Mr. Walker, the official timekeeper
tells me it's 5:30. We're going to get
started.
This is the Thursday, July 30th, 2026
meeting of the Floyd May Board of
Adjustment.
Come to order, and the first thing we
have to do is take a look at the minutes
from our meeting of May 28th, 2026.
Uh did everybody on the board get a copy
of the those minutes?
>> Yes.
>> I I myself didn't see any problems or
omissions. Did anybody see any problems
or omissions?
I'll make a motion that we accept the
May 28th, 2026
meeting meeting minutes. Is there a
second?
Mr. Shields seconds. All in favor of
accepting those minutes as distributed
by Ms. Miller, say aye.
It's unanimous.
So, that's taken care of.
Um
I don't have any
new business to take up before we get
into um the variance hearing we're going
to do. Does any board member have any
new business you want to
bring up?
>> No.
>> Okay.
All right. we'll move on then.
We have a variance
application.
It's variance number 2026-03.
The applicants are Fred and Sandy
Cerretti.
And Mr. Cerretti introduced himself to
me as Is Miss Sandy Cerretti here?
>> No, she is not.
>> She is not. Okay. All right.
Um
the location of the property that we're
going to be talking about is 369
Tory Acres Circle here in Blowing Rock,
North Carolina.
And
the first thing we need to do is find
out if any board member
uh has any conflict of interest in this
case.
Um
and I have a little list here of things
that we have to address.
Um
the board cannot Board members cannot
discuss this case with anybody prior to
this hearing here tonight.
Uh has anybody had has That's called ex
parte communications. Has anybody on the
board had ex parte communications,
talked to anybody about this case prior
to this evening? I haven't. Everyone
says no.
A member must not have a fixed opinion
prior to this hearing as to whether this
particular variance should or should not
be granted.
And should not be biased. Does anybody
have a fixed opinion about this before
we even start?
No.
I hear no from everyone.
A member must not have a fixed opinion
as to whether all variances in general
should or should not be granted. Should
not be biased one way or the other. Does
anybody have such a bias?
>> No.
from me. No from everybody.
A member must not participate in this
case if the member has any close,
familiar, familial, business, or other a
relationship with a person involved in
this case. Does anybody have a close
relationship with anyone involved in uh
this variance application having to do
with 369 Towne Acres Circle? Anybody?
Everyone says no.
And a member must not have any financial
not financial interest in the outcome of
this case. Does anyone have any
financial interest in the outcome of
this case? And we all say no.
» [snorts]
>> We, board members,
are not allowed to discuss this case
prior to tonight. The ex parte
conversations I just mentioned. But
we're allowed to drive by the property
in question and look at it, give it a
good eyeball.
Um
and we're allowed to do that just so we
don't stop
and get into some sort of conversation.
We just look at it and keep going.
I know I did. Did any of the board
members go by 369 Towne Acres Circle?
Yes.
I have. Yes, I did.
Everybody but Mr. McGill. You did not.
>> I read my paper.
>> Mr. Schiller and Mr. McGill did not go
by the property.
>> I read all the material we were given
and obeyed thoroughly.
>> Okay.
Uh
the other three of us
did go by the property.
Um is there anyone other than the town
representative
and the variance applicant
who considers himself to be a party to
this case?
Um wants to come into this case as a
party and participate fully because they
feel like
uh
the outcome of this case one way or
another would may affect them.
Anyone here that feels like he is a
party to this case?
And I hear nothing.
The minutes of this meeting going going
to be kept by Miss Taylor Miller over
here. She is a town employee. She
actually works in the planning and
inspections office.
Uh
Mr. Serrati, do you have any objection
to Miss Taylor keeping the minutes?
>> No, I do not.
>> Okay.
And uh
Mr. Johnson, do you have any objections?
>> I do not.
>> Miller keeping the minutes. Very good.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has
said on a number of occasions that we
are supposed to let everybody here know
what procedures we will use.
And they have given us
uh
a suggested spiel
to take care of that.
This hearing is a quasi-judicial
hearing. It is conducted according to
the rules and laws laws pertaining to
quasi-judicial hearings. It will have
all of the essential elements of a fair
trial.
Parties will have the opportunity to
give evidence, cross-examine witnesses,
inspect documents, and testimony shall
be under oath.
The board's findings will be based upon
substantial, material, and competent
evidence. And if anybody here wants a
definition of substantial or material or
competent, say so now and I'll read it.
Otherwise, we'll move on.
Um
Mr. Johnson, I asked
Thomas to put two sheets
into the uh
projector up there,
both of them showing what's required
for a variance.
And there's the first one. That is the
state statute.
It shows what is required to get
a variance.
Um there's a state statute on this.
It's a North Carolina General Statute
160D-705.
It gives the requirements
for obtaining a variance. It's the law
we are to follow, the law we are to
apply to the facts
that come out in this hearing.
So, that's the state statute.
If you would turn to the Blowing Rock
ordinance.
That's the state statute.
>> Did you have a sheet?
>> Yeah, I gave it to him.
Just scroll down. Scroll down.
There we go.
>> Can you scroll down some more?
>> Um Blowing Rock, the town
um wrote its own ordinance.
The town's ordinance has to um comply
with the state statute. The state trumps
cities and towns. And it does. It's
virtually um
written identically showing the what we
call the factors, the four factors
that have to be met
before a variance can be granted.
Uh Blowing Rock added a few little
things, explanatory things,
like the last sentence in factor D.
Reads "The
requested variance is consistent with
the spirit, purpose, and intent of the
regulations, such that public safety is
secured and substantial justice
achieved."
That's what the state statute says.
Blowing Rock went on and added this.
They say, "Substantial justice is not
achieved when granting the variance
would be injurious to the neighborhood
or to the general welfare.
So, let's look at the four factors
real quick that
the surities will need to
prove and establish to get
the requested variance.
The first says unnecessary hardship will
result from the strict application of
the regulations. It shall not be
necessary to demonstrate that in the
absence of the variance
a reasonable use can be made of the
property.
What is unnecessary hardship? It's not
defined
in the state statutes, it's not defined
in the law in Rock,
it's code of ordinances, and it's not
defined in the common law judgment law
of this state.
The people, however, that train
the legislatures
this legislators
in Raleigh and they go around the state
and train
town councils
and um
county councils
um the UNC School of Government
um
they have talked about what an
unnecessary hardship is. Their
professors are also lawyers who
specialize in land use and development.
And they would say, the School of
Government attorneys and professors
would say it's fair for all the property
owners in our neighborhood to suffer the
same degree of hardship due to the
zoning zoning rules.
But, it would be unfair and excessive
for the zoning rules to impact the
property more than the other properties
in the neighborhood due to unique
characteristics of the property.
That's excessive.
Um
Actually, the adjective unnecessary is a
poor choice. You might think of it as
excessive or unfair hardship.
So, basically, what we're they're saying
is if you've got some problem with your
lot
whether it's a very steep slope that
takes up most of the lot, a stream going
through the middle of the lot, or maybe
you're a long
skinny rectangular lot,
and you just you can't do much of
anything
as far as reasonable building without
getting into the setbacks or
breaking some other
zoning rule.
Um
you are your your property has unique
circumstances such that
you need a little help.
Um
but your property's got to have um
these problems. Uh and so that needs to
be established. That's the first thing
that needs to be established
to get um
to get a variance. The second says,
"The hardship results from conditions
that are peculiar to the property, such
as location, size, or topography.
Hardships resulting from personal
circumstances, as well as hardships
resulting from conditions that are
common to the neighborhood or the
general public may not be the basis for
granting a variance."
And the third factor says, "The hardship
did not result from actions taken by the
applicant or the property owner. The act
of purchasing property with knowledge
that circumstances exist that may
justify the granting of the variance
shall not be regarded as a self-created
hardship."
And then the last one, D, the fourth
one.
Um
I think I read earlier it says, "The
requested variance is consistent with
the spirit, purpose, and intent of the
regulations such that public safety is
secure and substantial justice
achieved."
And then the last is tacked on,
"Substantial justice is not achieved or
granting of the variance would be
injurious to the neighborhood or to the
general welfare."
» Our usual routine is to swear everybody
that's going to be testifying all at one
time.
So, everybody that's planning on
testifying, please come over to Ms.
Miller and she will swear in everybody
at the same time.
» [clears throat]
» Mr. Swearingen, you're the property
owner. I know there're going to be
questions for you, but do you mind being
sworn in?
Thank you, sir.
When someone applies for a variance, the
Planning and Inspections Office prepares
what's called a staff report. It's a
type up of what their understanding is
about
what the applicant wants to do, and then
includes with it
um any drawings, pictures, um or
materials that the applicant has
provided to the Planning and Inspections
Office.
Um a copy of that staff report is sent
to the board,
and it's sent to
the applicant. Mr. Swearingen, did you
get your
a copy of the staff report? Okay.
That was put together by
the town.
Um
and they they are a party to this case
here, the other party to this case.
Um
if this was ever appealed, it would read
um
Fred Serrati versus the town of
Wallerang. So,
um
they put it together. They are, so to
speak, kind of your opponent here.
Your polite opponent.
Um
are do you object to any part of the
staff report that they put together? No.
Okay.
Board members even want to see
the staff report.
All right. Generally, we start with what
the town knows about this case.
Um
and
Mr. Serrati, do you mind if the town
goes first?
>> you go first.
>> If you really want to go first, you can.
That's okay. Okay. All right. So, Mr.
Johnson, are you going to
take care of that?
>> Yes, sir.
>> [clears throat]
>> Mr. Chairman, Board, um
staff report for variance number
2026-03.
Uh
I've finished
Fred and Sandy Serrati. Fred is here,
obviously.
Uh 369 Terry Acres. It It is zoned R-15
single-family property in reference.
Um
just for y'all's reference,
this is the property in question here.
Terry [clears throat] Acres, 369 Terry
Acres.
>> [snorts]
>> Uh
Fred and Sandy Serrati are requesting a
setback variance from
land Ordinance Section
16-12.4
and the applicable 12-ft side setback
along the western property line
for the construction of an accessory
building.
>> [clears throat]
>> Property is located at 369 Terry Acres
and further identified by the Town of
Blowing Rock PIN
2817-43
-7159
000.
Again, the property is owned
uh R-15 single family.
>> I get May I interrupt you? Are you
reading from the same typed
first page that we all got?
>> Yes, sir.
>> You're You're bouncing back and forth.
Could you start from the top and and get
to the end?
>> I'll I'll start in the background. It's
the same thing.
>> Okay.
>> [clears throat]
>> So, Fred and Sandy are requesting a 2-ft
setback variance.
This is from the applicable 12-ft side
setback
along the western property line
uh for the construction of an accessory
building. Um
The accessory building
uh dimension is
11-ft 8-in wide
by 13-ft 8-in long
and is located on the western
side of the existing house
which is on this side here. It's to the
western property line.
