OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Board of Adjustment Meeting - September 28, 2017

Board of Adjustment — Thursday, September 28, 2017
BodyGreenville, North Carolina
SessionBoard of Adjustment
DateThursday, September 28, 2017
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:58

Okay, welcome to the Thursday, September 28th, 2017 meeting of the Board of Adjustment.

1:04

This time we'll call the meeting to order.

1:09

Okay.

1:10

Um Secretary, could you call a roll, please?

1:14

Bill Johnson?

1:15

Here.

1:16

Kevin Faison.

1:17

Thomas Taft Jr.

1:18

Here.

1:19

Rich Winkler.

1:20

Here.

1:20

Michael Glenn.

1:21

Here.

1:22

Rodney Bullock.

1:23

Here.

1:23

Ann Ballas.

1:24

Here.

1:25

Hunt McKinnon?

1:26

Here.

1:26

James Moretz.

1:27

Here.

1:28

Mr.

1:29

Chairman, the voting members for tonight's meeting are Mr.

1:32

Johnson, Mr.

1:33

Taft, Mr.

1:34

Winkler, Mr.

1:34

Glenn, Mr.

1:35

Bullock, Mr.

1:36

Moretz, and Miss Bellis.

1:38

Thank you.

1:42

So moved.

1:44

Second.

1:44

All in favor?

1:45

Aye.

1:46

Aye.

1:46

Opposed.

1:47

Minister approved.

1:49

Mr.

1:49

Phillips, could you please uh remind the public of the general precision voting requirements, please.

1:57

As stated on page two uh to page three of the meeting handout available to the public, the evidence to be considered by the Board of Adjustment is as follows.

2:07

The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body that makes a decision concerning an application, petition, or appeal based on the evidence presented by those in favor as well as those in opposition.

2:17

The members of the Board of Adjustment are laypersons, and as such, the rules of evidence that are followed in a court are relaxed for cases heard before this body.

2:25

Though the rules of evidence are relaxed, it does not mean that they are ignored.

2:29

Only evidence that is material, competent, and substantial will be considered and may be used by the board in its decision-making process.

2:37

The board may not consider, nor is it admissible to present or offer affidavits, letters, or other writings in support or in opposition to a matter before the board unless the person who prepared the writing is testifying.

2:51

These writings are considered hearsay.

2:53

Statements by a person such as, in my opinion, the application will create a traffic hazard is not admissible, is not an admissible opinion and may not be considered by the board.

3:04

However, such an opinion may be admissible if it is made by an expert or by a person who is qualified to give opinions concerning traffic hazards, is making a presentation to the board concerning his or her investigation and the basis for his or her conclusion in the report.

3:19

A layperson can give an opinion, but he or she also must present facts to show how the proposed proposal affects his or her piece of property specifically and not just in a general way.

3:31

A statement that another person who is not present and not testifying either supports or doesn't support the petitioner or application is hearsay and is not admissible.

3:41

The same rule applies to both the applicant and those in opposition.

4:09

Prohibited conflicts include but are not limited to a member having a fixed opinion prior to hearing the matter and not willing to consider changing his or her mind.

4:19

Undisclosed ex parte communication with persons before the board, any witnesses, staff, or other board members, distinct decisions on either a request for recusal by a member or objections by a person appearing before the board shall be decided by a simple majority vote.

4:37

No board member shall take part in the hearing consideration or determination of any matter in which that board member is involved or has a financial or personal interest.

4:47

Personal interest shall be defined as having a family member involved in the project under consideration.

4:52

A neighborhood association involvement where a board member is on the governing body of such association, or where the board member is involved in a conflict or dispute with the applicant on a matter unrelated to the application.

5:05

If a board member has such a conflict, he shall declare the conflict and request to be excused from voting on the issue.

5:11

A simple majority vote of the remaining members present shall be required to excuse the member.

5:17

No board member shall vote on any matter deciding an application or appeal unless he shall have attended the public hearing on that application or appeal.

5:26

No board members shall discuss any case with any parties or in interest prior to the public hearing on that case, provided, however, that members may receive and or seek information pertaining to the case from any other members of the board.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████57%
Procedural██████████████████23%
Public Comment████████████████20%
Summary of Proceedings

Board of Adjustment Meeting - September 28, 2017

The Board of Adjustment met on Thursday, September 28, 2017, at 11:00 AM. The meeting was called to order with roll call. Members present: Bill Johnson, Kevin Faison, Thomas Taft Jr., Rich Winkler, Michael Glenn, Rodney Bullock, Ann Ballas, Hunt McKinnon, and James Moretz. The board reviewed two special use permit requests.

