[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indenisable, with liberty and justice for all.
[0:14] Okay, I will now go over the approval of the minutes. Has everyone read the minutes from the prior meeting? Yeah. Any changes?
[0:25] I'll entertain a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye.
[0:34] All opposed, the motion carries.
[0:38] We'll now move into public hearing and consideration of approval of SUP 012620604 Taurant's Chapel Road.
[0:49] I'll entertain a motion to suspend the planning board meeting and open as the Board of Adjustments.
[0:55] So moved.
[0:56] Senator Second.
[0:57] Second.
[0:58] All in favor say aye.
[0:59] Aye.
[1:01] Any opposed?
[1:03] I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing for SUPO 126.
[1:09] Some moved.
[1:10] Is there a second?
[1:11] Second.
[1:12] All in favor?
[1:13] Aye.
[1:14] Opposed?
[1:17] We'd now like to have the legal representative, Erica, to read the conflict of interest narrative
[1:23] and verify that the applicant, excuse me, would like to incorporate it all provided materials
[1:29] into their testimony. And then we'll ask the staff to swear in those providing testimony.
[1:35] Yes, I decide to confirm. Has any board member had any undisclosed
[1:39] exparte communications regarding this matter? Any financial interests in the matter at the end?
[1:44] A close relationship with the applicant or owner of an effective property, personal bias or other
[1:49] impartiality. No board members shall participate in or vote on any quasi-judicial matter in a
[1:54] manner that would violate the applicant's constitutional rights to an impartial decision maker.
[1:59] In permissible violations of due process include a member having a fixed opinion prior to hearing the matter that is not susceptible to change
[2:06] undisclosed as part of a communications a close familial business or other associated relationship with the applicant or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter as
[2:16] any more member any of these.
[2:17] No. No. We need to speak up please. Say okay. Okay. Mr. Cole. Oh, I guess we have to
[2:27] slump swear in the anyone providing testimony.
[3:05] So before getting into the facts of the case, just wanted to take a second to give the
[3:11] boards' information on special use permits. This is not an application type that we see every day.
[3:17] It's really reserved for very specific sort of application types in the land development code
[3:23] that really don't really rise to the level of sort of a larger rezone or board approval.
[3:30] But it's something that we may need some special standards to make sure that the proposal
[3:37] is a good neighbor to the projects, to the properties around it, and then also to ensure public safety, health, and welfare in this case.
[3:47] So especially use permit is a board of adjustment application type. So this is a quasi-judicial hearing. So it will feel like what you may recall from a variance hearing, but it doesn't necessarily rise to the same level nor will the findings be the same.
[4:03] And so, like a variance hearing or like any other sort of quasi-judicial matter, the
[4:09] decisions must be based on competent, relevant, and substantial evidence provided by sworn
[4:13] testimony.
[4:16] Conditions can be placed on the approval, provided that, of course, they're related to the request
[4:20] at hand on the property.
[4:23] Conflict of interest, like we just discussed, must be disclosed at the beginning of the hearing.
[4:27] One key difference is this is an approval by a simple majority as opposed to a four-fifths majority.
[4:34] And I'm going to get a little bit more into the background of what findings we're looking at tonight and why in a moment.
[4:39] But just zooming out a little bit, this is a special use permit for, in this case, a large flagpole.
[4:47] So this is the property in question.
[4:49] So this is 2604 Torch's Chapel Road.
[4:52] So this is the former location of Lake Norman Chrysler Dodge Deep,
[4:57] recently acquired in operational as Randy Marion Lake Norman.
[5:01] So it's a car dealership.
[5:02] It's been a car dealership for many, many years.
[5:05] It originally was built in the 1980s, expanded refurbished in 2004,
[5:10] and car dealership as a use is allowed under a conditional use
[5:15] department that's still valid and active on this site.
[5:19] The property is zoned Highway Commercial.
[5:22] It is located in the Torrance Chapel Overlay and also in the Watership District.
