BZA 03-11-2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mooresville Board of Zoning Appeals March 11, 2021 Members Present: Perry King, Neal Allman, Charles McGuire, David Sadler, Beth Copeland attorney Neal Allman as Acting Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. He called for review of the previous month's Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes. Perry King stated that there were a number of items that required revision, including the names of the officers. Neal Allman called for a motion to table the approval of the minutes until the next meeting. Perry King made the motion, David Sadler seconded, and a unanimous vote tabled the approval of the February minutes until the April meeting. Neal Allman introduced a variance request for North County Line Road and Ferguson Road. John Larrison of Holloway Engineering addressed the Board of Zoning Appeals stating that the Allison family has a potential buyer for the 27 -acre parcel just south of the intersection of North County Line and North Ferguson Roads. Holloway Engineering would be requesting a rezoning of the property from Industrial to RID at the next meeting, the March Planning Commission Meeting, for a development on which a preliminary plat showed 73 lots which meet all development standards. Before the Board of Zoning Appeals, a variance is requested from the required 40 -foot setback to a 30 -foot setback. After completing a search of multiple developments in the Mooresville area including the Knightsbridge, Carrington Estates, Roberson Village, North Madison Crossing and Hadley's Crossing, he stated that the majority have been developed with 30 -foot setbacks. Mr. Larrison stated that this variance request met all standards for evaluating a variance including: 1. The variance is not injurious to health, safety and welfare, as each lot will have a 2 -car garage and a drive with 2 - car parking. 2. The variance will have no impact on the value of the property adjacent to development as all houses in the development will face inward, with the larger backyards facing outwards. 3. Strict application of the terms of the ordinance will not affect the use of the property in question. Mr. Larrison stated that many subdivisions have the 30 -foot setback to allow a larger backyard, which is preferred by home buyers. David Sadler asked if the property in question was still zoned Industrial, and Mr. Larrison replied that yes, it is. Holloway Engineering is asking for the approval of the variance subject to the approval of the property rezoning of the Planning Commission. Mr. Sadler pointed out that this wording was not included in the formal application for variance. He stated that per the letter of the law, if the Board of Zoning appeals were to approve the variance, then it would be an industrial property with a 30 -foot variance. He pointed out that there had been problems with this situation in the past. Mr. Larrison restated that the request is specifically for RID Zoning, and Mr. Holloway interjected that it would be appropriate for the motion to approve the variance to stipulate this restriction. Neal Allman called for questions or comments from the public, and then the Board. Charles McGuire addressed Chair, stating that this request was "the cart before the horse", and asked what the hardship would be if the variance were not approved. Mr. Larrison stated that his firm had found that homeowners prefer a deeper backyard to a front yard. Given home lot sizes and roads as planned, the firm was concerned that the 40 -foot setback would cost an entire row of homes which would make the project financially infeasible. Mr. McGuire asked why Holloway Engineering was asking for a variance before the property was rezoned. Mr. Larrison's reply was that time was a factor in the development of the property, and it would be better to get a timely answer from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Beth Copeland stated that it is not uncommon to request a variance contingent upon a rezoning decision. Mr. Larrison pointed out that the meeting schedule of the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Commission had changed from every two weeks, with meetings being held on separate evenings, to once a month for both meetings, being held on the same night. He stated he and his client were more than happy to ask for a continuance on the variance request pending the decision regarding rezoning, but that they didn't foresee the harm in asking, for the viability of the project. After some discussion amongst the Board Members regarding a similar situation in a recent meeting, Mr. Larrison 1