Board of Adjustment Meeting

Town of Weaverville Board of Adjustment Regular Monthly Meeting Monday, August 11, 2025, 6:00pm Agenda Pg# 1. Call to Order …………………………………………………………………. Chairman Lewis 2. Approval of the Minutes – 12/9/2024 Regular Meeting …… 2 Chairman Lewis 3. Approval of an Order – 9 North Street Variance Denial…….. 11 Chairman Lewis 4. Evidentiary Hearing – Vegetative Buffer, 10 Garrison Branch 16 Planning Director Eller 5. Adjournment …………………………………………………………………. Chairman Lewis  TOWN OF WEAVERVILLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEM Date of Meeting: Monday, August 11, 2025 Subject: Minutes Presenter: Planning Director Attachments: Minutes from the December 9, 2024 Meeting of the Board Description: Attached you will find proposed minutes from the December 9, 2024 regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. Action Requested: Staff is requesting that the Board adopt the aforementioned minutes as presented or amended by motion of the Board. 2 Board of Adjust ment - Dec. 09 2024 Minut es Monday, December 9, 2024 at 6:03 PM The Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled meeting in Town Council Chambers, Town Hall, 30 S. Main Street, Weaverville, N.C. 1. Call t o Order- Chairman Lewis Roll Call Board of Adjustment Present: Chair Tycer Lewis, Vice Chair Cynthia Wright, Larry Murray, Pual Clauhs, Roger Parkin, regular members, and Paul DeCrosta and Brent Koenig alternate members. Staff Present: Town Attorney John Henning, Interim Town Manager Scottie Harris, Planning Director James Eller, Planner Graham Crawford, and Town Clerk Tamara Mercer. 2. Annual Elect ion of Officers Chair Lewis called for nomination of Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Adjustment. Paul Clauhs nominated Tycer Lewis as Chairman and Cynthia Wright as Vice Chair, which was seconded by Roger Parkin. Carried unanimously 5-0. 3. Adopt ion of Annual 2025 Schedule of Meet ings Paul Clauhs moved to adopt the 2025 meeting schedule calendar of the Board of Adjustment, and the motion was seconded by Larry Murray. Carried unanimously 5-0. 4. Approval of Minut es- April 8, 2024 Regular Meet ing 3  Cynthia Wright moved to adopt and approve the minutes of April 8, 2024, and the motion was seconded by Paul Clauhs. Carried unanimously 5-0. 5. Variance Applicat ion- 9 Nort h St reet Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Proposed Variance- 9 North Street- Attorney Henning provided procedures for the quasi-judicial hearing. The purpose of each quasi-judicial hearing is for the Board of Adjustment to hear and consider pertinent facts related to the request. The Board is required to comply with procedural rules much like those of a trial court and to provide for the constitutional right to due process such as proper notice of the meeting, an impartial decision maker, sworn testimony of witnesses, and an opportunity for parties to be heard by allowing direct examination and cross examination of witnesses. The Board is asked to make a quasi-judicial decision which is like a court decision in several important ways. It requires the Board to use its judgment in applying general laws to a particular land use situation while ensuring the constitutional due process rights of all parties. Tonight’s hearing is a formalized means of gathering evidence relevant to the issues that are before the Board. This is not an opportunity for citizens to come and speak their minds like in a public hearing on a legislative matter before Town Council. The Board’s decisions can only be made based on competent, material and substantial evidence in the record in this hearing. “Competent” evidence is generally understood to mean that evidence which is legally admissible in a court of law, but can also include evidence admitted without objection, and evidence that appears to be sufficiently trustworthy and reasonable for the Board to rely on. Competent evidence does not include the opinion testimony of lay witnesses as to any of the following: • Use of property in a particular way affecting the value of other property; • Increase in vehicular traffic resulting from a proposed development posing a danger to the public safety; • Matters about which only expert testimony would generally be admissible under rules of evidence applicable to trial courts. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the application complies with the review and approval standards of the zoning ordinance. Once an application has been submitted and all evidence in support of the application has been presented, then the burden shifts to those who have standing to oppose the application to present evidence to the Board. Where conflicting evidence is presented the Board must determine the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. The evidentiary hearing will consist of the following general steps: ensuring an impartial board, identifying parties that have standing and wish to participate, putting all witnesses under oath, receiving evidence from staff on the application, receiving evidence from the applicant and any other parties, hearing any final argument by the parties, deliberating and deciding the case. Each party will get an opportunity to question all witnesses and to present evidence in the form of documents or testimony. 4 Chairman Lewis opened the quasi-judicial hearing. Chairman Lewis read the introduction for the application for a variance request as provided by the subject site property owners, Noelle Curry and Sean Sarnelli located at 9 North Street, PID number 9742-25-5572, which is in zoning R-1. The owners applied for a side/rear setback variance under Code Sec. 20-3108 (d) which authorized the Board of Adjustment to grant variances when hardships would result from carrying to the strict letter of the terms of the land development regulations. Variances in the matter require a 4/5 vote from the board. 