[5:29] Here's a close-in view of the site.
[5:30] As you can see, it's got significant frontage on both Torrance Chapel Road and is highly visible
[5:34] from I-77.
[5:36] It's one of the key landmarks as you exit the interstate heading south onto exit 28, very
[5:43] visible property from both directions.
[5:47] So there are quests before we this evening is for a special use permit.
[5:51] So Randy Marion Lake Norman would like to install a flag pole that is 114.84 feet tall
[5:58] and he would like to hang a flag not exceeding 1,800 square feet on the flag pole.
[6:05] So the applicant this evening, David Cogel, is representing Randy Marion Lake Norman.
[6:11] The underlying property owner is also given permission for this application to move forward.
[6:17] And so a little bit of backstory here.
[6:19] Y'all might remember several months ago, we did amend the land development code in chapter
[6:23] 10 and chapter 3 to allow larger US and North Carolina flags to exceed the standards of the
[6:32] code subject to the special use permit process.
[6:35] So this is the first applicant looking to use the new process and the new findings in order
[6:40] to get a larger US flag.
[6:44] And so here's that background.
[6:45] So typically flag polls would be capped at 30 feet tall,
[6:48] 40 foot square foot flag, and a maximum of three per establishment.
[6:52] This sort of recent code change that we did was
[6:55] in response to an October state statute change
[6:59] that prohibited towns from restricting flagpole height, size,
[7:02] and or number for US and with counter flags,
[7:05] for anything except public health safety and welfare.
[7:08] And so that's what we did.
[7:10] We sort of aligned our code to meet the state statute or match the statutory standards
[7:15] but the statute wasn't very clear on what public safety health welfare was so
[7:19] you know we crafted some common sense findings around that.
[7:23] So the purpose of the hearing this evening is for the board to hear the evidence submitted by the
[7:27] applicant ask questions of staff or the applicant and really gauge as to whether the evidence before
[7:34] you indicates that the property meets all seven findings of fact listed in the code
[7:39] and those findings are pretty clear and concise
[7:41] and they get towards public health, safety, and welfare.
[7:47] These are the findings.
[7:49] All seven, I won't read these verbatim.
[7:51] You do have copies of those findings
[7:55] before you this evening on worksheet.
[7:57] So as discussion continues, feel free to jot down your thoughts
[8:00] because just like a variance,
[8:01] we'll have to, at the end of everything,
[8:03] y'all are gonna have to do some deliberation
[8:05] and make those findings based on the evidence discussed
[8:08] and submitted this evening.
[8:09] So here's some photographs of the property.
[8:14] So here's the view from I-77.
[8:17] Again, very visual, very prominent from the interstate.
[8:20] This is the view from Torrance Chapel Road.
[8:23] And my apologies.
[8:24] This probably could have been a better angle.
[8:26] I'll try to get one next time that doesn't have power poles in it.
[8:32] So here's exhibits two and three submitted by the applicant.
[8:35] So this is an elevation view of the flagpole.
[8:38] So, it indicates that the actual height of the flagpole will not exceed 114.84 feet above
[8:45] grade. And on the left, this is sort of a high-level map prepared by the applicant, indicating
[8:50] that the property is over 500 feet from the nearest residential district. The flagpole's
[8:57] located well away from the building that's on site. It also shows the distance from both
[9:03] the DOT readily aligned to I-77 and the McDonald's property line to the self.
[9:09] This is exhibit 4 submitted by the applicant, so this pertains to the flag radius requirement.
[9:15] So that requirement essentially says that when the flag is flying in the wind completely
[9:19] unfurled and mounted to the flag pole, the flag itself cannot encroach over top of a property
[9:25] line.
[9:26] So this exhibit shows that that flag radius of 70 feet is well within the property boundaries.
[9:31] This is exhibit five. This is the collapse zone of the flagpole. Essentially, if the flagpole were to fall, it's the full distance of the height of the flagpole plus ten feet.
