[0:46] Mr. Walker, the official timekeeper
[0:47] tells me it's 5:30. We're going to get
[0:50] started.
[0:53] This is the Thursday, July 30th, 2026
[0:56] meeting of the Floyd May Board of
[0:58] Adjustment.
[1:03] Come to order, and the first thing we
[1:05] have to do is take a look at the minutes
[1:07] from our meeting of May 28th, 2026.
[1:11] Uh did everybody on the board get a copy
[1:14] of the those minutes?
[1:15] >> Yes.
[1:16] >> I I myself didn't see any problems or
[1:18] omissions. Did anybody see any problems
[1:20] or omissions?
[1:22] I'll make a motion that we accept the
[1:24] May 28th, 2026
[1:26] meeting meeting minutes. Is there a
[1:29] second?
[1:30] Mr. Shields seconds. All in favor of
[1:33] accepting those minutes as distributed
[1:35] by Ms. Miller, say aye.
[1:37] It's unanimous.
[1:39] So, that's taken care of.
[1:41] Um
[1:43] I don't have any
[1:45] new business to take up before we get
[1:47] into um the variance hearing we're going
[1:49] to do. Does any board member have any
[1:51] new business you want to
[1:53] bring up?
[1:54] >> No.
[1:55] >> Okay.
[1:55] All right. we'll move on then.
[2:00] We have a variance
[2:03] application.
[2:05] It's variance number 2026-03.
[2:09] The applicants are Fred and Sandy
[2:11] Cerretti.
[2:12] And Mr. Cerretti introduced himself to
[2:15] me as Is Miss Sandy Cerretti here?
[2:18] >> No, she is not.
[2:19] >> She is not. Okay. All right.
[2:21] Um
[2:22] the location of the property that we're
[2:25] going to be talking about is 369
[2:28] Tory Acres Circle here in Blowing Rock,
[2:31] North Carolina.
[2:34] And
[2:36] the first thing we need to do is find
[2:37] out if any board member
[2:40] uh has any conflict of interest in this
[2:42] case.
[2:43] Um
[2:45] and I have a little list here of things
[2:47] that we have to address.
[2:50] Um
[2:51] the board cannot Board members cannot
[2:53] discuss this case with anybody prior to
[2:56] this hearing here tonight.
[2:58] Uh has anybody had has That's called ex
[3:01] parte communications. Has anybody on the
[3:03] board had ex parte communications,
[3:05] talked to anybody about this case prior
[3:08] to this evening? I haven't. Everyone
[3:10] says no.
[3:12] A member must not have a fixed opinion
[3:14] prior to this hearing as to whether this
[3:16] particular variance should or should not
[3:18] be granted.
[3:19] And should not be biased. Does anybody
[3:21] have a fixed opinion about this before
[3:23] we even start?
[3:25] No.
[3:26] I hear no from everyone.
[3:28] A member must not have a fixed opinion
[3:30] as to whether all variances in general
[3:32] should or should not be granted. Should
[3:34] not be biased one way or the other. Does
[3:36] anybody have such a bias?
[3:38] >> No.
[3:40] from me. No from everybody.
[3:43] A member must not participate in this
[3:44] case if the member has any close,
[3:47] familiar, familial, business, or other a
[3:50] relationship with a person involved in
[3:52] this case. Does anybody have a close
[3:54] relationship with anyone involved in uh
[3:58] this variance application having to do
[4:01] with 369 Towne Acres Circle? Anybody?
[4:05] Everyone says no.
[4:08] And a member must not have any financial
[4:10] not financial interest in the outcome of
[4:12] this case. Does anyone have any
[4:14] financial interest in the outcome of
[4:16] this case? And we all say no.
[4:22] » [snorts]
[4:24] >> We, board members,
[4:26] are not allowed to discuss this case
[4:29] prior to tonight. The ex parte
[4:30] conversations I just mentioned. But
[4:33] we're allowed to drive by the property
[4:35] in question and look at it, give it a
[4:37] good eyeball.
[4:38] Um
[4:40] and we're allowed to do that just so we
[4:41] don't stop
[4:43] and get into some sort of conversation.
[4:45] We just look at it and keep going.
[4:47] I know I did. Did any of the board
[4:49] members go by 369 Towne Acres Circle?
[4:52] Yes.
[4:53] I have. Yes, I did.
[4:55] Everybody but Mr. McGill. You did not.
[4:57] >> I read my paper.
[5:00] >> Mr. Schiller and Mr. McGill did not go
[5:02] by the property.
[5:03] >> I read all the material we were given
[5:05] and obeyed thoroughly.
[5:06] >> Okay.
[5:08] Uh
[5:09] the other three of us
[5:10] did go by the property.
[5:17] Um is there anyone other than the town
[5:20] representative
[5:21] and the variance applicant
[5:24] who considers himself to be a party to
[5:26] this case?
[5:27] Um wants to come into this case as a
[5:30] party and participate fully because they
[5:32] feel like
[5:33] uh
[5:34] the outcome of this case one way or
[5:35] another would may affect them.
[5:38] Anyone here that feels like he is a
[5:40] party to this case?
[5:43] And I hear nothing.
[5:46] The minutes of this meeting going going
[5:48] to be kept by Miss Taylor Miller over
[5:51] here. She is a town employee. She
[5:53] actually works in the planning and
[5:56] inspections office.
[5:58] Uh
[5:59] Mr. Serrati, do you have any objection
[6:01] to Miss Taylor keeping the minutes?
[6:03] >> No, I do not.
[6:04] >> Okay.
[6:05] And uh
[6:07] Mr. Johnson, do you have any objections?
[6:10] >> I do not.
[6:11] >> Miller keeping the minutes. Very good.
[6:23] The North Carolina Court of Appeals has
[6:25] said on a number of occasions that we
[6:26] are supposed to let everybody here know
[6:30] what procedures we will use.
[6:32] And they have given us
[6:34] uh
[6:35] a suggested spiel
[6:37] to take care of that.
[6:40] This hearing is a quasi-judicial
[6:42] hearing. It is conducted according to
[6:44] the rules and laws laws pertaining to
[6:45] quasi-judicial hearings. It will have
[6:48] all of the essential elements of a fair
[6:50] trial.
[6:52] Parties will have the opportunity to
[6:54] give evidence, cross-examine witnesses,
[6:56] inspect documents, and testimony shall
[6:59] be under oath.
[7:00] The board's findings will be based upon
[7:03] substantial, material, and competent
[7:06] evidence. And if anybody here wants a
[7:08] definition of substantial or material or
[7:11] competent, say so now and I'll read it.
[7:14] Otherwise, we'll move on.
[7:30] Um
[7:31] Mr. Johnson, I asked
[7:34] Thomas to put two sheets
[7:37] into the uh
[7:38] projector up there,
[7:40] both of them showing what's required
[7:42] for a variance.
[7:44] And there's the first one. That is the
[7:46] state statute.
[7:49] It shows what is required to get
[7:51] a variance.
[7:53] Um there's a state statute on this.
[7:56] It's a North Carolina General Statute
[7:58] 160D-705.
[8:01] It gives the requirements
[8:03] for obtaining a variance. It's the law
[8:06] we are to follow, the law we are to
[8:08] apply to the facts
[8:10] that come out in this hearing.
[8:12] So, that's the state statute.
[8:14] If you would turn to the Blowing Rock
[8:16] ordinance.
[8:29] That's the state statute.
[8:31] >> Did you have a sheet?
[8:32] >> Yeah, I gave it to him.
[8:35] Just scroll down. Scroll down.
[8:40] There we go.
[8:41] >> Can you scroll down some more?
[8:42] >> Um Blowing Rock, the town
[8:45] um wrote its own ordinance.
[8:48] The town's ordinance has to um comply
[8:51] with the state statute. The state trumps
[8:54] cities and towns. And it does. It's
[8:56] virtually um
[8:58] written identically showing the what we
[9:00] call the factors, the four factors
[9:02] that have to be met
[9:05] before a variance can be granted.
[9:08] Uh Blowing Rock added a few little
[9:10] things, explanatory things,
[9:13] like the last sentence in factor D.
[9:17] Reads "The
[9:20] requested variance is consistent with
[9:22] the spirit, purpose, and intent of the
[9:23] regulations, such that public safety is
[9:26] secured and substantial justice
[9:29] achieved."
[9:31] That's what the state statute says.
[9:33] Blowing Rock went on and added this.
[9:35] They say, "Substantial justice is not
[9:37] achieved when granting the variance
[9:39] would be injurious to the neighborhood
[9:41] or to the general welfare.
[9:43] So, let's look at the four factors
[9:46] real quick that
[9:48] the surities will need to
[9:50] prove and establish to get
[9:52] the requested variance.
[9:54] The first says unnecessary hardship will
[9:57] result from the strict application of
[10:00] the regulations. It shall not be
[10:02] necessary to demonstrate that in the
[10:04] absence of the variance
[10:05] a reasonable use can be made of the
[10:07] property.
[10:08] What is unnecessary hardship? It's not
[10:11] defined
[10:13] in the state statutes, it's not defined
[10:15] in the law in Rock,
[10:16] it's code of ordinances, and it's not
[10:19] defined in the common law judgment law
[10:21] of this state.
[10:23] The people, however, that train
[10:26] the legislatures
[10:28] this legislators
[10:30] in Raleigh and they go around the state
[10:33] and train
[10:34] town councils
[10:36] and um
[10:37] county councils
[10:39] um the UNC School of Government
[10:44] um
[10:45] they have talked about what an
[10:47] unnecessary hardship is. Their
[10:49] professors are also lawyers who
[10:51] specialize in land use and development.
[10:54] And they would say, the School of
[10:56] Government attorneys and professors
[10:58] would say it's fair for all the property
[11:00] owners in our neighborhood to suffer the
[11:02] same degree of hardship due to the
[11:04] zoning zoning rules.
[11:06] But, it would be unfair and excessive
[11:08] for the zoning rules to impact the
[11:10] property more than the other properties
[11:12] in the neighborhood due to unique
[11:15] characteristics of the property.
[11:17] That's excessive.
[11:19] Um
[11:20] Actually, the adjective unnecessary is a
[11:22] poor choice. You might think of it as
[11:24] excessive or unfair hardship.
[11:27] So, basically, what we're they're saying
[11:29] is if you've got some problem with your
[11:32] lot
[11:33] whether it's a very steep slope that
[11:35] takes up most of the lot, a stream going
[11:38] through the middle of the lot, or maybe
[11:39] you're a long
[11:41] skinny rectangular lot,
[11:43] and you just you can't do much of
[11:45] anything
[11:46] as far as reasonable building without
[11:49] getting into the setbacks or
[11:51] breaking some other
[11:53] zoning rule.
[11:55] Um
[11:57] you are your your property has unique
[11:59] circumstances such that
[12:02] you need a little help.
[12:03] Um
[12:05] but your property's got to have um
[12:08] these problems. Uh and so that needs to
[12:11] be established. That's the first thing
[12:13] that needs to be established
[12:15] to get um
[12:18] to get a variance. The second says,
[12:21] "The hardship results from conditions
[12:22] that are peculiar to the property, such
[12:25] as location, size, or topography.
[12:27] Hardships resulting from personal
[12:29] circumstances, as well as hardships
[12:32] resulting from conditions that are
[12:34] common to the neighborhood or the
[12:35] general public may not be the basis for
[12:37] granting a variance."
[12:40] And the third factor says, "The hardship
[12:42] did not result from actions taken by the
[12:44] applicant or the property owner. The act
[12:47] of purchasing property with knowledge
[12:49] that circumstances exist that may
[12:51] justify the granting of the variance
[12:54] shall not be regarded as a self-created
[12:56] hardship."
[12:58] And then the last one, D, the fourth
[13:00] one.
[13:01] Um
[13:03] I think I read earlier it says, "The
[13:04] requested variance is consistent with
[13:06] the spirit, purpose, and intent of the
[13:08] regulations such that public safety is
[13:10] secure and substantial justice
[13:13] achieved."
[13:14] And then the last is tacked on,
[13:15] "Substantial justice is not achieved or
[13:18] granting of the variance would be
[13:20] injurious to the neighborhood or to the
[13:22] general welfare."
[13:29] » Our usual routine is to swear everybody
[13:33] that's going to be testifying all at one
[13:35] time.
[13:36] So, everybody that's planning on
[13:37] testifying, please come over to Ms.
[13:39] Miller and she will swear in everybody
[13:42] at the same time.
[13:58] » [clears throat]
[14:13] » Mr. Swearingen, you're the property
[14:14] owner. I know there're going to be
[14:16] questions for you, but do you mind being
[14:18] sworn in?
[14:33] Thank you, sir.
[14:39] When someone applies for a variance, the
[14:41] Planning and Inspections Office prepares
[14:43] what's called a staff report. It's a
[14:45] type up of what their understanding is
[14:47] about
[14:48] what the applicant wants to do, and then
[14:51] includes with it
[14:53] um any drawings, pictures, um or
[14:56] materials that the applicant has
[14:58] provided to the Planning and Inspections
[15:00] Office.
[15:01] Um a copy of that staff report is sent
[15:04] to the board,
[15:05] and it's sent to
[15:07] the applicant. Mr. Swearingen, did you
[15:09] get your
[15:10] a copy of the staff report? Okay.
[15:13] That was put together by
[15:15] the town.
[15:17] Um
[15:19] and they they are a party to this case
[15:22] here, the other party to this case.
[15:25] Um
[15:26] if this was ever appealed, it would read
[15:29] um
[15:30] Fred Serrati versus the town of
[15:31] Wallerang. So,
[15:34] um
[15:38] they put it together. They are, so to
[15:39] speak, kind of your opponent here.
[15:42] Your polite opponent.
[15:44] Um
[15:45] are do you object to any part of the
[15:47] staff report that they put together? No.
[15:49] Okay.
[15:53] Board members even want to see
[15:56] the staff report.
[16:07] All right. Generally, we start with what
[16:10] the town knows about this case.
[16:13] Um
[16:15] and
[16:16] Mr. Serrati, do you mind if the town
[16:18] goes first?
[16:19] >> you go first.
[16:19] >> If you really want to go first, you can.
[16:21] That's okay. Okay. All right. So, Mr.
[16:24] Johnson, are you going to
[16:28] take care of that?
[16:29] >> Yes, sir.
[16:31] >> [clears throat]
[16:32] >> Mr. Chairman, Board, um
[16:43] staff report for variance number
[16:45] 2026-03.
[16:48] Uh
[16:49] I've finished
[16:50] Fred and Sandy Serrati. Fred is here,
[16:52] obviously.
[16:53] Uh 369 Terry Acres. It It is zoned R-15
[16:56] single-family property in reference.
[17:00] Um
[17:01] just for y'all's reference,
[17:04] this is the property in question here.
[17:08] Terry [clears throat] Acres, 369 Terry
[17:09] Acres.
[17:11] >> [snorts]
[17:11] >> Uh
[17:13] Fred and Sandy Serrati are requesting a
[17:14] setback variance from
[17:16] land Ordinance Section
[17:18] 16-12.4
[17:21] and the applicable 12-ft side setback
[17:23] along the western property line
[17:26] for the construction of an accessory
[17:27] building.
[17:28] >> [clears throat]
[17:29] >> Property is located at 369 Terry Acres
[17:31] and further identified by the Town of
[17:32] Blowing Rock PIN
[17:34] 2817-43
[17:37] -7159
[17:39] 000.
[17:41] Again, the property is owned
[17:44] uh R-15 single family.
[17:47] >> I get May I interrupt you? Are you
[17:49] reading from the same typed
[17:51] first page that we all got?
[17:52] >> Yes, sir.
[17:53] >> You're You're bouncing back and forth.
[17:54] Could you start from the top and and get
[17:57] to the end?
[17:58] >> I'll I'll start in the background. It's
[18:00] the same thing.
[18:01] >> Okay.
[18:03] >> [clears throat]
[18:03] >> So, Fred and Sandy are requesting a 2-ft
[18:06] setback variance.
[18:08] This is from the applicable 12-ft side
[18:10] setback
[18:11] along the western property line
[18:14] uh for the construction of an accessory
[18:15] building. Um
[18:17] The accessory building
[18:19] uh dimension is
[18:21] 11-ft 8-in wide
[18:23] by 13-ft 8-in long
[18:26] and is located on the western
[18:29] side of the existing house
[18:31] which is on this side here. It's to the
[18:33] western property line.
[18:35] This
[18:36] accessory building sits about right here
[18:38] in this location.
[18:43] » [clears throat]
[18:44] >> A little bit of background.
[18:46] In March 2026, Mr. Kevin Rothrock
[18:50] Town of Blowing Rock Planning Director
[18:53] and
[18:53] >> [clears throat]
[18:53] >> myself as Zoning Enforcement Officer
[18:55] with the town
[18:56] made a site visit to Mr. Swerid's
[18:58] property
[19:00] to assess possible work without permits.
[19:03] It was found that several areas
[19:05] of improvement have been constructed
[19:06] that would have required a permit, um
[19:08] which is
[19:10] the accessory building
[19:12] um
[19:14] that's on the property now.
[19:16] Mr. Rothrock [clears throat] contacted
[19:17] Mr. Shreddy and advised him that a
[19:19] zoning permit was required
[19:21] for the work that had been done. Um at
[19:23] the time at this time
[19:26] it was just a foundation for the
[19:27] accessory building. The building hadn't
[19:29] been built yet. So, all was there was
[19:31] the pad
[19:32] um
[19:33] the foundation for the accessory
[19:35] building.
[19:37] Mr.
