BZA 10-08-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mooresville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2020 "across the fence" and that the curve on which these two homes are located is bad. The school bus stops (there) morning and evening, and it is a busy street. This neighbor claimed that [we] don't want businesses in our neighborhood — there is a lot of traffic and [we] believe it is dangerous. Theresa Price of 501 Bluegrass Court requested to address the Board from her seat due to physical incapacity, an inability to stand. She claimed that "it is a lie that someone lives in that home". She believes that operating a business in the neighborhood opens the neighborhood to burglary. She stated that the petitioners were already advertising their third location. She stated that the neighborhood is zoned residential and that the petitioners are not running a true in-home daycare. She stated that they (presumably the petitioners) own their home on Fox Court, but that no one is living in the homes owned by the petitioners. She stated that "We don't out subdivision turned in to a business". She stated that "the sign claims 6 -weeks to 5 years; why don't they just rent a building?" Joan Atkinson of 504 Bluegrass Court told the Board that "there's all kinds of cars and it doesn't appear anyone is living there". She stated that it is a very busy street and that she opposes the daycare in her neighborhood. The Petitioners answered these comments — They stated that "this is not State Road 67, this is Rooker Run. Rooker Run is not a gated community and residents park multiple vehicles on the streets." [The operator of the daycare center] parks her car in the driveway of the residence and has lived at that address for over a year. No child from the daycare gets on or off a school bus. He claimed that there were only 4-7 cars pulling in and out of the drive of the house for each hour of pickup and drop off. All parents are required to use the second entrance to Rooker Run to eliminate U-turns on the street. David Sadler spoke, saying that clearly the neighborhood is zoned RI and the zoning of the residence for the daycare needs to be R3. He asked if the petitioners wished for a continuance, or if they wished to reapply for rezoning — he stated that the next action should be to apply for rezoning to the Planning Commission. Beth Copeland stated that she had done the appropriate research during the discussion and that the variance for RI zoning applies only to adult daycare. The Petitioner stated that they are a licensed daycare there will be six children in the home whether there is a variance granted or not. He stated that they were attempting to "do the right thing" by requesting a variance [as counselled by Tim Bennet]. Beth Copeland restated that the variance request did not apply to this situation, and that the petitioners would need to file for a rezoning from RI to R3 with the Planning Commission. The petitioner then indicated that they would withdraw the variance request. Mike Young then addressed the next agenda item which was a variance at Bethel Road. Ross Holloway Engineering on behalf of their client, Jed Adams, wishes to build a home on the new plat at this address. RHE stated that the 41 -acre parcel has an existing home and outbuildings. Mr. Adams wishes to build a new home to the north of the existing home. The existing home may be torn down in time, which would not nullify the 2 -acre minor plat on this 41 -acre parcel. Mike Young asked if the variance were needed because of septic. RHE responded that yes, the parcel is currently zone agricultural, and needs the new plat to meet minimums. Dwayne Gads of 1529 Bethel Road asked a number of questions of RHE—what is the time limit to tear down the existing home? Will there be two homes on the lot? If the existing home is on the long lot, and the owner is building a home directly north, who will maintain the existing home until it is torn down? RHE responded that they did not make the application for variance with the existing home's future in mind; it may be torn down in time, it may be rented. David Sadler made a motion to approve the variance, Neal Allman seconded, and Mike Young called the vote as unanimous. Next on the agenda Ross Holloway Engineering requested a variance at 125 S Indiana Street for their client, Midas auto repair and service. Ross Holloway stated that over time Midas wishes to expand their operations and then build a new facility. Phase 1 will be an addition to the store for non -conforming use; Phase 2 will be connecting the Phase I addition to the existing business, which has zero setback in the rear. They are requesting a relief from buffering requirements for landscaping that does not currently exist. Finally, they are requesting a relief from parking requirements from 17 to 13 on their lot. All these requests will be a vast improvement to the area. Perry King noted that reduced parking would be a plus, RHE responded that most clients do not park in the lot long tern, most drop off their vehicle and return when 3