conditions:

1.The petitioner must record the notarized form pertaining to the order of the Board in the Wake County Register of Deeds and return a copy to the Planning Department.


Recommendation

Staff recommends that if the Board of Adjustment reaches positive conclusions on all of the required findings, that it approved the requested variance subject to the following conditions:

Motion

Mr. Raxter made a motion that in the matter of BA V-2070-07, the Board find and concluded that the petition does meet the requirements of Article 19-26 of the Wake County Unified Development Ordinance and that the variance be granted, to the degree necessary to correct the violation, with the recommended staff conditions. Ms. Sims seconded the motion. All voting members voted aye. So ordered.



Item 5, BA SU-2063-07

Petitioner: Marlane Klintworth
Landowner: COC Properties, Inc
PIN: 0799.01 28 9439 and 0799.01 28 8881
Location: 11000 Norwood Road
Zoned: Residential-40 Watershed (R-40W)
Land Area: 5.21 acres

BA SU-2063-07 northeast intersection of Norwood Road and Creedmoor Road in the northern part of Wake County. The following members of the Board heard and decided this petition: Chairman Raxter, Vice Chairman Odom, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Compton, and Ms. Sims.

In this case, the petitioner is requesting special use permit approval as required by Article 4-51 of the Wake County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to construct a retail convenience use (CVS pharmacy) with associated parking.


SYNOPSIS OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED

Documentary Evidence: Staff report, PowerPoint slide presentation and videotaped presentation of the site; Special Use Permit dated 06/07/2006, Statement of Justification; Existing Conditions Map; Preliminary Site Plan dated 09/18/2006; three photographs: (1) Northeastern view at site (2) looking south toward proposed site; and (3) looking north down Creedmoor Road from proposed site.

Testimony: Mr. Lankford entered the staff report for BA SU-2063-07 into the record and stated that this is a request to construct a retail convenience use (CVS pharmacy) with associated parking. The petitioner is Marlane Klintworth, CVS. The landowner is COC Properties, Inc. The property is located at 11000 Norwood. The site is located at the northeast intersection of Creedmoor and Norwood Roads, in the northern part of Wake County. The 1.40 acres site currently has an existing convenience store with associated parking. The petitioners are proposing to recombine 3.81 acres to the current site and remove existing structures and parking area. The petitioners are proposing to construct an 11,800 square foot convenience store (CVS Pharmacy) with associated parking on a proposed 5.21 acres site. The site is located at the intersection of Norwood and Creedmoor Road. The use will involve six (6) employees. Section 4-51-3(C), limits the hours of operation to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. unless an extension is requested and granted by the Board of Adjustment. The proposed hours of operation for the convenience store are 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven (7) days a week. The petitioner must request an extension of operation hours from the Board of Adjustment (see condition #1). The property is zoned Residential-40 Watershed (R-40W). The property to the north, south, east and west of the site is zoned R-40W. Section 16-10-2, Bufferyards, requires a 10-foot deep bufferyard with a Type F screening along the right-of-way of Creedmoor Road, Norwood Road and Norwood Oaks Drive. Additionally, a 40-foot deep bufferyard with Type C screening is required along the remaining perimeter of the property. The site plan shows compliance with the street front bufferyard and the 40-foot deep, Type C bufferyard along the northern property line. The site plan shows a screening fence and a 15-foot reduction of the 40-foot Type C bufferyard along the northeastern property line. This proposed reduction is not in compliance with Section 16-10-2 (G) Depth Reduction for Walls, Fences or Berms, which require a solid wall or fence and a maximum reduction up to 25% (10 feet) of the required bufferyard depth. The petitioner has submitted a variance request (V-2070-07) to the required perimeter bufferyard.

Section 15-10-4 Off-Street Parking Schedule, requires a minimum of one (1) parking space per 400 square feet of floor sales area and one (1) per 800 square feet of storage area. The proposed convenience store has 11,633 square feet of retail space and 1,680 square feet of storage space requiring a total of 33 parking spaces. There are 58 proposed parking spaces shown on the plan with minimum 20-foot wide travel ways throughout the parking areas.

Section 3-20-5(C) Stormwater Management, requires on-site control of the first one-half inch of rainfall runoff when more than 12% of the total area of the site is covered in impervious surfaces, with a maximum limit of 24% impervious surface coverage of the entire site. The proposed impervious surface coverage of the site is 23.1 percent, which will require stormwater management (see condition #5). An as-built site plan will be required upon completion and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy to verify compliance with the impervious surface coverage requirements (see condition #6).

Section 18-12-2, Sign Regulations for Specific Zoning Districts (B) Special Uses, allow for one on-premise sign, not to exceed 32 square feet in sign area, and no ground sign can exceed 8 feet in height. A sign is proposed to be located at the corner of Creedmoor Road and Norwood Road. A sign permit must be obtained from the Wake County Planning Department (see condition #7).

Section 1-1-27(G), Performance Standards – Exterior Lighting, requires that no exterior lighting shall cause illumination in excess of one (1) foot-candle at the lot line. A lighting plan will be required for this site (see condition #9).