[19:38] Rothrock [clears throat] informed
[19:40] him that the work for a proposed
[19:41] accessory building structure
[19:43] uh at the time would encroach into the
[19:45] side setback in place would need to be
[19:47] set at an angle and offset on the re-
[19:49] train retaining structure to meet the
[19:51] 12-ft setback.
[19:53] The structure that was there was
[19:59] determined to be a retaining wall in
[20:01] nature or retaining pad.
[20:03] So,
[20:04] a determination was made to allow
[20:08] the wall as it was, but what Mr.
[20:10] Rothrock had advised him is that at the accessory building would need to be
[20:13] turned on the pad
[20:15] to meet the 12-ft setback.
[20:17] So, the pictures you have in your packet
[20:19] are several pictures
[20:21] that Mr. Shreddy has included in the packet. They're showing
[20:27] and we can go over them showing where the property line is in relation
[20:33] to the building and where it goes
[20:34] through and where the encroachment is.
[20:38] » [clears throat]
[20:40] » Moving ahead, Mr. Shreddy applied for a
[20:42] zoning permit application
[20:44] on April 6th,
[20:46] 2026.
[20:48] And subsequently a zoning permit was
[20:50] issued on June 24th, 2026.
[20:55] While the zoning permit was issued in
[20:56] June,
[20:58] Mr. Shreddy submitted a site plan, which
[21:00] is included in your packet,
[21:02] showing the proposed building structure
[21:05] and the footprint that it would meet to
[21:06] require 12-ft setback.
[21:13] » [clears throat]
[21:14] >> During that time, Mr. Rothrock had made
[21:15] it clear that the structure would need
[21:17] to meet that side 12-ft setback.
[21:20] Mr. Sradi contacted the planning
[21:21] inspection office
[21:23] and indicated the structure had been
[21:24] built
[21:27] and the left rear corner encroached 18
[21:29] in or so into the setback.
[21:34] At that time,
[21:35] Mr. [clears throat] Johnson, myself, had
[21:36] advised Mr. Sradi
[21:38] that the building structure would need
[21:40] to be moved on the pad or removed out of
[21:42] the setback.
[21:44] On July 2nd, 2026, Mr. H.E. Weathers, I
[21:47] apologize but I don't know his first
[21:48] name,
[21:49] um met with staff in the office to
[21:51] determine options for Mr. Sradi
[21:54] and staff once again advised the
[21:55] structure would need to meet the side
[21:57] move to meet the side setback.
[22:00] And Mr. Weathers at the time decided
[22:02] that they wanted to apply for the
[22:03] variance
[22:04] to discuss and and possibly apply for
[22:06] the the variance
[22:08] to allow the encroachment.
[22:10] Be glad to go through
[22:13] any clarification on this background.
[22:16] Be glad to look at any of the photos. I
[22:18] can pull them up as well to
[22:20] clarify anything on those and and Mr.
[22:22] Sradi may be able to answer or the two
[22:24] gentlemen may be able to answer more
[22:26] on the photos that were submitted.
[22:31] » Um Mr. Sradi,
[22:33] do [clears throat] you have any
[22:34] questions for Mr. Johnson?
[22:41] » I'm sorry.
[22:42] >> Did you have any questions for Mr.
[22:43] Johnson?
[22:44] >> Well, I mean I I just want to make this
[22:47] clarification in fact. Um with respect
[22:50] to the permit and everything else, other
[22:52] than
[22:53] what we've talked about today,
[22:56] I
[22:57] when that two-page report came out, that
[22:59] was the first I knew that I could get
[23:01] her permit after the fact.
[23:03] And everything else we did out of the
[23:05] property.
[23:06] So, but I didn't think that really
[23:08] pertained to this particular
[23:12] » I tell you what, after after we finish
[23:14] with him
[23:16] then I want you, please, to present your
[23:19] case.
[23:20] >> Okay, I'm just stating I'm just I'm
[23:22] trying to be truthful here. I did not
[23:24] know that I got a
[23:25] permit and
[23:27] it's something I didn't apply for.
[23:29] >> Okay. We want to hear
[23:31] >> Okay, so that's all
[23:32] >> We want to hear your whole
[23:34] >> Yeah, that's a sidebar as far as I'm
[23:36] concerned, but I just
[23:37] want to
[23:38] >> Okay.
[23:38] >> want to be clear that
[23:41] that's the first time I heard about that
[23:43] was when you wrote up the newspaper
[23:45] report.
[23:47] » Okay, I'm I'm closing on that, but we'll
[23:49] get we'll get to you in a minute. Do you
[23:51] have any questions of Mr. Johnson?
[23:53] >> No.
[23:54] >> Okay.
[23:55] Um
[23:56] I've got a number of questions. Any
[23:57] board member have any questions of Mr.
[23:59] Johnson? Let's see, Mr. Walker showed
[24:01] up. Go ahead.
[24:03] >> Any certain pages you want me to roll
[24:06] through the staff report here?
[24:07] >> One, I don't think that I received in
[24:09] the packet but
[24:11] the permit [clears throat] application
[24:12] showing the building meeting the zone
[24:15] codes.
[24:16] I might not have we get that?
[24:18] >> Yeah, that one is in there.
[24:20] >> You mentioned that as part of the permit application
[24:23] there was a
[24:26] document presented.
[24:27] >> plan that showed the building in
[24:28] compliance with the zoning set.
[24:32] » Yeah, it should should have been right after your
[24:35] application
[24:37] in the back.
[24:38] >> Hey, you have it up on the screen in a
[24:40] minute.
[24:41] >> Yeah.
[24:52] Right, that shows it not meeting the
[24:53] setback, doesn't it?
[24:55] >> You're talking about the original permit
[24:58] Request that I wrote up in April.
[25:00] >> In April.
[25:01] >> Yeah.
[25:19] » Would you want me to make copies of
[25:21] this?
[25:21] >> I'll make
[25:25] So, this My apologies. This was in the
[25:28] zoning permit
[25:30] file that Mr. Stready had submitted.
[25:33] Um
[25:35] That's That's different than what you
[25:37] see here. Let me make a copy and you can
[25:38] take a look at that one. That That one
[25:40] was in the actual zoning with the zoning
[25:42] permit application.
[25:44] >> And um in March, what prompted the
[25:46] property visit?
[25:48] >> Um
[25:51] we received a call that they'd been
[25:53] working on. And I think Kevin may
[25:54] actually have been by the site as well.
[25:58] >> Um
[25:58] >> It was about the same time you were
[25:59] submitting the application on my
[26:00] property somewhere. So,
[26:02] I'm not sure that We We've got other
[26:03] projects that went on up in the area as
[26:05] well.
[26:07] >> Um [clears throat] and in March, I'm I'm
[26:09] just trying to
[26:10] get some more detail. In March, you said
[26:12] there were other projects going on that
[26:14] would have required permits. Is that
[26:18] beyond the [clears throat] the the shed?
[26:20] >> Um
[26:21] So, the site visit was to determine when
[26:24] he Kevin went out to determine what
[26:26] needed permits.
[26:27] And he come back to
[26:30] um
[26:31] that the accessory building needed a
[26:32] permit.
[26:33] >> Okay. And how was it determined that
[26:36] the
[26:38] foundation of the accessory building is
[26:40] a is a retaining wall?
[26:43] >> [clears throat]
[26:44] >> So, when it was built at the time, I
[26:46] mean, it were it was basically a
[26:47] retaining wall for the pad. So, we determined that that was basically a
[26:52] retaining wall.
[26:53] >> Yes.
[26:55] Cuz they they've got a they've got a
[26:57] little patio in the front.
[26:59] Um and then and you may have seen that
[27:01] when you rode by.
[27:02] >> I did.
[27:03] >> Um
[27:04] that there was some retaining walls
[27:05] associated with that as well.
[27:08] >> Doesn't a retaining wall that height
[27:10] require engineering studies?
[27:13] A lot of
[27:14] >> If it's over it's over 4 ft tall.
[27:17] >> Yes.
[27:17] >> It is over 4 ft.
[27:19] >> We we have [clears throat] to determine
[27:20] that. We'll determine if it is. And
[27:22] there may be we can have this discussion
[27:24] at uh
[27:26] through this is
[27:28] at the time Mr. Shretty was looking at a
[27:30] 10 by 12 that's what he expected of the
[27:33] building to be.
[27:34] And the actual size is
[27:36] uh
[27:37] one dimension is 13 ft. So any any
[27:39] building that's over 12 ft typically
[27:42] requires a building permit. So that's
[27:44] something we'll have to address to see
[27:45] what the exact dimension is.
[27:48] Minus some overhangs from the building
[27:50] code's standpoint they don't include
[27:51] those sometimes. So we've got to make a
[27:52] determination
[27:54] outside of this whether building permits
[27:56] are required or not. Now that will be
[27:57] determined.
[27:58] >> Okay.
[27:58] >> And just part of that discussion may be
[28:00] the retaining wall as well in the height
[28:01] there.
[28:02] >> Um
[28:10] And just timing I
[28:11] the permit was issued
[28:14] June 24th.
[28:15] >> That's correct.
[28:16] >> Was the building already built?
[28:18] >> So
[28:19] when uh
[28:21] when me and Kevin investigated just like
[28:23] you again going back the foundation
[28:25] retaining part and and the patio stuff
[28:27] had been built.
[28:28] And that's when it was advised advised
[28:30] he needed a permit which was submitted
[28:32] in you know, the first week of April.
[28:35] And there was a time lapse of June which
[28:37] on staff's part that was our our was our
[28:40] fault.
[28:41] Um
[28:43] but we still maintain what he submitted
[28:45] in his zoning application
[28:47] It 10 by 12.
[28:49] And it was going to be 12 by 12.
[28:51] So, when I sent the zoning permit then
[28:54] Mr. Schrader called right away. He was
[28:55] like, "Hey,
[28:57] it's been built.
[28:59] I'm not aware of it. I know there was a
[29:00] lapse in the zoning permit."
[29:02] >> And just Sorry to come back to this, but
[29:06] how or when will it be determined if the
[29:08] if it is a retaining wall?
[29:11] Again, I thought you had to have
[29:12] engineering studies, all kinds of stuff
[29:14] for a retaining wall of that height.
[29:16] >> If if it's over a certain height, yes,
[29:18] you do.
[29:18] >> Which I mean, it's 4 ft
[29:20] at least from my observation.
[29:23] >> I don't know how tall that wall is. I'm
[29:23] not sure.
[29:25] >> So, what happens if those
[29:27] studies were not done?
[29:28] >> If if if if it's over the height, then
[29:30] it may require him to obtain us an
[29:32] engineer to make sure it's built right.
[29:41] » Okay.
[29:42] I'm still fuzzy on the retaining wall
[29:45] and the pad.
[29:47] Tell us again what
[29:49] Tell me more about that. Just
[29:50] [clears throat] repeat repeat what you
[29:51] said about the retaining wall and the
[29:53] pad.
[29:54] >> So, when me and Mr. Rothrock was out
[29:56] there had been some some driveway work
[29:59] done. There was some some other
[30:01] retaining walls associated with it
[30:04] that included a patio out front. And we didn't know what the ultimate use was, being
[30:11] accessory building or not.
[30:14] You you can build a retaining wall. A
[30:16] retaining wall can be in the setback.
[30:18] There's just height limitations within a
[30:20] setback. And typically, they're limited
[30:22] to 6 ft in height
[30:24] for a retaining wall. So, the way it sit there, we determined that
[30:27] was a
[30:28] retaining wall. It's sitting there and
[30:30] it's retaining the foundation for that.
[30:34] It's It's no different than him having a retaining wall built that's been there
[30:39] for years, and he can go build on top of
[30:41] it
[30:42] as long as the supporting is okay.
[30:44] >> Is what you're talking about showing the
[30:45] pictures?
[30:46] >> Um it
[30:47] >> Can you pull up a picture that shows us
[31:01] » Maybe the best way we can we can zoom
[31:03] out if you need to, but the
[31:05] >> [clears throat]
[31:08] » The first time we visited out there this
[31:10] was what was there not the structure.
[31:15] So, this is what was determined as a
[31:17] retaining wall.
[31:20] Now, going back going back to any height
[31:22] requirements
[31:23] >> But now it's the foundation for the
[31:25] accessory building.
[31:26] >> It's a building sitting on a retaining
[31:27] wall is the way we determined it.
[31:32] » Okay.
[31:34] >> And so, what what Mr. Shreder was
[31:36] advised was we determined this was a
[31:37] retaining wall cuz it it's attached to
[31:40] other patios up in this area here.
[31:43] To meet the setback, you you need to
[31:45] move the building on it to meet the
[31:46] setbacks actual structure of the
[31:47] accessory building
[31:49] to meet the setback.
[31:50] >> All right.
[31:57] Could that
[32:00] retaining wall stay there and and it
[32:02] be in compliance with the zoning rules?
[32:05] >> Sure.
[32:06] If it if it's under 6 ft in the setbacks
[32:08] >> Under 6 ft.
[32:09] >> Right.
[32:10] >> But the the little house
[32:13] the shed
[32:16] it's in the
[32:17] it is in the setback.
[32:19] >> Yeah.
[32:21] So, Mr. Shreder
[32:22] submitted these.
[32:24] This will give you a little clearer idea
[32:25] of what's in it.
[32:27] >> [snorts]
[32:28] >> And then he can correct me if I'm wrong
[32:29] during his presentation.
[32:32] This is where the property line
[32:35] angles into the structure there. And
[32:37] that's you'll see on
[32:39] uh
[32:40] the site plan that's in your packet
[32:41] there.
[32:42] It is is basically that minute section
[32:45] of the corner right
[32:48] Um and I think they determined it was
[32:51] it's about 18 inches or maybe some
[32:52] discretion on the eve
[32:56] of how much that's in it, but I
[32:59] you know, you're you're looking at about
[33:00] a 2-ft It starts at nothing here
[33:03] and goes back, you know, the back part
[33:05] of the back side would be 2 ft in it or
[33:07] so, 18 to 20
[33:08] 24 inches or so.
[33:12] » Is that the eve of the building, the
[33:14] wall of the building?
[33:15] >> That That's the We we may have to ask
[33:17] the applicant. I'm I'm not sure. There may be some additional
[33:20] encroachment with the eve.
[33:27] » And your
[33:28] presentation says
[33:30] March you went up and looked at the
[33:32] property, then it says in the next
[33:33] paragraph Mr. Rothrock contacted Mr.
[33:35] Seretti and advised him that his zoning
[33:37] permit was required
[33:38] and that the building structure would
[33:41] encroach
[33:42] into the side setback and would need to
[33:44] be set at an angle. When When did that
[33:46] happen?
[33:47] >> Uh might have to let Kevin see if he's
[33:49] got his notes and see what time that
[33:51] was.
[33:51] >> It was between March and April 6th when
[33:54] the permit was
[33:55] >> Right.
[33:56] >> Okay.
[33:57] And the building had not been built
[33:59] then.
[33:59] >> As far as I know, no.
[34:02] I don't know anything
[34:03] We can enlighten you on when the actual
[34:05] building was was built. It was probably
[34:07] a process over time as well.
[34:09] >> And so and then in April
[34:11] a permit application was submitted
[34:14] showing the structure meet the 12-ft
[34:16] setback and Mr. Rothrock made it clear,
[34:20] I guess again
[34:21] that the structure would need to meet
[34:22] the setback. And that again was before
[34:24] the structure was built.
[34:26] >> Yes.
[34:27] >> Okay.
[34:33] So, you can't tell us
[34:35] if the retaining wall
[34:38] meets the zoning requirements and is
[34:40] short enough
[34:41] to be within the setback. You can't tell
[34:43] us tonight.
[34:45] >> Um
[34:47] These guys might
[34:49] They might have the highest
[34:50] >> What?
[34:51] >> There's a rule for that.
[34:52] >> What?
[34:53] >> Th- These These guys can probably
[34:54] enlighten us on what the the height of
[34:56] that is.
[34:57] There's [clears throat] a rule for that,
[34:58] but I don't know what the
[35:00] I don't know if we'd be able to tell.
[35:03] Um
[35:04] >> Mr. Johnson, why didn't you go out and
[35:05] measure it?
[35:07] >> I'm We're pretty sure it's under 6 ft
[35:09] there, though. That's why the
[35:11] determination was made it's a retaining
[35:13] wall and where it was at was fine in the
[35:14] setback.
[35:16] You can Kevin might can testify a little
[35:18] bit on what her height is over there.
[35:25] But that that height limitation is 6 ft
[35:27] in that setback.
[35:28] And I think if you look at that
[35:30] >> I think they are within the limits. We
[35:31] can ask these guys.
[35:36] » Probably pushing close to
[35:39] But we'd need to make that
[35:40] determination.
[35:42] >> And the building,
[35:44] have you gone out there and determined
[35:45] how much it encroaches in the setback?
[35:48] >> Yeah, that that's shown in these
[35:49] pictures and that's the request of 2 ft.
[35:53] But there's a there's a question on we
[35:55] can ask them how
[35:57] wide the leaves the eaves are.
[36:02] » Okay, but you haven't measured it
[36:03] yourself.
[36:05] Why not?
[36:06] >> It was never measured.
[36:08] >> You didn't want to?
[36:09] >> It was never measured. We We
[36:12] There was no They gave us the
[36:13] information right here and
[36:17] we we didn't measure it.
[36:21] » [clears throat]
[36:32] » Anybody else have any questions for Mr.
[36:34] Johnson?
[36:38] I've got a few questions
[36:40] for you.
[36:45] » I have one question.
[36:48] Mr. Johnson, the
[36:51] permit was a
[36:54] and was
[36:55] the fourth.
