Good evening.

And welcome to the June 4th, 2026 meeting of the Town of Chapel Hills Board of Adjustment.

It's now 6 30 or a little thereafter.

So the meeting will come to order.

Mr.

Taz Lagoo is serving as staff to the board this evening and serving as the board's attorney is Mr.

James Baker.

Mr.

Legu, would you please call the roll?

Mr.

Fishkin.

Mr.

Warshaw?

Here.

Mr.

Garza.

Here.

Dr.

Wardman.

Present.

Mr.

Bartel.

Present.

Mr.

Weiner.

Present.

Mr.

Grasty.

Here.

So with six members present, the chair declares that the quorum exists for the conduct conduct of the board's business.

And the first item on our agenda is approving tonight's agenda.

It was emailed out to the board on Thursday, the May 28th.

I'm assuming everyone has had an opportunity to review it.

And are there any objections?

Amendments to tonight's agenda.

Move to approve.

Dr.

Wartman moves to approve.

Do we have a second?

Seconded.

Okay, great.

Mr.

Garza seconds.

Mr.

Legou, please call the roll.

Mr.

Warshaw?

Aye.

Mr.

Garza?

Yes.

Dr.

Wortman?

Yes.

Mr.

Bartow?

Yes.

Mr.

Weiner.

Yes.

Mr.

Graston.

Yes.

All right.

Unanimously.

The agenda for tonight has been approved.

Do we have any announcements either from the board or from staff this evening?

Nothing from staff.

None from staff.

Nothing from the board.

Good.

Seeing none, we'll now proceed to a review of the minutes from our last meeting.

Which, if you all will remember back that far, was October 2nd, 2025.

You should have that in front of you as well.

Are there any questions to the way those minutes are drafted?

Amendments.

Move to approve the minutes.

Dr.

Wartman moves to approve.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Good.

Mr.

Good, can you please call the roll?

Or I'm sorry, call the uh yeah, the roll.

Mr.

Warsaw.

Yes.

Mr.

Garza?

Yes.

Mr.

Wortman.

Hi.

Dr.

Wortman, excuse me.

Mr.

Bartel?

Yes.

Mr.

Weiner?

Yes.

Mr.

Graste.

Yes.

So it's the prerogative of the chair that the motion carries and the minutes from October 2nd of our meeting will now be added to the official record.

With our housekeeping portions behind us and no pieces of old business in front of us, let's move to our pending petitions.

Are there any petitions before the board?

No.

Good.

Seeing none, we'll now turn to our first order of new business on our agenda.

That being a dimensional variance for 700 Bowlingwood Drive.

Mr.

LeGoo, would you like to present the staff's report?

Thank you, Mr.

Asty.

These are technical concerns.

There are no staff presentation this evening.

But I'll briefly ask before I begin that the materials that were shared as part of your agenda this evening, as well as the presentation that you're about to receive from an applicant be entered into the record for the meeting.

So moved.

We'll do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Asie.

Before you this evening is a dimensional variance for a property located at 700 Bowman would drive your couple little.

With that, I will hand things over to our applicant for the evening.

Okay.

Mr.

Ryan Alston, who is representing property owners in uh in this battle.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

Um can I ask you people I want to just run some quick things by the board real quick.

So I just want to make sure that um all of our board members here tonight um that none of them actually have any kind of a you know third-party conflict with this matter.

Uh has everyone had an opportunity, if they so choose to see the actual property.

Good.

All right.

So with that behind us, um, and have you been sworn in?

I have to swear the hand in.

Um Charleston, can you swear or a firm because of your knowledge?

The testimony that you're about to provide tonight is the truth of the whole thing that's not both.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh well, first of all, welcome.

Mr.

Alston, it's nice to see you.

Um, and we're looking forward to hearing your presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um, as was introduced, I am Brian Alston.

Um I am a professional engineer and I am representing Stratford Investments LLC regarding a variance for the Stratford Hills uh apartment development here in Chapel Hill.

So I've prepared some slides to hopefully uh explain a little better than I could just say first of all.

I am okay, good.

So our request for this variance is an 18-foot variance.

The current setback is 24 feet.

So our request is for a 18-foot um variance.

So and there's going to be six feet remaining from the actual setback.

I do not have I do have an illustration later on in the presentation that shows this setback.

And primarily this is going to apply to the face of the building only.

And so the statutory authority here is the general 60B.

I'm sorry, 160 D 705 B.

Okay.

So this is Stratford Hills development.

It was I'm not sure what happened here.

Stratford Hills development, it was actually uh it was established back in 1972.

Okay.

I think maybe I leaned on this.

Maybe what it is.

Okay.

So it was established back in 1972.

And so we're we're proposing a new leasing office in the area shown.

So let me see if I can point this out.

I don't know if this is going to work.

So currently what I'm trying to do here.

So this is the Stratford Hill development here, and this is the area in question.

So there's a small area along Goldingwood Drive, where it's this is such a constraint site, very tight site.

We took a look at this.

This site is bound by um resource conservation district.

It is bound by a hundred-year floodplain, as well as uh various uh streams.

So there's uh streams, there's mid streams, there's streams.

So there's a lot going on in this site.

So what the owner did was he went and got a survey because based on our initial as we looked at this site and we evaluated multiple areas where we could actually set the leasing office.

What we realized was there was this was the essentially the only area that we uh that worked the best.

Every the rest of the areas are heavily constrained, and what you will see in the next couple of uh slides, you'll see what those constraints look like.

But the survey, what we show is if you can see it, I think on the white picture is not much good, but we had the surveyor locate bank for the interval.

Mr.

