OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Greenville Board of Adjustment Meeting – April 26, 2018

Board of Adjustment — Thursday, April 26, 2018
BodyGreenville, North Carolina
SessionBoard of Adjustment
DateThursday, April 26, 2018
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:51

Good evening and welcome to the Thursday, April 26th meeting of the Greenville Board of Adjustment.

0:58

Madam Secretary, could you call a roll, please?

1:00

Bill Johnson?

1:01

Here.

1:01

Kevin Faison.

1:02

Here.

1:03

Rich Winkler.

1:04

Michael Glenn.

1:06

Rodney Bullock.

1:07

Here.

1:07

Ann Bellis.

1:08

Here.

1:09

Hunt McKinnon.

1:09

Here.

1:10

Dylan Godley.

1:11

Here.

1:11

James Moretz.

1:12

Here.

1:13

Mr.

1:13

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

1:17

Okay.

1:17

Thank you.

1:19

All right.

1:22

Let's see.

1:23

Mr.

1:23

Phillips, would you remind the public of the general procedure and voting requirement?

1:27

We can do the minutes first.

1:29

Yes.

1:30

Minute.

1:31

Minute first.

1:33

Motion.

1:35

Minutes.

1:35

We had two sets of minutes.

1:37

January and March.

1:38

Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes from January?

1:43

Second.

1:43

All in favor?

1:45

All opposed.

1:46

How about the minutes from March 22nd?

1:48

So move.

1:50

Second.

1:50

Second.

1:52

All in favor?

1:53

All opposed.

1:55

All right.

1:56

Sorry.

1:58

As stated on pages two and three of the meeting handout available to the public.

2:02

The evidence to be considered by the Board of Adjustment is as follows.

2:05

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.

2:16

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.

2:24

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

2:28

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

2:36

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

2:49

These writings are considered hearsay.

2:52

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.

3:01

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.

3:16

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

3:28

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

3:39

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

3:44

Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 168-388 and section 4 of the Board of Adjustment's rules of procedure.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use██████████████████████████26%
Public Hearing███████████████████████23%
Traffic Management█████████9%
Procedural████████8%
Mobile Home Parks███████7%
Fast Food Regulations███████7%
Mental Health Awareness█████5%
Public Safety█████5%
Legal Procedure████4%
Summary of Proceedings

Greenville Board of Adjustment Meeting – April 26, 2018

The Greenville Board of Adjustment met on April 26, 2018, to hold public hearings on four special use permit applications. All members were present and voting. After presentations, staff reports, and board discussion, all four permits were approved with conditions. No members of the public spoke in opposition to any item.

Minutes Approval

  • The board unanimously approved the minutes from the January and March meetings.

Special Use Permit – Powder Coating (Timothy Moore / Prism Powder Coating and Hydrographics)

  • Location: 801 Staten Road (tax parcel 33642).
  • Proposal: Operation of an industrial use not otherwise listed (powder coating) inside an existing 11,000 sq ft building. The applicant stated no hazardous materials are used and all work occurs indoors.
  • Staff Report: Noted property is in the city’s ETJ, zoned IU (unoffensive industry), consistent with the Horizon Community Plan. Staff recommended no objection with the condition that the project meet state fire and building codes.
  • Public Comments: None.
  • Board Discussion: Questions clarified the process and that no exterior work would occur.
  • Vote: Motion to accept findings of fact with the condition; motion to approve the petition. Both passed unanimously.

Special Use Permit – Mental Health Day Program (Jackie Parker and Demetrius Wilson)

  • Location: 609 C Country Club Drive (tax parcel 50555).
  • Proposal: Operate a mental health, emotional, or physical day program (psychosocial rehabilitation for adults) in a 3,850 sq ft office building. The applicant previously operated in an adjacent unit and sought a smaller space. Typical hours are 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. with a staff-to-consumer ratio of 1:8. Maximum capacity in the new space estimated at 12.
  • Staff Report: Recommended conditions: compliance with NC DHHS licensing, supervision of clients outside, and compliance with fire/building codes. Staff had no objection with these conditions.
  • Public Comments: None.
  • Board Discussion: Questions about client counts, supervision, and past incidents (none). The applicant stated no prior issues with the neighboring learning center.
  • Vote: Motion to accept findings of fact with conditions; motion to approve. Both passed unanimously.

Special Use Permit – Mobile Home on Individual Lot (Luis Santana)

  • Location: 1175 Perkins Road (tax parcel 00902).
  • Proposal: Place a double-wide manufactured home on a 20-acre lot in the ETJ. The lot is within the 100-year floodplain. Existing structures on site are gutted mobile units used for storage.
  • Staff Report: Recommended conditions: existing storage sheds not to be converted to dwellings; all mechanical equipment elevated two feet above base flood elevation; flood vents may be required; elevation certificate needed before certificate of occupancy; compliance with state codes.
  • Public Comments: None.
  • Board Discussion: Questions about utilities (existing storage units not connected to water/sewer/electric), location of the new home (toward the rear of the property), and proximity to the airport runway/taxiway. The applicant noted a buffer of trees and a fence. The airport authority was notified and offered no objection.
  • Vote: Motion to accept findings of fact with conditions; motion to approve. Both passed unanimously.

Special Use Permit – Fast Food Restaurant (Stuart Michael Edwards – Bill’s Hot Dogs)

  • Location: 4300 Eastern Pines Road (tax parcel 09746).
  • Proposal: Operate a fast food restaurant (no drive-through, no on-site seating) in a 950 sq ft portion of a 3,120 sq ft commercial building. The building also contains a barber shop and will have a small retail unit. The applicant stated the average visit is under five minutes.
  • Staff Report: Recommended condition: site plan approval required prior to building permit. No objection with that condition.
  • Public Comments: Expert witness Paul Kumo (real estate appraiser) testified that the surrounding neighborhoods have stable property values and that the development would not injure adjacent properties. He noted the DOT’s planned roundabout and road improvements would improve access.
  • Board Discussion: A board member initially raised concerns about traffic generation, stacking, and safety at the intersection of Eastern Pines and Porter Town Road. After discussion—including the applicant’s clarification that there is no seating or drive-through, and the DOT’s approved plan to relocate the intersection and add a roundabout—the board member withdrew the objection. Other board members noted the existing barbershop had not caused traffic issues and that parking requirements (based on no seating) would be minimal. The board opted not to add further conditions beyond the staff recommendation.
  • Vote: Motion to accept findings of fact with the condition; motion to approve the petition. Both passed unanimously.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening and welcome to the Thursday, April 26th meeting of the Greenville Board of Adjustment. Madam Secretary, could you call a roll, please? Bill Johnson? Here. Kevin Faison. Here. Rich Winkler. Michael Glenn. Rodney Bullock. Here. Ann Bellis. Here. Hunt McKinnon. Here. Dylan Godley. Here. James Moretz. Here. Mr. Chairman, all members present tonight are voting members for tonight's meeting. Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's see. Mr. Phillips, would you remind the public of the general procedure and voting requirement? We can do the minutes first. Yes. Minute. Minute first. Motion. Minutes. We had two sets of minutes. January and March. Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes from January? Second. All in favor? All opposed. How about the minutes from March 22nd? So move. Second. Second. All in favor? All opposed. All right. Sorry. 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 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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com