[36:59] When it was granted, the building had
[37:00] already been built.
[37:02] >> When the zoning permit was issued, yeah,
[37:04] it's already built.
[37:06] >> So, okay.
[37:13] » Is that all, Mr. Gibson?
[37:14] >> Yes.
[37:15] >> Um
[37:17] notice is Mr. Johnson, do you know if
[37:19] all required public
[37:20] notices of this hearing
[37:22] have been sent out?
[37:23] >> Yes, sir.
[37:25] >> And have um
[37:26] >> [laughter]
[37:28] >> nearby property owners been notified of
[37:30] this hearing?
[37:30] >> Yes, sir.
[37:31] >> Did you hear back from any of the nearby
[37:34] property owners?
[37:34] >> We heard back from one property owner.
[37:38] >> How many notices did you send out?
[37:40] >> Uh
[37:42] 14.
[37:45] Does that include Mr.
[37:47] Fogleman?
[37:48] >> Yes, there was 13 originally, and then
[37:50] we added to it.
[37:52] >> The adjacent neighbor, Mr. Fogleman, was
[37:55] a recent property owner
[37:57] that just bought the house, so we ended
[37:58] up notifying him outside the address as
[38:01] well.
[38:01] >> So, you sent 14 out?
[38:03] >> 14 total, yes, sir.
[38:11] » Um
[38:14] let me make sure
[38:18] I've got all the information I need as the background.
[38:22] What sort of new structures require
[38:25] just a building permit?
[38:32] » Um
[38:33] anything that's over 12 ft in any
[38:35] dimension.
[38:47] » Um
[38:50] You said the accessory building is 11 ft
[38:53] 8 in wide and 13 ft 8 in long. Does that
[38:57] come within the 12-ft rule
[39:00] so that it needs a building permit?
[39:01] >> It would need a building permit. If
[39:03] that's the If that's the actual
[39:05] measurement, yes.
[39:07] Um
[39:09] And and we we would have to check with
[39:10] the building code and and and John can
[39:12] answer if if we need be, but there there
[39:14] is some things that
[39:16] may or may not exclude the eaves in the
[39:18] building code. That's side was required.
[39:22] Eaves Eaves being required in the zoning
[39:24] ordinance. The building code's a little
[39:26] bit different, but we'll make that
[39:27] determination.
[39:30] But as it sits right now, yes, it is.
[39:33] It would require a building permit as
[39:35] well.
[39:41] And I I I think it's 2 or 3 weeks ago I
[39:43] reached out to Mrs. Ready just to
[39:45] so I'd know when the staff report the
[39:47] size of the building.
[39:48] And that's what he told me the
[39:50] dimensions were.
[39:58] » So tell me about the eaves. The eaves
[40:01] are included
[40:03] in any measurement from a wall line, right?
[40:08] >> That's correct.
[40:09] >> Does this building have eaves?
[40:18] » Looks like it does to me, yes.
[40:20] But I don't know the width to make it
[40:21] probably enlighten what the widths are.
[40:26] » It's about 4 and 1/2 inches from the handle.
[40:33] Mr. Johnson, what kind of structures
[40:35] require just a zoning permit?
[40:40] » Um
[40:45] any structure that would be
[40:47] an accessory building, period.
[40:49] Any size requires a zoning permit, and
[40:51] that's for
[40:53] >> [snorts]
[40:54] >> verification meeting setbacks.
[40:59] Building code don't kick in to 12 feet
[41:00] and above.
[41:04] » Okay, so if your accessory building is
[41:07] less than 12 feet, you don't you don't
[41:09] [snorts] have to get a zoning permit.
[41:10] >> That's right.
[41:11] >> You get a building permit.
[41:12] >> That's right.
[41:13] >> No.
[41:13] you don't you don't
[41:17] 12 12 feet and under didn't need a building permit.
[41:21] 12 foot greater, yes you do need it.
[41:25] >> Greater than 12 feet.
[41:26] >> 12 and greater greater greater than 12
[41:29] feet.
[41:31] >> [clears throat]
[41:32] >> So 10
[41:32] >> a zoning permit.
[41:34] >> Right.
[41:36] So 10 by 12
[41:38] would not require.
[41:43] » [snorts]
[41:45] » Okay.
[41:46] >> Yeah, so so
[41:47] just for reference, accessory buildings
[41:50] is in section R101
[41:52] .2.1
[41:55] building code international building
[41:56] code says
[41:58] accessory buildings with any dimension
[42:00] greater than 12 feet
[42:02] shall meet the provisions of this code.
[42:05] So you
[42:06] 12 above 12.
[42:10] » Above 12
[42:12] >> [snorts]
[42:14] >> you need a building permit.
[42:16] >> That's right.
[42:17] >> Above 12, you also have to get a zoning
[42:20] permit.
[42:21] >> A- Any accessory building requires a
[42:23] zoning permit.
[42:24] >> So, you're going to have to do
[42:25] >> 12. It's not based on 12 ft.
[42:27] >> No.
[42:28] >> Zoning permit is required
[42:30] for anything of any kind.
[42:32] >> A- Any structure we have to verify
[42:34] setback.
[42:36] Decks,
[42:38] accessory buildings, homes, buildings,
[42:40] anything. It's not based on a certain
[42:42] dimension.
[42:43] >> Okay.
[42:44] >> But, that's verification to meet
[42:45] setbacks.
[42:47] >> You went out there to see if there was
[42:48] work being done without a permit. What
[42:51] I take it you
[42:53] showed that work was being done without
[42:54] a permit.
[42:56] >> That's right.
[42:57] >> Without what permit? What permit should
[42:59] they [clears throat] have had?
[43:00] >> Well, it was determined what permit they
[43:01] would needed.
[43:02] And the determination was at that time
[43:05] that they needed a zoning permit.
[43:08] >> Because [snorts] all accessory buildings
[43:10] >> Yeah, I mean, and a lot of times
[43:12] any any land disturbance, if it's
[43:14] getting into significant land
[43:16] disturbance, but you need a zoning
[43:17] permit.
[43:19] Um
[43:22] you know, even if a lot of times if
[43:23] walls are
[43:24] and it's kind of a discretion call
[43:26] depending on the height of the wall, may
[43:27] or may not need a zoning permit, but
[43:29] that's that's different than the 4 ft of
[43:31] requiring engineering and a building
[43:33] code.
[43:35] But, the zoning permit is based on not
[43:37] solely, but based on meeting those
[43:39] setbacks.
[43:41] >> All right. Was it a Would a property
[43:43] owner
[43:45] who was getting ready to build
[43:47] an accessory building, this accessory
[43:49] building, would they need to get their
[43:51] permit before they started work?
[43:53] >> Yes.
[43:55] >> And had the survey days obtained a
[43:57] permit before they started work.
[44:00] >> [clears throat]
[44:00] >> No.
[44:09] » Okay.
[44:12] » So when when the zoning permit
[44:13] application was submitted
[44:16] Mr. included the site plan that you have
[44:19] there
[44:20] showing 10 by 12.
[44:23] Simply
[44:25] zoning permit is issued.
[44:28] However, we rely on
[44:31] going and doing a final inspection on
[44:33] something and making sure it meets what
[44:34] was submitted.
[44:36] Even though there was a time lapse in
[44:37] that form.
[44:42] So we're assuming a 10 by 12 is going to
[44:44] be built meeting the side setback.
[44:49] » Where are you getting the 10 by 12? I'm looking at the
[44:53] drawing
[44:56] uh
[44:57] it shows the shed intruding into the
[44:58] setback,
[45:00] but there's no dimensions on the shed.
[45:01] Where did
[45:04] Where where
[45:06] You're saying 10 by what? What size?
[45:09] >> [clears throat]
[45:13] » Yeah, but it it does it says 11 4
[45:16] it's on the zoning permit site plan.
[45:19] So if you show the
[45:21] 12 ft
[45:23] that's shown on there, that that's him showing the setback.
[45:26] >> Okay, we don't we don't have the zoning
[45:28] permit.
[45:30] >> No.
[45:31] >> On the actual application I wrote
[45:34] generic 10 by 12, but when I built this
[45:37] out, I had you know, put more precision
[45:40] in the pad itself. And I and I said 11 4
[45:43] by 13 6 is now 11 8 by 13 8. So
[45:48] I was off by a few inches, but I did not
[45:51] signify that I was within that 12 ft
[45:54] setback I mean told
[45:56] fact I told Kevin it was 12 side. I
[45:58] didn't have an as-built survey done,
[46:01] nothing done. I brought this twice.
[46:03] >> All right, I'll hold that thought.
[46:05] >> We'll get to him in a minute.
[46:06] We'll worry about that. Let's Let's finish with him first.
[46:11] Um
[46:15] » [snorts]
[46:18] » Okay. So, as far as the
[46:23] accessory building, when you went out
[46:24] there in March,
[46:27] the retaining wall was going to sit on
[46:29] was there?
[46:30] >> That's correct.
[46:32] >> And
[46:37] Well, I was going to ask you what was it Mr. Rothrock wanted to ask
[46:41] him?
[46:41] We're going to talk to him in just a
[46:43] minute.
[46:51] Um
[46:54] Have you measured the accessory building
[46:56] since it was complete?
[46:58] >> I haven't measured it, but it but it is
[47:00] complete.
[47:01] >> Right.
[47:02] >> I've been on site and it's complete.
[47:04] >> So, Mr. Seretti has told you it's 11 ft
[47:06] 8 in wide by 13 ft 8 in long, but you
[47:09] haven't measured it.
[47:11] >> That's right.
[47:19] » So, the building is encroaching into the
[47:21] 12 ft western side setback by how much?
[47:30] » So, the one to this picture, like they
[47:32] show a measurement here.
[47:36] Let me get to the
[47:39] » [snorts]
[47:45] » So, that's the bottom foot bottom corner
[47:47] of the accessory with the bottom of the accessory building
[47:50] there that's
[47:52] showing 10 ft. So, that's the wall.
[47:55] So, that that's telling me you need to
[47:57] add the eaves to that as well, which Mr.
[47:59] Freddy said was 1 and 1/2 inches.
[48:03] So you're looking at
[48:07] 10 you're looking at
[48:08] Excuse me, inch and a half my apologies.
[48:11] Um
[48:13] So you're looking at 2 feet 5 inches or
[48:15] so.
[48:20] Including the eve.
[48:21] >> Into the setback.
[48:23] that's right. And
[48:24] that's that's the furthest one point of
[48:26] that corner.
[48:27] And then it
[48:29] it's less as you go towards the front of
[48:30] the building.
[48:34] Towards that point that you see right
[48:36] there.
[48:37] >> All right, and the the maximum point of
[48:38] encroachment, what's
[48:41] it's
[48:41] >> It's 27.5
[48:43] inches.
[48:44] >> So so two 2.1 inches.
[48:48] 25 inches and plus the 4 and 1/2 they
[48:50] just mentioned was the eaves.
[48:53] So you're looking at 25 and 1/2 inches
[48:55] there.
[48:59] » That it encroaches into the setback.
[49:01] >> Yes.
[49:02] >> 25 and 1/2.
[49:05] >> Okay.
[49:10] » It'd be 27.5
[49:12] once you add the eaves back to the
[49:14] >> [clears throat]
[49:14] >> to the 23 inches
[49:16] that the sole walls encroaching into the
[49:18] setback.
[49:18] >> So 20 24
[49:21] >> So 23 plus 4 and 1/2.
[49:23] 27 and 1/2.
[49:25] >> No, it's more than that.
[49:27] >> [snorts]
[49:28] >> Technically 4 inches.
[49:29] >> 4 inches of leeway.
[49:30] It's not at a right angle, it's an
[49:32] angle, so we're taking a piece of that.
[49:35] » It'd be 24 inches plus 4 and 1/2 inches.
[49:38] >> Right, okay.
[49:39] >> So 28 and 1/2 inches.
[49:42] >> Is the total encroachment including the
[49:44] eaves?
[49:45] >> Yes.
[49:46] >> 28 What was it?
[49:48] >> 28 and 1/2.
[49:49] it. Okay.
[50:00] » So, they have requested a 2-ft variance,
[50:03] and that's not going to take care of it,
[50:04] is it?
[50:05] >> Sounds like it's not.
[50:10] » [cough]
[50:11] [clears throat]
[50:11] [snorts]
[50:12] >> That's one of the measurements looks
[50:13] like you see in that picture
[50:16] 24 in and 1 in 25 in. That's the
[50:19] measurement.
[50:20] That's the
[50:21] to that foundation wall.
[50:26] » Was a permit issued for the foundation
[50:28] wall at any point?
[50:29] >> No.
[50:30] >> And it has it was never measured.
[50:32] >> [clears throat]
[50:32] >> No.
[50:33] >> And I looked it up. It's
[50:35] >> [snorts]
[50:35] >> Any retaining wall exceeding 5 ft
[50:38] shall be designed and constructed under
[50:40] the responsible charge of a North
[50:41] Carolina registered professional
[50:43] engineer.
[50:44] Engineers shall submit a sealed report
[50:46] including final approval on the
[50:48] retaining structure construction to the
[50:50] building code official. None of that
[50:51] happened.
[50:52] >> Is is that in the ordinance the town
[50:53] code?
[50:54] Land use ordinance.
[50:55] >> It's 16.11.2.1
[50:58] part B.
[50:59] >> That's right.
[51:01] >> [snorts]
[51:04] [clears throat]
[51:04] >> So, that never happened. None of that.
[51:07] >> But it it could be included in his
[51:09] zoning permit.
[51:10] >> But it
[51:10] >> But you'd have to have engineering if
[51:11] it's certain not.
[51:12] >> But it wasn't, so none of that happened.
[51:18] » All right, Mr. Surveyor, are you
[51:20] following with us on this 28 and 1/2
[51:23] inches encroachment?
[51:27] Are you
[51:28] >> It's it's not quite that much, but
[51:32] » [clears throat]
[51:32] >> I
[51:34] never [snorts] had an as-built survey or
[51:35] as-built survey. He approximated
[51:39] 2 and 1/2, but
[51:41] I mean, come on. We're doing our best.
[51:44] What I think the property line is
[51:48] estimated. Nobody really has a precise
[51:50] number that the council has.
[51:52] Okay.
[51:56] » For the retaining wall?
[51:57] >> I'd have to refer to that.
[51:58] >> I can I'll
[52:02] Okay.
[52:02] >> Mr. Johnson, are there extreme problems
[52:04] with the lot at 369 Terry Acres Circle?
[52:09] By that I mean extreme slope or it's a
[52:12] very narrow lot. Do they have
[52:14] >> I I don't think in this I don't think
[52:17] that would have a bearing on this
[52:18] instance. Um
[52:21] No.
[52:30] » Are there
[52:31] places on the lot
[52:33] the entire lot where this accessory
[52:35] building
[52:36] could have been built without
[52:37] encroaching into any setback?
[52:39] >> Yes. I mean that was a solution was to move that corner and meet the
[52:46] setback.
[52:54] » So,
[52:55] could have been built just closer to the house?
[53:01] 2 or 3 ft closer to the house?
[53:03] >> Probably yes.
[53:06] Or could have been a smaller building.
[53:17] » Um
[53:21] All right. You said when you and Mr.
[53:22] Rothrock went in March
[53:25] to the site there at 369 Terry Acres
[53:28] Circle,
[53:30] you saw construction that had been done
[53:32] without a required permit.
[53:34] >> Yes.
[53:34] >> And what what all was it? Was it the
[53:37] Tell us what all you saw that had been
[53:39] built that did not have a permit.
[53:48] » So this part was there
[53:51] and all of this was there.
[53:53] >> I I keep seeing your red dot, but
[53:56] >> Um
[53:59] All all of this was there.
[54:02] Patio
[54:04] This
[54:05] part down here
[54:07] and it was [clears throat] looks like
[54:09] some some of the driveway had been
[54:10] redone.
[54:12] Um which no issues there. I mean it's
[54:14] been redone.
[54:15] >> Did the patio require a permit?
[54:17] >> Um it
[54:20] could have discretionally required a
[54:21] zoning permit.
[54:23] And and that's just to ensure compliance with any kind of
[54:28] you know erosion control measures um
[54:31] verify any setback issues that could
[54:33] have been there.
[54:35] Um
[54:36] building permit, probably not.
[54:40] Unless you know based on the height, it
[54:41] was
[54:42] just have to determine the height of
[54:43] that and see if it's over that
[54:44] threshold.
[54:45] >> Well, what's the status of that patio as
[54:46] far as permits? Was there a permit
[54:49] issued for the patio?
[54:50] >> At the time, no. But I mean all of this
[54:53] work
[54:54] can be covered under the zoning permit
[54:55] we have here. We're fine with that.
[54:57] There's no issues with the patio.
[54:59] >> Okay.
[55:00] Thank
[55:02] Did they get a permit after the fact?
[55:04] >> That's right.
[55:04] >> Okay. All right. And what else was
[55:06] there? The the retaining wall
[55:09] slash foundation for the building was
[55:11] there?
[55:12] >> Right. Yeah, most of it was more
[55:14] hardscape type stuff out here.
[55:17] And they can they can let you know it
[55:18] looks like maybe they'd resurfaced the
[55:20] driveway.
[55:21] Redone it, maybe reshaped it a little
[55:23] bit. We had no issues with that.
[55:26] Um
[55:28] So sometimes minor redoing of a driveway
[55:31] would probably wouldn't require a
[55:32] permit. Um
[55:34] it just depends on how involved it is.
[55:37] >> When you and Mr. Rothrock went out there
[55:39] in March, was there work going on,
[55:40] active work going on?
[55:42] >> There was not at the time we were there.
