Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Greenville Board of Adjustment Meeting – November 30, 2017

Board of Adjustment — Thursday, November 30, 2017

BodyGreenville, North Carolina

SessionBoard of Adjustment

DateThursday, November 30, 2017

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:57:13

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:53

Good evening.

0:54

Welcome to the Thursday, November 30th, 2017 meeting of the Greenville Board of Adjustment.

1:01

This time we'll ask Madam Secretary Call Roll, please.

1:06

Bill Johnson.

1:07

Here.

1:07

Kevin Faison.

1:08

Here.

1:08

Thomas Staff Jr.

1:09

Here.

1:10

Rich Winkler.

1:11

Here.

1:11

Michael Glenn.

1:12

Here.

1:12

Rodney Bullock.

1:13

Ann Bellis.

1:14

Hunt McKinnon.

1:15

Here.

1:16

James Moretz.

1:18

Mr.

1:18

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

1:23

All members, voting members for tonight's meeting.

1:26

All right.

1:26

Thank you.

1:27

Do I hear a motion to prove the matter of the last meeting?

1:30

So moved.

1:31

Okay.

1:31

Is there a second?

1:32

Second.

1:33

All in favor?

1:35

All opposed.

1:38

Ms.

1:38

Watt.

1:46

Before the attorney gets his speech, just want to let you know all of you all have received an email statement from agenda item number two.

1:56

They have withdrawn their request, or as you stated, you see on the email, so that would not be heard tonight.

2:09

All right, Mr.

2:09

Phillips.

2:10

Mr.

2:10

Chair, uh, the following applies to all matters for consideration by the board tonight.

2:15

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

2:23

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

2:34

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.

2:43

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

2:47

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

2:55

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.

3:10

These writings are considered hearsay.

3:13

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.

3:22

However, such an opinion may be admissible if it is made by an expert or 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.

3:38

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

3:49

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.

4:00

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

4:05

Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 168-388 and section four of the Board of Adjustments rules of procedure.

4:11

No member of the Board of Adjustment shall participate in either a discussion or vote on any special use permit, variance, or appeal for an administrative officer's decision in any manner that would violate the effective person's constitutional right to a fair and impartial decision maker.

4:29

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, an undisclosed ex parte communication with the person before the board, any witnesses, staff, or other board members.

4:45

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.

5:00

No board members 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.

5:06

Personal interest shall be defined as having a family member involved in a project under consideration, a neighborhood association involvement where a board member is on the governing body of such association, or whether board member is involved in a conflict or dispute with the applicant on a matter unrelated to the application.

5:24

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

5:30

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

5:35

No board members shall vote on any matter not deciding an application or appeal unless unless he shall have attended the public hearing on that application or appeal.

5:46

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

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Public Works████████████████████████24%

Procedural███████████████████████23%

Transportation Safety████████████████████20%

Zoning And Land Use█████████9%

Public Safety███████7%

Public Transportation██████6%

Sidewalk Management█████5%

Engineering And Infrastructure████4%

Legal Procedure█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Greenville Board of Adjustment Meeting

Date: Thursday, November 30, 2017 (Originally scheduled for November 16, 2017; rescheduled due to publication error)

Present: Bill Johnson, Kevin Faison, Thomas Staff Jr., Rich Winkler, Michael Glenn, Rodney Bullock, Ann Bellis, Hunt McKinnon, James Moretz (all voting members present).

The meeting included a continued public hearing on restrictive covenants and a new appeal regarding a sidewalk requirement for a Sunbelt Rentals facility.

Consent Calendar

Minutes Approval: Motion made, seconded, and unanimously approved to adopt the minutes of the last meeting.

Old Business – Restrictive Covenants (Continued from October 26, 2017)

Background: The board had continued this item to verify the existence and impact of restrictive covenants on the board’s decision. City staff confirmed the covenants (recorded in Book 1877, pages 187-193 of Pitt County Registry). The city attorney advised that the Board of Adjustment interprets only public land use restrictions, not private covenants; private enforcement is a separate proceeding.
Vote: With four eligible voting members (three members absent from the prior hearing were excluded per rules), a motion to approve the petition with appropriate conditions passed 3-0 (Members: Staff Jr., Faison, and McKinnon; Johnson, Winkler, and Glenn were not eligible). The permit was granted.