1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the regulation. It is not necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. 2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting the variance. Avariance may be granted when necessary and appropriate to make a reasonable accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act for a person with a disability. 3. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance is not a self-created hardship. 4. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the regulation such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. 5. The variance is not a request to permit a use of land, building or structure which is not permitted in the zoning district in which the property is located. 6. The variance is not a request to permit a prohibited sign. For deliberations does the record include competent, material and substantial evidence that the variance requested the property owners meets these standards and therefore be granted, questioned Chairman Lewis? Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures entered into the record that any Board member should disclose any pertinent facts regarding the pending case of which they have personal knowledge, conflicts of interest, impermissible bias or impartiality prior to this hearing shall recuse themselves from participating in the vote on the quasi-judicial matter. Impermissible conflicts include, but are not limited to, a member having a fixed opinion prior to hearing the matter that is not susceptible to change; undisclosed ex parte communications; a close, familial, business, or other associational relationship with an affected person; or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter. Chairman Lewis said he drove past the subject site at 9 North Street and he noted the parties who have standing and interest in the matter. Those present and sworn into the proceedings by Town Clerk Mercer were James Eller, Sean Sarnelli and Noelle Curry. Standards for variances are submitted into the record of the proceedings as provided by the staff report. Planning Director Eller entered into the record of the proceeding as pursuant to Town of Weaverville's Code of Ordinance and General Statute the: Notices of Public Evidentiary Hearing of the Weaverville Board of Adjustment, which were advertised, posted and mailed to the adjacent property owners in accordance with the State Law. Mr. Eller reviewed the variance application as submitted by the applicants and is provided for the record. Also 5 reviewed was the definition of variance, definition of setback, definition of zoning, definition of permit, and definition of a zoning violation with civil penalties. The violation of the R-1 zoning district, wherein an encroachment into the 10-foot rear and /or side yard setback. Code Sec. 20-3208 D. Variance Burden of Proof (c) The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge the circumstances exist that may justify the granting of the variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. The setback calculations were reviewed by Mr. Eller, and he noted that all setbacks shall be calculated from the property line. Mr. Eller reviewed the site parcel layout on GIS map in the R-1 district. Azoning permit was issued for one accessory structure, which was structure A, as issued by Mr. Eller after the fact, but structure B was not permitted that is structure in violation of the setback ordinance. The structure B is the subject of the quasi-judicial hearing. The notice of violation issued to the property owners according to non-compliant placement of the structure on the property and was submitted into the record. In response to Chairman Lewis' question, Mr. Eller said no fines have been issues, since receiving the application for variance, administrative follow-up as a stay on enforcement action as pending review by the Board of Adjustment. Submitted into the record were the E-mail exchanges between staff and the homeowners, affidavit of mailing and posting of public notice, wherein Mr. Eller's conclusion of materials of fact under administrative details and submitted into the record as exhibits A, B, C are made apart of these proceedings. Mr. Sean Sarnelli stated the sheds were built because they are small business owners and serve a small-scale growing operation for Weaverville. They needed more production space to expand their business. Mr. Sarnelli said they followed Tuff Shed instruction and team to facilitate the process for building the sheds and work with Buncombe County permitting. Tuff Shed built the sheds as to what the homeowners requested. The second phase was to contact an electrician to upgrade the electric for their whole house upon project inspection for the electrical work is when they learned they were in violation from the Town of Weaverville. Mr. Sarnelli said he was not aware of zoning violations from Tuff Shed. He assumed the spot was chosen correctly as the backside of the has sewer lines. Mr. Sarnelli said there is 20 feet from the backside of the property to the shed where there is a slope that goes down. Mr. Sarnelli explained the easement area for their neighbors' house which is for the neighbors' sewer line from their property. There was clean out and one trench noted on the map by Mr. Sarnelli. Mr. Sarnelli said they were avoiding the neighbors' sewer line easement with the placement of the sheds. Ms. Curry stated this was the only flat part of their property, or they would have had to build up the yard to make the back part flat. In response to Chairman Lewis' question, if the shed could be moved five feet from West Street, Ms. Curry said they could not, it would be too close to the clean out for the sewer line which is there. Ms. Curry said they cannot move shed B closer to the permitted shed Abecause of the size of the doors. The doors on shed B would hit the doors on shed A. Mr. Sarnelli added there is a solid conduit for the electrical power which they would have to dig up the back yard again to move the conduit. Ms. Curry said the shed foundation is not permanent, it is built up on bricks. She said it cannot be moved with the topography. 