Regular Meeting
May 19, 2009
MINUTES
The
Staff Members Present:
2 and 3.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited, and the meeting opened with an
invocation by Rev. Lewis Gentry.
4.
Agenda Adjustment: The
Motion By: Sack
Second
By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous
Items
Added to the Agenda: Add tabling of
Annexation A09-01 until June to Consent Agenda; add Resolution 09-15 supporting
Items
Removed from the Agenda: None.
Consent
Agenda Items Removed for Discussion:
None.
Other
Changes: None.
5.
Public Comment: At this time, an opportunity was
provided for members of the audience who had registered to speak to address the
Council on any variety of topics not listed on the night’s agenda. The following input was recorded:
Wayne Holt, Cary – Mr. Holt,
representing the Homebuilders Association of Raleigh /
6a.
Public Hearing: Ordinance 09-08,
UDO Amendment 08-UDO-13 – Ms. L. Powell said as a continuing effort to evaluate the Unified
Development Ordinance and its regulations, staff is proposing to add Mixed Use
option regulations to UDO Section 3.02, Local Business District, as well as
Section 3.05, Community Business District.
This Mixed Use option would specify components as well as design
standards for mixed use projects.
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept input. The
following comments were recorded: None.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Action #1: The Council approved a motion to accept the following statements
as true: “The requested UDO text amendment is consistent with the
Motion By: Sack
Second By: DeBenedetto
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #2: The Council approved a motion to adopt
Ordinance #09-08, to approve and enact UDO Text Amendment #08-UDO-13 to
modify the text of UDO Sections 3.02 Local Business and 3.05 Community Business.
Motion By: Sack
Second By: DeBenedetto
Vote: Unanimous.
A copy
of Ordinance 09-08 is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
6b.
Public Hearing: Ordinance 09-09, UDO Amendment 08-UDO-02 – Ms. L. Powell said the Decision
Matrix was set up as a single point of reference for the Town’s various review
processes to specify what agency is to review, make recommendations, and make
final determination on these processes.
She said the proposed amendment is
to change the process for waivers of Sections 7.06, 7.07, 7.08, or 9.05, B from
requiring review and recommendation by the Technical Review Committee before
going before the Town Council for decision to allowing the Director to make
recommendations and then forward directly to the Town Council for a decision.
Ms. Powell said waivers of these
sections typically are road- and utility-related waivers. This change would be consistent with the
exception process from the Engineering Design and Construction Standards.
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept input. The following
comments were recorded: None.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Action #1: The Council approved a motion to accept the following statement
as true: “The requested UDO Text Amendment is consistent with the
Motion By: DeBenedetto
Second By: Womble
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #2: The Council approved a motion to adopt
Ordinance #09-09, to approve and enact UDO Text Amendment #09-UDO-02 to
modify the text of UDO Section 9.09, Decision Matrix.
Motion By: DeBenedetto
Second By: Womble
Vote: Unanimous.
A copy
of Ordinance 09-09 is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
6c.
Public Hearing: Annexation
Ordinance A09-03 – Ms.
L. Powell said the Town has received a petition
for voluntary satellite annexation of approximately 12.43 +/- acres located at
The petition meets all the statutory
requirements for annexation.
With that explanation completed,
Mayor Sears reopened the public hearing to accept input. The following comments were recorded: None.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Action: The Council approved a motion to adopt
Annexation Ordinance A09-03 annexing approximately 12.43 -/+ acres owned by Church Alive AOG, and more
particularly described as Wake County PINs: 0669.01-27-0181, into the corporate
limits of the Town of
Motion By: Womble
Second By: VanFossen
Vote: Unanimous.
A copy
of Annexation Ordinance A09-03 is incorporated into these minutes as addendum
pages.
6d.
Public Hearing: Rezoning Petition
09-REZ-14 – Ms. L. Powell said the applicant is
requesting to rezone +/- 12.43 acres located at approximately 4880 Optimist
Farm Road from R-30:Residential to R-MF-15: High-Density Multi-family
Residential.
Ms. Powell said the property is not located within the
Town’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, but it is located within the
She said the proposed zoning change to RMF-15: Residential
may have some impacts on the adjacent properties since they currently are zoned
residential. However, the Vision Holly
Springs Plan calls for land on the western side of this property as mixed use
as well. By zoning the subject parcel to
R-MF-15, an appropriate transitional buffer would be created from the recently
developed
The proposed R-MF-15 district would permit project gross
densities of 15 dwelling units per acre.
However, any project in excess of eight dwellings per acre and/or
contains primary buildings in excess of 35 feet in height shall provide one
design feature for each additional dwelling unit per acre and/or provide two
features for each additional story in height above two stories.
She said under the R-MF-15 zoning district, when the
property is developed, the developer would be required to meet architectural
and site design requirements: provide a variety of building materials, multiple
surface textures, façade modulations, architectural elements and multiple
colors.