Alson, I've I've enabled the uh the like laser pointer feature on the PowerPoint.

So you can use the mouse to show up a pointer that's much better.

Yeah, okay.

So what we did was we had the surveyor locate the existing stream, and they went out to the site, located the stream, and they located the top of the bank.

So because this was a town uh uh located intermittent stream, what we did was we said, okay, well let's just go out and locate the center line, then we locate the top of the banks, and then what we did we offset that uh 50 feet.

So there's a 50 foot offset set required.

So we were able to set our building here based on that 50 foot offset.

So as you can see, and maybe the the survey may not illustrate it very well, but the next couple of drawings, what you will see that it's going to illustrate some of our issues.

So I'm going to go to the next drawing.

Next illustration.

Okay.

So on this drawing, I am showing all the constraints on this site.

On this site, what we're looking at are 100 year, there's a hundred year floodplain in here that is much of very heavy constraint.

And we did get the surveyor to locate the actual 100-year floodplain.

There is a resource conservation district, which pretty much outlines the floodplain plus three feet.

Then we also have intermittent, ephemeral, and perennial streams.

So the perennial stream is the uh the bowling creek.

So it is a live stream.

So we're we're looking at our site is right here where you see the star.

So we looked at multiple sites on this parcel to set the leasing office that would not be constrained.

And quite honestly, there were constraints in all of them.

And this one was the what we found as the most optimal, and I'll explain why here shortly.

So we evaluated five locations around the site.

So out of these five locations, the first one we took a look at where the uh owners really wanted to place the the leasing offers was number one.

So that particular footprint was the first one that we actually looked at, and we realized once we took a look at it there, it was it was constrained, and it's in the floodplain.

Try to get above the floodplain, but then there's the resource conservation uh district.

We had issues there, and so we explained that to the owner, we talked to the town, and they said it's best to look at other sites.

So we then started looking at some other sites.

We then went to site number two that appeared to be buildable, but then there's a there's an intermittent stream coming up through theirs in which we have to have an offset of 50 feet, plus that we is going to require many retaining walls.

And then we looked at site number three, which was we thought was our best option.

Site number three, um, what we found was it was in a good location.

However, there's a Duke Power uh easement running right through right next to where we were going to set the building.

So we had some constraints, constraints of having to set the building over on that site and with the utility easement.

Um then we looked at site number four, which we just we also had designed a dumpster pad back there, and really that it's in the back of the development.

The uh the the owners, one of the uh things that they were hoping we could find was have visibility because it is a leasing office to the um to the to the uh development.

So that was one of the uh uh areas that we had constraints as well because you know, in in addition to some of the setback issues we had there, which we would have had to ask for various as well, we had the dumpster enclosure, which is in process of being uh approved.

So we also had that issue, so that left us with site number five.

Site number five, we selected that, and then with site number five, we still have a all the constraints.

We had the now comes in the constraint of the setback, 24 feet.

So now we have a 24-foot setback, and it was such a small area that we had that was developable that we couldn't even get a small, very tiny building there because it was heavily constrained.

So therefore site number five, there comes the variance.

That's why we asked for the variance because it's it meets all the constraints, it's good visibility.

There is a uh intermittent stream, however, we can offset that and get outside of the intermittent stream, it's outside of the resource conservation district, it's outside of the floodplain, it's outside of all the areas that are constrained.

So that was the optimal location for us.

So this drawing, I think this was in the package.

You can't necessarily see it.

But what we were showing is the optimal footprint.

What we want, the desire.

So we're showing the the uh 24 by 36 building with the porch on the um more the northwest side.

So the porch is outside of the it is not facing the street, but our plan is to provide a couple of parking spaces and right in front of this area and tie into the uh bowling wood drive and have uh uh handicapped parking, et cetera, for this.

And there is a uh stormwater requirement, so we'll we'll have to figure out the stormwater piece um uh because of the uh proximity to the street.

Uh we feel that there's no issues with uh uh site triangle.

We feel that this is this is a good uh site.

So this is again this is uh what we're proposing if you can see this.

And what we said here in this illustration was that we may be able to slide the building uh 10 feet plus or minus to the right or to the left.

Um if we go too far either direction, we're either going to get in the RCD or we're going to get into the um the boundaries of the the intermittent stream.

We're gonna get into that area.

So we wanted to be able to place the building in a location that does not uh give us those type of restrictions, therefore, again the uh the variance request.

So the variance does not touch any protected resource, as I mentioned.

It is not encroaching into the RCD, we're not entering the intermittent stream or its buffer areas, we're not building within the hundred year floodplain, and we're not altering any site drainage or creating any site distance hazards.

So we we feel that uh the street setback variance is is what keeps the building out of those protected areas is which is what we're trying to accomplish here.

The taking a look at the general statute, um the unnecessary hardship.

So strict application, uh, so let me read it since I I don't have it uh quoted there.

I did print it out so I could mention it here because I do not know the statute by memory.

And you all may be more familiar with that statute, of course.

But I would say that um so the statute says that in an unnecessary hardship would result from strict application of the regulation.

So what we're saying here is that we're satisfying uh that particular statute as far as unnecessary hardship because the strict application of the 24-foot setback prevents us uh from using uh uh uh having a functional and a visible leasing office.

So uh we see that as a necessary hardship.

The buildable envelope is is crushed by the RCD surveyed uh stream buffer, floodplain, and the existing development.

The development, this was this development was built back in 1972, back when the development, developable areas and the restrictions and the regulations were totally different.

So this is uh we see this as an unnecessary hardship.

Therefore, again, the 18-foot minimum relief.