6 Mr. Sarnelli explained how he operates their micro-greens grow business, with one structure for storing and one for growing micro-greens. Ms. Curry added that they have two smaller structures because Tuff Shed went through Buncombe County and Buncombe County advised that they work through the Town of Weaverville as they could not have one large shed, originally a 14-ft by 26-ft structure. In response to Mr. Parken question for structure A, Mr. Eller said he issued the Town of Weaverville permit for the structure Aafter-the-fact. To which Mr. Sarnelli acknowledged that the structures were already built when they realized that they needed a permit from Weaverville. He said that Tuff Shed worked with Buncombe County on both structures. Mr. Sarnelli reiterated that it was the electrician that said they needed a permit from Weaverville. Ms. Curry said they have the emails from David, Customer Service at Tuff Shed (customerservice@tuffshed.com ) and the correspondence to herself at currynoellej@gmail.com. Chairman Lewis requested the copies, and he asked for other correspondence from Buncombe County Permitting office. Ms. Curry said that they do not, that Tuff Shed said that they did not need to pull a permit. Attorney Henning noted an evidentiary concern he stated the issue with the standards as the evidence has not been substantiated and can be problematic as not admitted as evidence, to which Chair Lewis said he understood that although it may not be admissible as evidence, but the document is on record for when Tuff Shed can corroborate the emails. Mr. Parkin said he wanted Buncombe County permitting to address this, to which Mr. Sarnelli said they did not have anything from the County, Tuff Shed was supposed to provide the permits. there was further discussion as to where Tuff Shed was located and their procedure and correspondences with the County. Vice Chair Wright inquired into moving building Aand the reasons why it could not be moved, to which Ms. Curry said it was not because there was a slope, it was because then it would be by the sewer lines. She added that the area of yard was the only flat part of her yard. Mr. Clauhs said you can turn sewer lines approximately 45 to 20-degrees. There was further sewer line discussion regarding the large tree by the sheds, the sewer lines which run beside the tree, ditch drainage, clean out, mailboxes, and power lines were reviewed. In response to Mr. Sarnelli's question regarding the emails, Attorney Henning, as the documents have not been collaborated, therefore maybe considered hearsay. Mr. Eller said there is overlapping land use authority, the Town has zoning authority exclusively across all properties within the Town incorporated limits, the County Inspections Department administered the State building code and are responsible for permitting. So, Buncombe County permitting department inspections all building code for electrical, mechanical and plumbing in municipal jurisdiction of Weaverville. Therefore, the County permitting system will flag a property for zoning approval from the Town's Planning Department. In searching the County's data base, Mr. Eller found the electrical permit within the Buncombe County's data base is listed the electrical permit and is the one only found. Buncombe County does not check for compliance for the Town's side setbacks and only one of the two structures was permitted retroactively which after receiving the permit application request, stated Mr. Eller. Mr. Parkin questioned timeline of applying for permits, and there was further discussion of structural dimensions, electrical permitting, foundations. Mr. Eller clarified that under Buncombe County, the size of the buildings are small enough that do not require a building 7 permit, but when there was electrical added, the County saw no Zoning approval attached to the County file and that triggered the issue with the building not meeting the setback requirements. Ms. Curry stated that they decided on two smaller sheds and no permanent foundation under the buildings that they would be on blocks on the property. In response to Chairman Lewis' inquiry into the dimensional size, Mr. Sarnelli said if they had asked for the original structure size of 14-feet x 24-feet, Tuff Shed stated it would have required that they build a foundation, but that smaller sheds could have been unpermitted and permissible under regulations. Mr. Eller stated that the original structure design of a 14-foot x 24-foot building would have been permitted under the Town of Weaverville code, if it had been applied for by the applicants. Mr. Parkin asked if there is any other place on the property to meet the setbacks, Mr. Sarnelli and Ms. Curry said no, due to slopes and sewer lines. To which the question was posed as to why the non-foundation building could be over the sewer lines. Vice Chair Wright inquired into how much space exists between the sewer lines and the house, Mr. Sarnelli provided an explanation of trees' locations for a: Chestnut, Walnut and Maple trees, the backyard layout and spacing of the driveway. Vice Chair Wright suggested barndoors or pocket doors would address the door issues. Mr. Murray agreed that they could move structures A&B into the 10' area and beside each other, he further suggested a rearrangement of structures, Mr. Sarnelli disagreed and reviewed his scenarios and challenges with the slopes. Mr. Parkin noted that the adjacent neighbors appear to be okay with the variance, in response to Mr. Parkin's question, if the property were to be sold, Mr. Eller said the Board of Adjustment issued variance runs with the land. These parties may agree, but if the property was sold, development approval runs with the land as an issued variance. Chairman Lewis re-read the unnecessary hardships clause under jurisdiction standards for a variance 1. 