Camden
County Board of Adjustment
Record of Proceedings
February 14, 2005
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. Chairman Lambertson added
an item as 5a: Review of Procedures.
Chairman Lambertson
called for consideration of the December 6, 2004 minutes. Chairman
Lambertson made one change to the minutes. Kight made a motion
to approve the minutes as amended. Upton seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0.
Chairman Lambertson
called for consideration of the December 20, 2004 minutes. Chairman
Lambertson made three changes to the minutes. Chairman Lambertson
made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Royle seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Chairman Lambertson
called for comments from the public. Hearing none he continued
with the agenda.
Chairman Lambertson
read from Chapter 6 of the Institute of Government on procedures
of the board.
New Business
Item #1 Variance
Application (UDO 2005-01-04) from Jean Scott to Article 151.060
of the Camden County Code (Minimum Lot Sizes) in an R-3 zoned
district located at 109 River Road, Courthouse Township
Jean Scott, applicant
was sworn in and stated she was currently building a home at
109 River Road. The property has some existing bulkhead but there
is a small stripe of land approximately 250 feet that does not
have bulkhead. The area that is not bulkheaded causes severe
flooding when there are heavy winds and hurricanes and makes
the road impassable for buses and residents that live on the
road. Ms. Scott does not have the money at the current time to
bulkhead the area but she does have a CAMA permit that will allow
the bulkheading to be done. Ms. Scott is requesting the variance
to allow her to deed the portion of land that is not bulkheaded
to Mr. Sanders and allow him to bulkhead the property.
Chairman Lambertson
called for a motion to open the public hearing. Royle made a
motion to open the public hearing. McPherson seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0.
James Williams, fiancé of
the applicant, was sworn in and stated there has been so much
erosion on the lot were they want the bulkhead to go. The Corp
of Engineers has been out to the property. The land has eroded
into their 25 foot area and the Corp of Engineers is almost ready
to put in rift wrap on the street, approximately 20-30 feet.
Mr. Sanders’ house is directly across the road from the
property. Mr. Williams would like to give Mr. Sanders the non-bulkheaded
property so that he may bulkhead the part which has been eroded.
Mr. Sanders was sworn
in.
Chairman Lambertson
stated that the applicant has requested to transfer the property
to him and asked Mr. Sanders if he would bulkhead the property.
Mr. Sanders stated yes
and stated this was the only section of land not bulkheaded by
the developer. Mr. Sanders stated he was going to bulkhead the
property to protect his property because he did not want to bulkhead
the property and not own it.
Chairman Lambertson
asked if the land was bulkheaded would that stop the state from
putting in the rift wrap.
Ms. Scott stated that
she was under the impression if the property was bulkheaded it
would be better than to rift wrap the property.
Chairman Lambertson
stated since he owns water front property, it is his understanding
that you cannot fill in within 30 feet of the water as far as
CAMA is concerned.
Mr. Williams stated
that he and Ms. Scott had just filled in 52 feet along the bulkhead
of their property.
Dave Parks, staff was
sworn in and stated the residents of Whitehall shores had just
bulkheaded and filled in along the beach area.
Mr. Sanders stated that
CAMA has shown on the permit a line where the bulkhead can go
on the property.
Chairman Lambertson
asked whose name the CAMA permit is in.
Mr. Sanders stated the
CAMA permit is in Ms. Scott’s name.
Chairman Lambertson
stated the information does not state the amount of property
to be given to Mr. Sanders.
Dave Parks stated the
survey and deed will state the amount of property given on the
recombination survey.
Chairman Lambertson
stated the date on the CAMA permit says that the permit has expired.
The permit was issued on 11/9/04 and the permit states it expires
2/9/04. The date needs to be corrected and an extension can probably
be granted.
Hearing no more questions,
Chairman Lambertson called for a motion to close the public hearing.
McPherson made a motion to close the public hearing. Kight seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Chairman Lambertson
called upon staff for any more comments. Staff stated it feels
the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for approval of
the variance.
If the applicant complies strictly with provisions
of the Ordinance, he can make no reasonable use of his property.
Applicant response: No. I cannot use this property
to build on or do anything else with. I am unable to afford the
bulkhead and fill needed to prevent further erosion.
Staff response: If applicant complies with the provisions
of the Ordinance, they cannot make reasonable use of the
portion requiring a bulkhead as it is to narrow for any
structure. The strip of land has eroded approximately 10
feet since January 2001 as evident by the aerial photo
and current condition.
McPherson made a motion that if applicant complies
with the provisions of the Ordinance, they cannot make
reasonable use of the portion requiring a bulkhead as it
is to narrow for any structure. The strip of land has eroded
approximately 10 feet since January 2001 as evident by
the aerial photo and current condition. Kight seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
The hardship of which the applicant complains is one
suffered by the applicant rather than by neighbors or the general
public.