Ms. Powell explained that this site would be served by water
located in
She said the property is located in the
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept input. The
following comments were recorded:
Don Wiggins,
Addressing a Planning Board concern about increased traffic,
Mr. Wiggins pointed out that
There being no further comments, the public hearing was
closed.
Councilman VanFossen asked what the ultimate build out for
Ms. Sudano responded that
Councilman VanFossen asked if the developer would be
required to provide his portion of the road improvements.
Ms. Sudano said yes.
In addition, she said, the developer would be required to provide a
traffic impact analysis and may be required to provide additional improvements
based on the results.
Tom Hughes,
Councilman DeBenedetto said his concern is about the
residential nature of the neighboring properties in the area, and he would not
want to see high-density residential at this location.
Councilmen VanFossen and Sack disagreed, pointing out that
the RMF-15 district requested would serve as a buffer zone between the
commercial development at the intersection of
Action #1: The Council approved a motion to accept the following
statements as true: “The requested zone map change from R-30 to R-MF15 is consistent with
the
Motion By: Sack
Second By: Dickson
Vote: The motion carried following a 4-1
vote. Councilmen Womble, VanFossen, Sack
and Dickson voted for the motion.
Councilman DeBenedetto voted against.
Action #2: The Council approved a motion to adopt
Rezoning Ordinance R09-02 approving and enacting 08-REZ-14 to change the zoning
of 12.43 acres of Wake County
Motion By: Sack
Second By: Dickson
Vote: The motion carried following a 4-1
vote. Councilmen Womble, VanFossen, Sack
and Dickson voted for the motion. Councilman
DeBenedetto voted against.
A copy
of Rezoning Ordinance R09-02 is incorporated into these minutes as addendum
pages.
At this time, the Council recused
Councilman Chet VanFossen from the meeting.
Action:
The Council approved a motion to
recuse Councilman VanFossen from the meeting due to his professional
association with the subject of Agenda Item 6e as architect for the project.
Motion By: Sack
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous
6e.
Public Hearing: Special
Exception Use 09-SEU-02, Diamond Business Center – Mr. Zawadski said the Town has
received an application for a Special Exception Use request for an integrated center located at 9825 Holly
Springs Road between Sunset Lake Road and Lassiter Road. The proposed plan is for the construction of
a 4,653 square foot minor automobile repair building and 3,000 square foot
retail building.
Mr.
Zawadski said the retail building is proposed to be located near the front of
the property along
He
said the property is proposed to be accessed by a single shared-access driveway
off of
The buildings are proposed to be
constructed primarily of red brick and light brown stone. The proposed architecture includes a variety
of building massing and façade treatments as required by the UDO. Specific features include: building base,
body, and cap, roofline variation, windows, awnings, decorative brick patterns,
stone accents, and decorative building lighting.
He
explained one alternate architectural compliance request was submitted with the
project. The request is to utilize
additional awnings and human scale elements to replace traditional glass
windows. In addition to providing
additional decorative brick patterns and awnings, glass windows are provided on
a total of 26% of the lower 15 feet of the front and side facades.
This
project is located within the Northeast Gateway Plan and is designated as
Business. The intent of the Business
designation is for revitalization, reuse, and infill development with a variety
of designs that integrate shops, restaurants, services, professional offices,
civic, educational, and religious facilities, in a pedestrian-oriented
environment. Vehicular-oriented uses
should not be encouraged in areas with this designation.
Mr.
Zawadski said although this project does include a vehicular-oriented use, it
is Planning Staff’s opinion that the project complies with the goals of the
Northeast Gateway plan since the auto service building would be screened by the
retail building; a safe and attractive pedestrian environment would be provided
by the plaza; parking would be placed to the rear; a sense of place would be created
by the architecture and design; and interconnectivity would be provided by
shared driveways. In addition, the applicant indicated that both buildings
would be constructed at the same time to ensure immediate screening of the auto
building.
Councilman Sack spoke, saying he felt like the new plan was
a big improvement over an original plan that was brought before the
Council. He noted that the Town would
have a need in this area for auto service centers to add to the existing ones
downtown and on the north side of town.
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept sworn testimony.
The following testimony was recorded under oath administered by the Town
Clerk:
Doris Vaughan, 5033 Sunset
Mark Shank, 5405 Leopards Bane -- Mr. Shank spoke in opposition to
the proposed 09-SEU-02. Mr. Shank said
the use was not amenable to the site, and he feels it would be adverse to the
nature of this intersection / gateway.
The fact that there is buffering and that the minor auto repair service
portion of the project is located to the rear of the property, he said, was
evidence that it would not be a suitable use.
Randy Miller, Thompson & Associates – Mr. Miller addressed the Council
in support of the application. He
pointed out that SEUs should not carry negative connotations. Fire stations, schools and community centers
are all SEUs in various districts. He
added that SEUs are provided for in the ordinance not to be negative, but to
provide extra review.
