Close Close

    Minutes of 07/11/2006 Board of Adjustment Meeting [draft]
MINUTES

Regular Meeting
Wake County Board of Adjustment
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
9:00 am, Room 700
Wake County Courthouse
316 Fayetteville Street Mall
Raleigh, North Carolina

Members Present (8): Mr. A. Thomas Anderson, Mr. James Compton, Mr. Billy Myrick, Mr. Art Odom, Mr. Ronald Raxter, Mr. Tim Sack, Ms. Genevieve Sims, Mr. John Welch

Members Not Present (1): Mr. Jeffrey Willis

Staff Present (6): Mr. Reginald Goodson (Land Development Administrator), Mr. Keith Lankford (Planner III), Ms. Brenda Coats (Planner II), Mr. Joe Mangum (Planner I), Mr. Michael Walters (Planner I), Ms. Angel Kropf (Secretary to the Board)

County Attorney Present: Scott Warren (Deputy County Attorney)

IN RE MINUTES

Item 1, Call to Order: Chairman Raxter called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. with eight (8) members present.

Item 2, Approval of Minutes of June 13, 2006 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.

Chairman Raxter stated for the benefit of anyone in the audience who had not attended a meeting of the Wake County Board of Adjustment, that the meeting is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Anyone wishing to present testimony and/or evidence will be asked to come forward and be sworn or affirmed. The petitioner will be given the first opportunity to present testimony and/or evidence. Anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition will present testimony and/or evidence. The petitioner will then be given an opportunity to respond.

Ms. Brenda Coats, Mr. Keith Lankford, and Mr. Michael Walters were sworn to present testimony for staff.

For the record, staff member Mr. Larry Morgan and Board members A. Thomas Anderson and Tim Sack were present on the site tour on Monday, July 10, 2006.

Item 3, BA V-2060-06:

Petitioner: Bateman Civil Survey Company
Landowner: Lawrence B. and Barbara S. Monk
PIN: 0688.01 48 6295 and part of 0688.01 38 9060
Location: South of Smart Drive, west of the intersection of Shopping Circle and Fayetteville Road
Zoned: Highway District
Land Area: 23.20 acres

Item No. 3 was heard at the regular meeting of the Wake County Board of Adjustment held on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, was a Variance, Petition No. BA V-2060-06. The petitioner is Bateman Civil Survey Company. The landowner is Lawrence B. and Barbara S. Monk. The property is located on the south of Smart Drive, west of the intersection of Shopping Circle and Fayetteville Road. The following members of the Board heard and decided this petition: Chairman Raxter, Vice Chairman Odom, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Myrick, and Ms. Sims.

In this case the petitioner requests a variance to allow an existing barn to remain within a 20-foot required side yard setback, and to encroach within a proposed 25-foot bufferyard and a 50-foot front building line.

SYNOPSIS OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED

Documentary Evidence: Staff report, PowerPoint slide presentation and videotaped presentation of the site; Variance Application dated 5-15-06; Statement of Justification; Vicinity Map; Preliminary site plan dated 3/2/06; four photographs: (1) Northeastern view across Shopping Circle from barn towards US 401, (2) Eastern view from barn on left towards intersection of Shopping Circle and US 401, (3) Southwestern view towards barn located within 20' of property line and encroaching bufferyard on subject site; and (4) Northwestern view across from barn on left towards entrance to site.

Testimony: Mr. Walters entered the staff report for BA V-2060-06 into the record and stated that this is a request to allow an existing barn to remain within a 20-foot required side yard setback, and to encroach within a proposed 25-foot bufferyard and a 50-foot front building line. The petitioner is Bateman Civil Survey Company. The landowner is Lawrence B. and Barbara S. Monk. The property is south of Smart Drive, west of the intersection of Shopping Circle and Fayetteville Road. The property is zoned Highway District and consists of 23.20 acres. The site does contain some flood-prone soils. The existing barn is in the southeastern corner of the property. The barn will be used to store lawn maintenance equipment for the existing commercial site. The applicant and owner are aware that should the barn remain, improvements may be required to bring the existing building into compliance with all applicable commercial standards.

Mr. Lawrence Monk, 9301 Smart Drive, Raleigh, NC, was properly sworn. He stated that Mr. Walters had done a good job at summarizing the issue.

Mr. Myrick asked how long the barn had been there. Mr. Monk answered it had been there about 75 years. He stated he knew the family that owned the property before him. Since he has owned the property, he has reconditioned the barn, put a new top on it, new siding, painted it so it isn't an eyesore to the community.