[55:44] >> Okay.
[55:46] Um
[55:48] » I I I
[55:50] mainly it looked like everything was
[55:51] done until
[55:53] you know, the the accessory building
[55:54] come into play.
[55:58] And then they can they can let you know
[55:59] probably when that was built, what time
[56:01] frame it was built.
[56:03] >> Is that building a stick-built building
[56:05] or is that
[56:05] >> I I think it was stick-built, but they
[56:07] can clarify that.
[56:21] » [snorts]
[56:22] >> Um
[56:28] It says Mr. Rothrock contacted Mr.
[56:30] Swearingen advise him about a zoning
[56:32] permit. Would you mind switching
[56:34] positions with Mr. Rothrock? I don't
[56:36] want to sit here
[56:37] just sit here, sir.
[56:49] So, Mr. Rothrock, you and Mr. Johnson
[56:51] went out to 360 N. Cherry Acres Circle
[56:53] in March of this year.
[56:57] » Yes.
[56:58] I went to give you a little bit of
[57:01] background. I went first
[57:03] >> Okay.
[57:03] >> by myself based on a call I had related to some some
[57:08] drainage issues.
[57:10] >> [snorts]
[57:10] >> And when when I got to the site
[57:13] there was quite a bit of work done.
[57:15] Um fencing, retaining not retaining
[57:18] wall, but more of a a decorative wall
[57:21] around the driveway and some drainage uh
[57:24] connections made.
[57:25] Um
[57:27] nothing that was an issue with that. And
[57:29] then there were guys working
[57:32] and they had
[57:33] uh completed a uh pad that you saw in
[57:36] the picture.
[57:37] This pad was under construction and then
[57:40] the other pad the uh
[57:42] what we determined to be a retaining
[57:44] wall
[57:45] was there, too. And and after that, I uh
[57:48] >> This was This was in March.
[57:50] >> This was in March. I called Mr.
[57:52] uh
[57:54] I don't remember if Brian and I went
[57:56] back out to look at it then. I was just
[57:58] unaware of of any permits that had been
[58:01] applied for at that time. And so, I
[58:04] called I think I may have called Brian
[58:06] and and Taylor just to check, "Hey, are
[58:08] there any permits issued for this
[58:09] property?"
[58:11] And I think Brian and I went back out.
[58:15] >> [snorts]
[58:18] » I don't remember if it was before I
[58:19] called Mr. Sureddi or after.
[58:23] But, we did let Mr. Sureddi know that he
[58:25] needed to apply for some permits for the
[58:27] work.
[58:28] And at that time, he let us know that he
[58:30] wanted to put a a building
[58:33] on that pad that you see there.
[58:37] And
[58:39] uh
[58:42] I said, "Well, it needs to meet the
[58:43] setbacks." 12-ft side setbacks.
[58:47] And
[58:48] when he brought his application in,
[58:51] uh we met with him in the office
[58:54] and at that time, he he had the concrete
[58:57] pad
[58:59] that you see in what was copied for you.
[59:01] And I said, "Mr. Sureddi, you need to
[59:03] make sure that this meets the 12-ft
[59:05] setback."
[59:06] Um
[59:07] >> This was the first time you talked to
[59:09] him.
[59:09] >> Yes, first time I talked to him.
[59:12] And then,
[59:13] uh
[59:15] that's when
[59:16] we went back out to the site to verify
[59:19] if that retaining structure
[59:22] met the setback, and apparently, at that
[59:24] time, it did not.
[59:27] And so,
[59:28] um
[59:31] I told Mr. Sreddy that he needs to meet
[59:32] the setback and that
[59:36] >> [snorts]
[59:37] >> I let Brian know
[59:38] that in reviewing this application that
[59:41] if he wanted to put a building there, it
[59:42] needed to be shifted on the lower back
[59:44] corner because it was too close to the
[59:46] property line.
[59:47] >> Right.
[59:48] >> And and to move if he's going to build a building on it, it needs to be shifted
[59:52] over
[59:53] to accommodate the the eve overhang and
[59:56] all that because the building would that
[59:58] pad was encroaching a little bit.
[1:00:01] A question I think you had about the the
[1:00:03] retaining structure.
[1:00:06] Retaining wall can be built right to the
[1:00:08] property line as long as it doesn't
[1:00:09] exceed 6 ft in height.
[1:00:12] You can
[1:00:14] also reduce the height of that by
[1:00:16] backfilling against the wall. That lower
[1:00:19] corner is between 6 and 7 ft
[1:00:22] above grade and so that could be
[1:00:24] adjusted
[1:00:25] to by backfilling the wall in that
[1:00:27] corner and reduce that height so it
[1:00:29] would meet the criteria for a retaining wall
[1:00:32] in the setback.
[1:00:34] >> So your problem
[1:00:36] is the house structure. It's not
[1:00:40] » You know, the the the structure if he
[1:00:43] never put a building on it, it's fine
[1:00:45] the way it is and he can use it as a
[1:00:47] patio. If he once he puts a building on
[1:00:49] it, it needs to be shifted in such a way
[1:00:51] to meet the setbacks.
[1:00:53] >> When you had that first conversation
[1:00:55] that's the first conversation you had.
[1:00:58] >> Yes, and
[1:00:58] >> You told him he needed to
[1:01:00] >> That's right.
[1:01:00] >> You told him he needed to encroach again
[1:01:02] for the setback.
[1:01:03] >> That's right. And I had Mr. Sreddy
[1:01:06] indicate that it would meet the 12 ft by
[1:01:09] and he drew on 12 ft
[1:01:12] in this dimension from the corner to the
[1:01:14] property line.
[1:01:16] >> Did he seem to understand what you were
[1:01:18] telling him in the conversation?
[1:01:19] >> I think so. I mean, I thought he did.
[1:01:25] » This was over the phone, I'm taking.
[1:01:27] >> I didn't hear you.
[1:01:28] >> This was on the phone This wasn't in
[1:01:29] person.
[1:01:30] >> It was in person. He was in our office.
[1:01:32] Yes.
[1:01:33] >> Okay, so you Okay.
[1:01:35] >> In the front office, we had the piece of
[1:01:36] paper and we were going over
[1:01:38] we need you need to make these
[1:01:39] indications on the plan for us to
[1:01:41] review.
[1:01:41] >> How did he know to come see?
[1:01:44] You didn't see him when you went out
[1:01:45] there on the site?
[1:01:46] >> No, we called him.
[1:01:47] >> You called him.
[1:01:48] >> Yes.
[1:01:48] >> And he came to the
[1:01:49] >> He came into our office.
[1:01:50] >> Okay, okay.
[1:01:52] And you told him that the building protruded into the setback
[1:01:57] and it had to be
[1:01:59] built
[1:02:00] >> Well, it wasn't built yet. We
[1:02:02] building here, it needs to meet the
[1:02:03] setbacks and indicate on your site plan
[1:02:06] that it will.
[1:02:07] >> Okay.
[1:02:09] >> Most people get surveys when they're
[1:02:10] going to do that and know that
[1:02:12] we could
[1:02:13] >> Not really. Not really, unless it's real
[1:02:15] close. And And yeah, they they do.
[1:02:18] Um
[1:02:19] >> He He had his property pins marked.
[1:02:22] Maybe we didn't order the bunch.
[1:02:24] >> I don't think there was a question of
[1:02:26] where the line was. I think it was
[1:02:29] self-evident.
[1:02:30] >> Sure.
[1:02:33] » If after If we have a hard time to
[1:02:36] determine the setback and we're having a
[1:02:38] hard time to determine where that line
[1:02:40] is,
[1:02:41] we'll request a foundation survey
[1:02:44] and it'll be
[1:02:45] dead on.
[1:02:47] In a lot of instances, we don't If it's
[1:02:49] 15 ft off the property line
[1:02:52] or more, we don't We can just pull the
[1:02:53] tape and be be sure of it.
[1:03:02] » So, he came in
[1:03:04] to your office and applied for a permit
[1:03:07] on April 6th of this year.
[1:03:08] >> That's right.
[1:03:09] >> Did you talk to him or Mr. Johnson?
[1:03:12] >> I did.
[1:03:12] >> You did.
[1:03:13] >> Yes.
[1:03:14] >> Um and he gave you some supporting
[1:03:17] material.
[1:03:18] >> That's right.
[1:03:20] That went along with his application.
[1:03:25] » And that shows 12 ft from the property
[1:03:27] line to the building.
[1:03:29] >> Right.
[1:03:31] >> Um
[1:03:35] » [snorts]
[1:03:40] » And said he did you issue him another
[1:03:42] permit?
[1:03:44] >> Well, I did
[1:03:46] uh later in June.
[1:04:11] » So Mr. Rothrock, he went out there to see if there was
[1:04:14] work or initially you went out there to
[1:04:16] see if there was work being done without
[1:04:17] a permit.
[1:04:18] There was.
[1:04:20] He talked to Mr. Swearingen.
[1:04:22] Um
[1:04:23] he told him he just needed to get the
[1:04:25] permit
[1:04:26] and get back up to speed with the
[1:04:28] legalities. Is that
[1:04:30] >> That's correct. Yes, sir.
[1:04:31] >> Get your permit
[1:04:33] and put the building um
[1:04:36] outside the setback.
[1:04:37] And every everything was forgiven as far
[1:04:40] as starting was out of line. Is that
[1:04:41] what you said?
[1:04:42] >> Right.
[1:04:44] Well,
[1:04:45] yes.
[1:04:50] » The permit was issued to him on June
[1:04:51] 24th this year.
[1:04:53] >> Right.
[1:05:00] » So at some point the building got built
[1:05:04] and it got built within the setback.
[1:05:08] >> Yes.
[1:05:12] » Um
[1:05:16] said Mr. Serrated contacted the planning
[1:05:18] and inspections office and indicated the
[1:05:20] structure had been built in the left
[1:05:22] rear corner encroached into the setback
[1:05:25] 18 inches or so.
[1:05:27] Did you talk to him?
[1:05:28] >> Or did the Brian talk to him?
[1:05:30] >> I talked to him.
[1:05:31] >> Yeah, Brian had all the conversations
[1:05:33] since then.
[1:05:51] » So, Mr. Johnson, you you told Mr.
[1:05:53] Serrated he was going to have to move
[1:05:54] the the building part of the structure.
[1:05:57] >> That's correct.
[1:05:58] >> Okay.
[1:06:04] Did he
[1:06:06] When you had that conversation, you
[1:06:07] called
[1:06:08] said, "Well, it's built in the back."
[1:06:10] It's in the setback. Did you ask him why
[1:06:11] he built it in the setback?
[1:06:13] >> [clears throat]
[1:06:14] >> I don't know if I asked him that
[1:06:16] specific question. I told him it needed
[1:06:18] to be moved to meet setback.
[1:06:29] » And you said you had a meeting.
[1:06:33] I said Mr. Tony H.E. Withers met with
[1:06:36] staff. Were you the staff that met with
[1:06:37] him?
[1:06:38] >> It was me and Kevin.
[1:06:40] >> At that time.
[1:06:42] >> Who we calling?
[1:06:44] >> And what was your understanding of Mr.
[1:06:46] Withers' role? Was he just a friend
[1:06:48] helping out Mr. Serrated?
[1:06:49] >> Yes.
[1:06:49] >> Okay.
[1:06:55] » Just maybe for for the record going back
[1:06:58] into zone to make Kevin's point out
[1:06:59] there was
[1:07:01] um
[1:07:03] Mr. Serrated had
[1:07:05] explored
[1:07:07] possibility easements, moving property
[1:07:09] lines.
[1:07:11] Uh
[1:07:12] the property adjacent to him on that
[1:07:14] side is vacant.
[1:07:15] And I think he he told me he'd had some
[1:07:17] conversation with the previous owner,
[1:07:19] maybe wanted to buy the lot.
[1:07:21] Um
[1:07:22] So I I'd put in the zoning to permit
[1:07:24] that.
[1:07:25] Um
[1:07:26] you know, continue those talks. I mean,
[1:07:28] you know, and I kind of give him some
[1:07:29] parameters of
[1:07:30] if it's you know, the number one an
[1:07:32] easement can't be an offset here for the property
[1:07:35] line moving, it could. And I advised him
[1:07:38] that's a possibility if you got
[1:07:39] permission. It'd have to be a
[1:07:41] you know, lot line adjustment. You've got a minimum
[1:07:44] lot size you'd have to maintain over
[1:07:46] here.
[1:07:47] And I think that just that's that's the
[1:07:49] last conversation I had with that. And I
[1:07:51] know he was exploring that on that side.
[1:07:53] >> Before it was built?
[1:07:56] >> No, this this was after he had received
[1:07:58] the permit and we had that discussion.
[1:08:01] >> Now,
[1:08:02] I I think
[1:08:04] Let me clarify if I could.
[1:08:06] >> Sure.
[1:08:07] >> I think at one point
[1:08:09] Mr. Before Mr. Seretti built it, he
[1:08:11] wanted to line up the building on the
[1:08:14] pad. And we found out the pad was into
[1:08:17] the setback.
[1:08:18] And we said, "Well, the only way you can
[1:08:20] do that is to move the line the property
[1:08:22] line. And if you can talk to the
[1:08:24] neighbor about making a jog in the line
[1:08:27] and doing a lot line revision to
[1:08:28] accommodate that, you could." And then
[1:08:31] he was exploring that as an option or
[1:08:33] buying the property next door.
[1:08:35] Um
[1:08:36] where he could do that himself. And then
[1:08:40] I think that didn't didn't work out. And
[1:08:42] so then the the permit reflected
[1:08:45] that conversation. If you can move that,
[1:08:48] then you can do that. If not, the
[1:08:49] building needs to meet the setback.
[1:08:51] >> Do you have a copy of the permit here?
[1:08:53] >> Yeah.
[1:08:54] >> Can you put it up there so we can see?
[1:08:57] >> Uh we'll make copies. We'll make copies
[1:08:59] for you.
[1:09:00] It's probably Mr. Mr. Seretti can
[1:09:02] correct me if we're wrong. And I think
[1:09:04] we may have if I'm wrong. And I think we
[1:09:05] may have discussed that when he had
[1:09:06] called that afternoon. Received the
[1:09:08] permit that he may still be exploring
[1:09:10] that.
[1:09:11] I don't know what his options are going
[1:09:12] to be with the next uh
[1:09:17] » we hear from Mr. Schrader?
[1:09:18] >> Um we're going to wait until we get
[1:09:20] through with that.
[1:09:27] Well, well, I'm going to see this zoning
[1:09:29] application.
[1:09:31] On the permit.
[1:09:34] I don't know about the rest of it, but
[1:09:35] I'm very confused.
[1:09:37] This is
[1:09:39] extremely confusing.
[1:09:41] >> Okay.
[1:09:47] Is there something we can answer to so
[1:09:48] that you're not confused? Is there a
[1:09:51] something that we can give you more
[1:09:52] information? You you've helped me out. I
[1:09:54] think I'm up to speed on it now.
[1:09:59] I just
[1:10:03] wonder how confusing this process was to
[1:10:05] Mr. Schrader. And I'll ask you that when we get to you in just a minute.
[1:10:09] Let's take a look at this
[1:10:12] zoning permit.
[1:10:41] » Thank you.
[1:11:04] » As you review the zoning permit
[1:11:07] comments two through eight are typical
[1:11:11] zoning comments we apply on the whole
[1:11:12] permits it's just
[1:11:14] trying to cover some highlights of the
[1:11:16] ordinance that's typically
[1:11:19] I need to be addressed or commonly
[1:11:20] addressed on projects single family homes.
[1:11:24] What you see read
[1:11:26] was kind of the discussion that we had
[1:11:28] with
[1:11:29] as far as we had
[1:11:30] Mrs. Reagan.
[1:11:33] » Okay.
[1:11:35] >> [clears throat]
[1:11:35] >> Um
[1:11:43] Okay. Just a few more questions.
[1:11:46] Mr. Johnson or Mr. Roth
[1:11:48] Rothrock either one.
[1:11:50] Um
[1:12:04] The um
[1:12:05] Blowing Rock ordinance section
[1:12:08] that controls the side setbacks is
[1:12:10] 16-12.4.
[1:12:12] >> Yes.
[1:12:14] >> And it says that in R-15 the side
[1:12:16] setback is to be 12 ft.
[1:12:18] >> That's right.
[1:12:57] » The accessory building as it is sitting
[1:13:00] there now.
[1:13:04] And if it stayed this
[1:13:05] would it impair emergency vehicles such
[1:13:08] as fire trucks and ambulances?
[1:13:11] >> No.
[1:13:14] » And if the
[1:13:16] building stays where it is now, would it
[1:13:17] create a fire hazard?
[1:13:20] >> No.
[1:13:23] » And if the building stays where it is
[1:13:24] now, would it block or impede visibility
[1:13:27] on any street or highway?
[1:13:28] >> No.
[1:13:32] » And if the building stays where it is
[1:13:34] now, would it be contrary to public
[1:13:35] health or safety in any way that you are
[1:13:37] aware of?
[1:13:42] » I don't know.
[1:13:47] » [snorts]
[1:14:00] » The property there, 369 Cherry Acre
[1:14:03] Circle.
[1:14:05] Are you Are you aware of any um
[1:14:09] serious problems with the lot that would
[1:14:11] make construction
[1:14:12] um
[1:14:13] of this building
[1:14:15] extremely difficult?
[1:14:17] >> No.
[1:14:22] » Do you think this building could have
[1:14:23] been built in
[1:14:25] uh
[1:14:26] other places on the lot without
[1:14:28] achieving any setback?
[1:14:31] » Yes.