Um we feel that that is again what we need, and we feel like we're we're satisfying this general statute.

The next one conditions unique to the property.

So if the hardship ship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location size or topography, um, we could request is a basis for granting or may not may or may not be a basis for granting a variance, but we feel that these conditions are unique to this property.

So, and these are specific to 700 Bowlingwood Drive.

The RCD overlay, the survey stream, and the 1972 development uh gives us a very narrow envelope to develop.

And the uh the if you look at the properties surrounding this area, they don't share the same constraints.

So we feel that finding two is satisfied as well.

The third, the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner.

So we didn't self-create this hardship, or the property owner did not self-create this hardship.

The all the constraints that I mentioned earlier, the um the 24 foot setback and with the tight envelope that we have there, and and the applicant uh really taking the initiative to go ahead and get a survey and try to figure out exactly where we can put this building.

We feel that that hardship is not self-created, and that the finding three is satisfied as well.

Number four, so it says here that the requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the regulation, such that the public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved.

So this is a uh a very small structure, it's a 24 by 36 there.

We're we're we are asking for 18 uh 18 foot variants, which leaves six feet from the right-of-way, and so we feel that we're um you know, we're getting outside of all of our restrictive areas, and so um I think that's a that's a good thing, and then we don't we're not impacting any traffic that we know of.

Obviously, we will study that a little bit more.

There's no drainage impact because we are um we're offsetting our uh 50 feet from the top of bank from that intermittent stream that's behind the site, and so as per the survey, so once when that actually once we use the whenever we use the uh the town's GIS, I believe that the ask was a little smaller, uh, I think it was only eight feet at that point.

Then we went out and we actually located it on the site and we realized that okay, this site is very, very tight.

So that uh that changed things slightly.

So finding four is satisfied uh based on uh our our study here.

So the summary of findings all four findings are met based on what our research, um our um our design, we feel that the it's an unnecessary hardship, is unique to the property, it's not self-created, and it satisfy the the spirit, the safety, and the justice based on the general statute 160 D 705 D.

Actually it's D.

I think I said had B in there, but I believe it is D.

So our request is that you grant uh the the 18-foot variants for this site, and based on our due diligence that we've done and our updated site plan and survey that has been performed.

So that is our request, and that is all I have now.

Except questions if you have any.

Thank you, Mr.

Alston.

Appreciate that.

Um yeah, and thank you for the presentation.

Very thoughtful, very thorough, and and well done.

I'm sure some folks up here on the board will have a question or two.

Um, who would like to get us started?

I I can.

Yeah, um, sure.

Thanks again uh for being here tonight.

Um I just have one quick question.

And I don't honestly, I don't know if it's gonna waver my decision too much one way or the other.

But when you were going through all of your proposed locations, the first four obviously had some pretty serious problems with them.

Um, and then we got to this fifth where you feel like it's kind of the best fit.

Were there others beyond that that you looked for, or did you just kind of get to five and say this is the best we're gonna get?

Let's stop here and apply for a variance.

We looked at the entire site, we looked at it from the constraints of uh grading, you know, how how could we make this work?

And and and quite honestly, we try to look at everything outside of uh the the constrained area.

If I go back to the give you a visual, sorry, so can you speak into the mic a little bit more?

Just I can't.

No, it's sorry.

So yes, so we we looked at the entire parcel, and based on that entire parcel, we could not really locate anything that worked.

Once we and we did initially pursue uh site number three, which is the then the Duke Power Easement came up, and so then we had another hardship, and so and the owners, you know, of course they want it to be as visible as possible.

So the the best two options were number five and number three, and currently they're in one of the uh residential units, and so and and where they started was uh let me show you here.

Where they started was at the and you could probably you can barely see it, but there is uh actually I can barely see it.

There is a a pool down here, and I believe I am close to the pool.

There's a pool here, and it's a fitness center, and this is at the property right now, and that's where they initially had their leasing office, but it's in the floodway, so it floods, and there's two or three feet of water in there.

So that's what made us have to look for so we initially started in uh number one, which was the option one that I mentioned initially.

We started there, and but even before we that's where we started, and then after that, we realized we had to look at other areas.

So as I looked at or it or as we looked at the areas on this parcel, we kept in mind it needed to be uh uh buildable, obviously.

So that eliminated everything on the south side of this site.

If you look at it, it eliminated everything.

So we tried to find something else that would work.

So it had to be buildable, and we wanted it to be visible.

So as we looked at that, we realized that okay, or along Bowlingwood, these are the optimal sites, you could get some visibility.

So number three and number five became the top candidates, and then number three, we had to eliminate that one just because of the um of the dew power easement.

Thanks.

Yes.

Uh I have a quick question.

Okay.

Um so you just mentioned uh they were like to summarize working out of a residential unit, just for clarity's sake.

Uh you mean that they are operating their leasing operations out of a residential unit at this time due to the the pre-mentioned hardships of of some of the flooding that occurred.

That's right.

Okay, appreciate it.

Yes, sir.

Yes, Mr.

Barton.

So I just have a follow-up.

I want to just make sure I understand this.

So like basically currently they're operating out of the residential unit for their leasing office.

Prior to that, were they operating out of the, I guess it might be marked as the clubhouse?

The the fitness center, right?

The clubhouse where they were operating.

But that was flooded.

Yes, yeah, it's in it's in the flood, it's in the floodway, actually.

So you have the floodway, you have the floodplain, so they're literally in the floodway, so they were there was two feet of water in there.

So they they had to move out of there.

So they moved out of there.

I'm not sure exactly when they moved out, but I think it's been a a while back.

So uh that's that was the uh reason they moved to one of the units.