Mr. Myrick asked if Mr. Monk realized he would have to bring the barn up to code if the variance is approved. Mr. Monk answered he didn't know what sort of standards there were for a storage barn. The appearance is good. It has electric current in the barn. There is no heat, no cooling, just a storage facility.

Mr. Anderson stated that if the barn was so valuable, the road could have been slipped over to allow a proper lot for that barn. He stated he was concerned that a driveway and parking will be needed for the barn. He stated a vehicle could be parked there when someone goes in to get supplies. A lot of activity at the entrance to the industrial park. He stated he was concerned about that.

Ms. Sims stated that even if the board approves the variance, it didn't mean they were going to approve the special use permit.

Mr. Anderson stated the special use is a completely separate issue to him. The variance stands alone. He thought there would be a vehicle or two to load or unload while they take a tractor out to cut the grass. There will be a driveway and parking right there at the intersection.

Mr. Steven Carson, Raleigh, NC, was properly sworn. He stated Mr. Monk was using it for storage of lawn maintenance equipment. He stated he didn't see that there would be a parking issue there.

Ms. Sims asked why they didn't move the road to accommodate the barn. Mr. Carson stated the issue the board saw was with the barn. He stated they didn't see the barn being an issue, because it was just going to be used as storage of lawn equipment. He stated that is the way it is now.

Mr. Raxter asked if the issue was on the side of the barn towards the road or the side of the barn towards the property line. Ms. Sims asked if the road was new. Mr. Walters answered that the road was approved by the board in the late 1980s. He stated the barn was there when the board approved that road. Ms. Sims asked if Shopping Circle had existed since the 1980s. Mr. Walters answered that it was put in back in 1988. It was allowed by the board in 1987 and the barn was there at that time.

Mr. Anderson stated he was concerned with what will happen with the barn in the future. Ms. Coats stated that when the special use is heard a use of this structure is going to be explained and if that special use is approved, that barn can only be used for what the board approves it for. If it changes the use in any way from what this board approves, the applicant would be required to come back before the board to obtain a change of use permit and get all the approvals.

Mr. Anderson stated his concern was that if the variance was approved, a pick up truck will be parked next to the building as someone comes to work on the equipment or get the equipment out. That truck will be parked there, right at the entrance coming into the property. He stated he could see a traffic issue with that. He stated if they approved the variance now, it could lead to bigger things for the barn.

Mr. Myrick asked if the road was created in 1988 and the encroachment was created then, why was the board dealing with it now. Mr. Lankford answered that it is considered a change of use from an agricultural use. Mr. Raxter asked if the owner was just going to be using the barn to store lawn maintenance equipment, why is that considered a change of use. Mr. Lankford stated that it was a fine line, but the equipment will be used to maintain the commercial site.

Mr. Sack asked if there were no standards for agricultural use. Mr. Raxter answered that agricultural uses were exempt from the zoning ordinance.

Chairman Raxter closed the public hearing.

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

The Board of Adjustment may in passing upon appeals, vary or modify in accordance with procedures specified below, any regulation or provision of the Ordinance relating to the use, construction, or alteration of buildings or structures or the use of land when practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of the regulation or provision. The Board will ensure, in so doing, that the spirit of the Ordinance is observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done, both for the landowner and the public at large. The Board may impose such conditions in granting such variances as will secure substantially the objectives of the regulations or provisions being varied or modified. A variance shall not be granted unless the Board of Adjustment makes findings of fact supporting its conclusions, and concludes, as a minimum that:

(1) There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building, or use referred to in the application, which exist through no fault of the property owner;
(2) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights;
(3) The granting of the application will not materially affect adversely the health, or safety of persons residing or working the neighborhood of the proposed use and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvement in such neighborhood; and
(4) A denial of the application would cause practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships to the landowner. Recommendation

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

Mr. Myrick made a motion that in the matter of BA V-2060-06, the Board of Adjustment find and conclude that the petition does meet the requirements of 1-1-5(E) of the Wake County Zoning Ordinance and the variance be granted, to the degree necessary to allow the existing barn to remain within the required 20-foot side yard setback, the proposed 25-foot bufferyard, and the 50-foot front building line, with the recommended staff conditions. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. With a vote of 4-1, with Mr. Anderson voting against, the motion passed. So ordered.