This
accessory building sits about right here
in this location.
» [clears throat]
>> A little bit of background.
In March 2026, Mr. Kevin Rothrock
Town of Blowing Rock Planning Director
and
>> [clears throat]
>> myself as Zoning Enforcement Officer
with the town
made a site visit to Mr. Swerid's
property
to assess possible work without permits.
It was found that several areas
of improvement have been constructed
that would have required a permit, um
which is
the accessory building
um
that's on the property now.
Mr. Rothrock [clears throat] contacted
Mr. Shreddy and advised him that a
zoning permit was required
for the work that had been done. Um at
the time at this time
it was just a foundation for the
accessory building. The building hadn't
been built yet. So, all was there was
the pad
um
the foundation for the accessory
building.
Mr.
Rothrock [clears throat] informed
him that the work for a proposed
accessory building structure
uh at the time would encroach into the
side setback in place would need to be
set at an angle and offset on the re-
train retaining structure to meet the
12-ft setback.
The structure that was there was
determined to be a retaining wall in
nature or retaining pad.
So,
a determination was made to allow
the wall as it was, but what Mr.
Rothrock had advised him is that at the accessory building would need to be
turned on the pad
to meet the 12-ft setback.
So, the pictures you have in your packet
are several pictures
that Mr. Shreddy has included in the packet. They're showing
and we can go over them showing where the property line is in relation
to the building and where it goes
through and where the encroachment is.
» [clears throat]
» Moving ahead, Mr. Shreddy applied for a
zoning permit application
on April 6th,
2026.
And subsequently a zoning permit was
issued on June 24th, 2026.
While the zoning permit was issued in
June,
Mr. Shreddy submitted a site plan, which
is included in your packet,
showing the proposed building structure
and the footprint that it would meet to
require 12-ft setback.
» [clears throat]
>> During that time, Mr. Rothrock had made
it clear that the structure would need
to meet that side 12-ft setback.
Mr. Sradi contacted the planning
inspection office
and indicated the structure had been
built
and the left rear corner encroached 18
in or so into the setback.
At that time,
Mr. [clears throat] Johnson, myself, had
advised Mr. Sradi
that the building structure would need
to be moved on the pad or removed out of
the setback.
On July 2nd, 2026, Mr. H.E. Weathers, I
apologize but I don't know his first
name,
um met with staff in the office to
determine options for Mr. Sradi
and staff once again advised the
structure would need to meet the side
move to meet the side setback.
And Mr. Weathers at the time decided
that they wanted to apply for the
variance
to discuss and and possibly apply for
the the variance
to allow the encroachment.
Be glad to go through
any clarification on this background.
Be glad to look at any of the photos. I
can pull them up as well to
clarify anything on those and and Mr.
Sradi may be able to answer or the two
gentlemen may be able to answer more
on the photos that were submitted.
» Um Mr. Sradi,
do [clears throat] you have any
questions for Mr. Johnson?
» I'm sorry.
>> Did you have any questions for Mr.
Johnson?
>> Well, I mean I I just want to make this
clarification in fact. Um with respect
to the permit and everything else, other
than
what we've talked about today,
I
when that two-page report came out, that
was the first I knew that I could get
her permit after the fact.
And everything else we did out of the
property.
So, but I didn't think that really
pertained to this particular
» I tell you what, after after we finish
with him
then I want you, please, to present your
case.
>> Okay, I'm just stating I'm just I'm
trying to be truthful here. I did not
know that I got a
permit and
it's something I didn't apply for.
>> Okay. We want to hear
>> Okay, so that's all
>> We want to hear your whole
>> Yeah, that's a sidebar as far as I'm
concerned, but I just
want to
>> Okay.
>> want to be clear that
that's the first time I heard about that
was when you wrote up the newspaper
report.
» Okay, I'm I'm closing on that, but we'll
get we'll get to you in a minute. Do you
have any questions of Mr. Johnson?
>> No.
>> Okay.
Um
I've got a number of questions. Any
board member have any questions of Mr.
Johnson? Let's see, Mr. Walker showed
up. Go ahead.
>> Any certain pages you want me to roll
through the staff report here?
>> One, I don't think that I received in
the packet but
the permit [clears throat] application
showing the building meeting the zone
codes.
I might not have we get that?
>> Yeah, that one is in there.
>> You mentioned that as part of the permit application
there was a
document presented.
>> plan that showed the building in
compliance with the zoning set.
» Yeah, it should should have been right after your
application
in the back.
>> Hey, you have it up on the screen in a
minute.
>> Yeah.
Right, that shows it not meeting the
setback, doesn't it?
>> You're talking about the original permit
Request that I wrote up in April.
>> In April.
>> Yeah.
» Would you want me to make copies of
this?
>> I'll make
So, this My apologies. This was in the
zoning permit
file that Mr. Stready had submitted.
Um
That's That's different than what you
see here. Let me make a copy and you can
take a look at that one. That That one
was in the actual zoning with the zoning
permit application.
>> And um in March, what prompted the
property visit?
>> Um
we received a call that they'd been
working on. And I think Kevin may
actually have been by the site as well.
>> Um
>> It was about the same time you were
submitting the application on my
property somewhere. So,
I'm not sure that We We've got other
projects that went on up in the area as
well.
>> Um [clears throat] and in March, I'm I'm
just trying to
get some more detail. In March, you said
there were other projects going on that
would have required permits. Is that
beyond the [clears throat] the the shed?
>> Um
So, the site visit was to determine when
he Kevin went out to determine what
needed permits.
And he come back to
um
that the accessory building needed a
permit.
>> Okay. And how was it determined that
the
foundation of the accessory building is
a is a retaining wall?
>> [clears throat]
>> So, when it was built at the time, I
mean, it were it was basically a
retaining wall for the pad. So, we determined that that was basically a
retaining wall.
>> Yes.
Cuz they they've got a they've got a
little patio in the front.
Um and then and you may have seen that
when you rode by.
>> I did.
>> Um
that there was some retaining walls
associated with that as well.
>> Doesn't a retaining wall that height
require engineering studies?
A lot of
>> If it's over it's over 4 ft tall.
>> Yes.
>> It is over 4 ft.
>> We we have [clears throat] to determine
that. We'll determine if it is. And
there may be we can have this discussion
at uh
through this is
at the time Mr. Shretty was looking at a
10 by 12 that's what he expected of the
building to be.
And the actual size is
uh
one dimension is 13 ft. So any any
building that's over 12 ft typically
requires a building permit. So that's
something we'll have to address to see
what the exact dimension is.
Minus some overhangs from the building
code's standpoint they don't include
those sometimes. So we've got to make a
determination
outside of this whether building permits
are required or not. Now that will be
determined.
>> Okay.
>> And just part of that discussion may be
the retaining wall as well in the height
there.
>> Um
And just timing I
the permit was issued
June 24th.
>> That's correct.
>> Was the building already built?
>> So
when uh
when me and Kevin investigated just like
you again going back the foundation
retaining part and and the patio stuff
had been built.
And that's when it was advised advised
he needed a permit which was submitted
in you know, the first week of April.
And there was a time lapse of June which
on staff's part that was our our was our
fault.
Um
but we still maintain what he submitted
in his zoning application
It 10 by 12.
And it was going to be 12 by 12.
So, when I sent the zoning permit then
Mr. Schrader called right away. He was
like, "Hey,
it's been built.
I'm not aware of it. I know there was a
lapse in the zoning permit."
>> And just Sorry to come back to this, but
how or when will it be determined if the
if it is a retaining wall?
Again, I thought you had to have
engineering studies, all kinds of stuff
for a retaining wall of that height.
>> If if it's over a certain height, yes,
you do.
>> Which I mean, it's 4 ft
at least from my observation.
>> I don't know how tall that wall is. I'm
not sure.
>> So, what happens if those
studies were not done?
>> If if if if it's over the height, then
it may require him to obtain us an
engineer to make sure it's built right.
» Okay.
I'm still fuzzy on the retaining wall
and the pad.
Tell us again what
Tell me more about that. Just
[clears throat] repeat repeat what you
said about the retaining wall and the
pad.
>> So, when me and Mr. Rothrock was out
there had been some some driveway work
done. There was some some other
retaining walls associated with it
that included a patio out front. And we didn't know what the ultimate use was, being
accessory building or not.
You you can build a retaining wall. A
retaining wall can be in the setback.
There's just height limitations within a
setback. And typically, they're limited
to 6 ft in height
for a retaining wall. So, the way it sit there, we determined that
was a
retaining wall. It's sitting there and
it's retaining the foundation for that.
It's It's no different than him having a retaining wall built that's been there
for years, and he can go build on top of
it
as long as the supporting is okay.
>> Is what you're talking about showing the
pictures?
>> Um it
>> Can you pull up a picture that shows us
» Maybe the best way we can we can zoom
out if you need to, but the
>> [clears throat]
» The first time we visited out there this
was what was there not the structure.
So, this is what was determined as a
retaining wall.
Now, going back going back to any height
requirements
>> But now it's the foundation for the
accessory building.
>> It's a building sitting on a retaining
wall is the way we determined it.
» Okay.
>> And so, what what Mr. Shreder was
advised was we determined this was a
retaining wall cuz it it's attached to
other patios up in this area here.
To meet the setback, you you need to
move the building on it to meet the
setbacks actual structure of the
accessory building
to meet the setback.
>> All right.
Could that
retaining wall stay there and and it
be in compliance with the zoning rules?
>> Sure.
If it if it's under 6 ft in the setbacks
>> Under 6 ft.
>> Right.
>> But the the little house
the shed
it's in the
it is in the setback.
>> Yeah.
So, Mr. Shreder
submitted these.
This will give you a little clearer idea
of what's in it.
>> [snorts]
>> And then he can correct me if I'm wrong
during his presentation.
This is where the property line
angles into the structure there. And
that's you'll see on
uh
the site plan that's in your packet
there.
It is is basically that minute section
of the corner right
Um and I think they determined it was
it's about 18 inches or maybe some
discretion on the eve
of how much that's in it, but I
you know, you're you're looking at about
a 2-ft It starts at nothing here
and goes back, you know, the back part
of the back side would be 2 ft in it or
so, 18 to 20
24 inches or so.
» Is that the eve of the building, the
wall of the building?
>> That That's the We we may have to ask
the applicant. I'm I'm not sure. There may be some additional
encroachment with the eve.
» And your
presentation says
March you went up and looked at the
property, then it says in the next
paragraph Mr. Rothrock contacted Mr.
Seretti and advised him that his zoning
permit was required
and that the building structure would
encroach
into the side setback and would need to
be set at an angle. When When did that
happen?
>> Uh might have to let Kevin see if he's
got his notes and see what time that
was.