He stressed that the minor automotive repair service was
planned to be a tire service.
On the subject of numerous like uses in a community, he
pointed out that
Brian Phillips, 336 Arbor Crest — Mr. Phillips addressed the
Council, speaking in favor of the application.
He said the project has changed since an original submission, and he
thinks the town needs it. He added that
it would provide a much-needed service.
Mark McMains,
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was
closed.
Councilman DeBenedetto said he agrees with Mr. Shank that
the use is the same as another around the corner and that the use should not be
placed at this location.
Councilman Sack disagreed.
He said it would not detract from the gateway. He added that he felt like the auto repair
center was needed, the plan was attractive, and that the site plan was fitting
to the site.
Action #1: The Council approved a motion to make and accept the findings of
fact to be recorded in the minutes for Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-02
A
special exception use may only
be granted upon the presentation of sufficient evidence to enable a written
determination that:
a. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort,
community moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
b. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the adjacent area;
c. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district, land uses authorized therein, and the Town
of
d. The proposed use shall conform to
all development standards of
the applicable district (unless
a waiver of such development standards is requested as
part of the special exception use petition
and approved as set forth above, in which case the proposed use shall conform
to the terms and conditions of such waiver).
e. Access
drives or driveways are or will be sufficient
in size and properly located to: ensure automotive and pedestrian safety and
convenience, traffic flow as set forth in Section 7.09 – Pedestrian Circulation
and Vehicular Area Design; and, control and access in case of fire or other
emergency;
f.
Off-street parking areas, off-street loading areas, trash enclosures, trash pick-up and
removal, and other service areas are located so as to be safe, convenient,
allow for access in case of emergency, and to minimize economic, glare, odor,
and other impacts on adjoining properties and properties in the general
neighborhood;
g. The lot, building or
structure proposed for the use has adequate restroom facilities,
cooking facilities, safety equipment (smoke alarms, floatation devices, etc.),
or any other service or equipment necessary to provide for the needs of those
persons whom may work at, visit or own property nearby to the proposed use;
h. Utilities, schools, fire, police and
other necessary public and private facilities and services will be adequate to
handle the needs of the proposed use;
i.
The
location and arrangement of the use on
the site, screening, buffering, landscaping, and pedestrian ways harmonize with
adjoining properties and the general area and minimize adverse impacts; and,
j.
The
type, size, and intensity of the proposed use (including but not limited to such considerations as the
hours of operation and numbers of people who are likely to utilize or be
attracted to the use) will not
have significant adverse impacts on adjoining properties or the neighborhood.
Motion By: Dickson
Second By: Womble
Vote: The motion
carried following a 3-1 vote. Councilmen
Womble, Sack and Dickson voted for the motion.
Councilman DeBenedetto voted against.
A copy
of the Special Exception Use Petition 09-SEU-02 addressing the findings of fact
is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
Action #2: The Council approved a motion to
make and accept the findings of fact to be recorded in the minutes for
alternate compliance with the regulations of UDO Section 3.08, A, 1. c
(2)(c)(ii) Architectural and Site Design
Requirements to allow for additional awnings and human scale elements to be
used in place of traditional glass windows in association with Project
#09-SEU-02 Diamond Business Center, as submitted by Thompson and Associates, project
number DIAMOND, dated revised
- The proposed development
represents the use of (building
materials, colors, textures, building
architecture, roof features, façade modulation, building orientation, signs,
landscaping, lighting or open space) which will result in a
development pattern which is equivalent to or superior to that achievable
under the applicable regulations;
- The proposed development will
be compatible with and will enhance the use or value of area properties;
- The proposed development is
consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan; and,
- The proposed development is
consistent with the intent and purpose of this UDO.
Motion By: Sack
Second By: Dickson
Vote: The motion
carried following a 3-1 vote. Councilmen
Womble, Sack and Dickson voted for the motion.
Councilman DeBenedetto voted against.
Action #3: Having made the findings of fact that the petition meets the
requirements, the Council approved a motion to approve the alternate compliance
with the regulations of UDO Section 3.08, A, 1. c (2)(c)(ii) Architectural and Site Design Requirements to
allow for additional awnings and human scale elements to be used in place of
traditional glass windows in association with Project #09-SEU-02 Diamond
Business Center, as submitted by Thompson and Associates, project number
DIAMOND, dated revised
Motion By: Dickson
Second By: Womble
Vote: The motion carried following a 3-1
vote. Councilmen Womble, Sack and
Dickson voted for the motion. Councilman
DeBenedetto voted against.
Action #4: Having made findings of fact that the project meets the
requirements to be granted a Special Exception Use, the Council approved a motion
to grant Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-02
1.
Prior
to signage installation, sign permits are required to be obtained by the
Department of Planning & Zoning.
2.
This
project will be required to meet the Town of
3.
A
fee-in-lieu of upgrade will be required for this project for the Pump Station
and/or Force Main
4.