[1:14:34] » Including closer to the house, just
[1:14:36] getting closer to the house.
[1:14:37] >> Yes.
[1:14:46] » Would you say there are any unique
[1:14:47] features to the property at 369
[1:14:50] Terry Circle?
[1:14:52] >> It's
[1:14:53] Terry Acres Circle.
[1:14:55] >> Are there any unique features? Is that
[1:14:56] what you asked?
[1:14:58] Did you ask are there any unique
[1:15:00] features?
[1:15:00] >> any unique features of the of the whole
[1:15:02] lot that you're aware of?
[1:15:04] >> No.
[1:15:05] >> [snorts]
[1:15:20] » I don't have any further questions. Any
[1:15:21] board member at this point have any
[1:15:23] further questions to Mr. Rothrock or Mr.
[1:15:25] Johnson?
[1:15:26] >> No.
[1:15:26] >> Mr. Shredder, do you want to ask him any
[1:15:28] questions?
[1:15:30] >> I want to make some clarification
[1:15:31] statements.
[1:15:33] >> If you don't have any questions to them,
[1:15:35] we're ready to hear from you.
[1:15:39] Come on up and take Mr.
[1:15:41] Rothrock's place.
[1:15:45] And Mr. Withers?
[1:15:46] >> Yes, sir.
[1:15:47] >> What's your role in all of this?
[1:15:49] >> I'm [clears throat] going to tell you
[1:15:50] all that.
[1:15:53] You're still hot, man. I'm about to
[1:15:54] freeze. So, if I'm shaking a little bit,
[1:15:56] it's cuz I'm cold.
[1:15:58] Um
[1:16:00] My name's Tony Withers. Um
[1:16:02] I'm just a personal friend of Fred's.
[1:16:05] Um I'm not I'm I'm a registered
[1:16:08] professional engineer. Uh retired.
[1:16:11] >> [clears throat]
[1:16:12] >> I'm not representing anybody
[1:16:13] professionally other than Fred who's my
[1:16:15] Mr. Fred who's my friend, been friend
[1:16:17] for a long, long time.
[1:16:19] And we've been coming up here
[1:16:21] to his place, very nice place, for 4 or
[1:16:23] 5 or 6 years since he bought it.
[1:16:25] And
[1:16:27] um
[1:16:29] I apologize for the informality of the
[1:16:31] application. I think it had covered all
[1:16:34] the information that needed to be
[1:16:35] covered. And I think
[1:16:36] pictures I took and showed, I think I
[1:16:38] can answer some of the questions or all
[1:16:40] the you've presented.
[1:16:42] Um
[1:16:44] >> [clears throat]
[1:16:46] » And we don't have any issues with Brian
[1:16:48] and Kevin or anything they've done.
[1:16:50] Everything's been fine, perfect. They've
[1:16:52] been great to work with. No issues
[1:16:53] there. I want to make that perfectly
[1:16:55] clear.
[1:16:56] Uh they represent the town very, very
[1:16:57] well and we appreciate that.
[1:17:00] So, Fred is a friend of mine. I came up
[1:17:02] here. He bought a house on Terry Acre
[1:17:04] Circle. After a few years, he wanted to
[1:17:06] pave his driveway. So, he did us, you
[1:17:08] know, crackerjack job and fixed his
[1:17:09] driveway up with the retaining walls and
[1:17:11] everything. It looked so good, he
[1:17:13] thought he would expand with contractor
[1:17:15] into a patio, which kind of evolved
[1:17:19] into a patio, which then kind of evolved
[1:17:22] into an accessory building. Um
[1:17:25] I wasn't really involved in this process
[1:17:27] other than just talking to Fred during
[1:17:28] the process.
[1:17:30] It takes time to get things done up here
[1:17:32] with contractors.
[1:17:33] And I will tell you that Fred is a IBM
[1:17:36] career IBM employee and CPA and probably
[1:17:40] not as familiar with this type of stuff
[1:17:42] as you are, as I am, having been in this
[1:17:45] business for a long time. Planning and
[1:17:46] zoning and setbacks and all those things
[1:17:48] are very important in our
[1:17:51] arena.
[1:17:52] You know, here again, the the general
[1:17:55] public is not aware
[1:17:57] of property surveys, of setbacks, of all
[1:18:00] these zoning issues that that you guys
[1:18:02] deal with all the time.
[1:18:04] Um
[1:18:06] I would also say that Fred is active in
[1:18:08] the community, makes donations for the
[1:18:11] flowers. He's a he's a, you know, a
[1:18:13] solid
[1:18:15] citizen about 40% of the year in Blowing
[1:18:17] Rock.
[1:18:18] Um I think that's important
[1:18:20] to point out.
[1:18:21] Um
[1:18:24] I don't think I think we've
[1:18:26] The property line is not parallel to the house, which is one thing that I
[1:18:32] think could create a little bit of an
[1:18:33] issue.
[1:18:34] Um and And was never a a
[1:18:37] boundary survey of the property. We do
[1:18:39] have a pretty good idea what the
[1:18:40] property line was and I think these
[1:18:42] measurements on there were within a few
[1:18:43] inches of the property and it was close
[1:18:45] enough for government purposes.
[1:18:47] Um if we're down to inches then we're
[1:18:49] probably not, but I think a 24-in
[1:18:51] encroachment is probably
[1:18:53] sufficient for what's needed
[1:18:55] without wanting to do the expensive
[1:18:56] additional survey.
[1:18:58] So anyway, we came up here and and as I
[1:19:00] learned more and more about this and
[1:19:02] Fred got into the situation and working
[1:19:04] through this, he was getting ready to
[1:19:05] spend a lot of money moving the house
[1:19:07] and tearing it down and do whatever he
[1:19:08] needs to do to modify
[1:19:10] you know, I made the comment in why
[1:19:12] don't we at least ask the Board of
[1:19:13] Adjustments for a 24-in encroachment and
[1:19:15] do a 12-ft setback. I felt like it was a
[1:19:17] reasonable request
[1:19:19] uh to do. So I put together the
[1:19:21] application and met with Brian Kevin and
[1:19:23] that's what I did and submitted it and
[1:19:25] that's why we're here right now. Um
[1:19:28] So based on that,
[1:19:30] I would say that um the variance is
[1:19:33] minimal.
[1:19:35] I would say it creates no impact on the
[1:19:37] neighborhood properties.
[1:19:39] I would say it's consistent with the
[1:19:40] character of the neighborhood.
[1:19:43] I would say
[1:19:44] the topo and existing site conditions
[1:19:47] including the the line that's skewed to
[1:19:49] the to the house which creates a problem
[1:19:52] at the rear of the the building not the
[1:19:53] front of the building.
[1:19:54] Um
[1:19:55] might might impact some of the reason for the encroachment.
[1:20:01] Uh I would say the variance will not
[1:20:03] impair public safety
[1:20:05] or interfere with
[1:20:06] the purpose of the zoning ordinance.
[1:20:09] I would say the variance is minimal
[1:20:10] minimally needed for the relief
[1:20:12] requested and the converging lot as I
[1:20:15] said presented a little bit of a typical
[1:20:17] situation.
[1:20:19] Um
[1:20:21] And I would say based upon my experience
[1:20:23] in the business this business
[1:20:25] representing other property owners on a
[1:20:28] multitude of issues like this
[1:20:30] that I don't see any real benefit in
[1:20:31] making Fred spend a whole bunch of money
[1:20:35] and
[1:20:37] the hardship to modify an existing
[1:20:39] well-built building that is attractive,
[1:20:42] matches the house in colors and
[1:20:43] architectural
[1:20:46] standards
[1:20:47] for an outbuilding with just a corner
[1:20:50] that's only encroaching about 20 in into
[1:20:52] the setback line to meet the code when
[1:20:55] no malicious intent was intended.
[1:20:57] Um
[1:20:59] I would just say that you know, an error
[1:21:01] was made. There was no question about
[1:21:03] that. Um but I just think it's a it's a
[1:21:06] hardship on him
[1:21:08] to have to spend that for something
[1:21:09] that's that minimal. Um
[1:21:11] it doesn't impact
[1:21:14] any of the adjacent neighbors for all
[1:21:16] the reasons we talked about. Um
[1:21:18] I think the letter of the law has
[1:21:19] definitely been violated, but I think
[1:21:22] the spirit of the law and the intent of
[1:21:23] the law was certainly this is certainly
[1:21:25] except.
[1:21:27] And I'll welcome any questions or
[1:21:29] comments or thoughts that I need to
[1:21:30] explain any of these
[1:21:33] uh
[1:21:34] pictures that we put up. He's He's
[1:21:36] certainly proud of his property and
[1:21:37] enjoys his property and he's done very nice job. He's improved the value
[1:21:42] of the property substantially, which I'm
[1:21:44] sure will be collected in future
[1:21:46] property tax uh
[1:21:48] to the town.
[1:21:49] So, um
[1:21:51] anyway, that's all I've got. If you've
[1:21:53] got any questions for me and then if
[1:21:54] Fred feels like he needs to answer any
[1:21:56] questions.
[1:21:56] >> We have some questions, but first of
[1:21:58] all, I'll ask the representative from
[1:22:00] the town if you have any questions of
[1:22:02] Mr. Weathers, Dave, Mr. Johnson.
[1:22:04] Mr. Rothrock, any board member have any
[1:22:06] questions of him?
[1:22:08] >> Tell me one thing that I thought about.
[1:22:10] How much along the wall is in the
[1:22:12] encroachment? I mean, how how how many
[1:22:14] feet in down the line?
[1:22:17] For example.
[1:22:18] >> I'll explain what Okay, stop right
[1:22:19] there. The line comes down like this.
[1:22:22] >> Uh-huh.
[1:22:22] >> The front corner of the building, which
[1:22:24] is up here, is is right there.
[1:22:27] >> Right there.
[1:22:27] >> When you get to right there, you're
[1:22:29] about a ft so now we're going into the
[1:22:31] building. So that
[1:22:34] and it looks like that's about 4 ft so I
[1:22:36] think we're going to foundation issues
[1:22:38] based on that.
[1:22:41] Take measure of that later just to get a
[1:22:44] I was trying to represent where it hit.
[1:22:49] Now this built where you're so I'm not
[1:22:52] it's probably about halfway down the
[1:22:53] building.
[1:22:55] Yeah, I'd say about halfway is probably
[1:22:56] good.
[1:22:57] Maybe halfway. And then if you want to
[1:22:59] go to the other one and if you maybe
[1:23:00] you'll understand the rest of the
[1:23:01] pictures. Yeah,
[1:23:03] I got it. I'm trying to graphically You
[1:23:05] got what I wanted though. You got what I
[1:23:06] wanted.
[1:23:07] Thank you. Anything else Mr. Miguel?
[1:23:09] No waiting. And if the board member have
[1:23:11] any questions for
[1:23:13] Who built it? I don't know who the
[1:23:14] contractor was.
[1:23:17] And the contractor
[1:23:18] okay.
[1:23:19] You did hire a contractor? Yes, we did.
[1:23:22] Who was the contractor?
[1:23:25] And the name of the contractor do you
[1:23:26] remember what his name is?
[1:23:28] Sure, yeah.
[1:23:29] Uh
[1:23:30] I don't have my phone.
[1:23:32] All right, we'll get we'll get back to
[1:23:33] you in just a minute. Mr.
[1:23:35] Um
[1:23:38] H.E. Withers Mr. Tony Withers.
[1:23:40] >> Yes, sir.
[1:23:41] >> Do you mind if I get your address?
[1:23:43] >> Uh I'm 6116 Oxfordshire Court, Raleigh.
[1:23:50] » Oxfordshire Court, Raleigh.
[1:23:54] >> I've been a practicing engineer in the
[1:23:56] state of North Carolina for about
[1:23:58] 45 years.
[1:23:59] >> Which is zip code?
[1:24:00] >> 27606
[1:24:02] >> Okay, what kind of engineer are you?
[1:24:03] >> Civil.
[1:24:06] » Were you visiting Mr. Serani before you
[1:24:09] built all this?
[1:24:10] >> I've been visiting since he bought the
[1:24:11] house. I helped him
[1:24:14] research the area.
[1:24:16] >> And back back in the talking stages
[1:24:20] why didn't you suggest to him that he
[1:24:21] check to see if he needed a permit?
[1:24:23] >> Um
[1:24:25] I think we talked about permits during
[1:24:27] the process.
[1:24:28] You know, here again, I
[1:24:31] that wasn't what I was You know, I would
[1:24:33] come up from time to time and
[1:24:35] driveway was dirt.
[1:24:37] I ran my car into one of the rocks
[1:24:39] that's sticking out of this wall.
[1:24:41] Decided he needed to widen his driveway
[1:24:43] and do a little better job with it. So,
[1:24:45] he ended up
[1:24:46] making lots of little projects. And he
[1:24:48] was going to build a fire pit initially.
[1:24:50] And then the fire pit all of a sudden
[1:24:52] turned into
[1:24:53] you know, a pretty big project. I was
[1:24:55] surprised when I when I actually saw
[1:24:57] what he ultimately built. I haven't
[1:24:59] really been up there in a year.
[1:25:01] All this was done since I've been up
[1:25:03] here.
[1:25:05] >> I don't have anything else. Anybody else
[1:25:07] have any questions on
[1:25:09] Um
[1:25:09] Mr. Swerlick, can we hear from you?
[1:25:11] >> I'd love to speak.
[1:25:12] >> Come on up.
[1:25:13] >> Okay.
[1:25:15] >> Thank you.
[1:25:19] Um
[1:25:24] The contractor that you used can can
[1:25:27] Juan
[1:25:29] Um
[1:25:29] Guzman Padilla.
[1:25:32] J U A N
[1:25:35] Guzman G U C M A N P A D I L L A
[1:25:40] Padilla. I believe that's
[1:25:42] Juan Guzman Padilla Padilla P A D I L L A
[1:25:50] Okay.
[1:25:54] Um
[1:25:58] You've
[1:26:01] been wanting to tell us one or two
[1:26:03] things as we've been talking to the town
[1:26:05] representatives. We talked to the
[1:26:07] speaker today, so now
[1:26:09] >> I would love to. Please.
[1:26:10] >> Okay. So, this since we've kind of got
[1:26:13] into this sidebar
[1:26:16] and
[1:26:17] retaining walls,
[1:26:19] patio and all that. I want to go back a
[1:26:22] little bit further in time when we
[1:26:23] really started this project, which was
[1:26:25] probably
[1:26:27] May of 2025.
[1:26:30] And there is what we hired a
[1:26:34] mason to
[1:26:36] tear down the retaining walls we had,
[1:26:38] which were falling apart,
[1:26:40] and put in new retaining walls,
[1:26:43] as well as that led to a driveway and
[1:26:47] two stone pillars on either side of
[1:26:49] driveway as you
[1:26:51] enter from the street.
[1:26:54] And
[1:26:56] the electrical contractor I hired at the
[1:26:57] time
[1:27:01] Well, I can't I'm drawing a blank. Roby
[1:27:03] Services.
[1:27:05] They're out of boom.
[1:27:06] They said I needed permit for the
[1:27:09] running the wires. So, I said fine. They
[1:27:12] worked through the Kevin and Brian. I
[1:27:14] did not interface with them at that
[1:27:16] time.
[1:27:17] Um
[1:27:18] I actually dug the line to make sure it
[1:27:20] was 18 inches myself personally
[1:27:23] to satisfy the code for the wire that
[1:27:25] had to go from the house to the street
[1:27:27] where the two lights were.
[1:27:29] At that time,
[1:27:32] Kevin came back. I was not there. My
[1:27:35] wife and electrical contractor were
[1:27:37] there.
[1:27:38] And at that time, in addition to
[1:27:41] you know, certifying the line was okay
[1:27:44] and
[1:27:44] dug at the right depth,
[1:27:47] he started to look at the retaining wall
[1:27:49] for the parking pad.
[1:27:51] And he went up to it
[1:27:52] and he said, "Well, I'm 6 ft. That's
[1:27:54] taller than me, but oh, you got 2 ft of
[1:27:59] you know, air and all that's
[1:28:01] parallel to
[1:28:03] you know, the same height as the road.
[1:28:05] So, really less than 6 ft." And
[1:28:07] basically told my wife proceed. And this
[1:28:10] was last year. This was probably May,
[1:28:12] June, July of last year.
[1:28:15] So,
[1:28:16] I said, well,
[1:28:18] um obviously probably should have got a
[1:28:20] permit, but we didn't, but we're going
[1:28:22] to proceed. That was the only
[1:28:24] communication with Kevin at that time.
[1:28:27] Um
[1:28:28] and kind of fast forward, um
[1:28:32] I said, well, I'm going to do this shed.
[1:28:34] I need to get a permit. And I just that
[1:28:37] wasn't prompted by anybody. It was me.
[1:28:39] Okay. I went into the office early April
[1:28:42] with that permit that you've seen.
[1:28:45] Um
[1:28:46] and presented to Kevin.
[1:28:49] At the time I went into the office, he
[1:28:52] told me about my neighbor, my new next
[1:28:54] door neighbor,
[1:28:55] that was questioning the drain
[1:29:00] that we put in as part of the drainage
[1:29:02] for the new driveway.
[1:29:04] And I said, okay, well, this is the
[1:29:06] first I've heard of that. I didn't know
[1:29:08] that the drain was an issue with my new
[1:29:10] neighbor. I'd never even talked to him.
[1:29:13] And I said, if I had known that, I would
[1:29:14] have cut the drain. In fact, that day I
[1:29:16] went back and cut the drain, so it
[1:29:18] wouldn't be intruding on his property
[1:29:19] line.