Item 4, BA SU-2054-06:

Petitioner: Bateman Civil Survey Company
Landowner: Lawrence B. and Barbara S. Monk
PIN: 0688.01 48 6295 and part of 0688.01 38 9060
Location: South of Smart Drive, and west of the intersection of Shopping Circle and Fayetteville Road
Zoned: Highway District
Land Area: 23.20 acres

Item No. 4 heard at the regular meeting of the Wake County Board of Adjustment held on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, was a Special Use Permit, Petition No. BA SU-2054-06. The petitioner is Bateman Civil Survey Company. The landowner is Lawrence B. and Barbara S. Monk. The property is located on the south of Smart Drive, and west of the intersection of Shopping Circle and Fayetteville Road. The following members of the Board heard and decided this petition: Chairman Raxter, Vice Chairman Odom, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Myrick, and Ms. Sims.

In this case the petitioner requests special use permit approval to construct two 12,000 square foot warehouses with associated parking and loading areas.

SYNOPSIS OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED

Documentary Evidence: Staff report, PowerPoint slide presentation and videotaped presentation of the site; Special Use Permit Petition dated 3-25-06; Statement of Justification; Preliminary Special Use Permit Site Plans dated 3-2-06; Vicinity Map; four photographs: (1) Western view from proposed entrance to the site from Shopping Circle, (2) Northern view from the site at site on left towards intersection of Shopping Circle and Smart Drive, (3) Eastern view across Shopping Circle from the site towards US 401, and (4) Southeastern view along Shopping Circle from entrance to site on right.

Testimony: Mr. Walters entered the staff report for BA SU-2054-06 into the record and stated that this is a request to construct two 12,000 square foot warehouses with associated parking and loading areas. The petitioner is Bateman Civil Survey Company. The landowner is Lawrence B. and Barbara S. Monk. The property is located south of Smart Drive, west of the intersection of Shopping Circle and Fayetteville Road. The property is zoned Highway District and consists of 23.20 acres. There are some floodprone soils on the site. The use is consistent with the activity center guidelines of the Wake County Land Use Plan. The site will be used to concentrate the delivery and storage of furniture on the property adjacent to the retail operation. The use will involve six part time employees. The proposed hours of operation for the warehouses are 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Wednesday through Saturday. The maximum impervious surface for the site is 30% without stormwater retention. The proposed impervious surface coverage is 31.2%, but an onsite detention pond is proposed. There is a minimum of one parking space for every two employees, plus one space per truck stored. There are six spaces proposed. The parking is only for the proposed warehouses. Mr. Walters went over the buffers required. No new signs are being proposed, however, an existing sign must be brought into compliance with the sign regulations for that zoning district. The proposed parcel has frontage on Smart Drive and Shopping Circle, both being private roads with 60 foot easements. The site will be accessed through both roads. The site will be served by an individual well and by an onsite septic system.

Mr. Welch asked if the only problem with the sign was that it was not permitted and not inspected. Mr. Walters answered that there was no evidence of a permit for the sign. There was some suggestion that a sign was allowed with the previous board approval, but not in that location. Although the sign that is there does appear to meet the standards of the ordinance. Staff is asking that the sign be inspected and permitted.

Ms. Sims asked if the shell building from the previous board case was still there. Mr. Walters answered that it was. Ms. Sims asked if the building was being used. Mr. Walters answered that it was. Ms. Sims asked what it was being used for. Mr. Walters answered that it was being used for commercial uses and retail office space. Ms. Sims asked if it was being used by Monk's furniture. Mr. Walters answered that the building was being used by individual businesses. Ms. Sims asked if the owners were aware the barn would have to be brought up to commercial standards. Mr. Walters answered they were aware. Ms. Sims stated that Mr. Monk had stated that he thought the present electrical service and non-air conditioned nature wouldn't require anything else. She asked if Mr. Walters was aware of what else might be required. Mr. Walters answered that there were building code standards for existing structures and until a building inspector goes out to review the building, he didn't know what it would take to bring the building up to minimum standards. He stated he knew that for an existing structure, the standards were not as stringent as for a new commercial structure.

Mr. Lawrence Monk stated he appreciated Mr. Walters' presentation. He stated that anything he has done in Wake County or the other surrounding counties has been to the benefit to the tax base and more revenue for the county. He stated he didn't put up any junk. Nothing was an eyesore; everything looks good, including the barn.