>> It was between March and April 6th when
the permit was
>> Right.
>> Okay.
And the building had not been built
then.
>> As far as I know, no.
I don't know anything
We can enlighten you on when the actual
building was was built. It was probably
a process over time as well.
>> And so and then in April
a permit application was submitted
showing the structure meet the 12-ft
setback and Mr. Rothrock made it clear,
I guess again
that the structure would need to meet
the setback. And that again was before
the structure was built.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
So, you can't tell us
if the retaining wall
meets the zoning requirements and is
short enough
to be within the setback. You can't tell
us tonight.
>> Um
These guys might
They might have the highest
>> What?
>> There's a rule for that.
>> What?
>> Th- These These guys can probably
enlighten us on what the the height of
that is.
There's [clears throat] a rule for that,
but I don't know what the
I don't know if we'd be able to tell.
Um
>> Mr. Johnson, why didn't you go out and
measure it?
>> I'm We're pretty sure it's under 6 ft
there, though. That's why the
determination was made it's a retaining
wall and where it was at was fine in the
setback.
You can Kevin might can testify a little
bit on what her height is over there.
But that that height limitation is 6 ft
in that setback.
And I think if you look at that
>> I think they are within the limits. We
can ask these guys.
» Probably pushing close to
But we'd need to make that
determination.
>> And the building,
have you gone out there and determined
how much it encroaches in the setback?
>> Yeah, that that's shown in these
pictures and that's the request of 2 ft.
But there's a there's a question on we
can ask them how
wide the leaves the eaves are.
» Okay, but you haven't measured it
yourself.
Why not?
>> It was never measured.
>> You didn't want to?
>> It was never measured. We We
There was no They gave us the
information right here and
we we didn't measure it.
» [clears throat]
» Anybody else have any questions for Mr.
Johnson?
I've got a few questions
for you.
» I have one question.
Mr. Johnson, the
permit was a
and was
the fourth.
When it was granted, the building had
already been built.
>> When the zoning permit was issued, yeah,
it's already built.
>> So, okay.
» Is that all, Mr. Gibson?
>> Yes.
>> Um
notice is Mr. Johnson, do you know if
all required public
notices of this hearing
have been sent out?
>> Yes, sir.
>> And have um
>> [laughter]
>> nearby property owners been notified of
this hearing?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Did you hear back from any of the nearby
property owners?
>> We heard back from one property owner.
>> How many notices did you send out?
>> Uh
14.
Does that include Mr.
Fogleman?
>> Yes, there was 13 originally, and then
we added to it.
>> The adjacent neighbor, Mr. Fogleman, was
a recent property owner
that just bought the house, so we ended
up notifying him outside the address as
well.
>> So, you sent 14 out?
>> 14 total, yes, sir.
» Um
let me make sure
I've got all the information I need as the background.
What sort of new structures require
just a building permit?
» Um
anything that's over 12 ft in any
dimension.
» Um
You said the accessory building is 11 ft
8 in wide and 13 ft 8 in long. Does that
come within the 12-ft rule
so that it needs a building permit?
>> It would need a building permit. If
that's the If that's the actual
measurement, yes.
Um
And and we we would have to check with
the building code and and and John can
answer if if we need be, but there there
is some things that
may or may not exclude the eaves in the
building code. That's side was required.
Eaves Eaves being required in the zoning
ordinance. The building code's a little
bit different, but we'll make that
determination.
But as it sits right now, yes, it is.
It would require a building permit as
well.
And I I I think it's 2 or 3 weeks ago I
reached out to Mrs. Ready just to
so I'd know when the staff report the
size of the building.
And that's what he told me the
dimensions were.
» So tell me about the eaves. The eaves
are included
in any measurement from a wall line, right?
>> That's correct.
>> Does this building have eaves?
» Looks like it does to me, yes.
But I don't know the width to make it
probably enlighten what the widths are.
» It's about 4 and 1/2 inches from the handle.
Mr. Johnson, what kind of structures
require just a zoning permit?
» Um
any structure that would be
an accessory building, period.
Any size requires a zoning permit, and
that's for
>> [snorts]
>> verification meeting setbacks.
Building code don't kick in to 12 feet
and above.
» Okay, so if your accessory building is
less than 12 feet, you don't you don't
[snorts] have to get a zoning permit.
>> That's right.
>> You get a building permit.
>> That's right.
>> No.
you don't you don't
12 12 feet and under didn't need a building permit.
12 foot greater, yes you do need it.
>> Greater than 12 feet.
>> 12 and greater greater greater than 12
feet.
>> [clears throat]
>> So 10
>> a zoning permit.
>> Right.
So 10 by 12
would not require.
» [snorts]
» Okay.
>> Yeah, so so
just for reference, accessory buildings
is in section R101
.2.1
building code international building
code says
accessory buildings with any dimension
greater than 12 feet
shall meet the provisions of this code.
So you
12 above 12.
» Above 12
>> [snorts]
>> you need a building permit.
>> That's right.
>> Above 12, you also have to get a zoning
permit.
>> A- Any accessory building requires a
zoning permit.
>> So, you're going to have to do
>> 12. It's not based on 12 ft.
>> No.
>> Zoning permit is required
for anything of any kind.
>> A- Any structure we have to verify
setback.
Decks,
accessory buildings, homes, buildings,
anything. It's not based on a certain
dimension.
>> Okay.
>> But, that's verification to meet
setbacks.
>> You went out there to see if there was
work being done without a permit. What
I take it you
showed that work was being done without
a permit.
>> That's right.
>> Without what permit? What permit should
they [clears throat] have had?
>> Well, it was determined what permit they
would needed.
And the determination was at that time
that they needed a zoning permit.
>> Because [snorts] all accessory buildings
>> Yeah, I mean, and a lot of times
any any land disturbance, if it's
getting into significant land
disturbance, but you need a zoning
permit.
Um
you know, even if a lot of times if
walls are
and it's kind of a discretion call
depending on the height of the wall, may
or may not need a zoning permit, but
that's that's different than the 4 ft of
requiring engineering and a building
code.
But, the zoning permit is based on not
solely, but based on meeting those
setbacks.
>> All right. Was it a Would a property
owner
who was getting ready to build
an accessory building, this accessory
building, would they need to get their
permit before they started work?
>> Yes.
>> And had the survey days obtained a
permit before they started work.
>> [clears throat]
>> No.
» Okay.
» So when when the zoning permit
application was submitted
Mr. included the site plan that you have
there
showing 10 by 12.
Simply
zoning permit is issued.
However, we rely on
going and doing a final inspection on
something and making sure it meets what
was submitted.
Even though there was a time lapse in
that form.
So we're assuming a 10 by 12 is going to
be built meeting the side setback.
» Where are you getting the 10 by 12? I'm looking at the
drawing
uh
it shows the shed intruding into the
setback,
but there's no dimensions on the shed.
Where did
Where where
You're saying 10 by what? What size?
>> [clears throat]
» Yeah, but it it does it says 11 4
it's on the zoning permit site plan.
So if you show the
12 ft
that's shown on there, that that's him showing the setback.
>> Okay, we don't we don't have the zoning
permit.
>> No.
>> On the actual application I wrote
generic 10 by 12, but when I built this
out, I had you know, put more precision
in the pad itself. And I and I said 11 4
by 13 6 is now 11 8 by 13 8. So
I was off by a few inches, but I did not
signify that I was within that 12 ft
setback I mean told
fact I told Kevin it was 12 side. I
didn't have an as-built survey done,
nothing done. I brought this twice.
>> All right, I'll hold that thought.
>> We'll get to him in a minute.
We'll worry about that. Let's Let's finish with him first.
Um
» [snorts]
» Okay. So, as far as the
accessory building, when you went out
there in March,
the retaining wall was going to sit on
was there?
>> That's correct.
>> And
Well, I was going to ask you what was it Mr. Rothrock wanted to ask
him?
We're going to talk to him in just a
minute.
Um
Have you measured the accessory building
since it was complete?
>> I haven't measured it, but it but it is
complete.
>> Right.
>> I've been on site and it's complete.
>> So, Mr. Seretti has told you it's 11 ft
8 in wide by 13 ft 8 in long, but you
haven't measured it.
>> That's right.
» So, the building is encroaching into the
12 ft western side setback by how much?
» So, the one to this picture, like they
show a measurement here.
Let me get to the
» [snorts]
» So, that's the bottom foot bottom corner
of the accessory with the bottom of the accessory building
there that's
showing 10 ft. So, that's the wall.
So, that that's telling me you need to
add the eaves to that as well, which Mr.
Freddy said was 1 and 1/2 inches.
So you're looking at
10 you're looking at
Excuse me, inch and a half my apologies.
Um
So you're looking at 2 feet 5 inches or
so.
Including the eve.
>> Into the setback.
that's right. And
that's that's the furthest one point of
that corner.
And then it
it's less as you go towards the front of
the building.
Towards that point that you see right
there.
>> All right, and the the maximum point of
encroachment, what's
it's
>> It's 27.5
inches.
>> So so two 2.1 inches.
25 inches and plus the 4 and 1/2 they
just mentioned was the eaves.
So you're looking at 25 and 1/2 inches
there.
» That it encroaches into the setback.
>> Yes.
>> 25 and 1/2.
>> Okay.
» It'd be 27.5
once you add the eaves back to the
>> [clears throat]
>> to the 23 inches
that the sole walls encroaching into the
setback.
>> So 20 24
>> So 23 plus 4 and 1/2.
27 and 1/2.
>> No, it's more than that.
>> [snorts]
>> Technically 4 inches.
>> 4 inches of leeway.
It's not at a right angle, it's an
angle, so we're taking a piece of that.
» It'd be 24 inches plus 4 and 1/2 inches.
>> Right, okay.
>> So 28 and 1/2 inches.
>> Is the total encroachment including the
eaves?
>> Yes.
>> 28 What was it?
>> 28 and 1/2.
it. Okay.
» So, they have requested a 2-ft variance,
and that's not going to take care of it,
is it?
>> Sounds like it's not.
» [cough]
[clears throat]
[snorts]
>> That's one of the measurements looks
like you see in that picture
24 in and 1 in 25 in. That's the
measurement.
That's the
to that foundation wall.
» Was a permit issued for the foundation
wall at any point?
>> No.
>> And it has it was never measured.
>> [clears throat]
>> No.
>> And I looked it up. It's
>> [snorts]
>> Any retaining wall exceeding 5 ft
shall be designed and constructed under
the responsible charge of a North
Carolina registered professional
engineer.
Engineers shall submit a sealed report
including final approval on the
retaining structure construction to the
building code official. None of that
happened.
>> Is is that in the ordinance the town
code?
Land use ordinance.
>> It's 16.11.2.1
part B.
>> That's right.
>> [snorts]
[clears throat]
>> So, that never happened. None of that.