2. 3. 4.'hardships' 1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the regulation. It is not necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. 2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting the variance. Avariance may be granted when necessary and appropriate to make a reasonable accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act for a person with a disability. 3. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance is not a self-created hardship. 4. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the regulation such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. 5. The variance is not a request to permit a use of land, building or structure which is not permitted in the zoning district in which the property is located. 6. The variance is not a request to permit a prohibited sign. 8 Chair Lewis said that the case for the applicants are addressed by 2. personal circumstances might include the peculiarity of their property that the sewer lines, slope, and trees could be included and would address the peculiarity of property. Chair Lewis also said the actions taken by Tuff Shed lead to this problem, the applicants may have been told and may have some substantiated evidence from the County regarding the problems with the building permit. Attorney Henning stated while we may be sympathetic to what they were told by the vendor Tuff Shed, and there may or may not be evidence to substantiate that. If a surveyor provides a survey of the property lines, the survey from an expert can be relied upon as a sealed survey. If the County provides a building permit, it was the avoidance of providing that permit that caused this issue. He reiterated the burden of proof clause and case law examples regarding an avoidance of a building permit. Vice Chairman Wright noted that if they had accommodated the business needs in one shed, would one smaller shed accomplish their business needs? Mr. Sarnelli again explained the grow space and a storage space for plants and hundreds of trays in order to produce the micro-greens. Mr. Parkin noted there is a financial hardship to tear the non-compliant structure down. Chairman Lewis agreed that the financial hardship exists, and said that the topography, sewer lines, trees, buried cable lines, and sewer line easement is uncommon. Mr. Parkin stated that he has a sewer line and a sewer line easement on his property, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Parkin bantered if it was common or is not uncommon. Chairman Lewis said there is an agreement that there is a hardship condition that is peculiar and the small property with the easement which is diagonal to the subject site. Attorney Henning noted that the Tuff Shed permitting employee is still not an expert on that topic, so it may not be worth hearing from the Tuff Shed company. Chairman Lewis reviewed the hardship stating that there is a hardship peculiar to the property and Chairman Lewis called the question for a motion to approve the requests. Attorney Henning added that the Board of Adjustment must find that the variance request meets all the standards of hardship and is not a result of the actions taken by the applicants. Mr. Parkin moved t o approve t he variance request at 9 Nort h St reet sit ing t he hardship clause and Mr. Clauhs seconded t he mot ion. Mot ion Failed, as Chairman Tycer Lewis, Paul Clauhs, and Roger Parkin, who vot ed ' aye' and Vice Chair Cynthia Wright and Larry Murray who vot ed ' no' . 5.1 Established Ruling of the Board of Adjustment on requested variance Mr. Koenig suggested more pictures to better assess the site layout. Chairman Lewis requested a delay of the enforcement mechanism which are daily fines in order to help move the building. He cited standard 3. for accommodating lenience in the fines. 9 6. Adjournment 6.1 There being no further business, Chairman Lewis requested adjournment. Without objection, Mr. Murry moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Carried unanimously 5-0. Town Clerk 10  TOWN OF WEAVERVILLE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEM Date of Meeting: Monday, August 11, 2025 Subject: Approval of an Order Presenter: Planning Director / Town Attorney Attachments: Order Denying Variance – 9 North Street Description: Attached you will find a proposed order denying a variance from the December 9, 2024 meeting of the Board. Action Requested: Staff is requesting that the Board adopt the aforementioned order as presented or amended by motion of the Board. 