Camden County Board of Adjustment
Minutes
Record of Proceedings
July 24, 2006
7:00 PM
Camden County Historic Courthouse
Courthouse Complex
Chairman Roger Lambertson called to order a meeting of the Camden County
Board of Adjustment with the following members present:
Chairman Roger Lambertson
Vice Chairman Morris Kight
Members Emory Upton, Patrick Duckwall,
William McPherson, and Alternate Douglas Lane
The following members were absent: None
Also present were Dan Porter, Director of Planning/ Flood Administer,
Dave Parks, Permit Officer/ Flood Administrator, and Lori Tuss, Clerk
to the Board of Adjustment.
Chairman Lambertson called for consideration of the agenda. Hearing
no comments, Chairman Lambertson proceeded with the meeting.
Consideration of the Minutes for January 9, 2006
Chairman Lambertson called for consideration of the January 9, 2006
minutes. The Chairman directed the members to disregard the minutes that
were in their initial board packets and noted that the amended minutes,
coded in yellow and handed out prior to the meeting, are the minutes
to consider. Minor changes to the wording were amended at the pleasure
of the Board. One major correction was amended from the initial minutes
on line 28 of page 1 which stated that Douglas Lane was voted by the
Commissioners as a regular voting member. Let the record show that on
January 3, 2006 the Camden County Board of Commissioners voted Patrick
Duckwall as a regular voting member and Douglas Lane as the Alternate
member to the Board of Adjustment.
Hearing no further comments, Patrick Duckwall made a motion to approve
the amended minutes. Member William McPherson seconded the motion. The
motion passed with Chairman Roger Lambertson, Vice Chairman Morris Kight,
Members Emory Upton, Patrick Duckwall, and William McPherson voting aye;
none voting no; none absent; none not voting.
The following minutes are the January 9, 2006 Record of Proceedings
that were amended and approved by the Board of Adjustment at the July
24, 2006 Meeting:
Camden County Board of Adjustment
Minutes
Record of Proceedings
January 9, 2006
7:00 PM
Camden County Courthouse
Courthouse Complex
Chairman Roger Lambertson called to order a meeting of the Camden County
Board of Adjustment with the following members present:
Chairman Roger Lambertson
Vice Chairman Morris Kight
Members Emory Upton, Patrick Duckwall and Douglas Lane
The following members were absent: William McPherson
Also present were Dan Porter, Director of Planning, Dave Parks, Permit
Officer, and Lori Tuss, Clerk to the Board of Adjustments.
Chairman Lambertson called for consideration of the agenda. Chairman
Lambertson announced that the Camden County Commissioners unanimously
voted in favor of Patrick Duckwall as a regular voting member of the
Camden County Board of Adjustments.
Chairman Lambertson called for consideration of the November 15, 2006
minutes. Patrick Duckwall made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Emory Upton seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0: none opposed.
Chairman Lambertson called for comments from the public. Hearing none,
he continued with the agenda.
New Business
Item #1 Variance Application (UDO 2005-11-44) from G Matt Wood to Article
151.060 of the Camden County Code (Minimum Lot Sizes) in Highway Commercial
(HC) zone located at 131 Gumberry Road, Courthouse Township
Permit Officer Dave Parks was sworn in and stated that the staff
recommends granting the applicant, G. Matt Wood, a variance based on
the fact that under the provisions of the current ordinance, the applicant
can make no reasonable use of his property. Dave Parks stated that
Mr. Harrell is available for questioning.
Chairman Lambertson addressed the staff in order to clarify the variance
and finding of facts for this property.
The Board made note to question the finding of facts question # 21.
Mr. Parks acknowledged the corrections. The corrections were made.
Matt Harrell, acting as a representative for G. Matt Wood, was sworn
in and Chairman Lambertson asked Mr. Harrell if he understood the restrictions
that will apply to this variance. Mr. Harrell acknowledges that he understands
the conditions of the variance and what it entails.
Tracy Cartwright was sworn in and Chairman Lambertson asked her about
her business on the property in question and how long the business has
been in operation.
