TOWN OF CARY

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES

Monday, June 10, 2002, 7:30 PM

Cary Town Hall Building A, Auditorium
316 N. Academy Street

A special work session was held at 5:30 p.m. in the Front Conference Room of Building A, 316 N. Academy Street, Cary, NC. The board members discussed and reviewed the issues concerning the process of variances, special use permits, and appeals, and watched a video prepared by the Institute of Government on BOA decision-making.

Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gaines Weaver at 7:40 p.m.
Roll Call

Board Members Present-Voting: Vice Chairman Allan Koeppel, Jeffrey Bartley, John Berndt, ETJ, Steve Crutchfield, T.C. Frick, Chairman Gaines Weaver, John Werner, Michael Cantrell, Alternate Lea Strickland, and Alternate Peter Coleman.

Board Members Absent: Eric Strom, Lair Block and Alternate Larry Snead.

Staff Present: Chris Simpson, Walter Harris, Beth Lewis, Donna Blackmer and Joanne Gunther.

Minutes from the May 13, 2002 meeting – the quasi-judicial decisions of the Board made at the May 13 meeting were prepared in written form by Town staff and sent to the Board. Board members were given the opportunity to note typographical-type errors and a final version of each decision was signed by the Chairperson. The approval of the Minutes of the May 13th meeting was delayed to the July meeting to confirm the sequence of events in connection with the amendment to the motion for Case 02-V-005.

Sworn Testimony:

The following individuals were sworn in to give testimony: Beth Lewis, Ken Bobbitt, Frank Martin, Danny Newman, Susan Fiscus and Anthony Concia.

Case Hearings

APPLICATION: 02-V-008

STAFF CONTACT: Beth Lewis

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 101 Olympic Drive, Cary, NC 27513

APPLICANT: Frank Martin

OWNER(S): Frank and Mary Martin

REQUEST: The applicants are requesting a variance of 3.15 feet to the required 20’ corner side yard setback and a variance of 0.71 feet to the required 27 foot front yard setback for an open porch on an existing home. The applicants desire to add a sunroom to the rear of the home that would not encroach any setbacks, but cannot get a building permit because of the existing encroachments.

After hearing testimony from staff and the applicant, the Board discussed the application.

ACTION: Mr. Koeppel made a motion to approve the variance request as there is a practical difficulty because the house with the encroachment(s) already exists, and it would be an undue hardship to ask the applicant to move the house; therefore, it is a unique condition. The applicant did not create the problem. Without a variance, the applicant would not be able to secure a reasonable return from the use of this property. Granting a variance would be within the spirit of the UDO, therefore, the motion is to approve the variance of 3.15 on the 20 foot corner setback and 0.71 foot setback on the 27 foot setback of case 02-V-008, which was seconded by Mr. Werner. Chairperson Weaver made a motion that Mr. Koeppel’s motion be amended to include that the variance will run with the structure, which was seconded by Mr. Bartley. The Board voted (10-0) to permit the amendment to the motion, and the Board voted (10-0) to approve the application for the variance to permit the existing encroachments in the front and side yard.

APPLICATION: 02-V-009

STAFF CONTACT: Beth Lewis

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 600 New Waverly Place, Cary, NC

APPLICANT: Triangle Real Estate Company

OWNER(S): William and Mary Zahn

REQUEST: The applicant, Triangle Real Estate Company, and Tommy Byrd, on behalf of the property owners, William and Mary Zahn, is requesting a variance of 20 square feet to the 100 square foot maximum to place signs totaling 120 square feet on the Waverly Office Plaza.

After hearing testimony from staff, Mr. Concia, representing Wake Technical Community College, and Mr. Bobbitt, representing the neighbors, the Board discussed the application.

ACTION: Mr. Werner made a motion to deny application number 02-V-009 as it has failed to meet the requirements of 13.2.15 (f), specifically, strict enforcement does not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship for the applicant because 100 square feet of signage is sufficient for the size that they desire and that strict application of the sign ordinance does not restrict the signage of the subject property to a greater degree than it restricts other properties. Granting the variance is not necessary for reasonable view of the site from adjoining roadways because 100 square feet of signage is sufficient for signs that they want on the building. Prior to having the motion seconded, Mr. Werner amended his motion to state that the variance request is for a wall sign (and therefore within the jurisdiction of this Board). The motion was seconded by Mr. Cantrell, and the Board voted (10-0) in favor of the motion to deny the variance.

 

New/Old Business: None

Adjournment: Mr. Weaver adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.