>> But it it could be included in his
zoning permit.
>> But it
>> But you'd have to have engineering if
it's certain not.
>> But it wasn't, so none of that happened.
» All right, Mr. Surveyor, are you
following with us on this 28 and 1/2
inches encroachment?
Are you
>> It's it's not quite that much, but
» [clears throat]
>> I
never [snorts] had an as-built survey or
as-built survey. He approximated
2 and 1/2, but
I mean, come on. We're doing our best.
What I think the property line is
estimated. Nobody really has a precise
number that the council has.
Okay.
» For the retaining wall?
>> I'd have to refer to that.
>> I can I'll
Okay.
>> Mr. Johnson, are there extreme problems
with the lot at 369 Terry Acres Circle?
By that I mean extreme slope or it's a
very narrow lot. Do they have
>> I I don't think in this I don't think
that would have a bearing on this
instance. Um
No.
» Are there
places on the lot
the entire lot where this accessory
building
could have been built without
encroaching into any setback?
>> Yes. I mean that was a solution was to move that corner and meet the
setback.
» So,
could have been built just closer to the house?
2 or 3 ft closer to the house?
>> Probably yes.
Or could have been a smaller building.
» Um
All right. You said when you and Mr.
Rothrock went in March
to the site there at 369 Terry Acres
Circle,
you saw construction that had been done
without a required permit.
>> Yes.
>> And what what all was it? Was it the
Tell us what all you saw that had been
built that did not have a permit.
» So this part was there
and all of this was there.
>> I I keep seeing your red dot, but
>> Um
All all of this was there.
Patio
This
part down here
and it was [clears throat] looks like
some some of the driveway had been
redone.
Um which no issues there. I mean it's
been redone.
>> Did the patio require a permit?
>> Um it
could have discretionally required a
zoning permit.
And and that's just to ensure compliance with any kind of
you know erosion control measures um
verify any setback issues that could
have been there.
Um
building permit, probably not.
Unless you know based on the height, it
was
just have to determine the height of
that and see if it's over that
threshold.
>> Well, what's the status of that patio as
far as permits? Was there a permit
issued for the patio?
>> At the time, no. But I mean all of this
work
can be covered under the zoning permit
we have here. We're fine with that.
There's no issues with the patio.
>> Okay.
Thank
Did they get a permit after the fact?
>> That's right.
>> Okay. All right. And what else was
there? The the retaining wall
slash foundation for the building was
there?
>> Right. Yeah, most of it was more
hardscape type stuff out here.
And they can they can let you know it
looks like maybe they'd resurfaced the
driveway.
Redone it, maybe reshaped it a little
bit. We had no issues with that.
Um
So sometimes minor redoing of a driveway
would probably wouldn't require a
permit. Um
it just depends on how involved it is.
>> When you and Mr. Rothrock went out there
in March, was there work going on,
active work going on?
>> There was not at the time we were there.
>> Okay.
Um
» I I I
mainly it looked like everything was
done until
you know, the the accessory building
come into play.
And then they can they can let you know
probably when that was built, what time
frame it was built.
>> Is that building a stick-built building
or is that
>> I I think it was stick-built, but they
can clarify that.
» [snorts]
>> Um
It says Mr. Rothrock contacted Mr.
Swearingen advise him about a zoning
permit. Would you mind switching
positions with Mr. Rothrock? I don't
want to sit here
just sit here, sir.
So, Mr. Rothrock, you and Mr. Johnson
went out to 360 N. Cherry Acres Circle
in March of this year.
» Yes.
I went to give you a little bit of
background. I went first
>> Okay.
>> by myself based on a call I had related to some some
drainage issues.
>> [snorts]
>> And when when I got to the site
there was quite a bit of work done.
Um fencing, retaining not retaining
wall, but more of a a decorative wall
around the driveway and some drainage uh
connections made.
Um
nothing that was an issue with that. And
then there were guys working
and they had
uh completed a uh pad that you saw in
the picture.
This pad was under construction and then
the other pad the uh
what we determined to be a retaining
wall
was there, too. And and after that, I uh
>> This was This was in March.
>> This was in March. I called Mr.
uh
I don't remember if Brian and I went
back out to look at it then. I was just
unaware of of any permits that had been
applied for at that time. And so, I
called I think I may have called Brian
and and Taylor just to check, "Hey, are
there any permits issued for this
property?"
And I think Brian and I went back out.
>> [snorts]
» I don't remember if it was before I
called Mr. Sureddi or after.
But, we did let Mr. Sureddi know that he
needed to apply for some permits for the
work.
And at that time, he let us know that he
wanted to put a a building
on that pad that you see there.
And
uh
I said, "Well, it needs to meet the
setbacks." 12-ft side setbacks.
And
when he brought his application in,
uh we met with him in the office
and at that time, he he had the concrete
pad
that you see in what was copied for you.
And I said, "Mr. Sureddi, you need to
make sure that this meets the 12-ft
setback."
Um
>> This was the first time you talked to
him.
>> Yes, first time I talked to him.
And then,
uh
that's when
we went back out to the site to verify
if that retaining structure
met the setback, and apparently, at that
time, it did not.
And so,
um
I told Mr. Sreddy that he needs to meet
the setback and that
>> [snorts]
>> I let Brian know
that in reviewing this application that
if he wanted to put a building there, it
needed to be shifted on the lower back
corner because it was too close to the
property line.
>> Right.
>> And and to move if he's going to build a building on it, it needs to be shifted
over
to accommodate the the eve overhang and
all that because the building would that
pad was encroaching a little bit.
A question I think you had about the the
retaining structure.
Retaining wall can be built right to the
property line as long as it doesn't
exceed 6 ft in height.
You can
also reduce the height of that by
backfilling against the wall. That lower
corner is between 6 and 7 ft
above grade and so that could be
adjusted
to by backfilling the wall in that
corner and reduce that height so it
would meet the criteria for a retaining wall
in the setback.
>> So your problem
is the house structure. It's not
» You know, the the the structure if he
never put a building on it, it's fine
the way it is and he can use it as a
patio. If he once he puts a building on
it, it needs to be shifted in such a way
to meet the setbacks.
>> When you had that first conversation
that's the first conversation you had.
>> Yes, and
>> You told him he needed to
>> That's right.
>> You told him he needed to encroach again
for the setback.
>> That's right. And I had Mr. Sreddy
indicate that it would meet the 12 ft by
and he drew on 12 ft
in this dimension from the corner to the
property line.
>> Did he seem to understand what you were
telling him in the conversation?
>> I think so. I mean, I thought he did.
» This was over the phone, I'm taking.
>> I didn't hear you.
>> This was on the phone This wasn't in
person.
>> It was in person. He was in our office.
Yes.
>> Okay, so you Okay.
>> In the front office, we had the piece of
paper and we were going over
we need you need to make these
indications on the plan for us to
review.
>> How did he know to come see?
You didn't see him when you went out
there on the site?
>> No, we called him.
>> You called him.
>> Yes.
>> And he came to the
>> He came into our office.
>> Okay, okay.
And you told him that the building protruded into the setback
and it had to be
built
>> Well, it wasn't built yet. We
building here, it needs to meet the
setbacks and indicate on your site plan
that it will.
>> Okay.
>> Most people get surveys when they're
going to do that and know that
we could
>> Not really. Not really, unless it's real
close. And And yeah, they they do.
Um
>> He He had his property pins marked.
Maybe we didn't order the bunch.
>> I don't think there was a question of
where the line was. I think it was
self-evident.
>> Sure.
» If after If we have a hard time to
determine the setback and we're having a
hard time to determine where that line
is,
we'll request a foundation survey
and it'll be
dead on.
In a lot of instances, we don't If it's
15 ft off the property line
or more, we don't We can just pull the
tape and be be sure of it.
» So, he came in
to your office and applied for a permit
on April 6th of this year.
>> That's right.
>> Did you talk to him or Mr. Johnson?
>> I did.
>> You did.
>> Yes.
>> Um and he gave you some supporting
material.
>> That's right.
That went along with his application.
» And that shows 12 ft from the property
line to the building.
>> Right.
>> Um
» [snorts]
» And said he did you issue him another
permit?
>> Well, I did
uh later in June.
» So Mr. Rothrock, he went out there to see if there was
work or initially you went out there to
see if there was work being done without
a permit.
There was.
He talked to Mr. Swearingen.
Um
he told him he just needed to get the
permit
and get back up to speed with the
legalities. Is that
>> That's correct. Yes, sir.
>> Get your permit
and put the building um
outside the setback.
And every everything was forgiven as far
as starting was out of line. Is that
what you said?
>> Right.
Well,
yes.
» The permit was issued to him on June
24th this year.
>> Right.
» So at some point the building got built
and it got built within the setback.
>> Yes.
» Um
said Mr. Serrated contacted the planning
and inspections office and indicated the
structure had been built in the left
rear corner encroached into the setback
18 inches or so.
Did you talk to him?
>> Or did the Brian talk to him?
>> I talked to him.
>> Yeah, Brian had all the conversations
since then.
» So, Mr. Johnson, you you told Mr.
Serrated he was going to have to move
the the building part of the structure.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay.
Did he
When you had that conversation, you
called
said, "Well, it's built in the back."
It's in the setback. Did you ask him why
he built it in the setback?
>> [clears throat]
>> I don't know if I asked him that
specific question. I told him it needed
to be moved to meet setback.
» And you said you had a meeting.
I said Mr. Tony H.E. Withers met with
staff. Were you the staff that met with
him?
>> It was me and Kevin.
>> At that time.
>> Who we calling?
>> And what was your understanding of Mr.
Withers' role? Was he just a friend
helping out Mr. Serrated?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
» Just maybe for for the record going back
into zone to make Kevin's point out
there was
um
Mr. Serrated had
explored
possibility easements, moving property
lines.
Uh
the property adjacent to him on that
side is vacant.
And I think he he told me he'd had some
conversation with the previous owner,
maybe wanted to buy the lot.
Um
So I I'd put in the zoning to permit
that.
Um
you know, continue those talks. I mean,
you know, and I kind of give him some
parameters of
if it's you know, the number one an
easement can't be an offset here for the property
line moving, it could. And I advised him
that's a possibility if you got
permission. It'd have to be a
you know, lot line adjustment. You've got a minimum
lot size you'd have to maintain over
here.
And I think that just that's that's the
last conversation I had with that. And I
know he was exploring that on that side.
>> Before it was built?
>> No, this this was after he had received
the permit and we had that discussion.
>> Now,
I I think
Let me clarify if I could.
>> Sure.
>> I think at one point
Mr. Before Mr. Seretti built it, he
wanted to line up the building on the
pad. And we found out the pad was into
the setback.
And we said, "Well, the only way you can
do that is to move the line the property
line. And if you can talk to the
neighbor about making a jog in the line
and doing a lot line revision to
accommodate that, you could." And then
he was exploring that as an option or
buying the property next door.