Mr. Welch asked if the six employees would also be working in the retail space. Mr. Monk answered that they would. Mr. Welch asked if there would be deliveries to the warehouses. Mr. Monk answered they would have deliveries at the warehouse. Mr. Raxter asked how often the deliveries would be made. Mr. Monk answered it depended on sales. He stated he was building the warehouses on faith and didn't know if he would be able to use them five years from now. Mr. Raxter asked how often deliveries are made currently. Mr. Monk answered 3 or 4 times a day. Ms. Sims asked if 18 wheelers would be doing the delivery. Mr. Monk stated they would mostly be box trucks. Ms. Sims asked how many 18 wheelers would be delivering to the warehouses. Mr. Monk answered about twice a week. Ms. Sims stated the board did not have any information in their package about traffic. Mr. Lankford stated the amount of traffic expected to be generated by the warehouses were not enough to trigger a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA).

Mr. Anderson stated he had no problem with the buildings. He was still concerned about traffic in the area of the barn. He stated he was for Mr. Monk building his buildings and approve of what Mr. Monk is doing out there. He stated at one time the barn was valuable enough to have the road where it was. Now a decision has been made to use the barn for storage. He stated he didn't know if the barn would be able to be brought up to applicable standards. Parking is also 800 feet away. People are not going to park there and walk to go get a lawnmower. They are going to park nearer to the barn. There is going to be activity around that barn. He stated he was strongly in favor of approving the application, but tearing the barn down.

Chairman Raxter closed the public hearing.

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.
(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.
(4) The proposed development will be in harmony with the area in which it is located.
(5) The proposed development will be consistent with the Wake County Land Use Plan.
Recommendation

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

Mr. Odom made a motion that in the matter of BA SU-2054-06, 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 that the special use permit be granted with the recommended staff conditions. Mr. Myrick seconded the motion. With a vote of 5-0, the motion passed. So ordered.

Item 5, BA V-2061-06:

Petitioner: Beth Overby
Landowner: Beth Overby
PIN: 1748.03 12 1288
Location: Within the Vaughan Trace Subdivision, on the western side of Ligon Mill Road
Zoned: Residential-30 (R-30)
Land Area: 1.00 acre

In this case the petitioner requests a variances to allow an existing accessory building to be larger than the primary residence.

Ms. Coats stated that the applicant would like to withdraw the variance petition before the board. Ms. Beth Overby, 11305 Centaur Road, Wake Forest, came forward and stated to the board that she would like to withdraw the petition.

Item 6, BA SU-2057-06:

Petitioner: McCullers Community Church
Landowner: McCullers Community Church
PIN: 1609.03 42 2122, 1609.03 41 0994, 1609.03 31 9765
Location: Western side of Rand Road, north of its intersection with Ten-Ten Road.
Zoned: Residential-40 Watershed (R-40W)
Land Area: 3.13 acres

Item No. 6 heard at the regular meeting of the Wake County Board of Adjustment held on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, was a Special Use Permit, Petition No. BA SU-2057-06. The petitioner is McCullers Community Church. The landowner is McCullers Community Church. The property is located on the western side of Rand Road, north of its intersection with Ten-Ten Road. The following members of the Board heard and decided this petition: Chairman Raxter, Vice Chairman Odom, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Myrick, and Ms. Sims.

In this case the petitioner requests special use permit approval to construct a sanctuary addition to an existing church 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 Petition dated 4-5-06; Statement of Justification; Preliminary Special Use Permit Site Plans dated 4-4-06; Vicinity Map dated 6-16-06; five photographs: (1) Northwestern view towards existing church from Rand Road, (2) Northeastern view from entrance to site off of Rand Road, (3) Eastern view from church site across Rand Road, (4) Southwestern view from site down Rand Road, and (5) Southeastern view towards rear of existing building from on site.

