Board of Adjustment Meeting

Town of Weaverville Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Monday, April 6, 2026, 6:00pm Agenda Pg# 1. Call to Order …………………………………………………………………….. Chair Murray 2. Approval of the Agenda…………………………………………………….. Chair Murray 3. Approval of the Minutes from the February 10 and February 24 Meetings of the Board………………………………….. 2 Chair Murray 4. Approval of an Order Modifying an Admin. Decision……….. 12 Chair Murray 5. Board Educational Material……………………………………………… 17 Assistant Man. Jackson 6. Adjournment …………………………………………………………………… Chair Murray Page 1 of 25  TOWN OF WEAVERVILLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEM Date of Meeting: Monday, April 6, 2026 Subject: Minutes Presenter: Planning Director Attachments: Minutes from the February 2026 Meetings of the Board Description: Attached you will find proposed minutes from February 10 and February 24, 2026 meetings of the Board. Action Requested: Staff is requesting that the Board adopt the aforementioned minutes as presented or amended by motion of the Board. Page 2 of 25  Town of Weaverville Board of Adjustment Special Called Meeting Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 6:00pm Minutes The Board of Adjustment of the Town of Weaverville met for a special-called meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, in the Community Room and Council Chambers at Town Hall, 30 South Main Street, Weaverville. Present: Vice Chair Cynthia Wright, Board Members Paul Clauhs, Roger Parkin, Larry Murray and Alternate Paul DeCrosta. At all times during this meeting DeCrosta served as a regular voting member of the Board. Board members absent: None Staff Present: Planning Director/Zoning Administrator James Eller, Assistant Town Manager/Staff Attorney Jennifer Jackson, Planner/Clerk to the Board Graham Crawford. Town Attorney Michael Frue served as the Board’s attorney during this meeting. 1. Call to Order Vice Chair Wright called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. 2. Adoption of the Agenda Clauhs moved that the agenda be adopted. Parkin seconded and all voted in favor. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Evidentiary Hearing – 60 Highland Street - Appeal of an Administrative Decision a. GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS Before the evidential hearing Vice Chair Wright gave a brief overview on how quasi-judicial hearings work as follows: Tonight the Board of Adjustment will hold a quasi-judicial hearing on an appeal of an administrative decision. The purpose of this 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. In this matter 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 tonight. This is not an opportunity for citizens to come and just 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 of the respective hearings. “Competent” evidence is generally understood to mean that evidence 1 Page 3 of 25 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 request 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. b. EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION CONCERNING 60 HIGHLAND STREET INTRODUCTION/PRELIMINARY MATTERS Vice Chair Wright opened the evidentiary hearing and introduced the matter by stating that Cynthia Zalman-Wolhart is the owner of the property located at 60 Highland Street that has a Buncombe County Parcel Identification Number of 9742-07-4152, which is zoned R-1. She has appealed an administrative decision which denied a zoning permit to construct a second primary dwelling on the same parcel of land as an existing primary dwelling unit. Code Sec. 20-3108(b) authorizes the Board to hear and decide appeals of administrative decisions regarding administration and enforcement of all development regulations and to hear and decide appeals arising out of any other ordinance that regulates land use or development. When hearing an appeal, the Board may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the decision appealed from and shall make any order, requirement, decision or determination that ought to be made. The Board shall have all the powers of the official who made the decision. The Board must also ensure that the rights of the appellant have not been prejudiced. Wright noted that the parties are entitled to an impartial board and polled the Board members to see whether or not any members had conflicts of interest or bias that might disqualify them from serving on the Board during the hearing. Clauhs states he has known the applicant for 30 years, but indicates he is still able to make an impartial decision on the matter. James Eller reported 2 Page 4 of 25 that he lives at 18 Highland Street which is in the vicinity of the Property, but that the decision to deny the zoning permit was made by Zoning Administrator Graham Crawford so his ownership in the area did not factor into any actions taken in this matter. No one expressed a concern or objected to Eller’s continued participation in this matter. No other issues 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. STANDING Noting that in order to act as a party in this case, an individual must have legal standing. The applicant, who is the property owner, and the Town, were noted as having standing. Other individuals must shown that they will suffer special damages in order to establishing standing to participate as a party to this matter. The following individuals were sworn in and testified: Kayla Councell, Michael Dunn, Cynthia Dunn, and Anne McFarland, James Eller, and Graham Crawford. Kayla Councell requested standing in the matter as the applicant’s daughter, project manager and co-contractor. She noted that she has no personal benefit in the matter. The board denies standing to this individual. With a vote of 5-0 Councell was denied standing but would be allowed to offer competent and material evidence during the hearing. Michael Dunn requested standing and stated that he is an architect and