Prior to construction drawing submittal the
following items must be addressed:
a.
All
off-site easements and right-of-way will need to be obtained and
dedicated. This includes the cross
access easement for the drive and any necessary offsite right-of-way for this
project.
b.
Show
the median on the construction drawings to show a grassed median for any
portion that is in excess of 4’ width.
c.
Clarify
the detail to show half of the median as to be constructed with this project.
5.
Prior
to construction drawing approval or issuance of a land disturbance permit for
this project the following items will need to be addressed:
a.
Approval
of Stormwater Management Plan is required.
b.
Payment
of the Stormwater Fee-in-Lieu will be required.
6.
Prior
to issuance of Building Permit, the following must be completed:
Recombination
plat must be recorded.
Motion By: Dickson
Second By: Womble
Vote: The motion
carried following a 3-1 vote. Councilmen
Womble, Sack and Dickson voted for the motion.
Councilman DeBenedetto voted against.
Action:
At this time, the Council
approved a motion to readmit Councilman VanFossen into the meeting.
Motion By: Sack
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous
6f.
Public Hearing: Special Exception Use Petition 09-SEU-06,
She said the property is located
within the
She said the proposed building would
be oriented with the front of the building to
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept sworn testimony.
The following testimony was recorded under oath administered by the Town
Clerk: None.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Action #1: The Council approved a motion to make and accept the findings
of fact to be recorded in the minutes for Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06
for Hunt Center Renovations to allow for a Special Exception Use- Public
Facility: Community Center in the Town Village District as submitted by Withers
& Ravenel, Inc. project number 2090064.0, dated revised
Special
Exception Use Findings of Fact:
A
special exception use may only
be granted upon the presentation of sufficient evidence to enable a written
determination that:
- The proposed use will not be injurious to the
public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or
general welfare;
- The proposed use will not injure or adversely
affect the adjacent area;
- The proposed use will be consistent with the
character of the district,
land uses authorized
therein, and the Town of
- The proposed use shall conform
to all development standards of
the applicable district (unless
a waiver of such development standards is
requested as part of the special
exception use petition and approved as set forth above, in which
case the proposed use shall conform to the terms and conditions of such
waiver).
- Access
drives or driveways are or will be
sufficient in size and properly located to: ensure automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow as set forth in Section 7.09
– Pedestrian Circulation and Vehicular Area Design; and, control and
access in case of fire or other emergency;
- Off-street parking areas, off-street loading
areas, trash enclosures, trash pick-up and removal, and other
service areas are located so as to be safe, convenient, allow for access
in case of emergency, and to minimize economic, glare, odor, and other
impacts on adjoining properties and properties in the general
neighborhood;
- The lot, building or
structure proposed for the
use has adequate restroom
facilities, cooking facilities, safety equipment (smoke alarms, floatation
devices, etc.), or any other service or equipment necessary to provide for
the needs of those persons whom may work at, visit or own property nearby
to the proposed use;
- Utilities, schools, fire,
police and other necessary public and private facilities and services will
be adequate to handle the needs of the proposed use;
- The location and arrangement of
the use on the site,
screening, buffering, landscaping, and pedestrian ways harmonize with
adjoining properties and the general area and minimize adverse impacts;
and,
- The
type, size, and intensity of the proposed use (including but not limited to such considerations as
the hours of operation and numbers of people who are likely to utilize or
be attracted to the use)
will not have significant adverse impacts on adjoining properties or the
neighborhood.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Womble
Vote: Unanimous.
A copy
of the Special Exception Use Petition 09-SEU-06 addressing the findings of fact
is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
Action #2: The Council approved a motion to make and accept the
findings of fact to be recorded in the minutes for a waiver of regulations of
UDO Section 3.03, C. 2. b. for a waiver of the regulations that stipulate a
single use building shall be oriented to a plaza and a courtyard for Special
Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06 for Hunt Center Renovations as submitted by
Kling Stubbins.
1. The proposed development represents the use of (building materials, colors, textures, building architecture, roof features,
façade modulation, building
orientation, signs, landscaping,
lighting or open space) which will result in a development pattern which is
equivalent to or superior to that achievable under the applicable regulations;
2.
The proposed development will be compatible with and will enhance the use or value of area properties;
3.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; and,
4.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of
this UDO.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Womble
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #3: Having made findings of fact, the Council approved
a motion to grant a waiver of regulations
of UDO Section 3.03, C. 2. b from the regulations that stipulate a single use
building shall be oriented to a plaza and a courtyard for Special Exception Use
Petition #09-SEU-06 Hunt Center Renovations.
Motion By: Womble
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #4: The Council approved a motion to make and accept the
findings of fact to be recorded in the minutes for a waiver of regulations of
UDO Section 3.03 C. 1. c(3) (a) (ii) to allow for a relief of providing a varying setback of at least 2 feet
or variation in façade segments for every 50 feet of building length for
Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06 for Hunt Center Renovations as
submitted by Kling Stubbins.