Um
where he could do that himself. And then
I think that didn't didn't work out. And
so then the the permit reflected
that conversation. If you can move that,
then you can do that. If not, the
building needs to meet the setback.
>> Do you have a copy of the permit here?
>> Yeah.
>> Can you put it up there so we can see?
>> Uh we'll make copies. We'll make copies
for you.
It's probably Mr. Mr. Seretti can
correct me if we're wrong. And I think
we may have if I'm wrong. And I think we
may have discussed that when he had
called that afternoon. Received the
permit that he may still be exploring
that.
I don't know what his options are going
to be with the next uh
» we hear from Mr. Schrader?
>> Um we're going to wait until we get
through with that.
Well, well, I'm going to see this zoning
application.
On the permit.
I don't know about the rest of it, but
I'm very confused.
This is
extremely confusing.
>> Okay.
Is there something we can answer to so
that you're not confused? Is there a
something that we can give you more
information? You you've helped me out. I
think I'm up to speed on it now.
I just
wonder how confusing this process was to
Mr. Schrader. And I'll ask you that when we get to you in just a minute.
Let's take a look at this
zoning permit.
» Thank you.
» As you review the zoning permit
comments two through eight are typical
zoning comments we apply on the whole
permits it's just
trying to cover some highlights of the
ordinance that's typically
I need to be addressed or commonly
addressed on projects single family homes.
What you see read
was kind of the discussion that we had
with
as far as we had
Mrs. Reagan.
» Okay.
>> [clears throat]
>> Um
Okay. Just a few more questions.
Mr. Johnson or Mr. Roth
Rothrock either one.
Um
The um
Blowing Rock ordinance section
that controls the side setbacks is
16-12.4.
>> Yes.
>> And it says that in R-15 the side
setback is to be 12 ft.
>> That's right.
» The accessory building as it is sitting
there now.
And if it stayed this
would it impair emergency vehicles such
as fire trucks and ambulances?
>> No.
» And if the
building stays where it is now, would it
create a fire hazard?
>> No.
» And if the building stays where it is
now, would it block or impede visibility
on any street or highway?
>> No.
» And if the building stays where it is
now, would it be contrary to public
health or safety in any way that you are
aware of?
» I don't know.
» [snorts]
» The property there, 369 Cherry Acre
Circle.
Are you Are you aware of any um
serious problems with the lot that would
make construction
um
of this building
extremely difficult?
>> No.
» Do you think this building could have
been built in
uh
other places on the lot without
achieving any setback?
» Yes.
» Including closer to the house, just
getting closer to the house.
>> Yes.
» Would you say there are any unique
features to the property at 369
Terry Circle?
>> It's
Terry Acres Circle.
>> Are there any unique features? Is that
what you asked?
Did you ask are there any unique
features?
>> any unique features of the of the whole
lot that you're aware of?
>> No.
>> [snorts]
» I don't have any further questions. Any
board member at this point have any
further questions to Mr. Rothrock or Mr.
Johnson?
>> No.
>> Mr. Shredder, do you want to ask him any
questions?
>> I want to make some clarification
statements.
>> If you don't have any questions to them,
we're ready to hear from you.
Come on up and take Mr.
Rothrock's place.
And Mr. Withers?
>> Yes, sir.
>> What's your role in all of this?
>> I'm [clears throat] going to tell you
all that.
You're still hot, man. I'm about to
freeze. So, if I'm shaking a little bit,
it's cuz I'm cold.
Um
My name's Tony Withers. Um
I'm just a personal friend of Fred's.
Um I'm not I'm I'm a registered
professional engineer. Uh retired.
>> [clears throat]
>> I'm not representing anybody
professionally other than Fred who's my
Mr. Fred who's my friend, been friend
for a long, long time.
And we've been coming up here
to his place, very nice place, for 4 or
5 or 6 years since he bought it.
And
um
I apologize for the informality of the
application. I think it had covered all
the information that needed to be
covered. And I think
pictures I took and showed, I think I
can answer some of the questions or all
the you've presented.
Um
>> [clears throat]
» And we don't have any issues with Brian
and Kevin or anything they've done.
Everything's been fine, perfect. They've
been great to work with. No issues
there. I want to make that perfectly
clear.
Uh they represent the town very, very
well and we appreciate that.
So, Fred is a friend of mine. I came up
here. He bought a house on Terry Acre
Circle. After a few years, he wanted to
pave his driveway. So, he did us, you
know, crackerjack job and fixed his
driveway up with the retaining walls and
everything. It looked so good, he
thought he would expand with contractor
into a patio, which kind of evolved
into a patio, which then kind of evolved
into an accessory building. Um
I wasn't really involved in this process
other than just talking to Fred during
the process.
It takes time to get things done up here
with contractors.
And I will tell you that Fred is a IBM
career IBM employee and CPA and probably
not as familiar with this type of stuff
as you are, as I am, having been in this
business for a long time. Planning and
zoning and setbacks and all those things
are very important in our
arena.
You know, here again, the the general
public is not aware
of property surveys, of setbacks, of all
these zoning issues that that you guys
deal with all the time.
Um
I would also say that Fred is active in
the community, makes donations for the
flowers. He's a he's a, you know, a
solid
citizen about 40% of the year in Blowing
Rock.
Um I think that's important
to point out.
Um
I don't think I think we've
The property line is not parallel to the house, which is one thing that I
think could create a little bit of an
issue.
Um and And was never a a
boundary survey of the property. We do
have a pretty good idea what the
property line was and I think these
measurements on there were within a few
inches of the property and it was close
enough for government purposes.
Um if we're down to inches then we're
probably not, but I think a 24-in
encroachment is probably
sufficient for what's needed
without wanting to do the expensive
additional survey.
So anyway, we came up here and and as I
learned more and more about this and
Fred got into the situation and working
through this, he was getting ready to
spend a lot of money moving the house
and tearing it down and do whatever he
needs to do to modify
you know, I made the comment in why
don't we at least ask the Board of
Adjustments for a 24-in encroachment and
do a 12-ft setback. I felt like it was a
reasonable request
uh to do. So I put together the
application and met with Brian Kevin and
that's what I did and submitted it and
that's why we're here right now. Um
So based on that,
I would say that um the variance is
minimal.
I would say it creates no impact on the
neighborhood properties.
I would say it's consistent with the
character of the neighborhood.
I would say
the topo and existing site conditions
including the the line that's skewed to
the to the house which creates a problem
at the rear of the the building not the
front of the building.
Um
might might impact some of the reason for the encroachment.
Uh I would say the variance will not
impair public safety
or interfere with
the purpose of the zoning ordinance.
I would say the variance is minimal
minimally needed for the relief
requested and the converging lot as I
said presented a little bit of a typical
situation.
Um
And I would say based upon my experience
in the business this business
representing other property owners on a
multitude of issues like this
that I don't see any real benefit in
making Fred spend a whole bunch of money
and
the hardship to modify an existing
well-built building that is attractive,
matches the house in colors and
architectural
standards
for an outbuilding with just a corner
that's only encroaching about 20 in into
the setback line to meet the code when
no malicious intent was intended.
Um
I would just say that you know, an error
was made. There was no question about
that. Um but I just think it's a it's a
hardship on him
to have to spend that for something
that's that minimal. Um
it doesn't impact
any of the adjacent neighbors for all
the reasons we talked about. Um
I think the letter of the law has
definitely been violated, but I think
the spirit of the law and the intent of
the law was certainly this is certainly
except.
And I'll welcome any questions or
comments or thoughts that I need to
explain any of these
uh
pictures that we put up. He's He's
certainly proud of his property and
enjoys his property and he's done very nice job. He's improved the value
of the property substantially, which I'm
sure will be collected in future
property tax uh
to the town.
So, um
anyway, that's all I've got. If you've
got any questions for me and then if
Fred feels like he needs to answer any
questions.
>> We have some questions, but first of
all, I'll ask the representative from
the town if you have any questions of
Mr. Weathers, Dave, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Rothrock, any board member have any
questions of him?
>> Tell me one thing that I thought about.
How much along the wall is in the
encroachment? I mean, how how how many
feet in down the line?
For example.
>> I'll explain what Okay, stop right
there. The line comes down like this.
>> Uh-huh.
>> The front corner of the building, which
is up here, is is right there.
>> Right there.
>> When you get to right there, you're
about a ft so now we're going into the
building. So that
and it looks like that's about 4 ft so I
think we're going to foundation issues
based on that.
Take measure of that later just to get a
I was trying to represent where it hit.
Now this built where you're so I'm not
it's probably about halfway down the
building.
Yeah, I'd say about halfway is probably
good.
Maybe halfway. And then if you want to
go to the other one and if you maybe
you'll understand the rest of the
pictures. Yeah,
I got it. I'm trying to graphically You
got what I wanted though. You got what I
wanted.
Thank you. Anything else Mr. Miguel?
No waiting. And if the board member have
any questions for
Who built it? I don't know who the
contractor was.
And the contractor
okay.
You did hire a contractor? Yes, we did.
Who was the contractor?
And the name of the contractor do you
remember what his name is?
Sure, yeah.
Uh
I don't have my phone.
All right, we'll get we'll get back to
you in just a minute. Mr.
Um
H.E. Withers Mr. Tony Withers.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Do you mind if I get your address?
>> Uh I'm 6116 Oxfordshire Court, Raleigh.
» Oxfordshire Court, Raleigh.
>> I've been a practicing engineer in the
state of North Carolina for about
45 years.
>> Which is zip code?
>> 27606
>> Okay, what kind of engineer are you?
>> Civil.
» Were you visiting Mr. Serani before you
built all this?
>> I've been visiting since he bought the
house. I helped him
research the area.
>> And back back in the talking stages
why didn't you suggest to him that he
check to see if he needed a permit?
>> Um
I think we talked about permits during
the process.
You know, here again, I
that wasn't what I was You know, I would
come up from time to time and
driveway was dirt.
I ran my car into one of the rocks
that's sticking out of this wall.
Decided he needed to widen his driveway
and do a little better job with it. So,
he ended up
making lots of little projects. And he
was going to build a fire pit initially.
And then the fire pit all of a sudden
turned into
you know, a pretty big project. I was
surprised when I when I actually saw
what he ultimately built. I haven't
really been up there in a year.
All this was done since I've been up
here.
>> I don't have anything else. Anybody else
have any questions on
Um
Mr. Swerlick, can we hear from you?
>> I'd love to speak.
>> Come on up.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
Um
The contractor that you used can can
Juan
Um
Guzman Padilla.
J U A N
Guzman G U C M A N P A D I L L A
Padilla. I believe that's
Juan Guzman Padilla Padilla P A D I L L A
Okay.