11 Prepared by and return to John Henning, A Licensed North Carolina Attorney PO Box 338, Weaverville, NC 28787 COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ORDER ISSUED BY TOWN OF WEAVERVILLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENYING A VARIANCE APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Sean Sarnelli and Noelle Curry PROPERTY LOCATION: 9 North Street, Weaverville, NC DEED REFERENCE: Book 6071/Page 1747 PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 9742-25-5572 The Board of Adjustment of the Town of Weaverville (hereinafter “Board”) held a quasi- judicial evidentiary hearing (hereinafter “Hearing”) on Monday, December 9, 2024, at 6 p.m. in Council Chambers at Town Hall at 30 South Main Street, Weaverville, on a request for a variance of applicable setbacks. A quorum of the Board was present with Chairman Tycer Lewis, Vice-Chair Cynthia Wright, and Board Members Paul Clauhs, Roger Parkin, Larry Murray in attendance. Town Attorney John Henning and Zoning Administrator James Eller were also present. The Hearing was held after notice of the meeting had been mailed to property owner and applicant, and to the property owners abutting the subject property, and notice of the meeting was posted on the subject property, all in accordance with North Carolina law and Town Code. Prior to the hearing the Board was polled as to whether or not any members had conflicts of interest or bias that might disqualify them from serving on the Board during the hearing. None were reported. No ex parte communication between the Board members on this matter was indicated. No objection to the Board members hearing the matter was noted by anyone in attendance. {CS: 00128649.DOCX }1 12 At the hearing on December 9, 2024, Chairman Lewis presided. The Board acknowledged that the following had standing to participate in the hearing and were made parties to this matter: Applicant/property owners, Sean Sarnelli and Noelle Curry, and James Eller on behalf of the Town of Weaverville. The Board of Adjustment for the Town of Weaverville, after having held the Hearing in this matter and having considered all the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, finds as fact and concludes as follows: 1. Documentary evidence was submitted and admitted into evidence without objection as follows: a. Mr. Eller reviewed the administrative materials that included the following: Public Notice; Application for a Variance dated October 31, 2024, and Supporting Documents; Town Code provisions; Affidavit of Mailing and Posting; Staff Report; relevant correspondence; said packet was received into the record without objection as Exhibit A. 2. The following individuals were sworn in and testified: James Eller, Sean Sarnelli, and Noelle Curry. 3. The Applicant owns real property located at 9 North Street which is a 0.17 acre parcel of land located at the intersection of North Street and West Street within the Town of Weaverville bearing Buncombe County parcel identification number 9742- 25-5572, and which is zoned R-1 residential. 4. The following setbacks apply in R-1: 30-foot front yard, 10-foot side yard, 10-foot rear yard. 5. The applicant recently installed a shed on the subject property within the 10-foot rear yard setback and is requesting a 5-foot variance from the rear setback to allow the shed to remain in its current location. 6. Town Code subsection 20-3108(d) allows the Board to consider requests for variances. 7. Pursuant to Code section 20-3108(d) the Board must, with at least a 4/5 majority vote, find and conclude the following in order to grant a variance: a. unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the regulation; b. the hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography and not from hardships resulting from personal circumstances or conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public; c. the hardship did not result from the actions taken by the applicant or the property owner; {CS: 00128649.DOCX }2 13  d. the requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the regulation, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved; e. the requested variance is not a request to permit a use of land, building, or structure which is not permitted in the zoning district in which the property is located; and f. the requested variance is not a request to permit a prohibited sign or to eliminate a required sidewalk. 8. The Board’s vote on a motion to approve the variance was 3 in favor and 2 against, resulting in the legally required 4/5 majority not being met to grant the variance. 9. The Board members casting nay votes found that the hardship claimed by the applicant was the result of actions taken by the property owner/applicant and not due to conditions that are peculiar to the property or uncommon in the neighborhood. NOW THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, the Board of Adjustment for the Town of Weaverville concludes that: (1) it has jurisdiction to hear this variance request, and (2) the request for a variance from the rear yard setback should be denied as 4/5 of the Board was not able to find that the request meets all of the required findings of subsection 20-3108(d) of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Weaverville. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Applicant’s request for a 5-foot rear yard setback variance is hereby denied. ORDERED THIS the 9th day of December, 2024; and WRITTEN DECISION approved by the Board on the _____ day of ______________, 2025, in a vote of ____ in favor and ____ against. __________________________________________ Tycer Lewis, Chair Board of Adjustment ATTEST: ________________________________ Tamara Mercer Clerk to the Board /Town Clerk {CS: 00128649.DOCX }3 14 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE I, _____________________________________________, a Notary Public of Buncombe County, North Carolina, certify that TAMARA MERCER personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is the Town Clerk of the Town of Weaverville, a municipal corporation, and Clerk to the Board of Adjustment for the Town of Weaverville, and that by authority duly given, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by Tycer Lewis, Chair of the Board of Adjustment for the Town of Weaverville, and attested by herself as the Town Clerk and Clerk to said Board. Witness my hand and official seal, this the _____ day of _____________, 2025. _____________________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: [Notary Seal] {CS: 00128649.DOCX }4 15  TOWN OF WEAVERVILLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEM Date of Meeting: Monday, August 11, 2025 Subject: Evidentiary Public Hearing – Vegetative Buffer Waiver Presenter: Planning Director / Applicant Attachments: Public Notice; Affidavit of Mailing and Posting; Staff Report; Supporting Documents Description: INTRODUCTION: Garrison Branch Reserve, LLC is the owner of the property located at 10 Garrison Branch Road that has a Buncombe County Parcel Identification Number of 9733-72-3054, which is zoned C-2. The owners have applied, through an agent authorization, for a vegetative buffer waiver. JURISDICTION: Code Sec. 20-3108(e) authorizes the BOA to review requests for vegetative buffer waivers. Such waivers require a majority vote of the board. STANDARDS FOR WAIVERS: 1. The board of adjustment shall have the authority to alter or eliminate the required vegetative screening or buffering requirement where the lot requiring the vegetative screen and the adjacent lot zoned residential are in single ownership or upon receipt of a notarized statement waiving or modifying the screening provisions of this chapter, between the owner of the lot requiring the vegetative screen and the owner of the adjacent lot zoned residential. QUESTION FOR DELIBERATION: Does the record include competent, material, and substantial evidence that the waiver requested by the property owner meets the standards and should therefore be granted? 16  NOTICE OF PUBLIC EVIDENTIARY HEARING WEAVERVILLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Public Notice is hereby given that the Town of Weaverville Board of Adjustment will hold a Public Evidentiary Hearing following quasi-judicial procedures on Monday, August 11, 2025 at 6:00p.m. This meeting will occur within the Community Room and Council Chambers at Town Hall located at 30 South Main Street, Weaverville, NC to consider the following item: An application for a waiver from a vegetative screening and/or buffer between a residentially zoned property and a commercially zoned property bearing Buncombe County PIN#9733-72-3054, 10 Garrison Branch Road, Weaverville, NC. If you would like additional information or to review the content related to the Public Evidentiary Hearing, you may contact Planning Director James Eller at 828-484-7002 or jeller@weavervillenc.org. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Sec. 20-3108. Quasi-judicial zoning decisions. (a) Quasi-judicial procedures. The board of adjustment shall follow quasi-judicial procedures as specified in G.S. 160D-406 and Code section 20-1309 when making any quasi-judicial decision. (b) Appeals of administrative decisions. Except as otherwise provided by G.S. Chapter 160D, the board of adjustment shall hear and decide appeals from administrative decisions regarding administration and enforcement of all development regulations and may hear appeals arising out of any other ordinance that regulates land use or development. A majority vote of the members shall be required to decide an appeal. The provisions of G.S. 160D-405 and Code section 20-1308 governing appeals of administrative decisions, and G.S. 160D-406 and Code section 20-1309 governing quasi-judicial procedure are applicable to these appeals. (c) Special use permits. The board of adjustment shall hear and decide special use permits in accordance with principles, conditions, safeguards, and procedures specified in Code section 20-3204. A majority vote of the members shall be required to issue a special use permit. (d) Variances. When unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of a zoning regulation, the board of adjustment shall vary any of the provisions of the zoning regulation when, based on competent, material, and substantial evidence, it finds all of the following: (1) Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the regulation. It is not necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made on the property; (2) The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance. A variance may be granted when necessary and appropriate to make a reasonable accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act for a person with a disability; (3) The hardship did not result from the actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance is not a self-created hardship; (4) The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the regulation, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved; (5) The requested variance is not a request to permit a use of land, building, or structure which is not permitted in the zoning district in which the property is located; and (6) The requested variance is not a request to permit a prohibited sign or to eliminate a required sidewalk. Appropriate conditions may be imposed on any variance, provided the conditions are reasonably related to the variance. Other development regulations that regulate land use or development, including the subdivision regulations, may provide for variances from the provisions of those ordinances consistent with the provision of this section. The concurring vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the board of adjustment shall