Yeah, I think thanks that answer is pretty much everything.

Okay.

Dr.

Wartman.

Why is it not feasible to continue working the leasing office out of a residential unit?

Um, I don't I will say that based on what the owner has told me is that they're trying to they want to lease, they want to have a dedicated leasing office, and the unit, they're in building 10, which building 10 is one of the, and you and I don't think you can really see it on here.

Building 10 is one of the first two buildings.

So let me see if I can get a photo that shows unfortunately, none of my photos show the actual building, but there is a if you come out of the driveway of the oh let me do it this way.

So the initial building that we were looking at, um there's two buildings across from it.

Um that are like I said, they're residential units, they're actually people staying in those units.

What the owner conveyed to me was they wanted to have a dedicated space where they could lease their units that was separate uh and visible from the rest of the uh uh uh actual apartment units.

That was the that was the best case scenario, and with the uh all the constraints, they found it very hard to do that.

But again, that was a temporary situation that that they're in right now.

Then they moved to the residential unit.

And you know, they have you know handicap access, all that good stuff.

And so they're um and and I don't know if that is a an optimal type situation for a 202 unit apartment complex, um having at least in it out of one of the units, and they would like to use that unit as well, is what uh um has been conveyed to me.

So I don't I think that that would be a uh that was never the plan is what I would probably say on that one.

It was never the plan to stay in that um residential unit long term.

So my question was is it not feasible for them to continue operating out of that unit?

And the only response you gave me is that that wasn't their plan.

Not long term, I don't think it's feasible long term.

Um I do not have a um maybe uh an explanation of why it's not feasible for that unit.

I don't know if I guess it's allowed.

I I don't know.

So I'm not ex I'm not 100% sure.

That's something I would probably would like to follow up with the owner on, and I don't I don't have them here, so I can't ask him that.

So when the owners initially came to us, we were you know the the goal was to find an a space that allowed them to um to have their new new customers come that's more isolated and visible.

The unit in building 10, it is an end unit, I believe.

It's an ended in unit, and it is at the beginning at the uh um at the first couple of buildings.

It is across from the um current or the old leasing office, it is across from that.

So there's a couple of buildings right across from the driveway, it is across from that in one in the end at residential unit.

So I would say that um that may be an option, but I would say that also that for a apartment complex, it is great, it's very good to have a dedicated space where you can have potential uh tenants uh visit and is and it's very uh visible and is isolated from the rest of the residential units as you may have domestic issues going on in the apartments, etc.

So I don't I don't think it's the best case scenario, but um it has worked for them since the building flooded.

So I think that uh having a dedicated space is a much better option.

What's the size?

Um excuse me.

What's the size of the proposed building again?

Say 24 by 36.

Thank you.

That's a very small building.

Uh brief question for you, or maybe not so brief, but um you're talking here about coordinating with the town's planning department.

Yes, sir.

Can you tell me a little bit about what they advised you?

It says you worked with them on finding a site.

Uh did they come out with you to do the surveying, or what what was that process like?

No, no.

Um so the way that it worked was we initially um determined the the the first site.

That was in the RCD.

And so what we were so some of the towns that I've worked in or cities that I've worked in, um, we can develop in the uh 100-year floodplain, but we just have to be above the base flood elevation uh however many feet.

Same same here.

However, we then had to deal with the resource conservation district, which initially we did not see that.

We didn't see the resource conservation district initially.

And so once we I and so that was the the location that the client had said, hey, you know, we have this location here, can you see if it's an option?

And so once we we did that, I presented it to uh planning.

And uh once I met with them, I had a uh pre-application meeting.

They pointed out that that's gonna be um a very tough sale with the RCD and to look at other options.

And so that's when I looked at other options for the site.

So they gave you guidance in terms of the R C D and the floodplain, and and they were sort of is it is what you're saying, is they they were able to tell you this is uh out of bounds, this is inbounds is is no, no, we we actually uh we looked at the GIS and we tried to determine it from there, and so um, and we we read the um the standards and we saw that the floodplain, then they did point us to it.

The R C D is three feet uh outside of the of the floodplain.

They did point that to us, point that out to us.

And so um with that information, we realized that we needed to you know keep looking.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Do we have any other questions from the board?

Yes.

Yeah, um, thanks for the presentation.

Okay.

Um I think we addressed some of my questions around what they've been doing without the leasing office.

Can you tell me a little bit more about the parking spaces and the access?

You only said a couple, how frequent is this going to be trafficked?

Um there didn't seem to be a lot of space left over for um parking at the site you've chosen.

Understood.

There's not a lot of space.

There are there's lots of parking in the development.

Um there's even street parking.

So let me see if I can I don't have an illustration of the parking.

Um we haven't gotten that far yet as far as design, but I I did lay out a couple of spaces and to see what it would look like because that is something that we will have to do.

So um let's just use the survey drawing.

And so looking at the survey drawing, there is so there is a there's there's sidewalk along Bowlingwood, and there is parking along Bowlingwood.

And there are our plan was to get a because it's pretty flat here, it's pretty flat out here.

We were gonna get a driveway, cut a driveway in, and park in the um, since this is technically the you have the building facing bowling wood, but the porch is on this side, so this is where everyone will enter.

So our plan was to get a couple of parking spaces on this side.

That was the plan.

We haven't totally laid it out, but um again, we did take a look at it, and there's just to look at some options now.

But looking at the parking requirements in the development, if there's there's lots of parking.

I mean, one could park across the street and walk to the um to the to the leasing office, and there's there's no issues because there's a there's a lot of extra parking, overflow parking in the development.

Okay.