Having heard all sworn testimony and verifying the finding of facts
which included question about the water, sewage, and intensions for the
use of this property at 131 Gumberry Road, Chairman Lambertson asked
the Board to vote on all six questions. The results are as follows:
1. If the applicant complies strictly with
provisions of the Ordinance, he can make no reasonable use of his
property. Applicant’s
response: Property cannot be transferred to the current tenant thus
no improvements
can be made by tenant.
Staff response: If applicant complies with the provisions of the Ordinance
and with the location and size of this particular piece of the parcel,
it cannot be utilized for farming as the rest of the parcel thus restricting
reasonable use. Nor can the property be used for any residential or commercial
use due to the minimum lot size requirements.
Chairman Lambertson made a motion that if the applicant complies
with the current ordinance, he cannot transfer the property
to the current tenant or make proper use of the property. Patrick
Duckwall seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0: none apposed.
2. The hardship of which
the applicant complains is one suffered by the applicant rather
than by neighbors or the
general public. Applicant’s response: The hardship is suffered by the property owner as this portion is bound on
all sides by public right of ways (NCDOT/ Railroad).
Staff response: The hardship is suffered by the applicant
as this portion that is bound by right of ways and thus cannot
be farmed. Under current zoning,
the property is too small to subdivide. Applicant has made an offer for
the sale of this portion to be utilized as a commercial business
(already existing).
Patrick Duckwall made a motion to accept the staffs finding of facts.
Vice Chairman Morris Kight seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0;
none opposed.
3. Does the hardship relate to the
applicant’s land, rather than
personal circumstances? Applicant’s response: The hardship relates
to the land and its location.
Staff response: The hardship relates
to the land and the way it is separated from the bona fide farm that
sits across
the railroad right of way.
Emory Upton made a motion to accept the staffs finding
of facts. Douglas Lane seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0;
none opposed.
4. The hardship is unique, or nearly so, rather
than one shared by many surrounding properties. Applicant’s response: Yes
Staff response: What is unique about this portion
is that the land is separated by the Norfolk Southern Railroad
from the larger tract. This portion is approximately
13,000 sq ft and is large enough to support the existing business, but
not large enough to subdivide under current zoning, and the
applicant does not
desire to cut into his farm to create a lot. The portion across the railroad
track would not be utilized by the business.
Vice Chairman Morris Kight made a motion to support
the approval of the staff findings. Douglas Lane seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0;
none opposed.
5. The hardship is not the result of the
applicant’s
own actions.
Applicant’s response: The hardship is not the result of my
actions as the land has been in my family prior to the railroad right
of way.
Staff response: The hardship is not the result
of the applicant’s
actions.
Chairman Lambertson made a motion to accept the
applicants request based on the finding of facts. Douglas Lane
seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0;
none opposed.
6. The Variance will neither result in the extension
of a nonconforming situation in violation of Articles 151.360-368
nor authorize the initiation
of a
non conforming use of land.
Staff response: If variance is approved, this will
result in a nonconforming lot in
respect to current density requirements.
The current use as a beauty salon is non-conforming.
A variance will create a
non conforming lot.
Douglas Lane made a motion to accept staff recommendation. Vice Chairman
Morris Kight seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0; none opposed.
Chairman Lambertson asked the applicant and the board members if they
have read the following conditions to the Variance. All present have
read and understand the following conditions:
- The applicant must strictly abide by all requirements
of the Unified Development Ordinance of Camden County, North Carolina,
and must also
strictly comply with all other local, state, and federal ordinances,
laws, rules and regulations as one or more ordinances, laws, rules
and regulations may apply to this development.
- Applicant shall subdivide out and record this portion within
six months from date of approval of variance.
- The applicant must sign before a notary public the Variance
agreeing to the conditions by February 10, 2006 of the Variance
shall become null and void.
- Any violation of this Variance and its conditions will result
in revocation.
Chairman Lambertson asks the Board to approve or deny the Variance with
conditions (A-D). Douglas Lane made a motion to approve the Variance
with conditions (A-D). Patrick Duckwall seconded the motion. The motion
passed 5-0; none opposed.