1. The proposed development
represents the use of (building materials,
colors, textures, building architecture,
roof features, façade modulation, building
orientation, signs, landscaping,
lighting or open space) which will result in a development pattern which is
equivalent to or superior to that achievable under the applicable regulations;
2.
The proposed development will be compatible with and will enhance the use or value of area properties;
3.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; and,
4.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of
this UDO.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #5: Having made the findings of fact, the Council approved a motion
to grant a waiver of regulations of UDO Section 3.03 C. 1. c(3) (a) (ii) to allow for a relief of providing a
varying setback of at least 2 feet or variation in façade segments for every 50
feet of building length for Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06 for Hunt
Center Renovations as submitted by Kling Stubbins.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #6: The Council approved a motion to make and accept the
findings of fact to be recorded in the minutes for a waiver of regulations of
UDO Section 3.03 C. 1. b. to allow for 20% reduction of the allowed primary building material of
the first floor elevation from 60% to 40% for Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06
for Hunt Center Renovations as submitted by Kling Stubbins.
1. The proposed development
represents the use of (building materials,
colors, textures, building
architecture, roof features, façade modulation, building orientation, signs,
landscaping, lighting or open space) which will result in a
development pattern which is equivalent to or superior to that achievable under
the applicable regulations;
2. The
proposed development will be compatible with and will enhance the use or value of area properties;
3. The
proposed development is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; and,
4. The
proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of this UDO.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #7: Having made the findings of fact, the Council
approved a motion to grant a waiver of regulations of UDO Section 3.03 C. 1. b.
to allow for 20% reduction of the allowed primary building material of the
first floor elevation from 60% to 40% for Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06
Hunt Center Renovations.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #8: The Council approved a motion to make and accept the findings
of fact to be recorded in the minutes for a waiver of regulations of UDO Section
3.03 C. 1. (3) (iv) to allow for a reduction in the required 40% of windows,
display windows, doors or transoms
located at the first floor elevation for Special Exception Use Petition
#09-SEU-06 for Hunt Center Renovations as submitted by Eric Heinsohn of Kling
Stubbins.
1. The proposed development
represents the use of (building materials,
colors, textures, building
architecture, roof features, façade modulation, building orientation, signs,
landscaping, lighting or open space) which will result in a
development pattern which is equivalent to or superior to that achievable under
the applicable regulations;
2. The
proposed development will be compatible with and will enhance the use or value of area properties;
3. The
proposed development is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; and,
4. The
proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of this UDO.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #9: Having made findings of fact, the Council approved a motion
to grant a waiver of regulations of UDO Section 3.03 C. 1. (3) (iv) to allow
for a reduction in the required 40% of windows, display windows, doors or
transoms located at the first floor
elevation for Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06 Hunt Center
Renovations.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #10: The Council approved a motion to make and accept the
findings of fact to be recorded in the minutes for a variance from the Unified
Development Ordinance Section 3.03, B., a., (2). to allow for less than 50 percent of the façade of
the building facing a street to be located at or between the minimum setback
and the maximum setback for Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06 for Hunt
Center Renovations as submitted by Kling Stubbins.
1. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships
that would result from carrying out the strict letter of the UDO. The Board may
reach this conclusion if it finds each of the following:
a.
Based
on the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the applicant is
prohibited from enjoying the same privileges as other properties in the
vicinity and zoning classification in which the property is situated when the
UDO is strictly applied;
b.
The
hardship of which the applicant complains results from unique circumstances related to the applicant's
property;
c.
The
hardship results from the application of the UDO to the property;
d.
The
hardship is not the result of the applicant's own actions; and,
e.
The
variance if granted must be the absolute minimum needed in order to correct the
hardship.
2. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the UDO and preserves its spirit.
3. Granting the variance assures the public safety and
welfare and does substantial justice.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #11: Having made findings of fact, the Council approved a motion
to grant a variance from UDO Section 3.03, B., a., (2). to allow for less than 50 percent of
the façade of the building facing a street to be located at or between the
minimum setback and the maximum setback for Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06
Hunt Center Renovations.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #12: The Council approved a motion to make and accept the
findings of fact to be recorded in the minutes for a variance from the Unified
Development Ordinance Section 3.07, A., 3.c., (3). to allow a trash enclosure to be
located in a front yard for Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06 for Hunt
Center Renovations as submitted by Kling Stubbins.
1. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships
that would result from carrying out the strict letter of the UDO. The Board may
reach this conclusion if it finds each of the following:
a. Based on the size, shape, topography, location, or
surroundings, the applicant is prohibited from enjoying the same privileges as
other properties in the vicinity and zoning classification in which the
property is situated when the UDO is strictly applied;
b. The hardship of which the applicant complains results
from unique circumstances related to the
applicant's property;
c. The hardship results from the application of the UDO to
the property;
d. The hardship is not the result of the applicant's own
actions; and,
e. The variance if granted must be the absolute minimum
needed in order to correct the hardship.
2. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the UDO and preserves its spirit.
3. Granting the variance assures the public safety and
welfare and does substantial justice.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #13: Having made findings of fact, the Council approved
a motion to grant a variance from UDO Section 3.07, A., 3.c., (3). to allow a trash enclosure to be
located in a front yard for Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06 Hunt
Center Renovations.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #14: The Council approved a motion to make and accept the
findings of fact to be recorded in the minutes for a variance from the Unified
Development Ordinance Section 7.01 D. to allow for A reduction in the required
front buffer yard plant unit value from C-75 to A-20 for Special Exception Use
Petition #09-SEU-06 for Hunt Center Renovations as submitted by Kling Stubbins.
1. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships
that would result from carrying out the strict letter of the UDO. The Board may
reach this conclusion if it finds each of the following:
a. Based on the size, shape, topography, location, or
surroundings, the applicant is prohibited from enjoying the same privileges as
other properties in the vicinity and zoning classification in which the
property is situated when the UDO is strictly applied;
b. The hardship of which the applicant complains results
from unique circumstances related to the
applicant's property;
c. The hardship results from the application of the UDO to
the property;
d. The hardship is not the result of the applicant's own
actions; and,
e. The variance if granted must be the absolute minimum
needed in order to correct the hardship.
2. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the UDO and preserves its spirit.
3. Granting the variance assures the public safety and
welfare and does substantial justice.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #15: Having made the findings of fact, the Council approved a
motion to grant a variance from UDO Section 7.01 D. to allow for a reduction in
the required front bufferyard plant unit value from C-75 to A-20 for Special
Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06 Hunt Center Renovations.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #16: Having made findings of fact, the Council approved
a motion to grant Special Exception Use Petition #09-SEU-06 for Hunt Center
Renovations as submitted by Withers & Ravenel, Inc., project number
2090064.0, revised
1.
This
project will be required to meet the Town of
2.
The
project can not raise established flood levels in the existing approved
Remington Basin Flood Study.
3.
Prior
to issuance of a land disturbance permit or construction drawing approval, the
approval of the Stormwater Management Plan is required.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous.
7a.
Doug Ledson Appeal Request - Ms. Keefer explained that
developer Douglas Ledson is appealing to the Town Council for appeal of a civil
penalty that was assessed by the Town of Holly Springs for violations of the
Town’s Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance on the Woods at Avent
Ferry Project. The Town’s ordinance
permits anyone assessed a civil penalty to have an “appeal hearing,”, and, in
this case, before the Town Council.
Ms. Keefer reviewed for Council
members the history and time-line of the Woods at Avent Ferry project
violation.
Inserted below is the appeal letter
received in February from Mr. Ledson.
Following is a response to that letter.
Woods at Avent Ferry Civil Penalty Appeal: Letter Requesting Appeal
“This is a formal
request to have the Town of
On
After the pond was
reconstructed in late August, we continued our grading. However, after stopping
work for about 3 ˝ weeks, a meeting was called for and we all met at the site
on October 20 to determine the next course of action. It was decided that the
pond needed to be certified by the engineer. I called Atkins Grading to verify
everything was ready for the engineer. He told me that everything had been done
according to the plans and that the town had issued a C.O.C. showing everything
was done correctly. I then called the engineer to take a look at the work. As
he was out of town on a big project, he wasn’t able to get to the site for 1
week. I kept inspections abreast of everything that was going on. Upon seeing
at the pond, he raised some concerns and requested the surveyor do an as-built
survey so he could run his figures.
After Robinson-Plante
surveyed the as-built, it was determined that the capacity was only about 30%
of the volume on the plans. I then requested that Gary Atkins meet me out there
to determine what needed to be done. As he was tied up on another job, our
meeting was delayed another week to 10 days. I informed inspections of the
timetable and they stated that we needed to get this addressed ASAP. When Gary
Atkins made it to the site, I showed him the difference in the construction
drawings for the pond versus the as-built. He blamed the surveyor for not
coming out to stack everything, but was emphatic that the pond size and pipe
installation was built exactly to the plans. I told him that if he could prove
it, I would pay for the additional work. He became incensed that I was
expecting him to fix everything at no cost to me. Even after I showed him how
different the as-built were from the plans, he pointed to the fact that the
C.O.C. showed that he was in compliance and had done everything he was required
to do. Thus, he wasn’t doing another thing on the site. With that, he walked
off the job. This was somewhere around Nov. 13-14. I informed the inspector of
the problem and the issues Gary Atkins had raised. He explained that I needed
to get someone immediately do whatever needed to be done to get the pond
certified. Luckily, I was able to find another contractor, Sullivan-Eastern, to
fix everything. I was pushing this thing forward the entire time and was
keeping inspections informed of everything that was going on. But, the key
point is that I had to pay to do all this work again.