Um and so the floodplain, can you bring up the map again that was showing where the floodplain was?

I'll bring up the this one.

It seems like you're right on the edge of it still.

Are there any concerns about the future flooding, especially given how bad flooding is gonna like a hundred year floodplain now is happening with way more increasing frequency?

I I agree with you.

And the floodplain changes over time, and uh, you know, obviously it probably won't get better.

Um however, um we're we're close, we're outside of that area, so we can't predict the feature.

We can't I can't tell you that it wouldn't get worse.

Um but again I could all I could move it all the way to the top, and the floodplain could could still uh grow over time, but I would say that um you know the only thing we'll be above the the base flood elevation, and that's the base flood elevation today.

So that's going to uh that may change in 20 years.

So when you say the edge, we're actually outside of the RCD and the floodplain, which is it's actually at a higher elevation also.

Okay.

So again, I mean, depending on how things go, I can't I couldn't promise that that would one day be in floodplain.

Okay.

Yes, you can.

Um could I see the other slide where you had the other options that you were looking at too?

Yes, sir.

Right.

Um so are there no options on I didn't see anything developed on the northern edge of the property along Bolinwood, kind of above three and four and past the buildings.

Yeah, up above there.

Were those areas considered at all and further away from the floodplain?

We we did not consider those areas.

And no, there's a property setback along that northern edge, but right.

So we we would we did not consider those areas, so that would be um getting pretty close, and I'd have to look at the topography.

Um I'm pretty sure I I recall we we looked at those areas, and I'm looking at when I see an intermittent stream actually going through the let me show you here.

There is an intermittent stream here.

So I think you're what you're probably saying is maybe in this but on the west side, maybe on the other side of the road on the other side, and like kind of in the rear of that behind the building.

We we did not um we did not look at that one.

Now that is, I believe, and I have to zoom in, but I believe that area um I believe that falls back down.

So I'd have to take a look at it on the so a grading or elevation issue that would require rotating wall or seconds level.

Yes, and also again, it was uh one of the uh things we were looking at too is visible visibility.

So that uh we tried our best to meet all the requirements, but at the same time, in those trying to meet those requirements, visibility was one of the requirements for the client, and we realized that it was a is uh was a what we thought was a hardship.

So I think that we could have I mean we we looked at a lot.

We really spent a lot of time trying to find the best the optimal location on this site, and there's this area was pretty much it.

Those you know, being bound by these streams and all the requirements for the setback requirements for the intermittent streams.

I mean, there's a hundred and hundred and fifty feet requirement from a perennial stream.

It just depends.

100 feet in some cases, 150 feet in other cases, you know.

So and then you have the ephemeral stream, which are just basically dry ditches.

Didn't have any issues there, but the the town did go out and they mapped all of these.

And so what we're using is the town's map, uh overlaid uh the the streams that the town identified on the uh the GIS layer.

Okay that's what we were able to do to um to to make this exhibit.

So I believe that uh we we exhausted what I would call all the best options for a leasing uh office, which again the we did want to have visibility, so all of these were pretty much exhausted.

Okay, and then back one more to the uh other sites.

This one, yeah, and so I was looking at number three, just kind of southwest of there, the in between the two driveways, it looked like there was some space, but I think there's um there's a grading issue there where it's a dry ditch in between the two driveways, it seemed like is was that space at all buildable?

Yeah, you're talking about here.

Yeah, there's a small space between the two driveways um just south, I think, of where three is, and I would be curious if that's also in the it might also be in the Duke Eastman and see that labeled on the map.

Well, the it yeah, we didn't lay we don't have the Duke Easement laid there labeled there, but if you if you were on the whole road on that side of the road, like it is if you're if you're looking at the um GIS or Google Earth or something like that, you're gonna see those those poles, those power poles there, and so Duke Power actually has a an easement there which restricts where we could build, and it's an areas that it is on an embankment.

Yeah, and so uh one of the other issues is once you do that, you gotta figure out where do I put my SEM uh for stormwater?

That's that's the other issue.

Obviously, there's a lot of options there, but it becomes very, very difficult to design.

Okay.

And that's those were all the things we we looked at, but even number three, that was that was the option I had spoken with uh Josh from the town about, and then we had to do power easement issue.

And so um, but yes, we we we looked at a lot of options here.

Okay, thanks.

Any other questions?

I have one quick question.

Yes, sir.

They asked the hard questions, I asked the obvious ones.

Just can confirm for me that the only that you've satisfied all the setbacks, the stream setbacks, the you know, the floodplain.

The only setback that you're asking for a variance tonight is the street setback.

Is that correct?

That is the only setback that is correct.

Um and how many stories is the structure?

It's just one story, one store.

Single structure, uh, single structure structure.

Okay.

Um that answers my question.

Thanks.

So with no other uh no other questions from our board, and I don't see any public in attendance.

Um I would entertain a motion from the board to close the evidentiary hearings and move into deliberation.

So moved second.

Dr.

Warman.

Thank you.

So uh we have a motion and a second.

Uh Path, could you please call the roll on that one?

Mr.

Warshaw?

Yes.

Mr.

Garza?

Yes.

Dr.

Wartman?

Hi.

Mr.

Bartow?

Yes.

Mr.

Weiner?

Yes.

Mr.

Grastey.

Yes.

So with six vote, six votes, aye, zero votes nay.

It passes.

Um Ms.

Bastion, you're welcome to sit down if you'd like.

We may call you back up.

We I'd like to exercise our right to reopen evidentiary if we need to, but we are now in deliberation.

So who would like to kick us off?