[1:29:21] Um
[1:29:22] but between March, which I was not aware
[1:29:26] that they arrived on my property,
[1:29:28] to
[1:29:29] evaluate
[1:29:30] Apparently it all got precipitated by
[1:29:32] him coming from my neighbor questioning
[1:29:35] my drain.
[1:29:36] And that's when he said, whoa, should
[1:29:38] have got a permit. And I That's I never
[1:29:41] communicated with Kevin about I needed a
[1:29:43] permit on all that.
[1:29:46] Um
[1:29:48] and so I
[1:29:49] without any knowledge of March
[1:29:51] happening,
[1:29:53] only knowledge I had was my neighbor
[1:29:54] about the drain on the other side of the
[1:29:56] property.
[1:29:57] I brought in the permit unprompted by
[1:30:00] any human being. I did it on my own,
[1:30:02] because I thought that was the right
[1:30:04] thing to do.
[1:30:05] I brought the permit. You relate this to
[1:30:07] the drain?
[1:30:09] This is no, the permit for the shed.
[1:30:11] >> Had you already had a conversation with
[1:30:13] this Rothrock on
[1:30:14] >> Not prior to that.
[1:30:17] » You came into their office?
[1:30:19] >> I brought it in the office and brought
[1:30:21] it to Kevin, but he was implying that
[1:30:23] the only reason I came to the office is
[1:30:25] because of some conversation I had
[1:30:27] between him coming in March and me
[1:30:29] coming to the office. That conversation
[1:30:31] did not occur about
[1:30:34] anything related to the shed. The only
[1:30:36] conversation I had with Kevin was
[1:30:39] related to the drain on the other side
[1:30:41] of the property caused by my neighbor.
[1:30:44] That was the only conversation. No
[1:30:45] conversation. He did not suggest that I
[1:30:48] bring in a permit for the shed. That was
[1:30:51] unprompted.
[1:30:52] I brought it in myself without any cue
[1:30:54] from Kevin or anybody else.
[1:30:57] >> So on April 6th had the foundation
[1:30:59] >> Somewhere around Yeah, I mean
[1:31:00] >> retaining wall had already been built?
[1:31:02] >> The pad was done.
[1:31:04] >> And that's what you were calling the
[1:31:05] retaining
[1:31:06] >> out the pad.
[1:31:06] >> Retaining wall, pad, foundation, what
[1:31:08] are we what are we calling it?
[1:31:10] >> Uh,
[1:31:11] well that's the pad. That's where the
[1:31:13] shed was built. So all of that was done
[1:31:15] when I presented the permit to Kevin.
[1:31:17] >> So Okay, that was finished on April 6th,
[1:31:20] the pad.
[1:31:21] >> Yeah, just the pad.
[1:31:23] And then I brought in the permit.
[1:31:24] >> That the pad you was what you calling
[1:31:26] the pad?
[1:31:27] >> No, no. The pad I'm calling the pad
[1:31:29] where the shed is at.
[1:31:30] >> That's under the shed.
[1:31:32] >> Related to the permit. The permit was
[1:31:34] only for the shed and the pad, which I
[1:31:37] call with the structure under the shed.
[1:31:40] Is the pad on the permit.
[1:31:41] >> Okay.
[1:31:42] >> You want to explain
[1:31:43] >> Is [clears throat] there a concrete
[1:31:45] floor?
[1:31:46] >> Yes.
[1:31:46] >> Is he walking on the Is it a floor?
[1:31:48] >> Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[1:31:49] >> Okay.
[1:31:51] >> [clears throat]
[1:31:54] » When did you first hear that the
[1:31:57] um, building this plan was going to
[1:31:59] encroach into the setback?
[1:32:02] Uh
[1:32:03] Kevin came back out and I don't know if
[1:32:05] it was just Kevin or Brian or both of
[1:32:07] them.
[1:32:09] And they laid a board on the concrete
[1:32:13] pad.
[1:32:15] And said, "This is
[1:32:16] where you need to build."
[1:32:19] what? The shed.
[1:32:22] Because of the setback. Correct.
[1:32:24] Okay.
[1:32:26] >> And that isn't where it ended up getting
[1:32:28] built, right?
[1:32:31] >> No, I decided I made a decision based on
[1:32:34] my view that was in the spirit of the
[1:32:37] law, not maybe the
[1:32:40] legality of the law, the letter of the
[1:32:42] law, however you want to call it,
[1:32:43] because
[1:32:45] the this pad was fine.
[1:32:49] But as soon as I put a structure on it,
[1:32:51] >> Right.
[1:32:52] >> it became
[1:32:53] bad.
[1:32:56] Somehow that was nebulous to me. I'm
[1:32:59] sorry, that's just
[1:33:01] And I decided to
[1:33:04] uh
[1:33:05] build the structure on the pad because I
[1:33:08] did not think it affected the spirit of
[1:33:11] the law
[1:33:13] because the pad was okay, but the
[1:33:16] building was not okay.
[1:33:20] That's why I took the risk.
[1:33:22] And why we're here today, unfortunately.
[1:33:24] I'm dragging you all in here, but
[1:33:26] I believe that what I did
[1:33:30] violated the letter of the law, as
[1:33:32] Tony's already said, but I do not
[1:33:33] believe it violated the spirit of the
[1:33:35] law, particularly given the pad is okay.
[1:33:39] All right.
[1:33:40] >> Just for the record, I disagree that the
[1:33:42] pad's okay. Even looking at your permit
[1:33:45] that was that you it was issued in June
[1:33:47] that you applied for in April, you
[1:33:48] didn't apply for a permit for the pad,
[1:33:49] which you should have.
[1:33:51] And it's certainly any retain We're
[1:33:53] going to call it a retaining wall, it's
[1:33:54] certainly over 4 ft in height, requires
[1:33:56] an engineering
[1:33:57] engineer design and inspection.
[1:33:59] No retaining walls over 6 ft in height
[1:34:01] are permitted within the side rear yard
[1:34:03] setback. And Kevin said when he was
[1:34:05] talking that the back side of that pad
[1:34:07] is 6 to 7 ft.
[1:34:09] And
[1:34:12] um
[1:34:15] the portion of the building within the
[1:34:16] 12-ft setback will need to be removed to
[1:34:19] meet it. Failure to meet the
[1:34:20] requirements of the ordinance will
[1:34:21] result in a violation of this permit.
[1:34:23] And if we're going to call it a
[1:34:24] foundation, a foundation survey may be
[1:34:26] required. I don't think any of this
[1:34:29] meets the code.
[1:34:31] >> Okay, well,
[1:34:32] this is the
[1:34:33] So,
[1:34:35] this whole
[1:34:37] And I I'd also like to just say just
[1:34:39] kind of
[1:34:39] >> I
[1:34:40] >> jumping ahead.
[1:34:41] >> Somehow I got an we got an
[1:34:42] after-the-fact permit, I've been told,
[1:34:45] supposedly, on everything but this
[1:34:47] storage shed. So,
[1:34:49] you're saying it's not in code, but
[1:34:52] the town of Blowing Rock is saying it
[1:34:54] is. So, I'm confused.
[1:34:56] >> What I'm reading this part concerns me.
[1:34:59] as much as the building.
[1:35:01] >> I'm just confused, completely confused
[1:35:03] now.
[1:35:04] Um cuz I was not anticipating getting a
[1:35:07] discussion on something that in theory
[1:35:08] was approved that I didn't apply for.
[1:35:10] >> Well, it wasn't approved. You said it
[1:35:11] was built before you got a permit.
[1:35:13] >> I was not aware I had to get a permit.
[1:35:15] >> Well,
[1:35:16] that doesn't that doesn't matter.
[1:35:18] >> Well, let's stick to just Can we stick
[1:35:20] to the facts of this variance, please?
[1:35:22] >> Yeah, let's let's jump ahead to Hardship
[1:35:25] did not result from actions taken by the
[1:35:27] applicant or the property owner. That's
[1:35:29] state law.
[1:35:32] » Okay, you got me there. All right, so
[1:35:37] » If there's facts that refute that, I'd
[1:35:40] love to hear them, but I haven't heard a
[1:35:41] single one.
[1:35:43] >> [snorts]
[1:35:45] » Okay, so
[1:35:49] I'm not going to debate that point. Mr.
[1:35:52] Shuray, you're obviously a nice guy, but
[1:35:54] you can't just decide
[1:35:57] it's okay to break the law a little bit.
[1:35:59] It just doesn't work that way.
[1:36:02] >> And I also say that when I drove by your
[1:36:03] house, the driveway, everything, it's
[1:36:05] gorgeous.
[1:36:06] >> Pardon me?
[1:36:06] >> The driveway, everything, it's gorgeous
[1:36:08] when I drove by there yesterday. So, I
[1:36:10] you know, I'm not criticizing, I'm
[1:36:13] saying
[1:36:14] the law is the law, and I you can't
[1:36:18] you just can't decide not to follow.
[1:36:26] » All right, so anything else you want to
[1:36:28] say?
[1:36:28] >> No, I have nothing else to say unless
[1:36:29] you have something to say.
[1:36:32] >> [snorts]
[1:36:32] >> I think we went by that already.
[1:36:35] I could
[1:36:37] >> [clears throat]
[1:36:38] >> And I think we acquiesced that that we
[1:36:40] yes, we agreed that the letter of the
[1:36:42] law was violated. I don't think anybody
[1:36:44] ever said that, but I think based on the
[1:36:47] circumstances,
[1:36:48] you know, the corner of the building and
[1:36:50] the 12-ft setback is certainly worth
[1:36:53] a request
[1:36:55] for mercy on the court or whatever you
[1:36:57] call it, prayer for judgment uh in a
[1:36:59] situation like this
[1:37:00] >> There's nothing There's nothing wrong
[1:37:01] with asking.
[1:37:02] >> Yeah, I see what you're saying.
[1:37:04] >> That's right.
[1:37:04] >> And and so, we're here under those
[1:37:06] circumstances. He certainly understands
[1:37:09] uh
[1:37:10] the cost implement and the
[1:37:11] implementation of moving, you know, his
[1:37:13] building or taking two or three feet off
[1:37:15] the building to get it within the
[1:37:17] I mean, but we did you know, we thought
[1:37:19] we'd come and and ask and hope as a good citizen um the
[1:37:24] opportunity for mercy would be
[1:37:27] um
[1:37:28] a possibility.
[1:37:29] And that's all we can do.
[1:37:31] >> [clears throat]
[1:37:33] » Yes.
[1:37:34] >> I am actually one of the neighbors.
[1:37:36] >> Yes.
[1:37:38] >> Do I have permission to make a comment?
[1:37:40] >> If you want to get sworn in, then you
[1:37:42] got to get sworn in. Okay.
[1:37:44] >> [snorts]
[1:37:45] >> She is sworn.
[1:37:48] » I believe it is 10 minutes speaking.
[1:37:53] » Do you solemnly swear that the evidence
[1:37:54] you shall give to this body in this
[1:37:56] matter being heard shall be the truth,
[1:37:58] the whole truth, and nothing but the
[1:37:59] truth? So, do you swear to that?
[1:38:00] >> Yes.
[1:38:01] >> Okay.
[1:38:07] Tell us your name and your address,
[1:38:09] please.
[1:38:10] >> Yes, sir.
[1:38:11] My name is Sayed Khan.
[1:38:13] I am a semi-retired physician, and I
[1:38:17] live at 277 Terry Acres Circle.
[1:38:20] >> Okay, can you spell your name for me?
[1:38:22] >> S as in Sammy, A as in apple, Y as in
[1:38:24] Edward, E as in Edward, D as in David.
[1:38:27] K as in kilo, H as in Helen, A as in
[1:38:30] apple, N as in Nancy.
[1:38:32] As you can see, I've got
[1:38:33] >> One more time on the last sentence.
[1:38:35] >> You've said that so many times, you guys
[1:38:37] >> I've said it so many times.
[1:38:38] >> I've said it a hundred times. Once more
[1:38:40] with feeling.
[1:38:41] >> Sorry, what's the
[1:38:43] >> K as in kilo, H as in Helen,
[1:38:47] A as in apple, N as in Nancy.
[1:38:50] >> Khan.
[1:38:52] Okay, all right. And do you mind giving
[1:38:54] us your address?
[1:38:55] >> 277 Terry Acres Circle,
[1:38:58] Blowing Rock,
[1:39:01] 28605.
[1:39:02] >> Okay. What did you want to tell us?
[1:39:05] >> Well,
[1:39:06] um
[1:39:06] we actually live on the street
[1:39:10] with Fred. In fact, today's the first
[1:39:13] day I found out your last name.
[1:39:16] But, [laughter] uh
[1:39:17] we have been neighbors for now about 4
[1:39:19] or 5 years,
[1:39:20] and
[1:39:22] one of the things which I don't think
[1:39:24] anybody's really mentioned is the post
[1:39:27] Helene effects on our drainage, cuz
[1:39:30] we're on a ridge.
[1:39:32] We had massive issues with erosion.
[1:39:36] And, uh
[1:39:38] most of my neighbors, including myself,
[1:39:40] we have spent a substantial amount of
[1:39:43] money putting in newer retaining walls
[1:39:46] and had a brand new house. Um we've also
[1:39:49] had to put in new drainage and
[1:39:51] everything else.
[1:39:53] When we saw Fred doing this last year,
[1:39:55] also
[1:39:56] his property was also getting eroded. So
[1:40:00] >> [snorts]
[1:40:01] >> as a person who lives on the street,
[1:40:03] walks on the street, um
[1:40:06] I just want to say is is that
[1:40:10] the structure in itself
[1:40:13] if someone had actually not told told me
[1:40:16] that it was
[1:40:18] like 24 in
[1:40:20] out of compliance, you'd never know the
[1:40:22] difference.
[1:40:24] So I agree. I mean, laws are there for a
[1:40:27] reason. But there's also compassion.
[1:40:31] Making him now tear the whole structure
[1:40:33] down or modify it. I mean, we've all
[1:40:37] spent substantial amount of money.
[1:40:42] Between, I would say, each individual
[1:40:45] between about 50 to about 120,000
[1:40:49] dollars
[1:40:50] just
[1:40:52] on retaining walls because of and it is
[1:40:56] a steep slope.
[1:40:58] >> Mr. Bond, can you can you tell me where
[1:41:00] you lived in Lord of the Rings?
[1:41:01] >> Oh, absolutely. Uh
[1:41:06] Well
[1:41:06] >> And it's what I had.
[1:41:09] Yeah.
[1:41:10] That's
[1:41:10] >> [snorts]
[1:41:11] >> me.
[1:41:11] Yes, very much.
[1:41:14] Yes, sir.
[1:41:15] >> Okay.
[1:41:16] >> So
[1:41:18] we we do have a very steep mountain side
[1:41:22] and we and we have had a lot of trouble,
[1:41:26] especially post-Elaine, with erosion and
[1:41:30] drainage. So, yes.
[1:41:34] He probably did break the law, but I
[1:41:36] really do believe that we should also be
[1:41:39] in the business of compassion.
[1:41:42] >> Thank you.
[1:41:43] >> And, thank you for your time.
[1:41:44] >> Thank you. Any board member want to ask
[1:41:46] any questions?
[1:41:49] » Thank you.
[1:41:49] >> Thank Thank you very much.
[1:41:52] Um
[1:41:53] Mr. Seretti, do you want to Anybody else
[1:41:55] you want to call as a witness or
[1:41:57] anything else you want to say?
[1:41:59] >> No, that's it from my standpoint. That's
[1:42:01] it.
[1:42:02] >> Okay.
[1:42:03] All right.
[1:42:05] Um
[1:42:06] Fellow board members, you ready to start
[1:42:08] working on findings of fact?
[1:42:12] The applicant is Fred and Sandy Seretti.
[1:42:15] The owner of the property in question is
[1:42:18] uh Mr. Seretti, I noticed the name on
[1:42:21] your deed is Alfred Seretti and Sandra
[1:42:23] Seretti. You mind if we use the proper
[1:42:25] name?
[1:42:26] >> Sure.
[1:42:28] » The address of the property in question
[1:42:30] is 369 Terry Acre Circle
[1:42:34] in Blowing Rock, North Carolina.
[1:42:39] It's uh the property is also identified
[1:42:41] by Watauga County PIN number 2817
[1:42:46] -43-7159-000.
[1:42:50] The property is zoned R-15.
[1:42:53] And
[1:42:55] the applicant wants the following.
[1:43:04] The applicant has built an accessory
[1:43:06] building, which the applicants call a
[1:43:07] shed, on the western side of their
[1:43:09] property. The dimensions of the
[1:43:11] accessory building are 11 ft 8 in wide
[1:43:14] by 13 ft 8 in long. 8 in long. The
[1:43:17] building is built with a portion of the
[1:43:19] building encroaching into the 12-ft side
[1:43:21] setback required by Blowing Rock Land
[1:43:23] Use Ordinance section 16-12.4.
[1:43:27] No construction is allowed inside the
[1:43:29] 12-ft side lot setback.
[1:43:33] The amount of the encroachment
[1:43:36] is 25 and 1/2 inches on plane eight
[1:43:41] and 1/2 inches.
[1:43:45] And the applicants are seeking a
[1:43:47] variance of
[1:43:49] Mr. Seretti, would you like to change
[1:43:51] your application to
[1:43:53] um
[1:43:55] 30 inches instead of the two feet you
[1:43:57] were asking?
[1:43:59] I don't know.
[1:44:00] I don't think it's going to make a whole
[1:44:01] lot of difference, but
[1:44:04] I'm not going to debate.