be necessary to grant a variance. Approved variances are required to be recorded with the Buncombe County Register of Deeds upon approval. (e) Vegetative screening and/or buffer waivers. The board of adjustment shall have the authority to alter or eliminate the required vegetative screening or buffering requirement where the lot requiring the vegetative screen and the adjacent lot zoned residential are in single ownership or upon receipt of a notarized statement waiving or modifying the screening provisions of this chapter, between the owner of the lot requiring the vegetative screen and the owner of the adjacent lot zoned residential. These waivers may be Created: 2024-10-03 08:27:19 [EST] (Supp. No. 23) Page 1 of 2 24  granted by the board upon a majority vote of the members based on competent, material, and substantial evidence and any such agreements shall be attached to the approved waiver. (Ord. of 5-24-2021(1), § 5; Ord. of 11-22-2021(1), § 5; Ord. of 5-23-2022(2), § 6; Ord. of 1-22-2024(1), § 6) Created: 2024-10-03 08:27:19 [EST] (Supp. No. 23) Page 2 of 2 25  Town of Weaverville, North Carolina Staff Report: Vegetative Buffer Waiver Prepared March, 2025 Sources: Town of Weaverville Code of Ordinances Introduction to the Property The subject parcel, known by PIN: 9733-72-3054, consists of .82 acres as shown on Buncombe County tax records. The property may be found adjacent to the intersection of Monticello Road and US Highway 25/70. The property is also in close proximity to Northridge Commons which is approximately .25 miles to the south, and the future AdventHealth Weaverville Campus, which is approximately .25 miles to the north. Question of Jurisdiction Section 20-3108(e) tasks the Zoning Board of Adjustment to consider requests for a vegetative screening and/or buffer waiver when certain conditions exist. In this case, should the applicant or property owner furnish a notarized statement waiving or modifying the screening provisions of the land development regulations between the owner of the lot requiring the vegetative screen and the owner of the adjacent lot zoned residential they become eligible for a waiver consideration. Based upon the aforementioned variables, it is the belief and understanding of staff that the Board of Adjustment is duly authorized to consider a vegetative screening and/or buffer waiver. Neighboring Property and Current Vegetative Buffer During the permitting process for the Holston Apartments, the residentially zoned property immediately to the south, they were required to install a 20-foot vegetative buffer in the immediate vicinity on their side of the property line. A plan from their permitting package from 2019 shows this 20-foot buffer which was installed and is in place today. Previous Decisions A few months ago, staff cataloged each decision of the Board of Adjustment. It is unclear when such a waiver for a vegetative screening and/or buffer was adopted, but in all 155 decisions reached by the Board, a hearing for such a vegetative waiver has never occurred. Page 1 of 1 26  GARRISON BRANCH ROAD - SR # 1791 (NCDOT)(PUBLIC)(60' ROW) 5 3 727 #1 7 SR 27 S) RIE D- VA OA RO W IC)( OR BL PU LL T)( 6 ICE DO (NC 4 2 NT MO 1 GILL ROAD (NCDOT)(PU - SR # 1791 BLIC)(60' ROW) 18 10 14 12 16 17 9 11 13 15 LANDSCAPE COMPLIANCE PLAN PRELIMINARY FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION L101  B unc o m beC oun ty 28 M arc h27 ,20 25 1 :1,1 28 0 0 .01 0 .01 0 .03m i 0 0 .01 0 .02 0 .04k m Pig and Grits Restaurant Attn: Leigh Howell -and- The Holston Apartments Attn: Alex Rosen Greetings Alex and Leigh. Per my phone call with Alex Rosen and Katy Moore, representing The Holston Apartments, it is known that Pig and Grits Restaurants is pursuing the construction of a casual BBQ restaurant at the property known as 10 Garrison Branch Road; which is directly adjacent to The Holston Apartment complex to the North. As allowed by the Unified Development Ordinance of the Town of Weaverville, an exemption from the 20’ Landscape Buffer is allowed with the explicit approval of the neighboring property owner. There is a 20’ existing landscape buffer on The Holston property that was installed as part of that project’s site development approvals. Per our discussion, this exemption seems agreeable between both parties with the following conditions: 1. A minimum of 10 linear feet parallel to the property line will remain as a Landscape Buffer and be planted with a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs; 2. The dumpster enclosure is to be constructed of a masonry material (natural or manufactured stone) similar in design to the dumpster enclosure located on the Holston property; 3. 10’ tall evergreen trees to planted around the masonry dumpster enclosure on the Pig and Grits property; 4. Pig and Grits to cover legal fees incurred by The Holston for review of this document If these conditions are agreeable to both parties (The Holston Apartments and Pig and Grits Restaurants), please sign and have this document notarized to be presented to the Town Of Weaverville Planning and Zoning Staff for approval and recordation. We greatly appreciate your consideration of this request and believe that the Pig and Grits food and beverage project will be a great amenity to the apartment tenants. Asheville, NC | (+1) 828.674.5592 | rob@findthelinestudios.com 29 Feel free to contact me with any questions…….. Rob Dull, Principal NCBOLA License 1565 828-674-5592 Signed By: Leigh Howell on behalf of Pig and Grits Restaurants Printed Name, Title, Signature, and Date Signed By: Alex Rosen on behalf of The Holston Apartments Printed Name, Title, Signature, and Date 30  W PROPERTY PIN: 973372305400000 