Special Use Permit for Christopher Payne (Game Center)

The board held a public hearing on a request by Christopher Payne for a special use permit to operate a game center at 1909 East Fire Tower Road, Suite G (tax parcel 56786). Staff planner Ms. Blunt presented the proposal: the 1,800 sq ft unit within a 14,000 sq ft office building includes 1,100 sq ft for retail sales of video games, consoles, plush toys, and collectible card games, with the remainder designated for the game center. The business (Well-Played Games LLC) has 20 electronic games, not coin-operated; customers pay a flat fee for wristband access. No age restrictions but children must be accompanied by a parent or guardian. The property is zoned mixed-use and complies with the Horizon Plan. Notice was mailed to adjoining owners on September 14, 2017, and published in the Daily Reflector on September 18 and 25.

Staff recommended three conditions: (1) the use may not evolve into a private club or internet sweepstakes without a new special use permit; (2) the applicant must meet with the City of Greenville Fire Department and Inspections Department to set occupancy standards for assembly use; (3) no loitering outside the business.

Applicant Christopher Payne testified that he had been operating for about two months as primarily retail with no complaints. Public supporter Jimmy Williams, a former special education teacher and ECU graduate student, spoke in favor, noting the positive community impact and personal benefit for his son with autism. No opposition was expressed. The board voted unanimously to approve the request with the recommended conditions.

Special Use Permit for Pitt County Board of Education (Major Repair Shop)

The board held a public hearing on a request by the Pitt County Board of Education for a special use permit to operate a major repair shop at 975 Woodridge Park Road (tax parcel 84060). Staff reported the proposal involves two parcels: a 3.47-acre lot with an existing building and a 20-acre vacant lot. The applicant plans to construct a 14,000 sq ft building with seven service bays, one wash bay, and approximately 1,000 sq ft of office space; the existing building will be upfitted for offices and warehouse. The property and surrounding area are zoned IU (unoffensive industry). The use is for fleet maintenance of school buses, not damaged vehicles. Notice was published in the Daily Reflector on September 18 and 25.

Staff had two comments: permits will be needed for fire sprinklers and alarms for the office upfit, and the project must meet all North Carolina State Fire and Building Codes prior to occupancy. Applicant representative Don Pelletti (Baldwin Design Consultants) stated the current transportation center on Mall Drive is being relocated to expand facilities. He argued the use meets all conditions and will not harm health, safety, or public welfare. No opposition was expressed. The board voted unanimously to approve the request.

Key Outcomes

  • Special Use Permit for Christopher Payne (game center) approved with three conditions.
  • Special Use Permit for Pitt County Board of Education (major repair shop) approved with staff comments noted; no additional conditions imposed.
  • Both votes were unanimous.

Meeting Transcript

Okay, welcome to the Thursday, September 28th, 2017 meeting of the Board of Adjustment. This time we'll call the meeting to order. Okay. Um Secretary, could you call a roll, please? Bill Johnson? Here. Kevin Faison. Thomas Taft Jr. Here. Rich Winkler. Here. Michael Glenn. Here. Rodney Bullock. Here. Ann Ballas. Here. Hunt McKinnon? Here. James Moretz. Here. Mr. Chairman, the voting members for tonight's meeting are Mr. Johnson, Mr. Taft, Mr. Winkler, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Bullock, Mr. Moretz, and Miss Bellis. Thank you. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed. Minister approved. Mr. Phillips, could you please uh remind the public of the general precision voting requirements, please. As stated on page two uh to page three of the meeting handout available to the public, the evidence to be considered by the Board of Adjustment is as follows. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body that makes a decision concerning an application, petition, or appeal based on the evidence presented by those in favor as well as those in opposition. The members of the Board of Adjustment are laypersons, and as such, the rules of evidence that are followed in a court are relaxed for cases heard before this body. Though the rules of evidence are relaxed, it does not mean that they are ignored. Only evidence that is material, competent, and substantial will be considered and may be used by the board in its decision-making process. The board may not consider, nor is it admissible to present or offer affidavits, letters, or other writings in support or in opposition to a matter before the board unless the person who prepared the writing is testifying. These writings are considered hearsay. Statements by a person such as, in my opinion, the application will create a traffic hazard is not admissible, is not an admissible opinion and may not be considered by the board. However, such an opinion may be admissible if it is made by an expert or by a person who is qualified to give opinions concerning traffic hazards, is making a presentation to the board concerning his or her investigation and the basis for his or her conclusion in the report. A layperson can give an opinion, but he or she also must present facts to show how the proposed proposal affects his or her piece of property specifically and not just in a general way. A statement that another person who is not present and not testifying either supports or doesn't support the petitioner or application is hearsay and is not admissible.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com