[1:44:06] >> Um
[1:44:07] a few inches, I don't think it's
[1:44:08] >> All right, let's leave it the way it is.
[1:44:10] >> make anything to the decision of the
[1:44:11] land.
[1:44:12] >> The applicants are seeking a variance of
[1:44:14] two feet from the required 12-foot side
[1:44:16] setback
[1:44:17] after the accessory building has already
[1:44:20] been built.
[1:44:26] Um
[1:44:27] Other witnesses in the case
[1:44:31] were H. E. Chaney Withers, a civil
[1:44:34] engineer and friend of the Serettis.
[1:44:39] And his address is 6116 Oxford Chart
[1:44:41] Court in Raleigh, North Carolina, 27606.
[1:44:48] Other witness
[1:44:51] was Mr. um
[1:44:54] Constantine Said Khan at 277 Terry Acres
[1:44:58] Circle, Boring Road.
[1:45:03] There are no other parties
[1:45:06] who stand in to come into this case.
[1:45:09] The applicant did provide drawings or
[1:45:11] sketches or plans.
[1:45:15] The town of Boring Road has provided
[1:45:18] given all necessary legal notices of
[1:45:20] this case and this hearing.
[1:45:22] There was not proper notice.
[1:45:24] There was proper notice of this case in
[1:45:27] here and given to all property owners of
[1:45:29] property abutting the parcel of land
[1:45:31] which is at issue here and proper notice
[1:45:33] was given to any other persons entitled
[1:45:36] to receive notice.
[1:45:37] 14 notices were mailed out.
[1:45:45] The applicant did receive a copy of the
[1:45:47] planning director's staff report prior
[1:45:50] to the hearing.
[1:45:58] What the applicant is proposing would
[1:46:00] not
[1:46:02] Yes, what the applicant is proposing
[1:46:04] would not impair emergency vehicles such
[1:46:06] as fire trucks and ambulances. What the
[1:46:08] applicant is proposing
[1:46:10] would not create a fire hazard. What the
[1:46:12] applicant is proposing would not block
[1:46:14] or impede visibility on any street or
[1:46:16] highway.
[1:46:20] Unique features of this property include
[1:46:23] none.
[1:46:24] There are none.
[1:46:40] Um
[1:46:42] >> [snorts]
[1:46:45] » The structure requires
[1:46:49] a zoning permit.
[1:47:05] A property owner who wants to build a
[1:47:06] structure like this, accessory building
[1:47:08] is required to obtain the necessary
[1:47:11] permit before any work or construction
[1:47:13] is started.
[1:47:18] » [snorts]
[1:47:28] » When completed, the accessory building
[1:47:30] encroached into the 12-ft western side
[1:47:33] setback
[1:47:34] by 28 and 1/2 in.
[1:47:42] That number
[1:47:46] includes
[1:47:49] um
[1:47:52] an eave
[1:47:54] at the top.
[1:48:07] There was a place on the lot
[1:48:09] There were There were places
[1:48:14] on the lot where this accessory building
[1:48:16] could have been built without
[1:48:17] encroaching into any of the setbacks and
[1:48:20] without needing a variance.
[1:48:33] Um zoning enforcement officer
[1:48:36] Excuse me.
[1:48:40] Planning Director
[1:48:42] Kevin Rothrock went to the Seretti
[1:48:45] property for the best possible building
[1:48:47] work without a permit in March
[1:48:52] 2026.
[1:49:08] » [snorts]
[1:49:09] >> Um
[1:49:18] Later,
[1:49:19] Mr. Ceretti
[1:49:25] came to the
[1:49:27] planning
[1:49:30] and inspections
[1:49:33] office
[1:49:38] in person
[1:49:44] and was told
[1:49:47] the accessory building
[1:49:55] he wanted to build
[1:50:02] would encroach
[1:50:08] into the
[1:50:10] 12-ft
[1:50:14] setback.
[1:50:19] And
[1:50:22] it could not
[1:50:25] legally
[1:50:27] be built as planned.
[1:50:43] Mr. Ceretti applied
[1:50:45] for a permit
[1:50:52] and provided
[1:50:56] a site plan
[1:51:02] which showed
[1:51:06] the accessory building
[1:51:12] located
[1:51:16] outside
[1:51:20] side setback.
[1:51:28] And within
[1:51:34] design requirements.
[1:51:45] He applied for a permit on April 6,
[1:51:47] 2026.
[1:52:04] » [snorts]
[1:52:08] » The permit was issued to Mr. Sready
[1:52:13] on June 24th, 2026.
[1:52:21] Mr. Sready did build
[1:52:24] and complete the accessory building.
[1:52:29] And
[1:52:34] he built it
[1:52:39] encroaching
[1:52:41] into
[1:52:43] the 12-ft
[1:52:46] side setback
[1:52:50] knowing
[1:52:56] » [snorts]
[1:53:25] » Does anyone remember want to add any
[1:53:27] facts or want me to change any facts?
[1:53:33] » I don't know. I
[1:53:34] move that we adopt the facts as TV just
[1:53:37] stated them.
[1:53:38] >> Okay.
[1:53:39] >> I'll second the motion.
[1:53:42] >> [snorts]
[1:53:42] >> Um
[1:53:44] any further discussion on facts?
[1:53:46] >> No.
[1:53:48] >> Okay.
[1:53:49] All right.
[1:53:50] All those in favor of adopting the
[1:53:52] findings of facts as I have just
[1:53:55] spoken them, say I.
[1:53:57] >> I.
[1:53:59] It's unanimous.
[1:54:08] I move that
[1:54:13] we adopt the findings of fact.
[1:54:19] Well, let's go back
[1:54:20] >> We just did that.
[1:54:22] >> Thank you. I'm
[1:54:23] thinking about the conclusion.
[1:54:24] >> did this part.
[1:54:25] >> We did.
[1:54:26] Thank you.
[1:54:27] Um
[1:54:29] and the board adopted the
[1:54:31] findings of fact by a unanimous vote.
[1:54:34] >> Yeah.
[1:54:34] >> We move now to conclusions of law
[1:54:37] based upon the evidence presented in the
[1:54:39] facts shown above.
[1:54:42] The Board of Adjustment
[1:54:45] does or does not
[1:54:47] Let's pick that one.
[1:54:49] >> [snorts]
[1:54:53] » Find substantial material and competent
[1:54:55] evidence exists to conclude that in this
[1:54:57] case unnecessary hardship would result
[1:54:59] from the strict application of the
[1:55:01] regulations,
[1:55:02] it shall not be necessary to demonstrate
[1:55:04] that in the absence of the variance, no
[1:55:07] reasonable use can be made of this of
[1:55:10] the property.
[1:55:11] Um I make the motion
[1:55:15] that we either um
[1:55:17] find he has met his burden or we do not.
[1:55:20] Is there a second?
[1:55:22] >> And can I repeat the motion, please?
[1:55:24] >> Sure.
[1:55:24] >> I'd make the motion that we do not find
[1:55:27] substantial material and competent
[1:55:29] evidence exists to conclude that in this
[1:55:30] case unnecessary hardship would result
[1:55:32] from the strict application of the
[1:55:33] regulations.
[1:55:36] >> Well, we could we could do it we could
[1:55:38] word it that way and then if you think
[1:55:40] he had, you would just vote vote the
[1:55:42] other way.
[1:55:44] Um
[1:55:44] >> Louder.
[1:55:45] Thank you.
[1:55:46] >> Okay.
[1:55:47] >> If you disagree with my motion, you can
[1:55:48] just vote no.
[1:55:51] » But I like the idea we either vote
[1:55:53] yes he did or no he didn't.
[1:55:56] Okay. Is that okay? That's what I want
[1:55:58] to do.
[1:55:59] I think probably did not do it
[1:56:00] correctly.
[1:56:03] Please.
[1:56:05] So my motion is
[1:56:06] um
[1:56:07] that we take a vote and find that you
[1:56:10] vote your choices would be he met his
[1:56:12] burden
[1:56:14] and he has complied with factor one or
[1:56:16] he has not. He has or he has not.
[1:56:22] What do you think? Am I getting too
[1:56:24] >> I don't know how you vote on that.
[1:56:27] It's a yay or nay, so
[1:56:28] >> Mr. Chairman, for purposes of our
[1:56:30] record, it would be appropriate to take
[1:56:31] a finding of or a finding as to whether
[1:56:34] he the there is or is not
[1:56:37] uh
[1:56:38] material and competent evidence as to
[1:56:40] the unnecessary hardship. So you can
[1:56:42] certainly vote in favor of whatever the
[1:56:45] proposed finding is and if that fails,
[1:56:47] then take an alternative motion.
[1:56:49] >> Okay. That
[1:56:49] >> And that would be the better approach in
[1:56:51] my in my opinion and my objective.
[1:56:53] >> Okay, that's what we've been doing in
[1:56:54] the past.
[1:56:56] For some reason I decided to get
[1:56:57] creative.
[1:56:59] Um
[1:57:01] Second.
[1:57:03] In the past I've I've always
[1:57:05] made the motion to say we find that he
[1:57:08] has met his burden.
[1:57:10] And
[1:57:12] so you would if you find that he has met
[1:57:14] his burden, you would say yay.
[1:57:17] And if you disagree and think he hasn't
[1:57:20] met his burden, you'd say nay.
[1:57:22] Everybody
[1:57:24] with me?
[1:57:24] >> Yeah.
[1:57:25] >> Okay. So let me do it again.
[1:57:27] Based upon the evidence presented and
[1:57:28] the facts shown above, the Board of
[1:57:30] Adjustment
[1:57:31] does find
[1:57:33] substantial material competent evidence
[1:57:35] exists to conclude that in this case
[1:57:37] unnecessary hardship would result from
[1:57:39] the strict application of the
[1:57:41] regulations. It shall not be necessary
[1:57:43] to demonstrate that in the absence of
[1:57:45] the variance, no reasonable use can be
[1:57:47] made of the property.
[1:57:49] Is there a second?
[1:57:51] >> Second.
[1:57:51] >> All right. Mr. Walker seconds. Any
[1:57:54] further discussion?
[1:57:56] All right.
[1:57:57] All those uh
[1:58:01] in favor of finding that he has met his
[1:58:03] burden and has satisfied satisfied
[1:58:05] factor one,
[1:58:06] vote
[1:58:08] yay.
[1:58:10] All those who find he has not met his
[1:58:12] burden and satisfied factor one, vote
[1:58:14] nay.
[1:58:15] >> Nay.
[1:58:16] >> So Mr.
[1:58:17] >> I said I I'm yay.
[1:58:19] >> You're yay. He has met his burden.
[1:58:21] >> Yes.
[1:58:22] >> Okay.
[1:58:23] >> I'll be a yay, too, then.
[1:58:28] » Okay. So the yays are
[1:58:32] Mr. Gibson
[1:58:36] Mr. McGill
[1:58:39] Yays, he did meet his burden and does
[1:58:41] not satisfy or
[1:58:43] Mr. Shuler
[1:58:47] Mr. Sprague is
[1:58:50] and Mr. Walker. Have I got that right.
[1:58:52] >> Yes.
[1:58:57] » I'm ready to the second.
[1:59:00] Based upon the evidence presented in the
[1:59:01] second factor, based upon the evidence
[1:59:04] presented in the facts shown above, the
[1:59:06] Board of Adjustment
[1:59:08] finds substantial, material, and
[1:59:11] competent evidence exists, including
[1:59:13] that in this case the hardship results
[1:59:15] from conditions that are peculiar to the
[1:59:17] property, such as location, size, or
[1:59:19] topography. Hardships resulting from
[1:59:22] personal circumstances, as well as
[1:59:24] hardships resulting from conditions that
[1:59:26] are common to the neighborhood or
[1:59:28] general public, may not be the basis for
[1:59:30] granting a variance.
[1:59:32] may be granted when necessary
[1:59:34] and appropriate to make reasonable
[1:59:35] accommodation under the Federal Fair
[1:59:37] Housing Act for a person with a
[1:59:38] disability.
[1:59:40] So, the motion is
[1:59:42] um that we find his necessary
[1:59:45] and it's satisfied factor two is our
[1:59:47] second.
[1:59:48] >> Second.
[1:59:49] >> Mr. Walker seconds. Any further
[1:59:51] discussion?
[1:59:52] >> No.
[1:59:53] >> Okay.
[1:59:53] >> [clears throat]
[1:59:54] >> Mr. Chair, the Board of Adjustment
[1:59:56] >> the motion
[1:59:57] >> on each of these factors it's preferred
[1:59:59] that the
[2:00:00] maker of the motion state the facts that
[2:00:03] would support or not support whatever
[2:00:05] your ultimate finding would be.
[2:00:07] Um
[2:00:08] >> We don't
[2:00:09] >> Case law has generally wanted the
[2:00:11] Board not to simply recite the
[2:00:14] element of the variance, but also cite
[2:00:16] to some facts in the evidence that would
[2:00:17] support that finding.
[2:00:18] >> Okay. All right.
[2:00:26] Um
[2:00:27] I've got a question.
[2:00:28] >> Haven't we already done that?
[2:00:30] >> Yes.
[2:00:30] >> We Haven't we already done that? We made
[2:00:32] our findings of fact, which would say
[2:00:34] it'd be the
[2:00:34] >> Yes, sir.
[2:00:35] >> at like an court of appeal it'd be the
[2:00:37] >> Yes.
[2:00:37] >> introduction. And then now we're
[2:00:39] applying the law
[2:00:41] to those facts. Why would we need to
[2:00:43] repeat those facts?
[2:00:45] >> Because the If this is reviewed by a
[2:00:47] court of appeals they will want to know
[2:00:49] specifically what facts the board found
[2:00:51] that swayed them as to
[2:00:53] this for example whether it was a
[2:00:55] peculiarity of the property such as
[2:00:57] location, size, or topography and what
[2:00:59] those facts were.
[2:01:01] >> And make all that part of the motion?
[2:01:03] >> Yes, that would be preferred. Otherwise,
[2:01:05] you run the risk of court remanding it
[2:01:08] back to you for further explanation as
[2:01:10] to why you reached that conclusion.
[2:01:15] » Um
[2:01:22] Okay, let's go back and do line
[2:01:24] um
[2:01:25] factor one again.
[2:01:28] Um
[2:01:35] Mr. Eggers.
[2:01:44] » Come on. Let me take a shot at this.
[2:01:47] Um
[2:01:50] I move that based upon the facts that
[2:01:53] the board just adopted as stated above
[2:01:57] the board of adjustment finds
[2:01:59] substantial material and competent
[2:02:00] evidence exists to conclude that in this
[2:02:02] case unnecessary hardship would result
[2:02:04] from the strict application of
[2:02:05] regulations.
[2:02:08] » Yes, sir. Are there specific factors
[2:02:10] that would allow for unnecessary
[2:02:12] hardship you wish to sign to?
[2:02:14] Well, that motion technically failed
[2:02:17] with the board. So, what would
[2:02:19] >> Well, I just added the word
[2:02:21] in
[2:02:23] Well, I don't understand how we can sit
[2:02:24] here and repeat
[2:02:26] all these facts that we just approved.
[2:02:28] >> Yes, sir.
[2:02:29] >> As part of a motion.
[2:02:31] >> Well, he's he's right. They do They do
[2:02:33] want to see under each conclusion
[2:02:35] um we find or do not find for this
[2:02:39] reason. The problem is
[2:02:44] if I make the motion that we find
[2:02:53] » And then if he states all the facts and
[2:02:54] then we vote against it.
[2:02:56] >> If the board's majority
[2:02:58] conclusion is that the applicant has
[2:03:02] not met his burden of an unnecessary
[2:03:04] hardship, the board can find that while
[2:03:07] it may impose a hardship on the
[2:03:08] applicant to comply with the ordinance,
[2:03:11] it is not an unnecessary hardship for
[2:03:15] whatever specifics you wish
[2:03:17] to find from the evidence.
[2:03:19] >> How about this, Mr. Harris? How about we do a motion
[2:03:24] that he has
[2:03:26] satisfied
[2:03:27] or he has not.
[2:03:30] We take that vote and then
[2:03:35] the winning, in this case the nays,
[2:03:39] then add on
[2:03:42] supporting facts.
[2:03:44] >> Yes, sir. It would It would need to be
[2:03:46] facts that would support a successful
[2:03:48] motion, which is generally what you're
[2:03:49] looking for. However, I will say that if
[2:03:52] a variance, unless a motion carries by
[2:03:55] four at least a four to one vote, then
[2:03:57] that motion that you have
[2:03:59] proposed
[2:04:01] would not pass.
[2:04:02] >> Right. He's He's
[2:04:03] >> here did not pass, then there was not a
[2:04:05] conclusion by the board that
[2:04:08] an unnecessary hardship had been shown.
[2:04:10] >> Could we
[2:04:12] the the factual support is that he produced
[2:04:17] absolutely no evidence
[2:04:19] of unnecessary hardship. So, that that
[2:04:21] statement
[2:04:23] the applicant has produced absolutely no
[2:04:25] evidence of unnecessary hardship.
[2:04:28] Could that come after we took the vote?
[2:04:33] And then add that
[2:04:34] >> Yes, sir. The board would will its
[2:04:36] purview. I would suggested finding that
[2:04:39] the applicant has failed to carry his
[2:04:41] burden as to an unnecessary hardship
[2:04:43] rather than
[2:04:44] a finding that there's no evidence
[2:04:46] produced because the burden is on the
[2:04:48] applicant. It's not
[2:04:50] necessarily
[2:04:51] summary judgment type burden as well.
[2:04:54] Whether he's carried his
[2:04:58] » Well, yes.