Applicant response: All of the neighbors suffer
from flooding and the school buses are unable to pass on
the road. If the erosion is not checked, the road will
become damaged from the flooding.
Staff response: The hardship is suffered by the
applicant, neighbors and general public as if the erosion
continues this will eventually cause the road to collapse.
Upton made a motion that the hardship is suffered
by the applicant, neighbors and general public as if the
erosion continues this will eventually cause the road to
collapse. Royle seconded the motion. The motion passed
5-0.
Does the hardship relate to the applicant’s land,
rather than personal circumstances?
Applicant response: The hardship relates to the
land rather than personal circumstances.
Staff response: The hardship relates to the land
and the continuing erosion of the shore and it threatening
the possible collapsing of the road.
McPherson made a motion that the hardship relates
to the land and the continuing erosion of the shore and
it threatening the possible collapsing of the road. Chairman
Lambertson seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
The hardship is unique, or nearly so, rather than one
shared by many surrounding properties.
Applicant response: Yes, hardship is unique.
Staff response: What is unique about this is that
you have the applicant that just purchased the property
to build a house, can not afford to bulk head this narrow
area and is willing to deed that portion to Mr. Clarence
Sanders so he can bulk head the area to prevent further
erosion, thus preventing the possible collapsing of the
road.
Royle made a motion that what is unique about this
is that you have the applicant that just purchased the
property to build a house, can not afford to bulk head
this narrow area and is willing to deed that portion to
Mr. Clarence Sanders so he can bulk head the area to prevent
further erosion, thus preventing the possible collapsing
of the road. Kight seconded the motion. The motion passed
5-0.
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 actions.
Chairman Lambertson made a motion that the hardship
is not the result of the applicant’s actions. McPherson
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
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 nonconforming use of land.
Staff response: If variance is approved, this will
improve the square footage to a non conforming lot and
decrease the square footage to another.
McPherson made a motion that if the variance is
approved, this will improve the square footage to a non-conforming
lot and decrease the square footage to another. Upton seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Chairman Lambertson
requested that staff read the 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 to reflect
on recombination survey “Variance granted by Camden County
Board of Adjustment February 14, 2005.
- The Bulk Head to
be installed within twelve (12) months of approval or this
Variance will become null and void and property will revert
back to previous owner.
- The applicant must
sign before a notary public the Variance agreeing to the conditions
by March 14, 2005 or the Variance shall become null and void.
Chairman Lambertson
stated he would like to add a condition as Condition C: The permit
from CAMA for bulkhead must be renewed. Change condition “c” to “d” and
condition “d” to “e”. Is twelve months
long enough to bulkhead?
Staff feels that twelve
months is long enough. The county is currently having a bulkheading
done at Shiloh Landing and were told it would be done in 2-3
months. If and extension is needed, Mr. Sanders can come back
to the board and request and extension.
After some discussion
among the board and staff, Chairman Lambertson called for a motion.
Royle made a motion to approve the variance with conditions as
recommended by staff. Kight seconded the motion. The motion passed
5-0.
Chairman Lambertson
stated that it seems that this action to bulkhead the shore line
to prevent erosion of the roadway is a direct benefit to a state
maintained road. This preventative action could save the state
a significant amount of money. It does not seem fair that a citizen
of the county should have to pay the $250.00 application fee
for an action that would benefit the state.
Staff stated the board
could recommend the fees be waived minus the advertising cost.
Chairman Lambertson
made a motion to waive the application fee less the cost associated
with the advertising. McPherson seconded the motion.
Randell Woodruff, County
Manager, was sworn in and stated he did not have a problem with
the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
Chairman Lambertson
amended his motion to recommend to the Board of Commissioners
that the fees be waived less the cost associated with the advertising.
Mr. Woodruff stated
that maybe staff would need to confirm with the County Attorney
the correct procedure for the board to recommend the waiver.
Chairman Lambertson
made a motion that this board, if it has the authority, would
waive the application fee less advertising cost and if it does
not have the authority, to recommend to the Commissioners. McPherson
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Item #2 Variance
Application (UDO 2005-01-21) from Ricky and Shelia Edwards
to install a doublewide mobile home in a General Use District
located at 416B Wickham Road – Shiloh Township
Ricky Edwards, applicant,
was sworn in and stated he had bought the property about four
years ago on Wickham Road. At the time there was an old singlewide
mobile home on the property which was replaced and the property
was split into two pieces. When the property was split a doublewide
was allowed on the second piece but was done at that time. A
water tap was put in and the driveway was put in but when he
came to the county, they would not let him install a doublewide
because the property had been rezoned, unknowingly to him. Mr.