[9:44] So the purpose of this standard is to ensure that the flagpole, if it falls, will not fall on top of buildings or will not cross property or right-of-way lines if that were to occur.
[9:56] This is Exhibit 6. This is correspondence from NCDOT, essentially confirming that there
[10:03] are really no sort of safety concerns associated with the roadways presented by this flagpole.
[10:13] So that sort of concludes the staff overview for the project. We are recommending a condition
[10:20] be attached should the board choose to approve this evening. And that has to do with verification
[10:26] essentially that if the flagpole is installed just as built survey to make sure that the height
[10:31] of that flagpole doesn't exceed 114.84 square feet. So just because this, you know, the applicant
[10:37] will get the ability to construct. After this SUP issue that this board is the final decision-making
[10:44] body, this is just sort of a standard verification condition that we put on projects like this.
[10:51] And once again here are the findings that this evening the board will be expected to
[10:56] review against and ensure that are met.
[10:59] So the property must be located non-residential district, 500 feet from a residential district.
[11:06] Flypool must be located in a defined rear side yard, must be located on the property so
[11:11] that when the flag is unfurled, doesn't encroach past the property line, the collapse and
[11:16] requirement, the DOT verification, and then, again, special consideration if there's any
[11:22] other sort of unique concerns that may arise.
[11:28] And that concludes our presentation.
[11:31] The applicant, Mr. David Cobles, also here to potentially provide some more information
[11:35] or take questions from the board about the proposal.
[11:38] Any questions from the planning board for David?
[11:43] Can I have a question, even though I'm not a voting member on the sure topic for the conditions
[11:48] is it only for the U.S. flag and for North Carolina flag?
[11:52] Okay, per the code, that's correct.
[11:54] The only time you can exceed is if you are one of those two flag types.
[12:01] Okay, with none others, we'll now hear from the applicant.
[12:06] When you come forward, please state your name, address for the record.
[12:10] Hi, I'm David Cobal, 111, Timberfalls Court, Moore's on North Carolina, 28115.
[12:14] As staff is reviewed, we do meet all the requirements for the findings effect.
[12:20] So I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
[12:24] Mr. Temple prepared the link. Did you prepare the application?
[12:28] Yes.
[12:29] If you wish to report that to your test.
[12:32] Yes. Any other questions for the applicant?
[12:37] Yes sir.
[12:38] Keith Hiker, is this a similar to the one in the state's bill?
[12:41] Yes it is.
[12:42] A little bit smaller though.
[12:44] This is smaller than...
[12:45] This will be smaller than the one in state's bill because of the flagpole
[12:47] high-through requirements in the property land boundaries.
[12:51] The one in state's bill is a 130-foot pole and a little bit bigger flag.
[12:55] Travis, Julian, what's the purpose for installing a flag of this size?
[13:03] Uh, Rainy Mary and lack of big flags.
[13:06] I mean, that's, that's really it.
[13:08] I mean, you know, he's a big supporter of Edren's plow sport of America.
[13:11] And all of his dealerships have large flags at them.
[13:14] It's just part of the staple of his branding.
[13:17] Okay.
[13:19] Mr. Chair, this is Roxbury, and I just had one question for the applicant.
[13:22] And that is Mr. Cobbler, there was a recommended condition of approval to have an as-built survey prepared once after the poll is installed.
[13:31] Just want to make sure you're in agreement in accepting that condition.
[13:33] Yes.
[13:34] If the item were to be approved.
[13:35] Yes, we are.
[13:36] Thank you.
[13:38] Any other questions for the applicant?
[13:41] Okay, thank you.
[13:41] Thank you.
[13:42] Now, if there is someone in the audience who would like to speak.
[13:48] Okay, thank you.
[13:51] The board may now ask questions of staff, applicant or witnesses in regards to the case.
[13:56] Inquiry should be limited to the application salt.
[14:00] Not other zoning matters that would be discussed or determined by another board or review process.