New Appeal – Sunbelt Rentals Sidewalk Requirement

Appeal of Director of Public Works Kevin Mulligan’s decision requiring a sidewalk along State Road (a minor thoroughfare) per City Code Section 9-4-281.

Presentations:

Kevin Mulligan (City): Explained the code mandates sidewalks for new non-residential developments on designated roads. He noted that Staten Road is a minor thoroughfare on the MPO plan, and the city has consistently required sidewalks—including in industrial areas (e.g., FedEx on Industrial Boulevard). He cited: $125 million in sidewalk needs citywide; North Carolina ranked #1 in fatal crashes per 100,000 population over the past decade; and a recent pedestrian fatality on Bellwood Road. He argued the sidewalk would improve safety, even if initially isolated.
Tommy Goodwin (Appellant/Property Owner): Represented T.D. Goodwin Construction and the property owner. He argued the proposed sidewalk would be a “sidewalk to nowhere,” terminating at a non‑encroachment area (Parker’s Creek floodplain) with no possibility of future connection on that side. He cited the lack of curb and gutter, drainage challenges, and the industrial context: no homes, retail, or pedestrian generators within two miles; less than five accidents and zero fatalities on Staten Road from 2007‑2016 (per NCDOT data). He emphasized the difficulty of meeting ADA standards in a ditch and the likelihood that the city would eventually tear up the sidewalk to tie in at a proper elevation.
Public Comments: No additional public testimony was offered.

Board Deliberation:

Members discussed the feasibility of installing the sidewalk given the non‑encroachment area, the absence of existing sidewalks on contiguous properties, and the city’s uncertain timeline for completing sidewalks on Staten Road.
The city acknowledged that the sidewalk could be placed behind the drainage ditch and that a bond for delayed installation was possible.

Key Outcomes

Motion to Reverse the Administrative Officer’s Decision: Made by member (likely Faison or McKinnon) and seconded. The board found two key factual grounds: (1) the sidewalk would terminate at a non‑encroachment area, forcing pedestrians to cross the street where no sidewalk exists, creating a public safety hazard; and (2) the site’s configuration (ditch, lack of curb, tight right‑of‑way) made ADA‑compliant installation impractical.
Vote: The motion carried by a show of hands (4 eligible voters: Johnson, Faison, McKinnon, and others; motion passed). The board reversed the decision, allowing the applicant to proceed without the sidewalk. The planning division will process a minor alteration to the site plan.
Next Steps: The board directed counsel to draft a written order with findings of fact for approval at the next meeting. The 2018 meeting schedule was distributed.

Note: The meeting ended with adjournment after the appeal vote.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening. Welcome to the Thursday, November 30th, 2017 meeting of the Greenville Board of Adjustment. This time we'll ask Madam Secretary Call Roll, please. Bill Johnson. Here. Kevin Faison. Here. Thomas Staff Jr. Here. Rich Winkler. Here. Michael Glenn. Here. Rodney Bullock. Ann Bellis. Hunt McKinnon. Here. James Moretz. Mr. Chairman, the voting members for tonight's meeting are everyone present. All members, voting members for tonight's meeting. All right. Thank you. Do I hear a motion to prove the matter of the last meeting? So moved. Okay. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? All opposed. Ms. Watt. Before the attorney gets his speech, just want to let you know all of you all have received an email statement from agenda item number two. They have withdrawn their request, or as you stated, you see on the email, so that would not be heard tonight. All right, Mr. Phillips. Mr. Chair, uh, the following applies to all matters for consideration by the board tonight. As stated on pages 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 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 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 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 prevent 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 petitioner or application is hearsay and is not admissible. The same rule applies to both the applicant and those in opposition.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com