Sullivan-Eastern
started work immediately just after the middle of Nov. The surveyor staked the
plan according to the drawing and it was determined in a meeting with everyone,
including Holly Springs’ inspection, that we would keep the 4’ diameter
overflow pipe where it was because the pipe would be destroyed trying to move a
6’ square, 2’ deep concrete anchor. Thus, they enlarged the pond per staking
and extended the F.E.C. to its proper placement. After that was completed, we
seeded the area and had the surveyors do another as-built. The engineer then
verified the capacity and certified the pond. However, in Dec. 11, we had
another severe rain of 3 ˝ in., which filled the new pond, but not enough to go
into the overflow pipe. We discovered the following day that the overflow pipe
had floated, which split at the connection, draining the pond and putting silt
into the adjacent (Vickery) yard again. Upon removing the overflow pipe, we
discovered that the concrete anchor was only a 5’ square and about 8” thick
rather that the 6’square, 24” thick called for on the plans. The concrete
anchor was the only thing that hadn’t been replaced. We thought that it would
have been inspected prior to the concrete pour as it was underground, much like
a footing on a house.
With that, I had to
pay for a crew to hand carries the silt from the backyard of the Vickery
residence up the hill onto my property for one week. DENR came out after
receiving a call from Vickery and were satisfied with the work being done. So,
I had to pay for the removal of the Overflow pipe and it’s proper
re-installation. In addition, we had to install other erosion control measures
at the top of the slope to reduce future sedimentation going into the pond. All
of this is an expense incurred by me. What is the responsibility of the Town of
I truly wish the Town
of
-- Doug Ledson
Woods at Avent Ferry Civil Penalty Appeal: Town Summary of Events
“NOV #1 Facts:
- NOV #1 issued on
- NOV #1 Violations Sited
1. Failure to follow approved plan
-
9 days past
-
63 days to
address
2. Failure to maintain erosion control measures
-
54 days past
-
75 days to
address
3. Failure to provide Engineer’s Certification
of basin per Town
-
74 days past
-
128 days to
address
- NOV #1 gave the developer until
1. Remove excess sediment from basin and
restore baffles to like new condition.
-
Completed
2. Provide
-
Completed
- NOV #1 Civil Penalty Assessment $5,000
- Factors in Determining Civil Penalty
1. Failure of
2. Off-Site Sediment Loss, onto Vickery
Property
3. History of sedimentation inspection reports
not addressed (8 total)
4. Failure to respond to reports requiring
maintenance of the erosion control devices and providing engineer’s
certification
NOV #2 Facts:
- NOV #2 issued on
- NOV #2 Violations Sited
1. Failure to follow approved plan
-
6 days past (new
for NOV #2 because of riser floating)
-
33 days to address
new items
2. Insufficient measures to retain sediment on
site
-
6 days past
-
26 days to
address
3. Failure to provide adequate ground cover
-
6 days past
-
26 days to
address
4. Failure to maintain erosion control measures
-
Previously sited
in NOV #1
-
75 total days to
address
5. Failure to take all reasonable measures
-
6 days past
-
26 days to address
6. Failure to provide engineers certification
of sediment basin, per Town of
-
Previously sited
in NOV #1
-
26 days from NOV
#2; 128 total days to address
- NOV #2 gave the developer until
-
Repair/reinstall
sediment basin to match the approved plan
-
Completed
1. Remove sediment from dissipater pad and
reinstall pad to like new condition
-
Completed
2. Remove sediment from offsite by hand
-
Completed
3. Stabilize all slopes and denuded areas
including but not limited to the sediment basin slopes
-
Completed
4. Provide sediment basin certification from
engineer upon completion
-
Completed
Note: The project did not meet the compliance date specified in the NOV
#2. Factoring in non-working days due to the holidays in December and January
and inclement weather the developer completed all of the remaining compliance
actions from NOV #1 and the new compliance actions from NOV #2 were either
completed before or within two working days from the NOV #2 compliance date.
- NOV #2 Civil Penalty Assessment $2,500
- Factors in Determining Civil Penalty
1. Failure of
2. Off-Site Sediment Loss, onto Vickery
Property
3. History of off-site sediment loss
4. Failure to respond to reports requiring
maintenance of the erosion control devices and providing engineer’s
certification
5. Project under NOV #1 at the time of issuance
of NOV #2”
-- Town of
Following a recap of the events
detailed above, staff and Mr. Ledson addressed the Council.
Mr. Ledson advised the Council of
his point that the Town ordered him to place a silt fence on the exhaust side
of a sediment basin, causing the violation to occur. He said the fence went in on advice of staff,
and he claimed there was no coordination between inspections and the
engineering department and he was given mixed messages. When the pipe floated, it was obvious it was
not according to the approved plan, but it was approved by town inspections.
In the end, Mr. Ledson said, he was asking
for consideration of fines levied because he feels the Town played a role in
the issue.