[14:07] So I'm opening the floor for board members to ask questions.
[14:16] Any questions?
[14:16] With no questions, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing for SUP 0126.
[14:24] So moved.
[14:25] Second.
[14:26] All in favor say aye.
[14:27] I will now ask the board to deliberate whether they believe that the application is
[14:32] approvable based on the evidence provided.
[14:43] They comments or questions?
[14:46] Yes, we're talking about this.
[14:49] Do you feel like this is, will there be any fallout or ripple effect by us approving this flag for them?
[15:00] Describe what you mean by fallout. I mean, I don't even necessarily know. I mean, anybody else coming to us. So at the end of the day, Travis, I'm going to hold you. We have to rule on the seven findings of fact, only not. What if that might be mad at us, yeah? Right. Does it? No, not each of the. Okay.
[15:23] I'll now nominate individual members to read each finding of fact and make a determination as to whether the finding has been met and why?
[15:31] Please note that all findings must be justified with competent material and substantial evidence provided as part of this hearing.
[15:40] This is also the time to deliberate and decide whether any conditions staff recommended or otherwise, which we have discussed, should be reasonably placed upon the special use permitted approved.
[15:52] Conditions must be associated with the requested hand.
[15:56] Okay,
[16:01] finding number one will be read west away.
[16:07] Finding number one, the subject property upon which the flag court has proposed is located
[16:12] in a non-residential district.
[16:14] I will say yes because it is in a non-residential district, okay.
[16:21] Finding number two, A book calendar.
[16:24] The flagpole is located a minimum of 500 feet from the nearest residential district.
[16:32] Yes. This decision was made based on presentation by our staff and the drawing.
[16:44] Yes, the drawing. Yes, that's part of presentation.
[16:47] Okay. Number three, Keith Eichler.
[16:51] The flagpole is located in a defined rear or side yard placement of the flagpole exceeding
[16:57] a height and size 10 in this ordinance is permitted in primary or secondary grant yard.
[17:03] It is located in the middle of the the answer is yes, it is located in the middle of it looks
[17:08] like the parking line or the gerry of the cars, okay.
[17:13] Okay, finding number four is myself.
[17:17] Bill Beck told the flag post, she'll be located on property so that the overall length
[17:21] of the flag when entirely unfurled does not accroach upon the joining property lines
[17:27] nor over a public right away.
[17:30] And the answer is yes, and it was described with a drawing that showed that beforehand.
[17:39] Okay. Number five, Todd Little.
[17:43] The flag poll collapse zone remains clear of any on-site structure. And it is entirely
[17:49] within the boundaries of the subject for property for this, for the purpose of this section.
[17:54] Collapse zone is defined as a buffer zone measuring from the base of the flag poll with the
[18:00] right, right, yes, equalling the total height of the tall hole plus 10% yes, and they
[18:07] should have sat in the, in the drawing. Okay. Finding number six, Mamie Lee.
[18:14] A letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation is provided with the special
[18:19] use permit application, which confirms based on a site study that no traffic concerns will arise
[18:25] Yes, with manner of placement of the display of such flag at the particular location.
[18:31] Yes, decision to make this finding is based on the following facts that there was an email
[18:35] from the Department of Transportation.
[18:38] Thank you.
[18:39] And number seven, Travis Julian, the overall placement of the flag on the subject property
[18:45] does not create additional concerns regarding public health, safety, and welfare.
[18:51] there. And the answer to that would be yes. It does not create and for all the documents
[19:01] that was submitted.
[19:05] Okay. We will now take a brief 10 minute recess in order for staff
[19:09] to complete the official findings of fact document. And staff will compile the findings of document
[19:15] based on the results of the hearing and point and distribute it for the board prior to the
[19:19] final vote. So we will take 10 minutes starting now.
[24:37] Okay, there we go.
[24:44] Yeah, so the board has proposed the following parties of back the subject property
[24:49] upon which the flag pole is proposed is located in a non-residential district.