Testimony: Ms. Coats entered the staff report for BA SU-2057-06 into the record and stated that this is a request to construct a sanctuary addition to an existing church with associated parking. The petitioner is McCullers Community Church. The landowner is McCullers Community Church. The property is located on the western side of Rand Road, north of its intersection with Ten-Ten Road. The property is zoned Residential-40 Watershed and consists of 3.13 acres. The current building sits on one site. They have purchased two additional contiguous properties that they will recombine with this one property in order to have larger acreage. There are no flood or FEMA soils on the property. The existing building was originally a school and received Board of Adjustment approval for a school. Then it was approved for a child day care center and at that approval, DOT required a turn lane be put in. The petitioner at that time felt it was not financially feasible to install a turn lane, so that special use was dropped. The church came in after that and received special use approval to take the existing building and turn it into a church. They are now proposing a two story addition for a sanctuary and additional parking. The site is designated as Low Density Residential on the Fuquay-Varina and Garner Area Land Use Plan. The property is located in the rural area of the Swift Creek Land Management Plan. The Swift Creek Plan limits the property to 12% impervious. However, it can go up to 30% with stormwater management. Wake County Zoning Ordinance requires stormwater management at 12% with a maximum of 24%. The site is proposing 22% impervious and will be providing stormwater management that will comply with the Zoning Ordinance as well as the Swift Creek Land Management Plan. There will be an NCDOT driveway permit required. They are installing a second driveway for the additional parking.

Ms. Coats stated that the proposed addition is an 11,200 square foot building. Parking required for the site is 44 spaces. This is based on the seating capacity in the sanctuary. There are 14 existing spaces. There are 37 new spaces shown on the site plan. There is a 10 foot Type B buffer along Rand Road. The thoroughfare plan shows Rand Road as an 80 foot right of way. This is shown on the site plan. A 50 foot Type A is required on the remaining perimeter of the property. The applicant is proposing to reduce a portion of the bufferyard to 25 feet with additional landscaping, which is allowed by code. There is one 32 square foot sign that was permitted and approved when the previous application was approved. They are proposing no new additional signs. There is an existing well and septic system on the site, however they are proposing a new septic system for the sanctuary. That will require a permit from Environmental Services. The structures you see in the video will be removed. One already has been. Existing driveways, asphalt, all of the impervious will be removed and the pervious will be regained. The church did this in order to have this addition and still meet the impervious surface requirements.

Ms. Sims asked why there was no recommendation to recombine the three separate lots. Ms. Coats stated that the lots have already been recombined. There has been a map recorded. Ms. Sims stated that on all the maps she had seen, they show three lots. Ms. Coats stated that they did. Ms. Sims asked when the lots were recombined. Ms. Coats answered that the petitioner could answer that question better than she could.

Mr. Judson Burnette, 5700 Old Stage Road, Raleigh, NC, was properly sworn. He stated he was a deacon in the church and on the board of trustees. They have been there about 2 1/2 years and have worked hard, not only to be a good church, but as a good neighbor. They went to every house in a 1000 foot radius of the church, which was 61 houses. Four deacons carried out this responsibility. They had 60 of the 61 that signed that they were for it and one neutral person who said they would not sign it because they didn't see how it affected them in any way. There was a public hearing with 56 people present and no one objected at the hearing.

Mr. Burnette stated the three pieces of property had 9700 square foot of impervious surface they will be removing. They have already removed one of the large houses and barns. It was in a very run-down state and was a drug house. Mr. Donnie Harrison came personally and thanked them for removing the barn. The police did raid it and it was being used to grow marijuana within two buildings of the church. The neighbor immediately across the street from the site all approved of the plan. They have worked hard to be good neighbors and keep the properties neat.

Ms. Sims asked when the three lots were recombined. Mr. Burnette answered they recombined the lots when they purchased the third lot and was probably within 9 to 12 months ago. They also readjusted the right of way at that time.

Mr. Burnette stated the addition is very badly needed. They have doubled their capacity in recent months.

Chairman Raxter closed the public hearing.

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.
(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.
(4) The proposed development will be in harmony with the area in which it is located.
(5) The proposed development will be consistent with the Wake County Land Use Plan.
Recommendation

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

Mr. Myrick made a motion that in the matter of BA SU-2057-06, 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 that the special use permit be granted with the recommended staff conditions. Ms. Sims seconded the motion. With a vote of 5-0, the motion passed. So ordered.

Item 7, BA SU-2059-06:

Petitioner: Henry C. Campen, Jr.
Landowner: Shotwell Landfill, Inc.
PIN: 1761.02 69 2263 and 1761.02 68 2191
Location: Western side of Smithfield Road, south of its intersection with Mial Plantation Road.
Zoned: Residential-30 (R-30)
Land Area: 135 acres

Item No. 7 heard at the regular meeting of the Wake County Board of Adjustment held on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, was a Special Use Permit, Petition No. BA SU-2059-06. The petitioner is Henry C. Campen, Jr. The landowner is Shotwell Landfill, Inc. The property is located on the western side of Smithfield Road, south of its intersection with Mial Plantation Road. The following members of the Board heard and decided this petition: Chairman Raxter, Vice Chairman Odom, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Myrick, and Ms. Sims.