Yeah, I think this was I mean when I got my orientation for Board of Adjustments, this was almost like to the T the example case of uh a variance you would approve.

You know, someone wants to build something on their property, there's a stream that runs through it, they looked at the other spots, it wasn't something they did.

I feel like with all their due diligence, it's to me feels like a clear approval.

Uh there were there were obviously some questions about, you know, could they put it here, could they put it there?

But I don't know how much of that delineation is our responsibility.

I think that you know it's their property, and if this is the spot where they need it for their business, as long as it uh you know fits all the four criteria, then we would almost have to approve.

We would have to approve if it met all four.

Um so I'm I'm hearing your position on this.

Anyone else have a additional thought or a contrary position they'd like to express?

Mr.

Barta?

Um I was actually really pleased by the presentation and how it really just got to the elements and broke it down really well.

The only thing I was sort of satisfied with in the questions is we've got so I was thinking more about the hardship, and in that case, they had an office.

This office was built in 1972.

I guess it was the clubhouse.

Situations have changed, it kind of got destroyed by a flood, and none of the fact that it was built in the 70s and got destroyed by a flood can conceivably be their fault because just the rules were different.

The ownership was different in nature is nature.

So I think basically you've just got a very solid case for even the hardship exempt the hardship portion of this because you did have something, and then things outside of your control sort of uh messed it up.

So yeah, I mean, I'm very happy with how this has been proven.

So yeah.

Anyone else?

I I was trying to think on the hardship one too, and I think everything you just said was correct.

Um I was trying to think if there's any other reasonable case for that uh the hardship um uh just having the impact, the negative impact that's stated.

I I think like it's clear that you want to have office that is separate from the residential buildings to run your business and to have new tenants come, review, go over paperwork, or for current tenants to come and and work.

I don't think it makes sense to have them come in uh an existing apartment that could also otherwise be leased, so there's economic harm as well in terms of that's taking up a space that would otherwise be rented out and is the the purpose for it.

Um I'm still um I am left wondering if there isn't uh alternate space.

I feel like you've done your due diligence in looking at the GIS and going all through the site, you've clearly looked at some other areas that you would even prefer that had even greater risk too, being closer to the plug floodplain and are trying to um thread the needle of all the pros and cons.

Um I was also trying to think about number four.

Um the the reason for the setbacks, you know, there's a road safety issue, there is a character of the neighborhood issue.

Um if this had an abutting neighbor or a character issue where putting something that close to the road was going to cause something dire against the intent of the setback, I think we could argue against it, but also across the road, this is just within the boundaries of an existing development already that has buildable surface, a parking lot across the way.

So I don't I don't see really an argument for it ruining the spirit of the neighborhood by encroaching, but it is a large encroachment.

So I get I'm I'm deliberating on that thought too that it the six feet is not a lot of distance away from the road.

Um that's the one thing I'm chewing on, but do we know how much um of a variance they would have needed for four?

We forgot to ask that during a questioning, but did it is it does anybody know if is it in the materials here?

I know we said if they went with four, they would also need um to apply for variance, but I didn't hear how far that would be.

Did you guys anybody catch that?

Yeah, there was an encroachment.

I think they've and they've landed on this site because it it was less of an encroachment here.

Well, they were only making one encroach.

I think that is also that that's one of the intermittent streams if I'm looking at the map too.

So I think it's like right along one of the um water lines that they would be closer to.

I don't know if that, but I don't think it's the maybe it's RCD.

Is RCD only apply to the perennial streams and not intermittent?

I do not know the answer to that.

Um RCD applies to intermittent and perennial, it's just a different width of a buffer.

Got it.

Okay.

Do you know the widths offhand?

Just curious.

Yeah, so the um the buffer for an intermittent stream is 50 feet, okay.

And for a perennial, it's 150 feet plus that idea of three feet above the base flood elevation.

Okay.

Thanks.

Dr.

Wartman.

Move to adopt resolution A and approve the variance.

Seconded.

Okay.

We have a motion to approve and a second to approve.

The variants.

Um, would you like to take a vote?

Mr.

Warshaw, yes.

Mr.

Garza, yes.

Dr.

Wortman.

Aye.

Mr.

Bartow, yes.

Mr.

Weiner.

Yes.

Mr.

Graste.

Yes.

So six ayes, zero nays.

The motion approved is approved.

Variance A is approved.

Congratulations.

Thank you for your presentation, your time, and the dedication to your clients.

I think you did uh them a big service in your preparation.

Thanks, sir.

Yeah.

Appreciate that.

Okay.

Um we've got one other thing to go over tonight.

And that is board composition.

Uh I don't know if you all are aware of this.

We will be if you look around.

We're missing Judith Miller.

She was appointed to the to the OWASA board uh last month.

And um she's no longer with us.

So it shakes things up a little bit, but we have a plan.

So uh Ms.

would you like to get up?

Are you gonna give us a staff presentation?

Or do we need a staff presentation?

No staff presentations necessary, but I'm happy to kind of talk through the dynamics of open seats and things of that.

Go ahead and do that very quickly and then and just quickly, then I'll have a thought on how to get us through this.

Um so there are a handful of of openings and um opportunities here.

Um I'll just kind of go go down the list.

Um, so Dr.

Wartman's term is ending as of the end of the month, um, and he is eligible to be reappointed to a second term uh as a regular member.

Uh David Nam, who currently serves as an alternate, uh, was serving for a partial term.

You may remember he he relatively recently joined the board.

Uh his first partial term is also ending as of the end of the month, and he is eligible to be reappointed um to a full term as an alternate.

Uh with Ms.

Miller's recent departure uh from the board, there is a regular seat available.

