MAY 22, 2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Next was Ross Holloway, of Holloway & Associates, representing Mr. Jeffrey Clinger, 136 W. South Street, requesting a two lot minor plat. Mr. Clinger has a daughter that has special needs and the Board of Zoning Appeals granted variances for front building setback and area of lots. However, there were some conditions and the original plat did not address those conditions. He has addressed them in the plat he presented today. One of the most important conditions was that they have a retention area and also provide a drainage easement along the west side of the lots running from the alley to South Street. However, they went beyond that and did a typographical survey of the area and there was a mention about a storm drain that had been installed by the Town of Mooresville some years ago. Since that time they have done some basic engineering and they checked out the storm drainage system. There is a storm drain that is very near the northwest comer of lot IB and that drain is not functioning. However the next drain to the west, which is at the northwest comer of the Curry lot is functioning. They can get two feet of fall from the low point on the boundary between Mr. Clinger's lot and Mr. Curry's lot out to that pipe. He has talked to Mr. Beikman about the town possibily trying to repair the inlet that is clogged up and Mr. Clinger is willing to construct a pipe from the low area of his lots to that pipe. Therefore they have not only provided a retention area, which they will still need, they have also provided drainage for the two lots. They had an elaborate discussion with the Board of Zoning Appeals, which he will go into that if needed, this area is a copy of the Auditor's plat which shows that it has been subdivided, the Curry lot just next to this one was divided previously and this is in keeping with the area. This also certainly satisfies Mr. Clinger's special needs for his daughter. The home on this property is about thirteen hundred (1300) square feet and it has special instruction requirements. He asked if the Commission had any questions. Commissioner Crouch asked if he would explain where he was planning on tapping into this drain? Mr. Holloway said there was an existing storm inlet near the northwest corner upper left hand corner of lot B. That inlet doesn't function, directly to the west to the left across from the existing little house at the intersection of the alley just almost off the plat is another inlet that is functioning and it's invert of it's discharge pipe which is twelve (12) inches which is deep enough that he going to assume and if not he will take care of that. It is deep enough for them to get two (2) feet of fall from the low area of the common line between Curry and Clinger out to that inlet. Mr. Bryant stated the subdividing of lots has come up before, and Mr. Long had brought this up before on his parcel. Commissioner Bryant is not in favor of subdividing town lots for the purpose of building additional buildings in the back. He understands the home is to be built for the special needs they are requiring, but he does not feel this is the piece of property that is ideally suited for that. He does not feel what is next door or down the road is justification for this lot. Maybe that is a good indication we should stop doing that and no longer go in that direction. Commissioner Ehrhart stated that we are losing green space each time this is done. Commissioner McGuire stated that they had turned down the exact same thing two months ago. Mr. Holloway said he thought there was some discriminating circumstances because there was not enough parking space and some other issues going on. Commissioner Bryant said there were some layout discrepancy, but the basis he was opposed to it was they were going to subdivide the backyard into another property. Mr. Holloway said that Mr. Clinger was trying to do this the right way. If he had known this was the sentiment of the Board, they would have asked the BZA for two dwellings on the same lot and the end results would be the same. If they get denied they will probably go back to the BZA and do the same thing. Having already granted the variances obviously it would make sense they would grant this knowing what was going on. Besides that