Edwards stated he had not received any information from the county
on the rezoning. The request for a variance is to be able to
put a doublewide on the property. The property owners on either
side had signed a paper stating they did not have a problem with
Mr. Edwards installed a doublewide. There was a county map showing
the zoning of the property and surrounding properties. The home
is currently being stored because Mr. Edwards has no place to
put it. The surrounding properties are singlewides, doublewides,
and site built homes. Mr. Edwards stated the house is of age
but looks nice and it would be for rental property. Mr. Edwards
then showed the board a copy of his survey.
Chairman Lambertson
question the date of the rezoning.
Staff stated the rezoning
was part of the County’s Growth Management and was approved
in August of 2002. The county adopted major amendments to the
ordinance and zoning maps. There were public hearings advertised
in the paper and a notice was sent to every land owner at that
time. When Mr. Edwards spilt the property the zoning did not
allow for doublewides.
Chairman Lambertson
stated the survey shows the date signed is January 3, 2002 which
was one month prior to the rezoning. Who stated a doublewide
was permissible?
Mr. Edwards stated that
Dave Parks had told him a doublewide was permissible.
Staff stated at that
time a doublewide was permissible. Staff stated the yellow color
on the map was General Use and the brown color was R-2, which
R-2 permits doublewides.
Chairman Lambertson
questioned when the singlewide was placed on the property as
a replacement to the existing singlewide.
Mr. Edwards stated the
existing singlewide was in poor condition and he had some much
time to replace it.
Staff stated that if
the lot was empty a singlewide was not allowed but because there
was an existing singlewide it was grandfathered and could be
replaced.
Hearing no more comments
or questions, Chairman Lambertson continued with the variance
questions:
If the applicant complies strictly with provisions
of the Ordinance, he can make no reasonable use of his property.
Applicant response: No.
Staff response: If applicant complies with the provisions
of the Ordinance, they can make reasonable use of property
by installing a Modular or Site Built home.
Chairman Lambertson made a motion that if the applicant
complies with the provisions of the Ordinance, they can
make reasonable use of the property by installing a Modular
or site built home. Kight seconded the motion. The motion
passed 5-0.
The hardship
of which the applicant complains is one suffered by the applicant
rather than by neighbors or the general public.
Applicant response: Yes. Applicant relied upon prior
representations of County officials.
Staff response: The hardship that the applicant
suffers affects neighbors and the general public.
Kight made a motion that the hardship is that the
applicant suffers affects neighbors and the general public.
McPherson seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Does the
hardship relate to the applicant’s land, rather than
personal circumstances?
Applicant response: Yes
Staff response: The hardship relates to a conflict
between the applicant’s proposed use and zoning requirements
for General Use Districts.
Upton made a motion that the hardship relates to
a conflict between the applicant’s proposed use and
zoning requirements for General Use Districts. Royle seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
The hardship is unique, or nearly so, rather than one
shared by many surrounding properties.
Applicant response: Yes.
Staff response: The hardship is not unique as zoning
regulations affect all residents of the county.
McPherson made a motion that the hardship is not
unique as zoning regulations affect all residents of the
county. Chairman Lambertson seconded the motion. The motion
passed 5-0.
The hardship is not the result of the applicant’s
own actions.
Applicant response: Hardship is not the result of
the applicants own actions.
Staff response: Staff feels there is not hardship
that would justify issuing a variance.
Chairman Lambertson made a motion that there is
not hardship that would justify issuing a variance. McPherson
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
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.
Applicant response: The issuance of a variance will
neither result in the extension of a nonconforming situation
in violation of Articles 151.360-368 nor in the initiation
of a nonconforming use of the property.
Staff response: The issuance of a variance will
create a nonconforming use of land.
McPherson made a motion that the issuance of a
variance will create a nonconforming use of land. Kight
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Kight made a motion
to approve the variance. Royle seconded the motion. Chairman
Lambertson voted nay, McPherson voted nay, Kight voted yes, Upton
voted yes, and Royle voted yes. The variance was denied with
at 3-2 vote as the ordinance requires a 4/5 majority vote for
an application to be approved.
Items
for Board members and staff
Staff stated the Planner
from Pasquotank County was trying to get together a meeting for
a training session with the Institute of Government. Staff did
not have a time or date but would inform the board when the meeting
was to be scheduled.
Board and staff discussed
the idea of a training meeting in April. Staff will get together
information on variances to bring before the board at the scheduled
meeting in April.
Consideration
for date of next meeting – March 14, 2005
The board set a tentative
meeting date as March 15, 2005.
Adjournment
Chairman Lambertson
made motion that the meeting of the Camden County Board of Adjustment
be adjourned. Upton seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