Um
You've
been wanting to tell us one or two
things as we've been talking to the town
representatives. We talked to the
speaker today, so now
>> I would love to. Please.
>> Okay. So, this since we've kind of got
into this sidebar
and
retaining walls,
patio and all that. I want to go back a
little bit further in time when we
really started this project, which was
probably
May of 2025.
And there is what we hired a
mason to
tear down the retaining walls we had,
which were falling apart,
and put in new retaining walls,
as well as that led to a driveway and
two stone pillars on either side of
driveway as you
enter from the street.
And
the electrical contractor I hired at the
time
Well, I can't I'm drawing a blank. Roby
Services.
They're out of boom.
They said I needed permit for the
running the wires. So, I said fine. They
worked through the Kevin and Brian. I
did not interface with them at that
time.
Um
I actually dug the line to make sure it
was 18 inches myself personally
to satisfy the code for the wire that
had to go from the house to the street
where the two lights were.
At that time,
Kevin came back. I was not there. My
wife and electrical contractor were
there.
And at that time, in addition to
you know, certifying the line was okay
and
dug at the right depth,
he started to look at the retaining wall
for the parking pad.
And he went up to it
and he said, "Well, I'm 6 ft. That's
taller than me, but oh, you got 2 ft of
you know, air and all that's
parallel to
you know, the same height as the road.
So, really less than 6 ft." And
basically told my wife proceed. And this
was last year. This was probably May,
June, July of last year.
So,
I said, well,
um obviously probably should have got a
permit, but we didn't, but we're going
to proceed. That was the only
communication with Kevin at that time.
Um
and kind of fast forward, um
I said, well, I'm going to do this shed.
I need to get a permit. And I just that
wasn't prompted by anybody. It was me.
Okay. I went into the office early April
with that permit that you've seen.
Um
and presented to Kevin.
At the time I went into the office, he
told me about my neighbor, my new next
door neighbor,
that was questioning the drain
that we put in as part of the drainage
for the new driveway.
And I said, okay, well, this is the
first I've heard of that. I didn't know
that the drain was an issue with my new
neighbor. I'd never even talked to him.
And I said, if I had known that, I would
have cut the drain. In fact, that day I
went back and cut the drain, so it
wouldn't be intruding on his property
line.
Um
but between March, which I was not aware
that they arrived on my property,
to
evaluate
Apparently it all got precipitated by
him coming from my neighbor questioning
my drain.
And that's when he said, whoa, should
have got a permit. And I That's I never
communicated with Kevin about I needed a
permit on all that.
Um
and so I
without any knowledge of March
happening,
only knowledge I had was my neighbor
about the drain on the other side of the
property.
I brought in the permit unprompted by
any human being. I did it on my own,
because I thought that was the right
thing to do.
I brought the permit. You relate this to
the drain?
This is no, the permit for the shed.
>> Had you already had a conversation with
this Rothrock on
>> Not prior to that.
» You came into their office?
>> I brought it in the office and brought
it to Kevin, but he was implying that
the only reason I came to the office is
because of some conversation I had
between him coming in March and me
coming to the office. That conversation
did not occur about
anything related to the shed. The only
conversation I had with Kevin was
related to the drain on the other side
of the property caused by my neighbor.
That was the only conversation. No
conversation. He did not suggest that I
bring in a permit for the shed. That was
unprompted.
I brought it in myself without any cue
from Kevin or anybody else.
>> So on April 6th had the foundation
>> Somewhere around Yeah, I mean
>> retaining wall had already been built?
>> The pad was done.
>> And that's what you were calling the
retaining
>> out the pad.
>> Retaining wall, pad, foundation, what
are we what are we calling it?
>> Uh,
well that's the pad. That's where the
shed was built. So all of that was done
when I presented the permit to Kevin.
>> So Okay, that was finished on April 6th,
the pad.
>> Yeah, just the pad.
And then I brought in the permit.
>> That the pad you was what you calling
the pad?
>> No, no. The pad I'm calling the pad
where the shed is at.
>> That's under the shed.
>> Related to the permit. The permit was
only for the shed and the pad, which I
call with the structure under the shed.
Is the pad on the permit.
>> Okay.
>> You want to explain
>> Is [clears throat] there a concrete
floor?
>> Yes.
>> Is he walking on the Is it a floor?
>> Yeah, yeah, yeah.
>> Okay.
>> [clears throat]
» When did you first hear that the
um, building this plan was going to
encroach into the setback?
Uh
Kevin came back out and I don't know if
it was just Kevin or Brian or both of
them.
And they laid a board on the concrete
pad.
And said, "This is
where you need to build."
what? The shed.
Because of the setback. Correct.
Okay.
>> And that isn't where it ended up getting
built, right?
>> No, I decided I made a decision based on
my view that was in the spirit of the
law, not maybe the
legality of the law, the letter of the
law, however you want to call it,
because
the this pad was fine.
But as soon as I put a structure on it,
>> Right.
>> it became
bad.
Somehow that was nebulous to me. I'm
sorry, that's just
And I decided to
uh
build the structure on the pad because I
did not think it affected the spirit of
the law
because the pad was okay, but the
building was not okay.
That's why I took the risk.
And why we're here today, unfortunately.
I'm dragging you all in here, but
I believe that what I did
violated the letter of the law, as
Tony's already said, but I do not
believe it violated the spirit of the
law, particularly given the pad is okay.
All right.
>> Just for the record, I disagree that the
pad's okay. Even looking at your permit
that was that you it was issued in June
that you applied for in April, you
didn't apply for a permit for the pad,
which you should have.
And it's certainly any retain We're
going to call it a retaining wall, it's
certainly over 4 ft in height, requires
an engineering
engineer design and inspection.
No retaining walls over 6 ft in height
are permitted within the side rear yard
setback. And Kevin said when he was
talking that the back side of that pad
is 6 to 7 ft.
And
um
the portion of the building within the
12-ft setback will need to be removed to
meet it. Failure to meet the
requirements of the ordinance will
result in a violation of this permit.
And if we're going to call it a
foundation, a foundation survey may be
required. I don't think any of this
meets the code.
>> Okay, well,
this is the
So,
this whole
And I I'd also like to just say just
kind of
>> I
>> jumping ahead.
>> Somehow I got an we got an
after-the-fact permit, I've been told,
supposedly, on everything but this
storage shed. So,
you're saying it's not in code, but
the town of Blowing Rock is saying it
is. So, I'm confused.
>> What I'm reading this part concerns me.
as much as the building.
>> I'm just confused, completely confused
now.
Um cuz I was not anticipating getting a
discussion on something that in theory
was approved that I didn't apply for.
>> Well, it wasn't approved. You said it
was built before you got a permit.
>> I was not aware I had to get a permit.
>> Well,
that doesn't that doesn't matter.
>> Well, let's stick to just Can we stick
to the facts of this variance, please?
>> Yeah, let's let's jump ahead to Hardship
did not result from actions taken by the
applicant or the property owner. That's
state law.
» Okay, you got me there. All right, so
» If there's facts that refute that, I'd
love to hear them, but I haven't heard a
single one.
>> [snorts]
» Okay, so
I'm not going to debate that point. Mr.
Shuray, you're obviously a nice guy, but
you can't just decide
it's okay to break the law a little bit.
It just doesn't work that way.
>> And I also say that when I drove by your
house, the driveway, everything, it's
gorgeous.
>> Pardon me?
>> The driveway, everything, it's gorgeous
when I drove by there yesterday. So, I
you know, I'm not criticizing, I'm
saying
the law is the law, and I you can't
you just can't decide not to follow.
» All right, so anything else you want to
say?
>> No, I have nothing else to say unless
you have something to say.
>> [snorts]
>> I think we went by that already.
I could
>> [clears throat]
>> And I think we acquiesced that that we
yes, we agreed that the letter of the
law was violated. I don't think anybody
ever said that, but I think based on the
circumstances,
you know, the corner of the building and
the 12-ft setback is certainly worth
a request
for mercy on the court or whatever you
call it, prayer for judgment uh in a
situation like this
>> There's nothing There's nothing wrong
with asking.
>> Yeah, I see what you're saying.
>> That's right.
>> And and so, we're here under those
circumstances. He certainly understands
uh
the cost implement and the
implementation of moving, you know, his
building or taking two or three feet off
the building to get it within the
I mean, but we did you know, we thought
we'd come and and ask and hope as a good citizen um the
opportunity for mercy would be
um
a possibility.
And that's all we can do.
>> [clears throat]
» Yes.
>> I am actually one of the neighbors.
>> Yes.
>> Do I have permission to make a comment?
>> If you want to get sworn in, then you
got to get sworn in. Okay.
>> [snorts]
>> She is sworn.
» I believe it is 10 minutes speaking.
» Do you solemnly swear that the evidence
you shall give to this body in this
matter being heard shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth? So, do you swear to that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
Tell us your name and your address,
please.
>> Yes, sir.
My name is Sayed Khan.
I am a semi-retired physician, and I
live at 277 Terry Acres Circle.
>> Okay, can you spell your name for me?
>> S as in Sammy, A as in apple, Y as in
Edward, E as in Edward, D as in David.
K as in kilo, H as in Helen, A as in
apple, N as in Nancy.
As you can see, I've got
>> One more time on the last sentence.
>> You've said that so many times, you guys
>> I've said it so many times.
>> I've said it a hundred times. Once more
with feeling.
>> Sorry, what's the
>> K as in kilo, H as in Helen,
A as in apple, N as in Nancy.
>> Khan.
Okay, all right. And do you mind giving
us your address?
>> 277 Terry Acres Circle,
Blowing Rock,
28605.
>> Okay. What did you want to tell us?
>> Well,
um
we actually live on the street
with Fred. In fact, today's the first
day I found out your last name.
But, [laughter] uh
we have been neighbors for now about 4
or 5 years,
and
one of the things which I don't think
anybody's really mentioned is the post
Helene effects on our drainage, cuz
we're on a ridge.
We had massive issues with erosion.
And, uh
most of my neighbors, including myself,
we have spent a substantial amount of
money putting in newer retaining walls
and had a brand new house. Um we've also
had to put in new drainage and
everything else.
When we saw Fred doing this last year,
also
his property was also getting eroded. So
>> [snorts]
>> as a person who lives on the street,
walks on the street, um
I just want to say is is that
the structure in itself
if someone had actually not told told me
that it was
like 24 in
out of compliance, you'd never know the
difference.
So I agree. I mean, laws are there for a
reason. But there's also compassion.
Making him now tear the whole structure
down or modify it. I mean, we've all
spent substantial amount of money.
Between, I would say, each individual
between about 50 to about 120,000
dollars
just
on retaining walls because of and it is
a steep slope.
>> Mr. Bond, can you can you tell me where
you lived in Lord of the Rings?
>> Oh, absolutely. Uh
Well
>> And it's what I had.