lives across the street from the property. With a 5-0 vote of the Board, Michael Dunn was denied standing based on a lack of evidence of special damages but would be allowed to offer competent and material evidence during the hearing. Cynthia Dunn requested standing and stated that she also lives across the street from the property and that she is supportive of the new house and the demolition of the dilapidated existing house. With a 5-0 vote of the Board, Cynthia Dunn was denied standing based on a lack of evidence of special damages but would be allowed to offer competent and material evidence during the hearing. Anne McFarland requested standing and stated that she lives next door to the appellant and was concerned about the safety of the existing house. In a 5-0 vote, the Board denied standing based upon a lack of special damages, but noted that she would be allowed to offer competent and material evidence during the hearing. The following individuals were sworn in as witnesses, Graham Crawford (Planner), James Eller (Planning Director), Kayla Councell, Michael Dunn, Cynthia Dunn, Anne McFarland. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE Mr. Eller reviewed the administrative materials that were included in the agenda packet and asked that the packet of information be marked as ‘Exhibit A’ and entered into evidence. Additionally, Director Eller submitted the deed to the subject property marked as ‘Exhibit B’ and asked that it be entered into evidence to verifying that the property is legally owned by the applicant Cynthia Zalman-Wolhart. Cynthia Zalman-Wolhart submitted to the board a packet of evidence to be submitted for the record. The packet included the following. 3 Page 5 of 25  a. Appeal application and administrative decision letter; b. Site plan showing existing a proposed structure; c. Construction timeline and sequencing plan; d. Lender letter regarding subdivision/recombination; e. Contractor affidavit on construction feasibility; f. Code excerpts: Sec. 20-3208(f) and Sec. 20-3309; g. Demolition plan and proposed timing; h. Applicant statement of compliance intent; i. Pictures of existing house and new house site The applicant presents the board with the entire packet and reads through each page, laying out her argument to be allowed to build the new home prior to demolition of the existing home. The applicant states it is not her intent to have two homes on the property and explains that the existing home is in extremely poor condition and is beyond repair. Parkin asks for the definition of Principal Building from the Code of Ordinances. He seeks clarification as to when a building becomes a principal building, asking if it is related to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or when a building’s construction is completed, or when the ground is cleared for construction. Director Eller explains that a secondary dwelling is defined as having a maximum square footage of 800 square feet and therefore anything over 800 sq. ft. would be considered primary. Director Eller states that the town does not enforce state building code nor issue certificates of occupancy, that job is handled by Buncombe County within town limits and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) has no bearing on the Town’s zoning ordinances. Murray asks the attorney about the letter from HomeTrust Bank and notes that it is not dated nor signed. He also asks if there is anything the Town can do through the order or bonding to ensure there is financial penalty if the existing home is not demolished upon completion of the proposed construction. Attorney Frue states that there will be a time when all of the evidence that has been presented by both staff and the applicant and it is asked whether there is objection to receiving all of this material into the record for consideration. Director Eller states that primary/principal dwelling is not specifically defined but read the definition for secondary dwelling as contained in Code Sec. 20-1202. Director Eller states that if something is not specifically enumerated by the code of ordinances staff references the dictionary, when there is a question about that specific use or term. He also notes that with this definition of secondary dwelling it would again be anything over 800 sq. ft. that would be considered primary or principal. The applicant requests that the dictionary definition be read for principal, and or primary. Director Eller reads the dictionary definition for ‘primary’. The applicant called Kayla Councell to testify. Kayla Councell states that the builder/contractor could not attend due to prior engagement and so she plans to speak to some of those issues. First, the option of subdividing the property. Kayla Councell states that this option did not make sense because it would create a financial burden that the applicant could not bear, due to requirements for water, sewer and the recording of a new plat. It would also be a timely process and the loan agreement that the applicant has entered into is on a 12-month timeline for the completion of construction and demolition of existing structure. Kayla Councell states that in the county the building does not become a principal building until a C.O. is issued. Kayla Councell 4 Page 6 of 25 states that she communicated with the Town’s water department about connection to the new construction and this issue or concern was never brought up. The applicant called Michael Dunn as her second witness. Mr. Dunn states that there is a need for creative thinking from the Town and Board of Adjustment to achieve zoning approval. DeCrosta tells Mr. Dunn that staff provided options to achieve compliance, however the builder not being present to speak to or answer questions as to why these options were not viable makes it challenging. The applicant states again that subdividing was challenging due to the timing of the loan agreement and the length of process