[24:53] The flag pole is located at minimum of 500 feet from the nearest resident district.
[24:58] The flag pole is located in a defined rear yard or side yard placement of a flag pole exceeding
[25:03] and height and size standards of this ordinance
[25:05] is probably the primary or secondary front yard.
[25:08] The black hole shall be located on one of the properties
[25:10] to the overall length of the flag when entirely
[25:12] and for all does not encroach beyond
[25:14] the adjoining property lines,
[25:15] nor a group of public right-of-way.
[25:17] The black hole collapse zone remains clear
[25:19] beneath on-site structures
[25:21] and sits entirely within the boundaries
[25:23] of the subject property.
[25:25] A letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation
[25:27] is provided with the special use permit application,
[25:30] which can be further spaced on a site study
[25:32] that no traffic concerns will arise with the manner placed with the slate of such flag at
[25:37] the particular location and the overall placement of the flag hold subject property does not create any
[25:42] additional concern regarding public health safety and welfare. With the following addition,
[25:48] the applicant must provide the town with an as-built survey to review verifying the height of the
[25:52] flag hold from grade upon its search.
[25:56] Okay, so now we'll have a vote and all in favor of approving this
[26:03] I need somebody to make the emotion to improve the slate that's presented.
[26:08] Okay.
[26:09] Would someone make a move to approve the slate of seven plus the condition?
[26:15] Okay.
[26:16] Second.
[26:16] And can you just, just for the motion, they're, they're, they're confirming that it includes
[26:21] that condition.
[26:23] Perfect.
[26:24] Thank you.
[26:24] Sorry.
[26:25] Okay.
[26:25] All in favor?
[26:26] Aye.
[26:27] Aye.
[26:28] Opposed?
[26:30] Okay,
[26:39] and so we've now approved the motion, so your motion is approved, Mr. Cobal.
[26:44] It is formally up because then you will be getting this letter signed by us.
[26:52] Okay, we'll now have a motion to get back out of the Board of Adjustment.
[27:01] No move. Seconded.
[27:04] All in favor?
[27:05] Aye.
[27:06] Opposed?
[27:08] An emotion to go back into the planning board.
[27:10] So moved.
[27:11] Second.
[27:12] All in favor?
[27:13] Aye.
[27:14] Is there any old business?
[27:17] Mr. Rocks.
[27:18] No certain new business.
[27:20] Is there any new business?
[27:22] It's a couple of items here just to make you aware of.
[27:25] I think David kind of gave it introduction of it earlier during the workshop.
[27:29] And that is staff changes, so we've, first of all,
[27:33] Rochelle Ward is no longer with us.
[27:36] And so she took another job with a former employer in Charlotte.
[27:41] And so if we just ask for your patients and grace as we work through some of the details of her role in terms of getting the meetings put together and in the various documentation, we are certainly doing the best we can, but we just wanted to give you that update.
[27:57] And also Ms. Twintron is no longer with us, so she took a job with another local government
[28:05] in South Carolina, and so we certainly wish her well. We enjoyed working with her for
[28:11] about a year or so, but if she decided it was time to do something a little different.
[28:16] So we, again, wish her well with that. Also, just in terms of the October meeting, playing
[28:23] We have two potential items, and I want to use the word potential because some of it's based on these agenda items getting certain documentation in order to be eligible to be placed on the agenda, but we're thinking potentially the Washington plots subdivision conditional rezoning requests could be a candidate for October playing board and possibly Bethel Presbyterian church expansion could be a candidate for being on the October agenda for conditional rezoning.
[28:50] So I just wanted to provide this updates for you and that's all I have.
[28:55] The date for the meeting in October is the 12th.
[29:00] So hopefully all of you can attend.
[29:03] Love this day.
[29:05] If there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
[29:08] So moved.
[29:09] Second.
[29:10] All in favor?
[29:11] Aye.
[29:13] We are.
[29:13] Thank you very much.