The Variance is granted.
Items for Board members and staff
The staff and Board discussed future meetings.
The Chairman, Roger Lambertson, took the opportunity to remind everyone
present that all testimony and or statements by the general public, applicants,
staff, and attorneys must follow the rules for the Board of Adjustment;
all testimony and statements must be sworn in under oath for the record
of the Board of Adjustment.
Consideration for date of next meeting – February 13, 2006
Chairman Lambertson cannot be present according to the current schedule.
Adjournment
Emory Upton made a motion to adjourn. Chairman Lambertson seconded the
motion. The motion passed 5-0; none opposed.
Approved:________________
Date |
___________________________
Chairman Roger Lambertson |
ATTEST:
________________________
Lori Tuss
Clerk to the Board
Comments from the Public-
Chairman Lambertson invited anyone from the public to come forward at
this time to discuss any items other than what is on the agenda. Hearing
none and seeing none, Chairman Lambertson proceeded with the meeting.
Old Business:
Chairman Lambertson asked the Board if there was any old business to
consider. Hearing none and seeing none Chairman Lambertson moved on to
New Business.
New Business
Item #1 Variance Application UDO # 2006-07-06 – Melissa & Richard
Travena
Flood Administrator Dave Parks was sworn in under oath by the Clerk.
Mr. Parks stated that Richard and Melissa Travena have applied
for a Variance under article 151.334 Flood Plain Management.
Mr. and Mrs. Travena applied for the Variance requesting that the duct
work
on their newly constructed home be permitted to fall below the
base flood elevation.
Mr. Parks stated that in November of 2004 the applicant’s builder,
Bob Burns Construction, applied for a building permit (M- 4168) listed
as UDO #
2004-11-12. The property in question at 128 Swinson Road located in South
Mills Township is in the Flood Zone marked AE with a Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) of
6.7ft.
Mr. Parks noted that three elevation certificates are required in flood
zones; however, the applicant was only required to present two elevation
certificates
based on the professional survey prepared by Hyman & Robey Surveying which
listed the lowest adjacent elevation for the house site at 8.00ft ( Survey
dated 10-05-2004 under C3 –f – Lowest adjacent (finished) grade).
Mr. Parks further stated that under standard office policy- if the lowest
adjacent grade is recorded at or above the base flood elevation (6.7ft)
the applicant
is not required to construct flood vents or construct drawings showing
proper elevation for the house. Furthermore, the applicant would only need
to obtain
a final elevation for the purpose of submitting a Letter of Map Amendment
to FEMA in order to remove their property from the flood zone for insurance
purposes.
Based on all the requirements for this application, only two elevation
certificates were officially required.
When Mr. Parks added that when he received the final elevation certificate,
he noticed that the survey listing the lowest adjacent grade had dropped
from 8.00ft as noted in the initial elevation certificate to 3.88 ft.
Mr. Parks
then contacted the surveyor and the builder. The surveyor told Mr. Parks
that the builder did not stake out the property but rather built the
house on the
site drawing for the septic permit issued by the Health Department. Mr.
Parks stated that the builder and surveyor have issues with who is at
fault.
Mr. Parks further stated that he examined the site and deemed that
the corrections were done that could be done and due to the size
of the house
and difficulties
involved, the duct work can not be lifted.
Staff recommends that the application be approved based on the finding
of facts consistent with the Camden County Codes and on the fact
that the applicants
were not personally at fault for the errors made.
At the pleasure of the Board, Mr. Parks read the following conditions
applicable to the granting of approval of the application if approved
by the Board of Adjustment.
- The applicant must strictly abide by all other requirements of the
Unified Development Ordinance of Camden County, North Carolina,
and must also strictly comply with all other local, state, and
federal ordinances, laws, rules and regulations as one or more ordinances,
laws, rules
and
regulations may apply to this development.
- The Variance shall only apply to the duct work under the house
and nothing else.
- The applicant shall amend deed to the property to state “Variance
granted by Camden County Board of Adjustments to floodplain requirements
as recorded in Book____ Page_____.”