Yeah.
That's
>> [snorts]
>> me.
Yes, very much.
Yes, sir.
>> Okay.
>> So
we we do have a very steep mountain side
and we and we have had a lot of trouble,
especially post-Elaine, with erosion and
drainage. So, yes.
He probably did break the law, but I
really do believe that we should also be
in the business of compassion.
>> Thank you.
>> And, thank you for your time.
>> Thank you. Any board member want to ask
any questions?
» Thank you.
>> Thank Thank you very much.
Um
Mr. Seretti, do you want to Anybody else
you want to call as a witness or
anything else you want to say?
>> No, that's it from my standpoint. That's
it.
>> Okay.
All right.
Um
Fellow board members, you ready to start
working on findings of fact?
The applicant is Fred and Sandy Seretti.
The owner of the property in question is
uh Mr. Seretti, I noticed the name on
your deed is Alfred Seretti and Sandra
Seretti. You mind if we use the proper
name?
>> Sure.
» The address of the property in question
is 369 Terry Acre Circle
in Blowing Rock, North Carolina.
It's uh the property is also identified
by Watauga County PIN number 2817
-43-7159-000.
The property is zoned R-15.
And
the applicant wants the following.
The applicant has built an accessory
building, which the applicants call a
shed, on the western side of their
property. The dimensions of the
accessory building are 11 ft 8 in wide
by 13 ft 8 in long. 8 in long. The
building is built with a portion of the
building encroaching into the 12-ft side
setback required by Blowing Rock Land
Use Ordinance section 16-12.4.
No construction is allowed inside the
12-ft side lot setback.
The amount of the encroachment
is 25 and 1/2 inches on plane eight
and 1/2 inches.
And the applicants are seeking a
variance of
Mr. Seretti, would you like to change
your application to
um
30 inches instead of the two feet you
were asking?
I don't know.
I don't think it's going to make a whole
lot of difference, but
I'm not going to debate.
>> Um
a few inches, I don't think it's
>> All right, let's leave it the way it is.
>> make anything to the decision of the
land.
>> The applicants are seeking a variance of
two feet from the required 12-foot side
setback
after the accessory building has already
been built.
Um
Other witnesses in the case
were H. E. Chaney Withers, a civil
engineer and friend of the Serettis.
And his address is 6116 Oxford Chart
Court in Raleigh, North Carolina, 27606.
Other witness
was Mr. um
Constantine Said Khan at 277 Terry Acres
Circle, Boring Road.
There are no other parties
who stand in to come into this case.
The applicant did provide drawings or
sketches or plans.
The town of Boring Road has provided
given all necessary legal notices of
this case and this hearing.
There was not proper notice.
There was proper notice of this case in
here and given to all property owners of
property abutting the parcel of land
which is at issue here and proper notice
was given to any other persons entitled
to receive notice.
14 notices were mailed out.
The applicant did receive a copy of the
planning director's staff report prior
to the hearing.
What the applicant is proposing would
not
Yes, what the applicant is proposing
would not impair emergency vehicles such
as fire trucks and ambulances. What the
applicant is proposing
would not create a fire hazard. What the
applicant is proposing would not block
or impede visibility on any street or
highway.
Unique features of this property include
none.
There are none.
Um
>> [snorts]
» The structure requires
a zoning permit.
A property owner who wants to build a
structure like this, accessory building
is required to obtain the necessary
permit before any work or construction
is started.
» [snorts]
» When completed, the accessory building
encroached into the 12-ft western side
setback
by 28 and 1/2 in.
That number
includes
um
an eave
at the top.
There was a place on the lot
There were There were places
on the lot where this accessory building
could have been built without
encroaching into any of the setbacks and
without needing a variance.
Um zoning enforcement officer
Excuse me.
Planning Director
Kevin Rothrock went to the Seretti
property for the best possible building
work without a permit in March
2026.
» [snorts]
>> Um
Later,
Mr. Ceretti
came to the
planning
and inspections
office
in person
and was told
the accessory building
he wanted to build
would encroach
into the
12-ft
setback.
And
it could not
legally
be built as planned.
Mr. Ceretti applied
for a permit
and provided
a site plan
which showed
the accessory building
located
outside
side setback.
And within
design requirements.
He applied for a permit on April 6,
2026.
» [snorts]
» The permit was issued to Mr. Sready
on June 24th, 2026.
Mr. Sready did build
and complete the accessory building.
And
he built it
encroaching
into
the 12-ft
side setback
knowing
» [snorts]
» Does anyone remember want to add any
facts or want me to change any facts?
» I don't know. I
move that we adopt the facts as TV just
stated them.
>> Okay.
>> I'll second the motion.
>> [snorts]
>> Um
any further discussion on facts?
>> No.
>> Okay.
All right.
All those in favor of adopting the
findings of facts as I have just
spoken them, say I.
>> I.
It's unanimous.
I move that
we adopt the findings of fact.
Well, let's go back
>> We just did that.
>> Thank you. I'm
thinking about the conclusion.
>> did this part.
>> We did.
Thank you.
Um
and the board adopted the
findings of fact by a unanimous vote.
>> Yeah.
>> We move now to conclusions of law
based upon the evidence presented in the
facts shown above.
The Board of Adjustment
does or does not
Let's pick that one.
>> [snorts]
» Find substantial material and competent
evidence exists to conclude that in this
case unnecessary hardship would result
from the strict application of the
regulations,
it shall not be necessary to demonstrate
that in the absence of the variance, no
reasonable use can be made of this of
the property.
Um I make the motion
that we either um
find he has met his burden or we do not.
Is there a second?
>> And can I repeat the motion, please?
>> Sure.
>> I'd make the motion that we do not find
substantial material and competent
evidence exists to conclude that in this
case unnecessary hardship would result
from the strict application of the
regulations.
>> Well, we could we could do it we could
word it that way and then if you think
he had, you would just vote vote the
other way.
Um
>> Louder.
Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> If you disagree with my motion, you can
just vote no.
» But I like the idea we either vote
yes he did or no he didn't.
Okay. Is that okay? That's what I want
to do.
I think probably did not do it
correctly.
Please.
So my motion is
um
that we take a vote and find that you
vote your choices would be he met his
burden
and he has complied with factor one or
he has not. He has or he has not.
What do you think? Am I getting too
>> I don't know how you vote on that.
It's a yay or nay, so
>> Mr. Chairman, for purposes of our
record, it would be appropriate to take
a finding of or a finding as to whether
he the there is or is not
uh
material and competent evidence as to
the unnecessary hardship. So you can
certainly vote in favor of whatever the
proposed finding is and if that fails,
then take an alternative motion.
>> Okay. That
>> And that would be the better approach in
my in my opinion and my objective.
>> Okay, that's what we've been doing in
the past.
For some reason I decided to get
creative.
Um
Second.
In the past I've I've always
made the motion to say we find that he
has met his burden.
And
so you would if you find that he has met
his burden, you would say yay.
And if you disagree and think he hasn't
met his burden, you'd say nay.
Everybody
with me?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So let me do it again.
Based upon the evidence presented and
the facts shown above, the Board of
Adjustment
does find
substantial material competent evidence
exists to conclude that in this case
unnecessary hardship would result from
the strict application of the
regulations. It shall not be necessary
to demonstrate that in the absence of
the variance, no reasonable use can be
made of the property.
Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> All right. Mr. Walker seconds. Any
further discussion?
All right.
All those uh
in favor of finding that he has met his
burden and has satisfied satisfied
factor one,
vote
yay.
All those who find he has not met his
burden and satisfied factor one, vote
nay.
>> Nay.
>> So Mr.
>> I said I I'm yay.
>> You're yay. He has met his burden.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> I'll be a yay, too, then.
» Okay. So the yays are
Mr. Gibson
Mr. McGill
Yays, he did meet his burden and does
not satisfy or
Mr. Shuler
Mr. Sprague is
and Mr. Walker. Have I got that right.
>> Yes.
» I'm ready to the second.
Based upon the evidence presented in the
second factor, based upon the evidence
presented in the facts shown above, the
Board of Adjustment
finds substantial, material, and
competent evidence exists, including
that in this case the hardship results
from conditions that are peculiar to the
property, such as location, size, or
topography. Hardships resulting from
personal circumstances, as well as
hardships resulting from conditions that
are common to the neighborhood or
general public, may not be the basis for
granting a variance.
may be granted when necessary
and appropriate to make reasonable
accommodation under the Federal Fair
Housing Act for a person with a
disability.
So, the motion is
um that we find his necessary
and it's satisfied factor two is our
second.
>> Second.
>> Mr. Walker seconds. Any further
discussion?
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> [clears throat]
>> Mr. Chair, the Board of Adjustment
>> the motion
>> on each of these factors it's preferred
that the
maker of the motion state the facts that
would support or not support whatever
your ultimate finding would be.
Um
>> We don't
>> Case law has generally wanted the
Board not to simply recite the
element of the variance, but also cite
to some facts in the evidence that would
support that finding.
>> Okay. All right.
Um
I've got a question.
>> Haven't we already done that?
>> Yes.
>> We Haven't we already done that? We made
our findings of fact, which would say
it'd be the
>> Yes, sir.
>> at like an court of appeal it'd be the
>> Yes.
>> introduction. And then now we're
applying the law
to those facts. Why would we need to
repeat those facts?
>> Because the If this is reviewed by a
court of appeals they will want to know
specifically what facts the board found
that swayed them as to
this for example whether it was a
peculiarity of the property such as
location, size, or topography and what
those facts were.
>> And make all that part of the motion?
>> Yes, that would be preferred. Otherwise,
you run the risk of court remanding it
back to you for further explanation as
to why you reached that conclusion.
» Um
Okay, let's go back and do line
um
factor one again.
Um
Mr. Eggers.
» Come on. Let me take a shot at this.
Um
I move that based upon the facts that
the board just adopted as stated above
the board of adjustment finds
substantial material and competent
evidence exists to conclude that in this
case unnecessary hardship would result
from the strict application of
regulations.
» Yes, sir. Are there specific factors
that would allow for unnecessary
hardship you wish to sign to?
Well, that motion technically failed
with the board. So, what would
>> Well, I just added the word
in
Well, I don't understand how we can sit
here and repeat
all these facts that we just approved.
>> Yes, sir.
>> As part of a motion.
>> Well, he's he's right. They do They do
want to see under each conclusion
um we find or do not find for this
reason. The problem is
if I make the motion that we find
» And then if he states all the facts and
then we vote against it.
>> If the board's majority
conclusion is that the applicant has
not met his burden of an unnecessary
hardship, the board can find that while
it may impose a hardship on the
applicant to comply with the ordinance,
it is not an unnecessary hardship for
whatever specifics you wish
to find from the evidence.
>> How about this, Mr. Harris? How about we do a motion
that he has
satisfied
or he has not.