Um it is uh town convention that alternate members, current alternate members, are eligible to be reassigned to uh serve as regular members.

Um so either Mr.

Nam or Mr.

Weiner um would be eligible to be reassigned uh to Ms.

Miller's now vacant seat.

Um there is also a uh an alternate seat that is vacant.

Um that seat is typically reserved for residents of the town's ETJ extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Um the responsibility for filling that seat typically lies with the Orange County Board of County Commissioners.

Um if they do not exercise their right to fill that seat within a prescribed amount of time, the right to fill the seat reverts to the town council, and that seat can be filled by uh any resident of the town.

Um so that's four seats.

Um if uh either Mr.

Nam or Mr.

Weiner are reassigned to uh Miss Miller's seat, there would also be another alternate seat, um, those available for uh reap or available for appointment from the pool of applicants.

Thank you very much for that.

So I if if I may, I have a way that I think uh we might be able to get through this pretty quickly.

I think there's really two things we need to do tonight, or two motions I might suggest that someone make, and I might suggest that that uh first motion um reappoint Dr.

Wartman to his seat uh that we appoint um that we reassign Mr.

Weiner to from alternate to permanent uh that we reappoint David Nam to a full term as an alternate.

Is everybody following me on that?

I think that might be a great first motion if we all agree with that, and then we can deal with filling the one possibly two additional alternates in a second motion, some deliberation.

So if y'all are cool with that, um if someone would make a motion, sure I'll make that motion.

Um so first motion.

If you want to rehab see.

So I'll start with the uh the motion to reappoint Dr.

Wortman to his regular seat.

Second.

Um do we want to do it?

Can we do it all in one motion?

Okay, yes, keep going.

Then to continue uh with the motion that we reassign Mr.

Weiner from an alternate seat to a regular seat and reappoint Mr.

Nam to his full term as an alternate second.

So we have a first, we have a second.

Um you go ahead and call the role.

Yeah, and I I would just clarify um for the the two reappointments, yes.

Um the the technical action that you would be taking would be to recommend that council um make those reappointments um for the reassignment from an alternate to a regular seat.

Um that's an action that you are you're essentially making that action on your own, and staff would then implement that that reassignment.

Um and I understand that do we need to reflect that in the language anywhere in this motion?

Um you could clarify in the language of that motion to say recommend the reappointment with that change, then you can continue with your motion.

Okay so to clarify the language there uh that we recommend the reappointment of Dr.

Wortman to his regular seat, uh all other aspects of the measure as stated.

And also the recommendation to reappoint the alternate as well.

Pardon me.

Also uh rephrasing as a recommendation to reappoint alternates.

All right.

So uh I think we better get that second again.

Who would like to say?

I'll second that recommendation of those observations.

Thank you.

Now let's take a vote.

Mr.

Warshaw?

Yes, Mr.

Garza?

Yes, Dr.

Wortman.

Aye, Mr.

Bartow, yes, Mr.

Weiner?

Yes.

Mr.

Grasty.

Yes.

So that motion passes uh six to O.

Uh congratulations for your reappointments and ascensions, as it were.

Now we move to the next piece of business, which is so we now have the opportunity to name two alternates.

Um we have in front of us in our packet uh seven applications, two of them we can take off the table because we've just assigned those people positions.

So we're left with Randy Herman, Burt Bennett, Trevor Leatherwood, uh Peter Meneloff and uh Julia Chamberlain.

Has everyone on the board had an opportunity to look at those applications?

Yeah.

She never responded.

Good.

Um does anyone have did any of those applications rise to the top as a someone that we would clearly think would be well qualified and serve well as an alternate.

Mr.

Grassy, if I could just interject for one moment.

Um I had an opportunity to tell at least Dr.

Wortman about this before the meeting, but um it's standard practice to for staff liaisons to just reach out to applicants before a meeting uh just to confirm that they're still interested in serving.

Um I reached out via email to all of the applicants.

Um they all expressed that they were still interested.

Um the only person that I did not receive a response from one way or the other was uh Julia Chamberlain.

Um but it was based on one attempted contact is the the caveat I'll add to that.

When when did you uh try to make that contact?

Uh this was about two weeks ago.

Two weeks ago.

And she did not return the correspondence email or call.

That's correct.

There's just no response.

Okay.

Um thanks for adding that.

Um I'll just state my my sort of question again.

Did anybody jump to the front as someone that they'd like to advocate?

Um I could speak to uh the my own interest in uh Randy Hawkins Herman.

His background in uh commercial real estate as an attorney.

Seems like it very well fits the domain in which we operate, and his knowledge of the legal framework would uh I think make him uh natural fit to transition into a board like this.

Um anyone else have any thoughts on uh Mr.

Herman's application and potential contributions?

Well, I I'd like to say that I do reiterate, I it reiterate your point.

I think that uh Mr.

Herman for me is uh the candidate that I feel would probably serve us best because of his background and both professionally and and otherwise.

Anyone else?

Uh let's do like one at a time, I suppose.

So there's anyone else that you think elevates up, or would someone like to nominate Mr.

Herman?

I'll nominate Mr.

Herman.

Okay, we have a nomination by Mr.

Weiner.

Do we have a second just for clarity?

Is this nomination for the alternacy or for the the replacement seat for Mr.

Weiner?

This is for the alternate.

For the alternacy.

And this is a recommendation to town council.

It's not to appoint.

Yeah, I didn't learn my lesson the first time they told me this.

This is this is a recommendation to not an appointment.

I'll second.

We have a second.

Um Mr.

Legou, would you like to take the roll on this?

Yep.

Mr.

Warshaw?