- The granting of the Variance shall not create liability on the
part of Camden County from any flood damages that may occur.
- The applicant must sign before a notary public the Variance
agreeing to the conditions by August 14, 2006 or the Variance shall
become null and void.
The staff informed the Board that the property owners were present for
questioning.
Chairman Lambertson acknowledged staff, but wished to first question
the staff.
Staff stated that the procedure under Variance rules have all been followed.
Chairman Lambertson asked the staff about how this situation with the
Travena’s happened, why it happened, and if this situation can
be avoided in the future.
Staff noted that policies will be stricter in the future. All three
elevation certificates will be required. However, staff stated
that surveyors are licensed to give a professional analysis which is
the documentation
required by the Camden County Flood Plain Administrator.
Board asked if an additional elevation certificate would have prevented
the situation the applicant is in now.
Parks stated that the issue could have been avoided; however, it was
not necessary under current policy.
The Board asked if the only issue was the duct work under the house.
Staff stated that the duct work is the only issue at this time.
Board asked the staff what work is normally done at the time that a
second elevation certificate would be required for property in a flood
zone meeting stricter requirements.
Staff stated that the second elevation is needed when the Box inspection
( floor framing) is complete. Again Mr. Parks stated that since the initial
elevation certificate listed the lowest adjacent flood at 8.00 ft, the
second elevation certificate was not required. However, it will be required
for everyone from this point on regardless of the lowest adjacent grade
on the survey.
Chairman Lambertson asked that the Clerk swear in the applicant under
oath so that the board could question them.
Mr. Richard Travena, living currently at 905 Gould Ave. in Chesapeake,
Virginia was sworn in under oath.
Mr. Travena stated that He and his wife thought they hired the
right people to build their home. Mr. Travena has been living
in his father-in- laws home for over two years while waiting
for their home
to be completed. Mr. Travena stated that he thought that hiring
someone to build their home was a wise idea, but many delays
and issues have
delayed their being able to move into their new home.
Hearing no other questions for the applicant, the meeting proceeded.
Chairman Lambertson read the following items to consider for discussion.
ItemA – K
1. Items to consider:
- The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to
the injury of others:
Staff response: It is unlikely that the possibility of materials
being swept onto other lands as if flooding occurs the area will most
likely just have a rise and fall in flood waters due to the contour of
the land in the county (flat).
At this time, Chairman Lambertson passed around five photos for the
Board and applicant to view. Mr. Lambertson stated that the pictures
have been provided in order to demonstrate the importance and purpose
of having Flood Plain Ordinances. The Photos provided by staff are of
flooded streets and properties in Camden County.
The meeting then proceeded with the following:
- The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage:
Staff response: In general, any flooding may result in damage to
property. The approval of the requested variance could result in additional
damage to those portions of the house below the Base Flood Elevation
(HVAC ductwork) However, there should not be additional danger to life.
- The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents
to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual
owner:
Staff response: The only susceptibility to the house would
be the
utilities that are located below the BFE. The first floor is located
1 foot above the BFE which provides added protection to the contents
of the house.
- The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility
to the community: N/A
- The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location as a
functionally dependant facility, where applicable: N/A
- The availability of alternative locations, not subject to flooding
or erosion damage, for the purposed use:
Staff response: There are no other locations under the house that
would bring everything into compliance with flood zone requirements.
The only alternative would be to lift the house off the foundation and
raise it.
- The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated
development:
Staff response: The area surrounding the property is all zoned
for residential development.
- The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan
and floodplain management program for that area:
Staff response: The residential use, is consistent with the comprehensive
plan and floodplain program, however the requested variance is from the
floodplain regulations, which allow for minor variances if approved by
the Board of Adjustment.
- The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary
and emergency vehicles:
Staff response: It is hard to determine as the flood maps are
based on the 1% chance that a 100 year storm will occur each year and
this
county has never experienced this type of event. If this event
was to occur, Floodplain Administrator has determined that access to
this property
and others will be difficult as access is only off Bunker Hill
Road which runs along Joyce Creek that will rise over the road. However,
this variance
will not increase the difficulty of access.
