#
BOARD OF COMMISSIONSERS

JEFFREY B. JENNINGS
Chairman
SAMUEL K. SHAW, SR.
Vice-Chairman
J.C. ROUNDTREE
MELVIN JERALDS
CLAYTON D. RIGGS

RANDELL K. WOODRUFF
County Manager

AVA MURGIA
Clerk of the Board/
Assistant to the Manager

Camden County Board of Adjustment

Record of Proceedings

June 7, 2004

7:00 PM

Senior Center Conference Room

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 William McPherson, Tony Royle, Emory Upton, Patrick Duckwall and Douglas Lane

 

The following members were absent:  none

 

Also present were Dave Parks, Permit Officer and Melissa Joines, Clerk to the Board. 

 

Chairman Lambertson called for consideration of the agenda.  There were no changes and no motion made.

 

Chairman Lambertson called for consideration of the April 6, 2004 minutes.  Kight made a motion to approve the minutes.  Royle seconded the motion.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

Chairman Lambertson called for comments from the public.  Hearing none Chairman Lambertson continued with the agenda.

 

New Business

 

Item #1           Variance Application (UDO 2004-05-02) to install a Class B singlewide mobile home in General Use District (GUD) to provide health care located at 466 Horseshoe Road, South Mills Township

 

Chairman Lambertson stated that Upton could not be a voting member on this issue, that Lane would be the voting member in Upton’s place.

 

Barbara Sawyer, applicant was sworn in and stated she was requesting to put a singlewide mobile home on her property for her father.  Mrs. Sawyer stated it would be for medical reasons so that she could ensure that her father takes his proper medications and can get to certain places on time.  Mrs. Sawyer stated the current zoning would not allow for a singlewide.  Mrs. Sawyer presented the board with a letter from the adjacent property owners stated the approval of the request.

 

Chairman Lambertson stated he had ridden out to the property and stated it was a long ways down Horseshoe Road.  Chairman Lambertson stated there were other doublewides and singlewides in the area.

Hearing no more comments or questions, Chairman Lambertson continued with the variance questions:

 

1.      If the applicant complies strictly with provisions of the Ordinance, he can make no reasonable use of his property.                                                                                                                                                                                            

Applicant response:   My father has a singlewide trailer at Powell’s Trailer Park that has to be moved due to his medical condition.  The property I own at 466 Horseshoe Road is zoned General Use District (GUD) and only thing permissible is site built or modular housing.

Staff response:  If applicant complies with the provisions of the Ordinance, they can make reasonable use of property.   

Kight made a motion that if applicant complies with the provisions of the Ordinance, they can make reasonable use of property.  Royle seconded the motion.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

2.      The hardship of which the applicant complains is one suffered by the applicant rather than by neighbors or the general public.                                                  

Applicant response:  Yes, the hardship is suffered by my family, as my father George Upton is 81 years old and has been a resident of South Mills all his life.  He was in the hospital from December to March.  He needs to be close to me so I can take care of him by making sure he takes his medication and is eating. 

Staff response:  The hardship is suffered by the applicant and not by the neighbors or general public.  

McPherson made a motion that the hardship is suffered by the applicant and not by the neighbors or general public.  Lane seconded the motion.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

3.      Does the hardship relate to the applicant’s land, rather than personal circumstances?                                                                              

Applicant response:  The hardship relates to personal circumstances and the land, as my property is not large enough to subdivide and singlewides are not permissible in the GUD.  Also, my father owns the singlewide and cannot afford to purchase a modular or build a new home.

Staff response:  The hardship relates to the land and personal circumstances as member desires to provide the necessary health care and honor her father’s request to live on his own, but current zoning laws prohibit having two dwellings on one lot and singlewides are not permissible in a General Use District (GUD).

Chairman Lambertson made a motion that the hardship relates to the land and personal circumstances as member desires to provide the necessary health care and honor her father’s request to live on his own, but current zoning laws prohibit having two dwellings on one lot and singlewides are not permissible in a General Use District (GUD).  Lane seconded the motion.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

4.      The hardship is unique, or nearly so, rather than one shared by many surrounding properties.                                                                                                                

Applicant response:  Yes, hardship is unique as my father lives to far away for me to ensure he takes his medication and eats right.  He owns a singlewide and cannot afford a modular home or to build.  The use of his singlewide would be on a temporary basis and will be removed when the medical care is no longer required.  

Staff response:   The hardship is unique.

Kight made a motion that the hardship is unique.  McPherson seconded the motion.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

5.      The hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions.                                      

Applicant response:  The hardship is not the result of my actions.

Staff response:  The hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions.

Lane made a motion that the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions.  Royle seconded the motion.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

6.      The Variance will neither result in the extension of a nonconforming situation in violation of Article 14 nor authorize the initiation of a nonconforming use of land.                      

Staff response:  If variance is approved, this will create a temporary nonconforming situation.   

Lane made a motion that if variance is approved, this will create a temporary nonconforming situation.  Kight seconded the motion.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

Chairman Lambertson made a motion to approve the variance with the conditions as recommended by staff.  Kight seconded the motion.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

Items for Board members and staff

 

Staff stated they were going to try and contact the Institute of Government to see if they were interested in having a training session for the board.

 

Information

 

Board of Commissioners Minutes – March 31, 2004 & April 5, 2004

Planning Board Minutes – March 16, 2004

 

Consideration for date of next meeting – July 6, 2004

 

Chairman Lambertson stated since the meeting was on a Tuesday after a holiday, that if a meeting was required to have it on the next Monday.  Staff stated they would extend the deadline date for applications another week.

 

Adjournment

 

Lane made motion that the meeting of the Camden County Board of Adjustment be adjourned.  Kight seconded the motion.  The motion passed 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

 

 

Approved: ______________                           ________________________________

                          Date                                                              Chairman

 

 

ATTEST:

 

________________________

Melissa G. Joines

Clerk to the Board