In this case the petitioner requests special use permit approval to expand the size of an existing construction and demolition landfill.

SYNOPSIS OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED

Documentary Evidence: Staff report, PowerPoint slide presentation and videotaped presentation of the site; Special Use Permit Petition dated 4-24-06; Statement of Justification; Preliminary Special Use Permit Site Plans dated 04/2006; Vicinity Map dated 6-28-06; seven photographs: (1) Western view at entrance to landfill off of Smithfield Road, (2) Northern view from entrance to site off of Smithfield Road, (3) Eastern view across Smithfield Road from entrance to landfill, (4) Southern view towards Smithfield Road from entrance to landfill, (5) Western view from gravel access road on site, (6) Southwestern view from interior of existing landfill site, and (7)Western view from interior of site.

Testimony: Ms. Coats entered the staff report for BA SU-2059-06 into the record and stated that this is a request to expand the size of an existing construction and demolition landfill. The petitioner is Henry C. Campen, Jr. The landowner is Shotwell Landfill, Inc. The property is located on the western side of Smithfield Road, south of its intersection with Mial Plantation Road. The property is zoned Residential-30 and consists of 135 acres. There are floodsoils on the property. There is an inactive Land Clearing and Inert Debris (LCID) landfill. There is a portion of the 17 acres that was previously approved as a Construction and Demolition (C&D) landfill that is currently being used. The rest of it has the approval, but is not being used at this time. There is a small area that is shown between the existing and proposed site adjacent to Smithfield Road. That was a lot that the landfill has since purchased. That should now be a contiguous property line. The property is designated as residential on the City of Raleigh Long Range Urban Services Area. It is consistent with the Land Use Plan. A special use permit was approved in 1998 to operated the LCID landfill on the existing 67 acre site. They came in with a request to modify 17 acres of that and turn it into a C&D landfill. That was approved in 1999. The petitioner is now proposing a lateral and vertical expansion of the existing landfill to increase the service area and expand onto the adjacent 67 acre tract north of the existing landfill. The landfill area itself will consist of about 64 acres, if the expansion is granted. Additional ground water and surface water monitoring points will be provided for on the proposed site. It will require approval from DENR.

Ms. Coats stated that the proposed expansion will accommodate an increase in capacity of 8 million cubic yards for a total of 9 million cubic yards. This will increase the life expectancy of the landfill to 51 years, which will result in a total life expectancy of about 55.8 years. The petitioner is proposing to expand the service areas that this landfill will serve. It currently serves portions of Wake County. It serves the St. Matthews, Marks Creek, Little River, Wake Forest, and the St. Marys township districts. There are twenty townships in Wake County. This request is to serve all of Wake County as well as Johnston County. The current population of the two counties is estimated at 900,000. Over the extended life of the proposed landfill, the population of these two counties are expected to nearly double to 1,700,000 people. Ms. Coats went over the types of waste that were acceptable in this type of landfill. The petitioner is also proposing a future 95,000 square foot maintenance building. This will be used for the storage, maintenance, and repair of the landfill equipment only. They are also requesting to park the trucks that belong to the landfill onsite overnight or when they are not in use. The proposed hours of operation are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday. This landfill will not operate on Saturdays or the weekend, unless there is an emergency and is needed. There will be ten employees on the site. Residential 30 limits the impervious surface coverage to 30%. There is 0.3% proposed impervious. This is the roadway, proposed building, and parking area. There are no stormwater management devices required. There are 20 parking spaces required, based on the size of the building. The petitioner is showing 30 spaces on the site plan, with a minimum 20 foot wide travelway, which will meet the requirements of the Fire Marshall's office. There is a 10 foot type F bufferyard shown along Smithfield Road. A 40 foot buffer along the perimeter of the property. DENR requires a provision of a 100 foot undisturbed buffer with an opaque screen around the entire proposed 135 acre site. That is shown on the site plan. There is also a 200 foot preferred solid waste buffer that is shown on the site plan. There is one 32 square foot sign that is allowed. There is an existing sign and there are no new signs proposed. This site must comply with the requirements of article 17 that regulate noise, glare, and odor at all times. It currently has access off of Smithfield Road. There is no new proposed driveway. The petitioner is not proposing any type of increase that would require a Traffic Impact Analysis on this site.