- The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and
sediment transport of the flood waters and the effects of wave
action, if applicable, expected at the site:
Staff response: Unable to determine the expected heights, however
this is why the BFE’s are established as these heights are determined
to provide adequate safety to the dwelling and its contents during
such a rain event.
- The costs of providing governmental services during and after
flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities
and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems, and
streets and bridges:
Staff response: Again unable to determine, but the costs could
be high depending on flood heights during the type of rain event.
Chairman Lambertson read the following Minimum Requirements # 21 – A,
B, and C to be put to a vote by the Board.
Minimum requirements for approval:
- A showing of good and sufficient cause?
Staff response: During the time of construction, the owner had
no idea what was taking place. The problem did not arise until the
pre-final inspection of the house. The builder, home owner, surveyor
and staff met on site and went over all floodplain and building issues.
The builder has agreed to fix what could be done without burdening
the home owner with additional costs (i.e. elevating some electrical
components, heating and air conditioning units) to comply with floodplain
requirements.
- A determination that failure to grant the variance would result
in exceptional hardship?
Staff response: Staff has determined that failure to grant the
variance would result in exceptional hardship to the owner. The hardship
is based on the owner having no control during the construction in which
she relied upon other people (builder and surveyor). The mortgage company
has been in contact with the home owner stating that they are in jeopardy
of losing their home loan.
- Determination that the granting of variance will not result
in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety,
or extraordinary public expense, create nuisance, cause fraud on or
victimization of the
public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
Staff response: Staff determined that the granting of the variance
will not result in increased flood heights, pose no threat to public
safety, or extraordinary public expense, and create a nuisance, cause
fraud on or victimization of the public.
Patrick Duckwall made a motion to approve the minimum Requirements as
presented in the finding of facts. Vice Chairman Morris Kight seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with Chairman Lambertson, Vice Chairman
Morris Kight, members William McPherson, Emory Upton, and Patrick Duckwall
voting aye; none voting no; none absent; none not voting.
Let the record show that the motion to approve the Minimum Requirements
as recorded in the finding of facts is approved.
Chairman Lambertson asked the applicant if they are fully aware of the
flood plain issues that they the homeowner may potentially face. The
applicant, Mr. Travena, stated that he is aware of the risks and has
prepared by purchasing proper flood insurance for the property at 128
Swinson Road. Chairman Lambertson asked the homeowner if the insurance
specifically covers any damage to the Duct work as a result of a flood.
The homeowner acknowledged that the insurance does cover damage to the
duct work.
With no further items to consider, Chairman Lambertson made a motion
to approve the Variance as requested with the five conditions as stated
in the finding of facts. Vice Chairman Morris Kight seconded the motion.
The motion passed with Chairman Roger Lambertson, Vice Chairman Morris
Kight, members Emory Upton, Patrick Duckwall, William McPherson voting
aye; none voting no; none absent; none not voting.
Let the record show that the Variance is approved.
Items for Board members and staff
Staff and Board held a discussion concerning the Special Use Permit
for Blackwater USA. Staff informed the Board about a recent request by
Blackwater for an extension for the operation of hours for their facilities.
Staff wished to elicit imput from the Board. Staff stated that the Planning
Board recently heard the request by Blackwater. The Board of Adjustment
stated that Blackwater has a tremendous impact on Camden County and the
Board recommend that elected officials (Board of Commissioners) make
these decisions; however, the Board of Adjustments will consider these
issues if their ruling is required.
Consideration for date of next meeting – August 16, 2006
Adjournment
A motion to adjourn was made by Emory Upton. Patrick Duckwall seconded
the motion. The motion passed with Chairman Roger Lambertson, Vice Chairman
Morris Kight, Members Emory Upton, Patrick Duckwall, and William McPherson
voting aye; none voting no; none absent; none not voting.
Approved: ____________________
Date |
____________________________
Chairman Roger Lambertson |
ATTEST:
________________________
Lori Tuss
Clerk to the Board