We take that vote and then
the winning, in this case the nays,
then add on
supporting facts.
>> Yes, sir. It would It would need to be
facts that would support a successful
motion, which is generally what you're
looking for. However, I will say that if
a variance, unless a motion carries by
four at least a four to one vote, then
that motion that you have
proposed
would not pass.
>> Right. He's He's
>> here did not pass, then there was not a
conclusion by the board that
an unnecessary hardship had been shown.
>> Could we
the the factual support is that he produced
absolutely no evidence
of unnecessary hardship. So, that that
statement
the applicant has produced absolutely no
evidence of unnecessary hardship.
Could that come after we took the vote?
And then add that
>> Yes, sir. The board would will its
purview. I would suggested finding that
the applicant has failed to carry his
burden as to an unnecessary hardship
rather than
a finding that there's no evidence
produced because the burden is on the
applicant. It's not
necessarily
summary judgment type burden as well.
Whether he's carried his
» Well, yes.
>> You're You're also implying that when
the motion is made, we already know what
the outcome's going to be in order to
include
the facts that support the outcome in
the motion.
>> The maker of the motion needs to propose
facts to go along with his motion.
That's what I'm saying.
>> Okay.
>> If those facts aren't supported by a
majority vote, for example, it would
fail.
>> And then we'd need to make a new motion
with new facts.
>> Something that can be reached
>> I simplify this discussion of the city.
I'm not going to appeal it to the city.
I know that with the city it's You don't
have to worry about Whatever decision
that you make, it's going to be based on
compaction. No other
decision will stand.
So, I'm not going to I will declare I
will not appeal it.
>> I We appreciate that. We got We got to go to the question now. Okay,
back to one. We found that the applicant
has not met his burden. I am now making
a motion
that we say
And we say the reason he has not met met
his burden is he has
not provided evidence of unnecessary
hardship.
A second motion for number one.
So, going back to number one, we've
taken the vote. It's three to two. I now
make the motion that we say he has not
met his burden because he has
not
produced
sufficient evidence of unnecessary
hardship.
>> And that would be sufficient for
purposes of that filing.
>> Yeah, sounds like a tie. All right. So,
Mr. Walker seconds that.
Um any further discussion?
All those in favor of adopting the
um
» motion.
>> The motion
um say
uh
that he has
not produced sufficient evidence of
unnecessary hardships.
Say
>> I.
>> This is
>> [clears throat]
>> Your name?
>> I'm a nay.
>> I I your name?
» [laughter]
>> If you think he's met his burden
I got to have to say he has not. I'm
sorry.
So, it's four to one.
>> Okay. So, well, he's
but he's still got his vote on
>> But
>> I'll just a question. Did or did not?
Are you going to You had voted that he
has met his burden. Are you going to
stick by that?
Why not?
>> The motion is that he has not provided
sufficient evidence of a burden.
That he has not.
» Of unnecessary hardship.
» Yeah.
>> You think he has not provided sufficient
evidence of an unnecessary hardship.
» I would have thought once I thought he
had.
Isn't that right?
Yeah.
>> You
>> It was a yay.
>> Yeah, it was a
>> You did you you
>> What are you doing to We still on one?
We back on one?
>> We're still on one. We We want to
um
connect somehow with the facts.
>> Yeah.
>> And so, I'm I'm saying the connection
with facts is that he just he just
hasn't produced sufficient evidence
um
of unnecessary hardship.
» Well, I feel sorry for him, but I don't
think he has. I think he knew
he needed to keep it within that 12 ft
and then he slipped over. So, I'm afraid he has not.
That's just It's frustrating, very
frustrating. Cuz I think y'all let it I
think y'all would let it let it go and
let him have it, but nobody's ever going
to know, but anyway, this is what we got
to do, so we got to do it.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Um
that applicant has not provided
sufficient evidence of unnecessary
hardship. The vote is
um
4 to 1.
Mr. Goodson
voting
nay.
He has produced enough.
Um
Factor two, based on on the evidence
presented in the fact sheet above, the
Board of Adjustment
finds substantial material competent
evidence exists to conclude that in this
case the hardship results from
conditions that are peculiar to the
property, such as location, size, or
topography. Hardships resulting from
personal circumstances as well as
hardships resulting from conditions that
are common to the neighborhood or the
general public may not be the basis for
granting a variance.
may be granted when necessary
or appropriate to make reasonable
accommodations under the Federal Fair
Housing Act for a person with a
disability.
Um
» I'd like to make a motion.
>> You
go ahead.
>> So, I move that based upon the evidence
presented. The Board of Adjustment does
not find substantial material and
competent evidence exists to conclude
that this case the hardship results from
conditions that are peculiar to the
property, such as location, size, or
topography. The evidence presented did
not suggest any conditions peculiar to
this property, including its location,
size, or topography.
So, that
» I second that.
>> [clears throat and cough]
» Any further discussion?
>> No.
» The evidence produced helped help Mr.
Walker finish up his sentences.
The evidence
>> The evidence produced
does not
» I think
the future motion in English terms.
>> Please.
>> Exactly.
>> I believe the motion as Mr. Walker said
before
the Board did not find substantial
material and competent evidence relates
to the conditions of the property as the
evidence did not support
any condition that would be unique to
the
topography, location, or size of the
property. Is that correct, sir?
>> Okay.
Does not show location, size, or
topography
um presenting any hardship.
Fair enough.
» That would be legally sufficient if
that's Mr. Walker's motion.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Mr. Walker.
>> I
>> If as the evidence produced does not
show location, size, or topography
presenting any hardship.
Okay. So, this one the motion is
that we did not find evidence he did not
meet his burden.
All those
in favor of
If that's correct, he did not meet his
burden. He did not satisfy factor two.
Say I.
>> I.
>> Any nays? Are you a nay?
>> I'm a nay.
>> I.
>> So we got
it's unanimous.
All I.
Factor three, based upon the evidence
presented in the facts shown above, the
board of adjustment
does not find substantial, material, or
competent evidence exists to completely
in this case the hardship did not result
from actions taken by the applicant or
the property owner.
The act of purchasing the property with
knowledge of circumstances exist that
may justify the granting of a variance
[snorts] or a liability regarding a
self-created hardship.
Um the applicant
knowingly
constructed
the accessory building
with the encroachment
into
the 12-ft
side setback.
That's the motion that he did not meet
his burden. Is there a second?
>> Second.
from Mr. Shuler.
Any further discussion?
All in favor of finding that the
applicant [snorts] has not met his
burden on factor three, say I.
>> I.
>> Is it unanimous?
>> It's unanimous.
>> Fourth factor based upon the evidence
presented in the fact sheet above the
Board of Adjustment does not find
substantial material
and competent evidence suggests to
conclude that in this case the requested
variance is consistent with the spirit,
purpose, and intent of the regulations.
Such a public safety and security and
substantial justice achieved.
Substantial justice is not achieved
granting the variance
would be injurious to the neighborhood
or to the general
welfare.
Um
building
the accessory building
and no way going
into the side setback.
Because that would come
>> [snorts]
» It's all the encouragement
was minimal.
And then
And it's not
within the spirit
and intent of the regulations.
>> [snorts]
» Uh is there a second of that motion?
>> Second.
>> Mr. Shuler seconds. Any
>> [clears throat]
>> further discussion?
Hearing none.
Um all those
in favor of finding that the applicant
has not met his burden
that was not substantial material
competent evidence
existing to include concluded this case
the request of variance is consistent
with the spirit purpose and intent of
the regulations.
Um
associate public safety secures
substantial justice achieved
building the accessory building into the
side setback because the applicant
thought the encroachment was minimal.
Um
and it was not
and that
is not within the spirit and intent of
the regulations.
I would favor he hadn't met his burden,
say I.
>> I.
I unanimous.
It's unanimous.
Um
>> For this one, I will restate this.
>> I'm sorry, what?
>> Oh, okay. For the number five one, I
would want I move that consistent with
the conclusions of law just discussed,
the Board of Adjustment does not grant
the applicant a variance.
Period.
>> That's your motion?
>> That's my motion.
>> And I'll second that. Any further
discussion?
Um
All in favor of the motion that we not
grant a variance, say I.
>> I.
>> Mr. Goodson.
>> Aye.
Mr. Aye.
>> Mr. Goodson.
Say aye.
All right.
a deadline
to be correction of the problem.
In other words, you got
you've got to correct this situation
within what do you think is reasonable?
6 months?
» 6 months?
What do you think is reasonable?
» I think 6 months is reasonable. I think
it should be
done sooner.
6 months.
>> Well, you got up to that point. Up to
that point.
>> I'm going to
get a higher survey everything and get
this thing done.
>> Why?
>> Cuz I don't want to do this and find out
we're in breach.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah, that's correct.
>> What do you suggest?
>> Yes.
>> Um
The applicant
>> Sorry for that.
>> That's all right.
>> The applicant
>> 1 ft 8 in from you.
>> 1 ft from your neighbor. 1 ft from your
neighbor.
Put away. That's how he got me.
>> Generally what's included in your work
as far as time to correct the problem is
something that would be handled through
staff as an administrative matter.
>> Yeah, but
the town ordinances give us all the
authority and power of
the administrator.
>> And yes, but that's where I get it.
>> So, if we're going to go ahead and do
>> [laughter]
>> So, we're going to go to
>> That's That's generally where that gets
basically wrapped up. There's additional
time, however, since the board is
hearing
the matter, the board can impose those
conditions and give staff direction if
you choose to do so.
>> Thank you.
>> Which is the second part of my
presentation.
>> I'm not going to write that down, but
thank you.
The applicant
must remove
um
» all
of the
constructed
accessory building
that
encroaches
into the
>> [clears throat]
>> western
side setback
within 180 days
of the filing
of this decision.
This
I I make the motion that we say that the
applicant must remove all of the
constructed accessory building that
encroaches into the
western side setback within 100 days 180
days of the filing
of this decision.
Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Mr. Walker seconds. Any further
discussion?
All those in favor of adopting
um
that term, say I.
>> I.
It's unanimous then.
This decision is effective after review
and approval of the written decision by
all participating board members and then
filing with the clerk, which means I
will type it up. I'll share it with all
the other board members and if they see
no errors
or mistakes in it, um
they'll tell me and I will tell the
clerk that she can proceed with filing.
Um
I I make a motion that the board adopt
the conclusions of law that we have just
articulated.
Uh is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Seconded by Mr. Walker. Any further
discussion?
Uh all those in favor of adopting the
conclusions of law
just stated, say I.
>> I.
That's unanimous.
And
I now make a motion that we conclude
this meeting of the
Glowing Rock Board of Adjustment. Is
there a second?
>> Second.
>> It's been moved and seconded. All those
in favor of ending this meeting, say I.
>> I.
It's unanimous.