Councilman VanFossen pointed out that
Mr. Ledson needs to seek relief from his contractor who they allege made the
mistakes
After much discussion, Councilman
VanFossen said Mr. Ledson probably got hood-winked by his contractor, but the bottom-line
responsibility is his. Councilman
VanFossen said he would be amenable to a reduction in the $7,500 fine, but not
a discount of the entire amount.
Councilman Sack said he would
suggest a reduction of the fine from $7,500 to $5,000 total.
Action: The Council approved a motion to uphold the civil penalty
that was assessed against the project for violations of the Erosion &
Sedimentation Control Ordinance
of Holly Springs,
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: Sack
Vote: Unanimous.
A copy of a point-by-point response from the Town of
8.
Consent Agenda: The Council approved a motion to
approve all items on the Consent Agenda.
The motion carried following a motion by
8a
Budget Amendment Report –
The Council received a report of amendments to the FY 2008-09 budget
approved by the town manager. A copy
of the budget amendment report is incorporated into these minutes as an addendum
page.
8b.
Budget Amendment, $6,790 – The Council adopted an amendment to the FY
2008-09 budget in the amount of $6,790 to receive insurance proceeds for a damaged
police vehicle. A copy of the budget
amendment is incorporated into these minutes as an addendum page.
8c.
Budget Amendment, $750,000 – The Council adopted
an amendment to the FY 2008-09 budget in the amount of $750,000 to receive a
portion of a $3,000,000 grant from the North Carolina Department of Commerce
for the Novartis project. A copy
of the budget amendment is incorporated into these minutes as an addendum page.
8d.
Budget Amendment, $17,100 – The Council adopted an amendment to the FY
2008-09 budget in the amount of $17,100 to complete the
8e.
Budget Amendment, $650 –
The Council adopted an amendment to the FY 2008-09 budget in the amount
of $650 to prepare surplus vehicles for sale.
A copy of the budget amendment is incorporated into these minutes as an
addendum page.
8f.
Budget Amendment, $250,000 – The Council adopted an amendment to the FY 2008-09
budget in the amount of $250,000 to correct prior budget amendment related to
the
8g.
Resolution 09-14 – The Council adopted Resolution
09-14 ratifying changes to the water section of the Holly Springs Engineering
Design and Construction Standards to be in compliance with state regulations. A copy
of Resolution 09-14 is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
Action:
At this time, the Council
approved a motion to recuse Councilman VanFossen and Mayor Sears from
the meeting due to their professional association as members of the board of
directors with the apparent low bidding bank.
Motion By: Sack
Second By: Womble
Vote: Unanimous
He said the primary factors
considered were statutory compliance, financial health of the institutions and
cost to the Town. Crescent State Bank
submitted the proposal with the most favorable terms for the Town and can
provide all services desired. Although
Crescent has a compensating balance requirement of $725,000 compared to no
compensating balance requirement from Four Oaks, Crescent has guaranteed a
minimum rate of return on our money of 2.25% for each of the three contract
years. This 2.25% is 2 whole percentage
points higher than the Federal Funds Rate of .25%, which generally approximates
the average rate of return for general checking accounts. In fact, this rate exceeds most of the money
market accounts we maintain which are used as savings accounts for reserves.
He said the Town's interest earned
over the three-year contract period will exceed $193,000, significantly more
than the interest to be received from the other financial institutions.
Action:
The Council approved a motion to award a contract for the Town’s banking
services for the next five years to lowest responsible bidder Crescent State
Bank.
Motion By: Sack
Second By:
Dickson
Vote:
Unanimous.
A copy of banking services proposal is incorporated into these minutes as
an addendum page.
Action:
At this time, the Council
approved a motion to readmit Councilman VanFossen and Mayor Sears into the
meeting.
Motion By: Sack
Second By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous
9b.
Mayor
Sears said he would support the concept of community schools; he would support
mass transportation plans that do not specifically tie the area to trains or
buses; and he would support regional approaches to addressing issues.
The
consensus of the Town Council was that it was generally supportive of Wake
County Growth Task Force objectives.
10. Other Business: Councilman DeBenedetto responded to an email
from Councilman VanFossen during the week requesting the removal of Councilman
DeBenedetto from the Technical Review Committee.
There was much discussion, but the
Council did not remove Councilman DeBenedetto from the
Councilman
Sack reported on a regional transit meeting in which he pointed out that bus
service was not included for
Councilman
Sack asked for town flag to be placed in Chambers.
11.
Manager’s Report: Mr. Dean reported on a health
fair at town hall Wednesday and a budget workshop at
Mr.
Schifano noted for the Council and the record that Consent Agenda item 8g. was
a resolution of which the public would want to take notice. He said the resolution regards a change in
state law requiring second meters for irrigation systems.
12.
Closed Session: None.
13. Adjournment: There being no further business for the evening, the
Respectfully Submitted on
_________________________________
Addendum pages as referenced in these
minutes follow and are a part of the official record.