Yes.

Mr.

Garza.

Yes.

Dr.

Wartman?

Yes.

Mr.

Bartow?

Yes.

Mr.

Weiner?

Yes.

Mr.

Grasty.

Yes.

So with uh six votes, it is um our recommendation to the council that they appoint uh Mr.

Herman as the alternate.

We now have a an opportunity, though not necessarily an obligation to have a second alternative, but uh staff as well as myself kind of think it's it's a good idea to have as many folks in the wings as we can so that uh you know incidents prevail and people can't show up.

So let's so with that, I would suggest maybe we discuss a conversation about a second recommendation to town council.

Uh this would be an alternate as well.

Same conversation.

Anybody coming to the top that you all are excited about?

Yes, sir.

I I was impressed with Julia Chamberlain's um application.

She has experience in government um and urban planning, um, environmental science um across the board.

It seems a wide spectrum of the skills and education and some of the things that we are considering when adjudicating.

And I also like having some diversity on the board.

Very true.

Agreed.

I I would like to recommend her for appointment, uh, provided that we can get in touch and confirm she's still interested.

Do you think we could give it another shot?

Or is in your opinion, Taz, is it worth it to continue to reach out, or should we just move on?

It has admittedly been um a pretty light attempt to to contact her.

So um there's plenty of opportunities to to continue to try to contact Ms.

Chamberlain.

Um there's also as was expressed earlier, there's no urgency.

Um, so you all could also wait for later.

Um there's also the opportunity to just make the recommendation.

Um I can then reach out, continue to try to reach out to her uh before council acts.

There is always that the awkward, I think that that's probably the most awkward option to make a recommendation to council um and then not know for certain whether the the person is interested.

Well, my recommendation would be that we try again reach out to her, and being that the it's not urgent, we can revisit it at the next meeting.

Yeah, I think that's a great idea.

Um since it is an urgent and it sounds like there's at least two, potentially three folks that would would approve or if she did want to do it.

Um let's table this conversation until we hear back from the potential applicant.

And thank you, Taz, for reaching out to her.

Appreciate it.

I suggest that we make no movement then on that final spot.

Yes.

I don't think that requires action on the part of this board.

I don't think so, but uh I'm glad you said it out loud.

And sort of just a clarifying question, that final spot, is that technically um preference for like a ETJ resident spot or yeah?

So that's the um it's it's a seat that is technically reserved for somebody from the ETJ or the joint planning area.

Um the responsibility, it's kind of a a right of first uh appointment that goes to the board of county commissioners.

Um, but if after receiving notice that that seat is vacant, they don't make an appointment within a prescribed amount of time the town council um kind of gets that responsibility or that opportunity to appoint any member, uh any town resident.

Do you know where we are on that time scale and how long they have to appoint?

Yeah, it's a 60-day period.

Um, and so there's been no action in the time that um starting when though, like where are we in that we're we're well past it.

Oh yeah, okay.

Like 365 days.

Hey, I haven't been at very many meetings lately.

Yeah.

Um I think with that we have reached the conclusion of our business tonight.

Can I ask ask one question before you know?

I see that our next meeting is scheduled for September 3 of this year.

Is that correct?

That's right.

This means that this means that the uh uh tonight's applicant will not receive a decision from this board and town council until September.

So they won't be able to move forward with their project.

Uh that could be correct.

Uh it depends on their timeline.

Uh and so I'm actually glad that they're still here today.

Uh we can go ahead and can do a meeting sooner, or we could notice a special meeting if necessary.

Uh obviously the ordinance you've adopted or the resolution you've adopted directs staff to draft a decision for you all to adopt.

Right.

Um, and so to that end, we could explore moving that up and after speaking with the applicant with regard to their timeline and your availability um as early as July.

Do we need to make like an official recommendation to do that?

Well, no, you don't need to make a motion to do that.

Uh we have general rules, it's just that there are no pending applications before this board.

Right.

Uh, other than that, and so that is why with summer break.

But um, in light of the circumstance, I actually thank you for calling this to the attention with regard to the calendar um because we would want to do it sooner rather than later, even if it's just a five-minute meeting.

Right.

I'm just trying to be responsible to our um to the residents of the town.

Do you know when they would do you know when your clients would plan on breaking ground for this project by any chance?

They want to break around ASAP.

Um they've been trying to find an area that's why we're they want to do break ground.

Okay, must we must we meet as a council to uh to to approve the document the council or its staff prepares?

Uh yes, because this is a quasi-judicial decision, you must meet in a regularly noticed uh meeting.

We can't approve the amendment that or the what we just approved at this meeting.

There's the minutes, the second approval after it's redrafted.

Well, the reason it's it's drafted is because we actually have to uh prepare per statute a written decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Um and because we didn't know which direction you were going to go, the reason we do the directing staff to create an order is essentially to uphold the decision and make it enforceable.

So that's why we have this two-step process.

Sure.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thanks for raising that point.

Okay.

Um with no can we're sorry, Tom.

Can we ask can we ask staff to expedite?

Well, do we need that?

We just asked that question.

We don't need to specifically ask you to expedite, do we?

Yeah, it's not an official order.

I mean that sort.

Um what I can do is after this meeting, uh poll members and and relevant staff and just figure out what, if any date would be an option for a meeting before the September meeting.

I think that'd be appreciated if you can if you can get to it.

Yeah, that would be good.

All right.

Sorry about that.

No, good point.

No, it's a great point.

I'm glad you made it.

Yeah.

Um, with no further business outstanding, it's the chair's prerogative that uh we've officially adjourned this meeting.

Thank you for your attention and attendance.