Notification letters to adjoining property owners were mailed on January 19, 2007. A public hearing placard was placed on the site on January 19, 2007.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

The Board of Adjustment shall not approve a petition for a Special Use Permit unless it first reaches each of the following conclusions based on findings of fact supported by competent, substantial, and material evidence. The Board of Adjustment must make positive findings on the following findings of fact from Section 1-1-11 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance in order to approve or deny this special use request:

(1) The proposed development will not materially endanger the public health or safety.

Considerations:
(2) The proposed development will comply with all regulations and standards generally applicable within the zoning district and specifically applicable to the particular type of special use or class of special uses. (3) The proposed development will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property, or is a public necessity.

Considerations: (4) The proposed development will be in harmony with the area in which it is located.

Considerations:

a. The relationship of the proposed use and the character of development to surrounding uses and development, including possible conflicts between them and how these conflicts will be resolved.

(5) The proposed development will be consistent with the Wake County Land Use Plan.

Considerations: The site is located within an area designated as a non-urban activity center on the General Classification Land Use Plan. The proposed retail use is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that, if the Board of Adjustment reaches positive conclusions on all of the required findings, that it approve the request subject to the following conditions:

(1) The petitioner must obtain approval from the Board of Adjustment on the extension of operation hours of the proposed development.

(2) The petitioner must obtain approval from the Department of Environmental Services for the well and septic system.

(3) The petitioner must obtain a building permit from the Wake County Inspections/Development Plans/Permits Division. (4) The petitioner must obtain a driveway permit from the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

(5) The petitioner must obtain approval from the Department of Environmental Services for the design of the stormwater management device(s).

(6) The petitioner must provide an as-built survey of the site upon completion of the project to the Planning Department.

(7) The petitioner must obtain a sign permit from the Wake County Planning Department.

(8) A left turn lane with no median must be install to the North Carolina Department of Transportation standard along Norwood Road.

(9) The petitioner must submit a lighting plan and obtain approval on the proposed exterior lighting from the Wake County Planning Department.

(10) The petitioner must obtain a land disturbance permit, if disturbing more than an acre, from the Wake County Environmental Services Soil and Erosion Department.

(11) The petitioner must recombine the two properties and submit a plat for recordation to the Wake County Planning Department.

(12) The petitioner must record the notarized form pertaining to the Order of the Board in the Wake County Register of Deeds and return a copy to the Planning Department.

(13) A final zoning site inspection to verify site plan compliance must be performed by the Zoning Administrator before the Wake County Inspection/Development Plans/Permits Division issues a Certificate of Compliance.

Chairman Raxter asked Ms. Klintworth to address the hours of operation because there is some confusion in the record.

Ms. Klintworth stated that the hours of operation are from 8 a.m. – 9 p.m., but the service station is open until 10:00 p.m. and they would like to have 10:00 p.m.; she is not aware that they would stay opened until 10:00 p.m. - CVS has informed her it would be 9:00 p.m.

Chairman Raxter asked if there were any other questions and if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the petition.

Mr. Anderson asked if they had any information from Mr. Greeces that lives adjacent to the site, a letter from him or any questions from him.

Ms. Klintworth responded that he contact her personally prior to the community meeting and that he had come to the meeting; they had spoken on the phone once or twice, sent emails and that she had the landscape architect get in touch with him as far as what type of silt well and where he wanted to place it. She said that he knew of the meeting today.

Chairman Raxter asked if there were any other questions. With no other questions, Chairman Raxter closed the public hearing. He asked if there was any discussion.

With no more discussion he entertained a motion.

Motion

Mr. Odom made a motion that in the matter of BA SU-2063-07, the Board of Adjustment find and conclude that the petition does meet the requirements of 1-1-11(C) of the Wake County Zoning Ordinance and the special use permit be granted with the recommended staff conditions and the extended hours to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion. All voting members voted aye. So ordered.

Item 6, New Business

There was none.

Item 7, Old Business


Mr. Warren gave an update on the following cases that were previously heard by the board:

a. Status of the Allen Security Company case
b. Randy Coley property located on Airpark Road
c. Claude Stevens prep academy
d. Cummings appeal

ˇ The Allen case was dismissed.
ˇ The Randy Coley case was also dismissed. They had filed an appeal to the court and after intensive negotiation, they agreed to come into compliance and not do anything out there without the proper permitting. Mr. Warren reduced the civil penalty. He is satisfied with the Coley case being over and it should be finalized by Thursday.
ˇ The Cummings appeal record is due on Monday February 19, 2007 and will be filed on Monday February 19, 2007. He said that he doesn’t think that the neighbor that objected to the use (he had let them know that it was a split board) that he would be fully represented, and that he would obtain proper counsel and it is his understanding that he explored that option. He said that he was not aware of any motion to intervene by Mr. Blake. He said that he would get the record filed on Monday and will inform the board in about 3 months.
ˇ Stevens Prep Academy – does not know if it is still operating. Ms. Sims said that she visited Melanie and she was doing well.






REGULAR MEETING
WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 13, 2007

All petitions complete, Chairman, Ronald Raxter declared the regular meeting of the Wake County Board of Adjustment for
Tuesday, February 13, 2007 adjourned at 10:28 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted:


Chairman, Ronald Raxter
Wake County Board of Adjustment


RR/sg