Ms. Sims asked when in the 55 year span of the landfill does it not trigger a TIA. Ms. Coats answered at the current time.

Ms. Coats stated that the site is served by an individual well and onsite septic system. There is an existing modular trailer that serves as the scalehouse for the site. She went over condition 12 that was included in a separate letter to Wake County attorney Mike Ferrell. Mr. Welch asked if this was an acceptable condition. Mr. Warren answered that it was because the process for approval of the landfill through the state could take up to four years.

Mr. Sack asked if a left turn lane on Smithfield Road was proposed in the future. Ms. Coats answered that it would be up to DOT whenever they go back for their driveway permit approval. There is one shown on the plan and she believed the applicant said they would be willing to put that turn lane in. Staff notified Johnson County of this case and has not heard back from them.

Mr. Myrick asked about the buffer for the property. Ms. Coats answered that it was a 100 foot, undisturbed, opaque buffer. Mr. Myrick asked how that was created. Ms. Coats answered by planting and berms. Mr. Myrick asked how the county checks on that. Ms. Coats answered that one of the things that is done before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued is to go out and do a site zoning check. At that time, they will look to see that all parking is in place and designated, any landscaping, and other zoning issues. If it is the time of year that landscaping is not to be planted, a letter of credit that is required before zoning will sign off.

Mr. Myrick asked if only a certain number of townships were able to use this facility in the past. Ms. Coats answered that they were. Mr. Myrick asked how they were able to keep track of that. Ms. Coats answered she wasn't sure, but maybe they kept books on that.

Mr. Compton asked why they were limited to those areas. Ms. Coats answered that those were the service areas they requested at the time.

Mr. Sack asked how it was franchised. Ms. Coats answered she wasn't sure. Mr. Warren stated that the applicant placed the service area voluntarily. When the Board of Adjustment approved the special use, then the franchise granted by the Board of Commissioners pretty much followed what the Board of Adjustment had approved. Mr. Campen stated that Mr. Warren was correct. If the Board of Adjustment should approve today's request, the applicant would go back to the Board of Commissioners to seek expansion of the service area.

Mr. Henry Campen, PO Box 389, Raleigh, NC stated he was the attorney for Shotwell Landfill, Inc. This is a modification of a special use permit for an existing landfill. He showed the board an aerial photograph of the area. He went over the site plan. He stated it was not a new use that was being proposed for the area. This landfill has been permitted since 1998. The expansion of the landfill will involve expansion on the southern tract and into the northern tract. The property surrounding the site is all zoned R-30 with low-intensity residential uses. Expansion onto the northern tract will involve development of 27 acres of that property for the landfill, a 10,000 square foot building, and the parking surrounding it. As many as 10 employees will be in that facility as maintenance workers. When the landfill is fully developed, it will comprise 64 of the 135 acres on the site. The entire 135 acre tract will be surrounded by a 200 foot buffer with the 100 foot undisturbed buffer within that. That buffer currently exists. There are some supplemental plantings that will be added along Smithfield Road. The expanded landfill will be owned and operated by Shotwell Landfill, Inc. It is not a publically traded NASDAQ company, these are two local gentlemen, Gary Lynch and David King. These two men have operated this site since 2004.

Mr. Campen stated Gary Lynch is prepared to address how the application complies with the special use requirements in the UDO. Mr. Stacy Smith is an engineer with G. N. Richardson and Associates and is prepared to testify regarding how the application meets three of the general standards and a number of technical standards in the ordinance. Mr. Smith is a licensed, professional engineer in five states including North Carolina. He has been involved in the engineering profession for 10 years. He holds a Bachelors and Masters in civil engineering and concentrates his practice in solid waste permitting, engineering, and design. The final principal witness is Tom Hester. Tom is an appraiser for Hester and Associates. He will testify in regards to two of the general standards applicable to all special uses. He is a state certified general real estate appraiser. He received his bachelors degree from Chapel Hill. He holds the NAI designation from the appraisal institute. They would tender Mr. Hester as an expert in the field of property value. Mr. Campen stated they had several other witnesses that will be available to answer any questions the board might have.

