Gastonia Board of Adjustments Meeting – May 28, 2026: Variance Request for 1818 Winget St.
Gastonia Board of Adjustments Meeting – May 28, 2026
The Gastonia Board of Adjustments held a public hearing on May 28, 2026, at 9:00 AM in City Hall Council Chamber to consider a variance request to reduce the minimum lot size for two lots out of six being subdivided at 1818 Winget Street. The board, with four members present (one absent), voted unanimously to approve the variance after concluding it met the four required statutory findings.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The board unanimously adopted the minutes from the December 4, 2025 meeting. Chairman Lee Taylor noted that no corrections were received after mailing the minutes per new procedures.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Applicant (Tristan Armstead): Representing AB Partners LLC, the new owner of the six rental properties acquired in December 2025, stated the goal is to create more conforming lots, define clear maintenance responsibilities, and possibly enable future sales to homeowners. He emphasized no change in use or density, and that lot lines would help tenants with upkeep (e.g., mowing). He noted lot 6 is 0.148 acres (about 6,462 sq ft) and argued it is within 20% of the 8,000 sq ft standard.
- Neighbor (Lisa Moore): Owner of 1823 Wingate Street (across the street) for over 20 years. She supported subdividing the four conforming lots (1–4) but opposed the variance for lots 5 and 6, arguing that combining those two into one lot would eliminate nonconformity. She cited other nearby lots with two homes per parcel as a precedent and expressed concern about the condition of the rental properties.
Discussion Items
- Staff Presentation (Jason Putnam, Zoning Administrator): Explained that the 1.15-acre parcel currently has six single-family dwellings, all legal nonconforming on one lot (violating UDO Section 9.6A). The applicant proposes six individual lots: lots 1–4 meet RS-8 standards (8,000 sq ft minimum), while lots 5 and 6 are deficient by 615 sq ft and 1,538 sq ft respectively. The subdivision would be considered a major subdivision, requiring right-of-way dedication, possible roadway improvements, and a fee-in-lieu for sidewalks. The only remaining nonconformity would be the rear setback on lot 6 (19.2 ft vs. required 30 ft).
- Board Questions and Deliberations: Members discussed the implications of the variance, including the inability to expand nonconforming structures, comparisons to planned zero-lot-line developments, and the benefit of reducing one large nonconformity into four conforming lots. Chairman Taylor noted that the variance would improve legal status and simplify ownership, utility administration, and potential future sales. The board considered the neighbor’s concerns but was reminded by staff that citing other nonconforming lots elsewhere is not a valid consideration per UDO 5.14.4A1.
Key Outcomes
- Motion and Vote: Member Octavius Reed moved to approve the variance as presented, citing four statutory findings (unnecessary hardship, peculiar conditions, hardship not self-created, consistency with ordinance intent). James Nepal seconded. The vote was unanimous (4-0), as required due to one absent member (a 4/5 vote needed for variance).
- Next Steps: The applicant must finalize the survey and submit to Land Development/Engineering for review. The property will then be recorded at the Register of Deeds as six individual lots. Any party may appeal the decision within 30 days to the Gaston County Clerk of Superior Court.
- Other Business: Staff reported no applications for the next meeting (typically fourth Thursday of the month).
Meeting Transcript
We're doing the best we can. The things happen with uh health and with issues, people getting sick or problems, and uh we're like everybody else. We we have issues sometimes. But um right now we're together, and my name is Lee Taylor, and I'm chairman of the Board of Adjustment. On behalf of the board, I'd like to welcome you to today's meeting. Thanks for being patient. This time I'd like to go around and ask the folks here, the board members, to state their name, and uh this make sure this way we'll make sure that the microphones on and that we can everybody can hear us. But um, if you'll let us know if you've had any contacts for the record, um discuss these this matter of today with you, or do you have any reason that you cannot uh sit here and make a decision today? So if you will um let's start here with Dr. Davis. My name is Ottawa's Reed, and I've had no contact for this case. Sean Jones, no contact from anyone, James Nebo. No contact. Okay, good. So at this time, then I want to declare a quorum for the meeting, and uh we do have the four people that we will need. Um if my understanding right, this is a variance matter, so we have to have all four of us in agreement if that is correct. That's correct. Uh so all four of us. Requires a four-fifth vote to approve a variance. Uh one member is absent, so you will have to have a unanimous vote this morning. Okay. I just want to make sure, just in case uh that's not gonna make a difference. I know from the standpoint everybody's gonna decide this based on what they think. So uh and what the the city tells us. Um at this time, then I want to um let's see, talk about the the last minutes of the meetings. Uh we had a meeting on December 4, 2025, and um those minutes were mailed out to everyone under the new procedures where I remember right, and somebody can correct me if I say it wrong, but everyone gets the the minutes several weeks after the meeting, so it's still fresh in your mind, and then you look at it, and you're supposed to notify me if you have any problems or questions about the minutes or changes. I got no one contacted me, and um so the meetings, the minutes that we have were uh accepted, and I've already signed off on them. But is there any other things at this time that anybody has a reason to change that? Is there a motion? We do need a motion to adopt the meeting minutes as submitted or or revised. So I would uh be glad to hear a motion at this time to uh to adopt the meeting minutes. Uh James Nebo, I move that we adopt those minutes. Thank you, Mr. Nebo. And is there a second? I tell you as read, I second it. Thank you. All right, Miss Mince, are you clear on all that? Okay, thank you. Call for the vote. Yeah, all I'll just make sure she cleared who who did what. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye, raise your raise your right hand. We'll be a little more efficient. And um make sure and any opposed, it looked like we were unanimous, so almost it was unanimous. All right, at this time I have a statement to read that is um required. Only competent substantial fact-based testimony or evidence will be considered by this board in deciding the quasi-judicial matters listed on today's agenda. The board cannot legally consider pure speculation or opinion unsupported by competent facts and weighing the appropriateness of the application. If you intend to comment or provide evidence or testimony this morning, please keep this in mind. It must be factual.
openpublica.com