Greenville Board of Adjustment Meeting Summary - March 24, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Greenville Board of Adjustment Meeting Summary - March 24, 2022
The Greenville Board of Adjustment met on March 24, 2022, at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. The meeting included approval of minutes, two public hearings, and a continuation of a variance decision. All votes were unanimous.
Approval of Minutes
- December 16, 2021 Minutes: Approved without dissent after a motion by Miss Bellis and a second.
- February 24, 2022 Minutes: Attorney Phillips recommended an amendment to correct the wording of an abstention. The amendment changed the vote tally from "Vote 5 to 2, 5 no, and 2 yes, including one abstention" to "Vote five to one, five no and one yes, with one member abstaining from voting." The board approved the minutes with this amendment.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public spoke during the public hearings. The only testimony came from staff and the applicants.
Old Business: Public Hearing on Surrender of Special Use Permit (Daniel S. Kadis)
- Property: 707 Dickinson Ave, tax parcel 12632, zoned Downtown Commercial (CD). The site is 0.49 acres with two commercial units.
- Proposal: Voluntary surrender of a special use permit for a private club granted in May 2014.
- Staff Presentation: City staff confirmed the property is in compliance with the Horizons plan and that notice was properly mailed and published.
- Board Action: The board voted to accept the surrender of the permit. Motion and second carried unanimously.
New Business: Public Hearing for Special Use Permit (Joyce Holland and Jessica Wilmeth)
- Property: O NC 33 E, tax parcel 14784, zoned Residential Agricultural (RA20). The lot is 0.30 acres with 105 feet of frontage along Highway 33.
- Proposal: Place a mobile home on the lot to care for the applicant's grandmother.
- Staff Recommendation: Approval with one condition: a floodplain development permit must be issued in conjunction with the building permit. The property is in a floodplain.
- Applicant Testimony: Jessica Wilmeth stated the purpose was to care for her grandmother. She confirmed awareness of the floodplain permit requirement.
- Board Action: The board approved the findings of fact and the petition with the staff-recommended condition. Motions and seconds carried unanimously.
Proposed BOA Decision and Order Denial of Variance (Jason and Noel Grace Jasinski)
- Attorney Phillips reported that the decision was not yet ready and asked to continue the matter to the next regular meeting. The board agreed without a vote.
Announcements
- The board noted that the next regular meeting is scheduled for April 28, 2022. A special meeting may be held on April 7, 2022, to hear an appeal.
Key Outcomes
- Approved minutes for December 16, 2021, and February 24, 2022 (with amendment).
- Approved surrender of special use permit for 707 Dickinson Ave.
- Approved special use permit for a mobile home at O NC 33 E with floodplain condition.
- Continued the Jasinski variance decision to the next meeting.
Meeting Transcript
If you all will remember back with me, Mr. McKinnon placed his objection on the floor about uh how portions of the minutes were composed. Uh they have been noted, vetted, represented, and at this time I'll seek a motion for the approval of the minutes for December the 16th 2021. So moved. All right. We have a motion by Miss Bellis and our second. Second. We have our second. Very good. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, this is much different than the virtual meeting. All right. All right. All those in favor. Right? Say aye. All those that oppose. I guess the ayes have it. Will that suffice? Yeah, it's listen. It's been quite some time since I've ridden the bike. Now we're going to move on to draft minutes for last month, February the 24th. Uh seek a motion for the approval of those minutes. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I may have a full briefly. Certainly. With regard to the February 24th, uh 22 minutes. I would recommend to the board the need for correction over on page uh 28 regarding the uh wording of the abstention. Um it currently states Mr. Cohen made a motion to approve the petition with the recommended conditions by city staff. Mr. Pertle seconded the motion and it failed. Vote 5 to 2, 5 no, and 2 yes, including one abstention perdle. So a couple of things with regard to an abstention. Number one, our rules of procedure for the board of adjustment does not specifically address abstention voting. Um I will say for sake of uh uh explanation, the historic preservation commission's rules and the uh planning and zoning commission's rules state that a an abstention is an affirmative vote. So then you go back to well, what should control that particular issue. Uh the rules of procedure for the board of adjustment do not does not also specify the Roberts Rules of Order is the specific parliamentary procedure for the board. However, it is used like a as a guide. When you look at Robert's rules of order, uh it's treated two different ways depending on the on the interpretation. One would be that the abstention vote is essentially a non-vote, meaning that it does not count at all. The second would be that it's a negative vote. So based upon uh consultation with the city attorney, the city attorney would recommend that it would be reflected that um that it would be included as a a uh non-vote. So I would recommend that the amendment that the uh minutes be approved with the amendment of Mr. Cohen made a motion to approve the petition with the recommended conditions by city staff, and Mr. Pertle seconded the motion and it failed. Vote five to one, comma five no and one yes per end with one member abstaining from voting.
openpublica.com