[2:04:59] >> You're You're also implying that when
[2:05:01] the motion is made, we already know what
[2:05:03] the outcome's going to be in order to
[2:05:06] include
[2:05:07] the facts that support the outcome in
[2:05:09] the motion.
[2:05:10] >> The maker of the motion needs to propose
[2:05:13] facts to go along with his motion.
[2:05:15] That's what I'm saying.
[2:05:16] >> Okay.
[2:05:17] >> If those facts aren't supported by a
[2:05:19] majority vote, for example, it would
[2:05:21] fail.
[2:05:23] >> And then we'd need to make a new motion
[2:05:25] with new facts.
[2:05:26] >> Something that can be reached
[2:05:28] >> I simplify this discussion of the city.
[2:05:29] I'm not going to appeal it to the city.
[2:05:31] I know that with the city it's You don't
[2:05:32] have to worry about Whatever decision
[2:05:34] that you make, it's going to be based on
[2:05:36] compaction. No other
[2:05:38] decision will stand.
[2:05:39] So, I'm not going to I will declare I
[2:05:41] will not appeal it.
[2:05:42] >> I We appreciate that. We got We got to go to the question now. Okay,
[2:05:47] back to one. We found that the applicant
[2:05:49] has not met his burden. I am now making
[2:05:52] a motion
[2:05:54] that we say
[2:05:57] And we say the reason he has not met met
[2:05:59] his burden is he has
[2:06:02] not provided evidence of unnecessary
[2:06:05] hardship.
[2:06:08] A second motion for number one.
[2:06:14] So, going back to number one, we've
[2:06:16] taken the vote. It's three to two. I now
[2:06:19] make the motion that we say he has not
[2:06:22] met his burden because he has
[2:06:26] not
[2:06:27] produced
[2:06:29] sufficient evidence of unnecessary
[2:06:31] hardship.
[2:06:32] >> And that would be sufficient for
[2:06:34] purposes of that filing.
[2:06:35] >> Yeah, sounds like a tie. All right. So,
[2:06:37] Mr. Walker seconds that.
[2:06:40] Um any further discussion?
[2:06:43] All those in favor of adopting the
[2:06:46] um
[2:06:48] » motion.
[2:06:49] >> The motion
[2:06:51] um say
[2:06:53] uh
[2:06:54] that he has
[2:06:55] not produced sufficient evidence of
[2:06:57] unnecessary hardships.
[2:06:59] Say
[2:07:00] >> I.
[2:07:02] >> This is
[2:07:02] >> [clears throat]
[2:07:03] >> Your name?
[2:07:04] >> I'm a nay.
[2:07:06] >> I I your name?
[2:07:12] » [laughter]
[2:07:12] >> If you think he's met his burden
[2:07:15] I got to have to say he has not. I'm
[2:07:17] sorry.
[2:07:19] So, it's four to one.
[2:07:21] >> Okay. So, well, he's
[2:07:24] but he's still got his vote on
[2:07:27] >> But
[2:07:27] >> I'll just a question. Did or did not?
[2:07:33] Are you going to You had voted that he
[2:07:34] has met his burden. Are you going to
[2:07:36] stick by that?
[2:07:39] Why not?
[2:07:41] >> The motion is that he has not provided
[2:07:43] sufficient evidence of a burden.
[2:07:48] That he has not.
[2:07:51] » Of unnecessary hardship.
[2:07:58] » Yeah.
[2:08:00] >> You think he has not provided sufficient
[2:08:02] evidence of an unnecessary hardship.
[2:08:06] » I would have thought once I thought he
[2:08:07] had.
[2:08:09] Isn't that right?
[2:08:10] Yeah.
[2:08:11] >> You
[2:08:12] >> It was a yay.
[2:08:13] >> Yeah, it was a
[2:08:13] >> You did you you
[2:08:15] >> What are you doing to We still on one?
[2:08:18] We back on one?
[2:08:19] >> We're still on one. We We want to
[2:08:22] um
[2:08:22] connect somehow with the facts.
[2:08:25] >> Yeah.
[2:08:25] >> And so, I'm I'm saying the connection
[2:08:27] with facts is that he just he just
[2:08:29] hasn't produced sufficient evidence
[2:08:32] um
[2:08:33] of unnecessary hardship.
[2:08:37] » Well, I feel sorry for him, but I don't
[2:08:39] think he has. I think he knew
[2:08:41] he needed to keep it within that 12 ft
[2:08:43] and then he slipped over. So, I'm afraid he has not.
[2:08:47] That's just It's frustrating, very
[2:08:49] frustrating. Cuz I think y'all let it I
[2:08:51] think y'all would let it let it go and
[2:08:53] let him have it, but nobody's ever going
[2:08:55] to know, but anyway, this is what we got
[2:08:57] to do, so we got to do it.
[2:08:58] >> Okay.
[2:08:59] >> Yeah.
[2:09:00] >> Um
[2:09:02] that applicant has not provided
[2:09:03] sufficient evidence of unnecessary
[2:09:05] hardship. The vote is
[2:09:07] um
[2:09:08] 4 to 1.
[2:09:10] Mr. Goodson
[2:09:16] voting
[2:09:18] nay.
[2:09:20] He has produced enough.
[2:09:33] Um
[2:09:34] Factor two, based on on the evidence
[2:09:36] presented in the fact sheet above, the
[2:09:38] Board of Adjustment
[2:09:40] finds substantial material competent
[2:09:43] evidence exists to conclude that in this
[2:09:45] case the hardship results from
[2:09:46] conditions that are peculiar to the
[2:09:48] property, such as location, size, or
[2:09:50] topography. Hardships resulting from
[2:09:52] personal circumstances as well as
[2:09:55] hardships resulting from conditions that
[2:09:56] are common to the neighborhood or the
[2:09:58] general public may not be the basis for
[2:10:00] granting a variance.
[2:10:02] may be granted when necessary
[2:10:04] or appropriate to make reasonable
[2:10:05] accommodations under the Federal Fair
[2:10:06] Housing Act for a person with a
[2:10:09] disability.
[2:10:12] Um
[2:10:16] » I'd like to make a motion.
[2:10:19] >> You
[2:10:20] go ahead.
[2:10:20] >> So, I move that based upon the evidence
[2:10:22] presented. The Board of Adjustment does
[2:10:24] not find substantial material and
[2:10:26] competent evidence exists to conclude
[2:10:29] that this case the hardship results from
[2:10:30] conditions that are peculiar to the
[2:10:32] property, such as location, size, or
[2:10:34] topography. The evidence presented did
[2:10:37] not suggest any conditions peculiar to
[2:10:41] this property, including its location,
[2:10:43] size, or topography.
[2:10:45] So, that
[2:10:48] » I second that.
[2:10:49] >> [clears throat and cough]
[2:10:51] » Any further discussion?
[2:10:54] >> No.
[2:10:58] » The evidence produced helped help Mr.
[2:11:00] Walker finish up his sentences.
[2:11:06] The evidence
[2:11:06] >> The evidence produced
[2:11:08] does not
[2:11:13] » I think
[2:11:15] the future motion in English terms.
[2:11:17] >> Please.
[2:11:17] >> Exactly.
[2:11:18] >> I believe the motion as Mr. Walker said
[2:11:21] before
[2:11:22] the Board did not find substantial
[2:11:25] material and competent evidence relates
[2:11:27] to the conditions of the property as the
[2:11:29] evidence did not support
[2:11:32] any condition that would be unique to
[2:11:35] the
[2:11:36] topography, location, or size of the
[2:11:39] property. Is that correct, sir?
[2:11:42] >> Okay.
[2:11:51] Does not show location, size, or
[2:11:53] topography
[2:11:55] um presenting any hardship.
[2:11:58] Fair enough.
[2:12:02] » That would be legally sufficient if
[2:12:03] that's Mr. Walker's motion.
[2:12:05] >> Yes.
[2:12:05] >> Yeah.
[2:12:07] >> Mr. Walker.
[2:12:09] >> I
[2:12:09] >> If as the evidence produced does not
[2:12:11] show location, size, or topography
[2:12:14] presenting any hardship.
[2:12:16] Okay. So, this one the motion is
[2:12:20] that we did not find evidence he did not
[2:12:22] meet his burden.
[2:12:24] All those
[2:12:25] in favor of
[2:12:28] If that's correct, he did not meet his
[2:12:29] burden. He did not satisfy factor two.
[2:12:32] Say I.
[2:12:33] >> I.
[2:12:34] >> Any nays? Are you a nay?
[2:12:36] >> I'm a nay.
[2:12:37] >> I.
[2:12:39] >> So we got
[2:12:41] it's unanimous.
[2:12:43] All I.
[2:12:47] Factor three, based upon the evidence
[2:12:48] presented in the facts shown above, the
[2:12:50] board of adjustment
[2:12:52] does not find substantial, material, or
[2:12:54] competent evidence exists to completely
[2:12:56] in this case the hardship did not result
[2:12:59] from actions taken by the applicant or
[2:13:00] the property owner.
[2:13:02] The act of purchasing the property with
[2:13:04] knowledge of circumstances exist that
[2:13:05] may justify the granting of a variance
[2:13:08] [snorts] or a liability regarding a
[2:13:09] self-created hardship.
[2:13:12] Um the applicant
[2:13:21] knowingly
[2:13:25] constructed
[2:13:29] the accessory building
[2:13:36] with the encroachment
[2:13:42] into
[2:13:45] the 12-ft
[2:13:47] side setback.
[2:13:53] That's the motion that he did not meet
[2:13:55] his burden. Is there a second?
[2:13:56] >> Second.
[2:13:57] from Mr. Shuler.
[2:13:59] Any further discussion?
[2:14:02] All in favor of finding that the
[2:14:03] applicant [snorts] has not met his
[2:14:05] burden on factor three, say I.
[2:14:07] >> I.
[2:14:09] >> Is it unanimous?
[2:14:10] >> It's unanimous.
[2:14:12] >> Fourth factor based upon the evidence
[2:14:14] presented in the fact sheet above the
[2:14:16] Board of Adjustment does not find
[2:14:18] substantial material
[2:14:21] and competent evidence suggests to
[2:14:22] conclude that in this case the requested
[2:14:24] variance is consistent with the spirit,
[2:14:26] purpose, and intent of the regulations.
[2:14:28] Such a public safety and security and
[2:14:30] substantial justice achieved.
[2:14:32] Substantial justice is not achieved
[2:14:35] granting the variance
[2:14:36] would be injurious to the neighborhood
[2:14:38] or to the general
[2:14:40] welfare.
[2:14:42] Um
[2:14:48] building
[2:14:51] the accessory building
[2:14:57] and no way going
[2:15:01] into the side setback.
[2:15:15] Because that would come
[2:15:18] >> [snorts]
[2:15:27] » It's all the encouragement
[2:15:33] was minimal.
[2:15:44] And then
[2:15:49] And it's not
[2:15:52] within the spirit
[2:15:58] and intent of the regulations.
[2:16:01] >> [snorts]
[2:16:08] » Uh is there a second of that motion?
[2:16:12] >> Second.
[2:16:12] >> Mr. Shuler seconds. Any
[2:16:14] >> [clears throat]
[2:16:14] >> further discussion?
[2:16:19] Hearing none.
[2:16:21] Um all those
[2:16:23] in favor of finding that the applicant
[2:16:25] has not met his burden
[2:16:27] that was not substantial material
[2:16:29] competent evidence
[2:16:32] existing to include concluded this case
[2:16:35] the request of variance is consistent
[2:16:37] with the spirit purpose and intent of
[2:16:39] the regulations.
[2:16:41] Um
[2:16:43] associate public safety secures
[2:16:45] substantial justice achieved
[2:16:49] building the accessory building into the
[2:16:51] side setback because the applicant
[2:16:52] thought the encroachment was minimal.
[2:16:55] Um
[2:16:56] and it was not
[2:16:59] and that
[2:17:01] is not within the spirit and intent of
[2:17:02] the regulations.
[2:17:04] I would favor he hadn't met his burden,
[2:17:06] say I.
[2:17:07] >> I.
[2:17:09] I unanimous.
[2:17:11] It's unanimous.
[2:17:17] Um
[2:17:18] >> For this one, I will restate this.
[2:17:21] >> I'm sorry, what?
[2:17:21] >> Oh, okay. For the number five one, I
[2:17:23] would want I move that consistent with
[2:17:26] the conclusions of law just discussed,
[2:17:29] the Board of Adjustment does not grant
[2:17:31] the applicant a variance.
[2:17:33] Period.
[2:17:36] >> That's your motion?
[2:17:37] >> That's my motion.
[2:17:38] >> And I'll second that. Any further
[2:17:40] discussion?
[2:17:42] Um
[2:17:44] All in favor of the motion that we not
[2:17:46] grant a variance, say I.
[2:17:48] >> I.
[2:17:50] >> Mr. Goodson.
[2:17:50] >> Aye.
[2:17:53] Mr. Aye.
[2:17:56] >> Mr. Goodson.
[2:17:59] Say aye.
[2:18:04] All right.
[2:18:11] a deadline
[2:18:13] to be correction of the problem.
[2:18:16] In other words, you got
[2:18:18] you've got to correct this situation
[2:18:20] within what do you think is reasonable?
[2:18:23] 6 months?
[2:18:26] » 6 months?
[2:18:29] What do you think is reasonable?
[2:18:32] » I think 6 months is reasonable. I think
[2:18:34] it should be
[2:18:35] done sooner.
[2:18:37] 6 months.
[2:18:38] >> Well, you got up to that point. Up to
[2:18:40] that point.
[2:18:40] >> I'm going to
[2:18:41] get a higher survey everything and get
[2:18:43] this thing done.
[2:18:45] >> Why?
[2:18:45] >> Cuz I don't want to do this and find out
[2:18:47] we're in breach.
[2:18:48] >> Yes.
[2:18:49] >> Yeah, that's correct.
[2:18:50] >> What do you suggest?
[2:18:51] >> Yes.
[2:18:51] >> Um
[2:18:54] The applicant
[2:18:56] >> Sorry for that.
[2:18:57] >> That's all right.
[2:18:59] >> The applicant
[2:18:59] >> 1 ft 8 in from you.
[2:19:02] >> 1 ft from your neighbor. 1 ft from your
[2:19:04] neighbor.
[2:19:05] Put away. That's how he got me.
[2:19:07] >> Generally what's included in your work
[2:19:09] as far as time to correct the problem is
[2:19:11] something that would be handled through
[2:19:13] staff as an administrative matter.
[2:19:15] >> Yeah, but
[2:19:21] the town ordinances give us all the
[2:19:23] authority and power of
[2:19:25] the administrator.
[2:19:26] >> And yes, but that's where I get it.
[2:19:28] >> So, if we're going to go ahead and do
[2:19:30] >> [laughter]
[2:19:30] >> So, we're going to go to
[2:19:31] >> That's That's generally where that gets
[2:19:33] basically wrapped up. There's additional
[2:19:35] time, however, since the board is
[2:19:37] hearing
[2:19:38] the matter, the board can impose those
[2:19:41] conditions and give staff direction if
[2:19:43] you choose to do so.
[2:19:44] >> Thank you.
[2:19:45] >> Which is the second part of my
[2:19:47] presentation.
[2:19:48] >> I'm not going to write that down, but
[2:19:49] thank you.
[2:19:50] The applicant
[2:19:52] must remove
[2:19:54] um
[2:20:01] » all
[2:20:03] of the
[2:20:09] constructed
[2:20:13] accessory building
[2:20:17] that
[2:20:20] encroaches
[2:20:23] into the
[2:20:25] >> [clears throat]
[2:20:26] >> western
[2:20:29] side setback
[2:20:36] within 180 days
[2:20:41] of the filing
[2:20:46] of this decision.
[2:20:54] This
[2:20:55] I I make the motion that we say that the
[2:20:57] applicant must remove all of the
[2:20:59] constructed accessory building that
[2:21:02] encroaches into the
[2:21:04] western side setback within 100 days 180
[2:21:07] days of the filing
[2:21:09] of this decision.
[2:21:10] Is there a second?
[2:21:11] >> Second.
[2:21:12] >> Mr. Walker seconds. Any further
[2:21:14] discussion?
[2:21:16] All those in favor of adopting
[2:21:19] um
[2:21:21] that term, say I.
[2:21:23] >> I.
[2:21:24] It's unanimous then.
[2:21:28] This decision is effective after review
[2:21:30] and approval of the written decision by
[2:21:32] all participating board members and then
[2:21:34] filing with the clerk, which means I
[2:21:36] will type it up. I'll share it with all
[2:21:39] the other board members and if they see
[2:21:40] no errors
[2:21:42] or mistakes in it, um
[2:21:44] they'll tell me and I will tell the
[2:21:46] clerk that she can proceed with filing.
[2:21:48] Um
[2:21:49] I I make a motion that the board adopt
[2:21:53] the conclusions of law that we have just
[2:21:55] articulated.
[2:21:56] Uh is there a second?
[2:21:58] >> Second.
[2:21:59] >> Seconded by Mr. Walker. Any further
[2:22:00] discussion?
[2:22:02] Uh all those in favor of adopting the
[2:22:05] conclusions of law
[2:22:07] just stated, say I.
[2:22:09] >> I.
[2:22:10] That's unanimous.
[2:22:14] And
[2:22:16] I now make a motion that we conclude
[2:22:18] this meeting of the
[2:22:20] Glowing Rock Board of Adjustment. Is
[2:22:22] there a second?
[2:22:23] >> Second.
[2:22:23] >> It's been moved and seconded. All those
[2:22:25] in favor of ending this meeting, say I.
[2:22:27] >> I.
[2:22:28] It's unanimous.