Mr. Campen stated each board member had a binder of all the exhibits they had prepared for the meeting and supplemental materials they prepared for the Planning Department. They offered all of those materials into the record for their consideration. As required by the ordinance, they conducted a neighborhood meeting in the Shotwell area on May 24th. After sending notices to all the neighbors in that area, it was held at the East Wake Fire Rescue station at 7:00. A number of the neighbors appeared. Mr. Smith and Mr. Lynch gave a presentation on the project, answered questions, and there were no objections to the project by those in attendance. The application as presented meets all the requirements of the ordinance. The application demonstrates that this application complies with all of those requirements and we respectfully request that the board approve the request.

Mr. Campen stated that in the interest of time, they are prepared, if it is the board's pleasure, to make their witnesses available for questions, but to dispense with the formal presentation of the testimony. The Board of Adjustment agreed to this.

Mr. Compton asked how many of the adjoining property owners were notified. Mr. Campen stated they notified all of the adjoining property owners. Mr. Compton asked how many that was. Mr. Campen answered three showed up at the neighborhood meeting, but they sent notices to those surrounding the property and those across the road. They sent it to more than just the immediate adjoining property owners on staff's advice.

Mr. Welch asked if the petitioner was planning on applying to the state to increase the amount of waste they are permitted to receive. Mr. Campen answered that they weren't looking to increase the waste they are permitted to receive, but to increase the long-term viability of the landfill. If there is an increase in capacity, that would go before the Board of Commissioners as part of the franchise.

Mr. Welch stated he felt the landfill was needed in this area. Mr. Welch asked if the special use is granted, would there be more equipment. Mr. Gary Lynch, 112 Townsend drive, Clayton, NC, was properly sworn. He stated one dozer and one compactor is all that would be needed. He stated there is one tractor on the site. He stated they receive about 67 trucks a day. Those two pieces will be able to handle 200 trucks a day.

Mr. Compton asked where the other 9 employees come in if only one of them is using the dozer. Mr. Lynch answered that they have three current full time employees, with additional employees to pick up trash, monitor erosion control. He stated they put down 10 employees because they wanted to make sure their septic system could handle all employees on the site.

Mr. Myrick asked about the buffer and if it will still be opaque in the wintertime. He stated he knew the area well and the neighbors surrounding it. His great-granddaddy farmed the land that the landfill sits on now. Mr. Lynch answered the neighbor's view will still be blocked because they are required to plant evergreens as part of their buffer. He stated he didn't think they didn't have a big turnout at the public meeting because he tries to be a good neighbor and knows most of the surrounding property owners. He stated he talks to his neighbors and they have his phone numbers in case they have any concerns. Ms. Sims stated that from the comments from at least one of the neighbors that the applicant was being depicted as good neighbors and very responsive to any of their concerns. Therefore, the neighbors appear to be supportive of the applicant. She stated she didn't see one person in attendance who was opposed to this case. Mr. Lynch answered that it was their livelihood and the last thing they want to do is to have any violation or problems. Mr. Myrick stated he heard that they run a good business there and have worked with the neighbors. Nobody likes a landfill because it has a bad name, but neighbors had told Mr. Myrick that they would rather have a landfill than a subdivision. Ms. Sims stated she noticed from the package sent to the Board of Adjustment that the subdivisions that have been developed near this property have not been adversely affected by this use.

Chairman Raxter asked if there was anyone in the audience in opposition to this petition. There was not. Only the applicant's group of people, staff, and the Board of Adjustment members were present.

Chairman Raxter closed the public hearing.

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.
(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.
(4) The proposed development will be in harmony with the area in which it is located.
(5) The proposed development will be consistent with the Wake County Land Use Plan.
Recommendation

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

Mr. Myrick made a motion that in the matter of BA SU-2059-06, the Board of Adjustment find and conclude that the petition does meet the requirements of Article 19-23-8 of the Wake County Unified Development Ordinance and that the special use permit be granted with all recommended staff conditions. Ms. Sims seconded the motion. With a vote of 5-0, the motion passed. So ordered.


Item 10, New Business:

There was none.

Item 11, Old Business:

Mr. Lankford updated the board on the status of the UDO and stated that a copy of the UDO would be in their folders for the next meeting.

Mr. Anderson thanked staff for including the authority for the zoning in their charts on the staff report.

Mr. Welch asked for a status update on one of the previous cases. Mr. Warren gave an update.



REGULAR MEETING
WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
July 11, 2006

All petitions complete, Chairman Ronald Raxter declared the regular meeting
of the Wake County Board of Adjustment for
Tuesday, July 13, 2006 adjourned at 10:48 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted:


Ronald Raxter, Chairman
Wake County Board of Adjustment

RR/ak