G W A R PROPERTY OWNER: GARRISON BRANCH RESERVE LLC R IS O DEVELOPER: PIG AND GRITS RESTUARANT W N B WEAVERVILLE ZONING: C2 R (6 A O U W 0 ' R NC TOTAL ACREAGE: .82 ACRES ig ht H R SETBACKS: O W of W OA *FRONT= 25' FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT U ay D *SIDE = 30' L9 ) - S 4 .R PARKING REQUIREMENTS: O U W .1 e 79 *1 SPACE PER 3 SEATS + 1 PER EMPLOYEE AT GREATEST 1 L93 SHIFT OF EMPLOYMENT W SEWER AND UTILITY EASEMENT RESTRICTS *85 SEATS PROPOSED = 29 SPACES O STREET TREE PLANTINGS *10 EMPLOYEES PROPOSED = 10 SPACES U 7 L9 L3 W REQUIRED PARKING = 39 SPACES PARKING PROPOSED = 47 SPACES (2 HC) 6 O L9 U 8 C2 LOADING SPACE REQUIRED = 1 L34 W LOADING SPACE PROVIDED = 1 (12'x40') O U LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: L3 5 L75 Existing NC Department of GENERAL LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIRED = 5% (1,786 SF) O LANDSCAPE AREA PROPOSED = 5,000 SF + Area of Storm Easement U Transportation Right of Way W 960 +/- Sq. feet or 0.022 +/- Acre ZONING: CZD Deed Book 1194 Book 188 STREET TREES REQUIRED = 1 PER 40 LF OF FRONTAGE (250 LF = 7 TREES) O STREET TREES PROVIDED = ***SEWER EASEMENT*** 4 U L4 L3 W PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE REQUIRED = 5% TOTAL VUA (18, 7 12' x 40' LOADING ZONE 250 SF = 912 SF) O 20' NCDOT STACKING LANE U PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE PROVIDED = 3,000 SF + W O U O 4 U W L7 L38 R/W 60' G1 88 4P L3 119 O U W 9 DB W 3 L4 O W 5' BACK OF CURB SIDEWALK U W 3 ed L7 2 W L4 L4 0 ge 31 5 1 L4 of Town of Weaverville L4 L72 gra W 12" Water line ve l 6 L4 W 75' x 48' RESTAURANT BUILDING WITH 25.0 18' COVERED TERRACE 8 W TBM-Magnetic nail in curb L4 Elevation: 2155.35' L47 W curb inlet W NC Department of Transportation 30.0 Deed Book 1284 Page 693 W Project No. 6.801760 10.0 Right-of-Way Map Book 1 Page 300 20' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONE TO BE ABANDONED W *EXEMPTION ALLOWED WITH APPROVAL OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER W 10' PROPERTY LINE BUFFER PER AGREEMENT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER -TO BE PLANTED WITH EVERGREEN AND DECIDUOUS W TREES AND SHRUBS THE HOLSTON APARTMENTS ZONING: R-12 EXISTING BUFFER PLANTING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY W DUMPSTER / RECYCLING MASONRY ENCLOSURE 32 33 34 35  TOWN OF WEAVERVILLE AGENT AUTHORIZATION FOR LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PETITION/APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCELID: 973372305400000 STREET ADDRESS: 10 GARRISON BRANCH PROPERTY OWNER: GARRISON BRANCH RESERVE LLC (complete Certificate of Authority if a corporation or LLC) PROPERTY OWNER: PROPERTY OWNER CONTACT INFORMATION: ROB RI KOON EMAIL ADDRESS: RRIKOON@GMAIL.COM PHONE NUMBER: 505-690-2254 MAILING ADDRESS: 2218 OLD ARROYO CHAMISO SANTA FE , NM 87505 PERMIT SOUGHT /APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE NAME OF INDIVIDUAL AGENT: ROB DULL NAME OF CONTRACTOR/CONSULTING FIRM: FIND THE LINE STUDIOS , PLLC AGENT CONTACT INFORMATION: ROB DULL EMAIL ADDRESS: ROB@FINDTHELINESTUDIOS.COM PHONE NUMBER: 828-674-5592 MAILING ADDRESS: 362 Depot St, Suite 107 Asheville , NC 28801 We, the undersigned property owner(s) of the above noted property, do hereby authorize the individual or company listed above as the property owner's agent to act on his/her /their behalf and to take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance, and acceptance of the above- referenced permit or application. We hereby certify the above information submitted in this ap~ebestofourkno~,i,,.t) ~ \ { ~ T •c. b~aj ~ \ R~ROC Ll<:, Property Owner Signature Property Owner Signature _ _L_~---=--\~~\ Date: _--::SU 2 0 2S-Date: _ _ _ _ __ 36 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FOR LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TOWN OF WEAVERVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA .. The~dersigned, beiiruhe) duly electedc::alified and active member/ manager of Ga~ B~ e.RUE LL .alimitedliabilitycompany organized and existing in the State of North Carolina (hereinafter "Company"), does hereby certify that: 1. • That the Company currently exists and is in good standing with the NC Secretary of State; 2. That a controlling majority of the members and the manager of the Company have adopted resolutions with respect to the attached Agent Authorization for Land Use Development Permit/ Application and Approval and such resolutions have been duly and validly adopted and are in full force and effect. 3. That said resolutions adopted/approved the Agent Authorization for Land Use Development Permit/ Application and Approval and authorized any and all actions on behalf of the Company and that no further authorizing action need be taken. 4. That the said resolutions authorized the following person or persons to execute all documents in connection with the Agent Authorization and that the signature appearing to the right of their name( s) is his/her genuine signature: NAME SIGNATURE OFFICE HELD ... STATEOF~ N ~ N'.-e...'L.ICO couNTY oF Sa.t\:1:a. £e. I, Bb£.. Pw:c...htA.\do-.._ .aNotaryPublic,certifythat H-abnO...V\ l<..\ ~ODY\ personally _came before me this day and acknowledged that he/she is the YY\a, V\ll (!jif of f;Jo,r:n S6Y\ &:a.w:b Re:Sel[V(,, LLC . a North Carolina limited liability company, and that by authority duly given and as the act of the Company, the foregoing Certificate of Authority was signed by him/her on behalf of the Company. Witness my hand and seal this the llo-fl"day of 'SIA\¥ . 2025. My Commission Expires: ~ \ 5> '2.DZ~ . A ~~ Notary Public ANA ARCHULETA Notary Public State of New ~xico Comm. II 2003230 37 My Comm. Exp. May 15, 2028