Greenville Board of Adjustment Meeting - October 26, 2017
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Greenville Board of Adjustment Meeting - October 26, 2017
Introductory Paragraph
The Greenville Board of Adjustment held a public hearing on October 26, 2017, at 11:00 AM to consider two special use permit applications. The first application, by Harry and Gwendolyn Thomas, sought to operate a home occupation child daycare at 2620 Camille Drive. The second application, by Sarah Bateman, sought to operate a cosmetic tattooing personal service at 1032B East Victoria Court. The board heard testimony from applicants, neighbors, and staff, and voted on both matters.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Gwendolyn Thomas (applicant): Stated she is in the process of obtaining a North Carolina license for a family child care home, plans to care for up to four preschool children (though the permit allows up to five), and operates from 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM. She argued that her service would benefit working parents in the neighborhood and that safety concerns are mitigated by her fenced backyard and locked gate.
- Harry Thomas (applicant's husband): Expressed support for his wife's petition, noting her passion and qualifications.
- Alice Spooner (neighbor, 2700 Camille Drive): Opposed the daycare, citing restrictive covenants in the Charleston Village subdivision that prohibit business activity until December 31, 2035. She argued that allowing a business would set a precedent and change the residential character.
- Brian Richardson (neighbor, 800 Fox Chase Lane): Opposed, emphasizing the residential nature of the neighborhood and safety concerns about bringing unknown parents into the area. He noted that the neighborhood is busy in the morning and evening.
- Scott Barker (neighbor, 2005 Charter House Lane): Expressed safety concerns, particularly due to the location at the main entrance to the neighborhood (Camille Drive). He presented data on traffic volume (approximately 460 cars passing per day), road width (33 feet), stopping distances, and the risk of children being hit. He provided printed maps to the board.
For the second application (Sarah Bateman's cosmetic tattooing), no members of the public spoke in favor or opposition.
Discussion Items
- First Application (Thomas daycare): Staff (Ms. Blunt) presented a preliminary report and recommended five conditions: compliance with state licensing, service for up to five children, fenced outdoor play area, three off-street parking spaces, and rear yard placement of playground equipment. During board deliberation, Vice-Chair Kevin Faison raised a concern about the restrictive covenants mentioned by a neighbor. The board discussed whether these covenants would affect the city's liability or the validity of a permit. City attorney Phillips advised that the matter could be tabled for further investigation. A motion was made to table the case until the next meeting to clarify the legal implications of the land restrictions.
- Second Application (Bateman cosmetic tattooing): Staff reported no objection with conditions: compliance with state tattooing regulations (NCGS §130A-283 and NCAC 15A 18A .3200) and limitation to cosmetic tattooing/permanent makeup only. Board members asked about the scope of services (e.g., breast augmentation for cancer patients, microblading for scalp) and clarified that cosmetic tattooing excludes body art. No opposition was heard. The board voted to approve.
Key Outcomes
- Thomas daycare application: The board voted unanimously to table the petition until the next meeting (scheduled for November 16, 2017) to verify the existence and legal effect of restrictive covenants in the Charleston Village subdivision. Staff will investigate and report back.
- Bateman cosmetic tattooing application: The board voted unanimously to approve the special use permit with the staff-recommended conditions. The permit allows cosmetic tattooing/permanent makeup only, subject to state health regulations, at 1032B East Victoria Court.
Meeting Transcript
All right, we'll go ahead and start. Uh welcome to the uh October 26th meeting of the Graham Board of Adjustment. This time we'll call the meeting to order. Madam Secretary, would you please uh call the roll? Bill Johnson here. Kevin Faison? Here. Thomas Taft Jr. Rich Winkler. Michael Glenn. Rodney Bullock? Here. And Dallas. Hunt McCannon. Here. James Morat. Here. Mr. Chairman, all members present tonight are voting members for tonight's meeting. All right. Thank you. And would you please remind the public, Mr. Phillips, of the general procedure and voting requirements. As stated on page two and 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 an opposition. The members of the Board of Adjustment are laypersons, and as such, the rules of evidence that are followed in this are followed in 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 of 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 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 person who has 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 must also prevent present facts to show how the 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 petition or application is hearsay and it is and is not admissible. The same rule applies to both the applicant and those in opposition. Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 168-388 and Section 4 of the Board of Adjustments rules of procedure. No member of the Board of Adjustment shall participate in either the discussion or vote on any special use permit variance or appeal from an administrative officer's decision in any manner that would violate the effective person's constitutional right to a fair and impartial decision maker. 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. The un and undisclosed ex parte communication with a person before the board, any witnesses, staff, or other board members. 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. 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. Personal interest shall be defined as having a family member involved in the project under consideration. A neighborhood association involvement where a board member is on the governing board of that such association, or where the board member is involved in a conflict or dispute with the applicant on a matter unrelated to the application. If a board member has such a conflict, he shall declare the conflict and request to be excused from voting on the issue. A majority vote of the remaining members present shall be required to excuse the member. No board member shall vote on any matter deciding an application or appeal unless he shall have attended a public hearing on that application or appeal. No board member shall discuss any case with any parties in interest prior to the 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. If a board member has had an ex parte communication, that also needs to be disclosed at this time.
openpublica.com