to get a survey and then recorded. The option of building up to 800 sq. ft. was not viable because of the financial burden required to get new engineered drawings, the floor plan of the new construction being an open concept, it was not a workable solution. And the option of demolishing prior to construction, the applicant would have nowhere to live and could not afford rent as well as her mortgage. Director Eller states, for the record, that prior to the receipt of the original zoning permit application, which was denied, the Town Planning staff had no communication with the applicant and/or contractor or HomeTrust Bank which issued the loan. Director Eller, related to an earlier statement made about a dwelling unit and when it becomes a principal building, read the definition of ‘dwelling’ or ‘dwelling unit’ from the Weaverville Code of Ordinances into the record and noted that the definition makes no reference to a certificate of occupancy. The applicant called Cynthia Dunn as a third witness to testify. Mrs. Dunn states that her understanding of the purpose of zoning is to provide quality residential areas within a village or a town, and that is to increase or maintain value. Mrs. Dunn states that it should be the responsibility of the zoning staff and ordinances to evaluate the status of the residential zoning districts to see where improvements can be made. She states for the record that as neighbor of the applicant she is in support of the sequencing of construction and the allowance of a zoning permit to be issued for a new home to be built. The board asked no questions of this witness. The applicant asks the Board if there are conditions that can be applied to an order made by the board to require the demolition of her existing structure that may allow her to proceed to construct her new dwelling. Chair Wright asks if there is approval to admit the documentary evidence into the record. Clauhs made a motion to accept Exhibits A & B as presented by the Town into the record as evidence, seconded by Parkin. All voted in favor, none opposed. Motion carries 5-0. Assistant Manager Jackson on behalf of the Town objected to the admission of the following items within applicants evidence packet as evidence: C (constructing sequencing diagram), D (HomeTrust Bank Letter), & E (Affidavit of Contractor Builder). Assistant Manager Jackson states this packet can be recorded as ‘Exhibit C’. The board finds those items that staff objected to be not competent to be considered. Clauhs made a motion to sustain the Town’s objection to the three items identified within Exhibit C as documents C, D, and E, as they are not competent to be considered, but to otherwise admit Exhibit C into the record as evidence. The motion is seconded by Parkin. All voted in favor, none opposed. Motion carries 5-0. 5 Page 7 of 25 BOARD DISCUSSION AND DECISION The Board’s work is to review the competent, material, and substantial evidence in the record and decide whether the decision to deny the zoning permit for a second primary dwelling on the property be affirmed or reversed, wholly or in part, or modified. The board discusses ways the decision could be modified or overturned and whether the board could issue an order that had conditions stipulating the existing structure is demolished. Conditions such as a financial bond placed by the Town to ensure the property is brought to compliance with the Code are discussed. Staff believes the ordinances give the board or Town no authority to enforce such a condition. Parkin discusses whether the basis of the board’s decision could be based on the financial harm that would be caused to the applicant if the decision to deny the zoning permit is denied. Attorney Frue states that basis for a decision would be more closely related to a decision on the case of a variance, with an appeal of administrative decision, the board must hang their decision on the code of ordinances. Kayla Councell asks whether Buncombe County’s definition for a principal building would be helpful and clarify if it is a principal building if a certificate of occupancy has not been issued. Chair Wright points out that this ordinance (Sec. 20-3208) makes no mention of occupancy. Town Attorney makes note that C.O.’s are related to building code which is enforced by the County Permit office and are not addressed by the Town’s Zoning Ordinances. Chair Wright asks if there is a motion to affirm the staff decision to deny the zoning permit. DeCrosta made a motion to affirm the decision. There was no second, so the motion failed. Murray asks if this is a case where a continuance would be helpful or needed to allow the applicant to gather more evidence. Murray states he would love to vote to allow them to do this (the proposed construction and sequencing), but what he is hearing is he cannot. Attorney Frue states again that since this case is based on code of ordinances, and there has been debate on whether the code is clear enough with the lack of a definition for principal building or primary building, but any decision must be based on substantial, competent, material evidence. DeCrosta asks what would be gained from a continuance or hearing from the contractor. Murray states there has to be a way to allow this to happen on a controlled basis, given that they are only proposing to be out of compliance with ordinance for 30 days for something that the ‘whole neighborhood’ and the Town probably want. Parkin states that in regard to a continuance, he does not believe any new witness could provide information that would change the facts of the case and requests a motion to be made again. Chair Wright asks if there is a motion to affirm the staff decision to deny the zoning permit – DeCrosta made a motion to affirm, seconded by Parkin. Without further discussion, the motion carries 4-1 with Murray opposing. The applicant asks the board why there was no motion to modify the decision, Chair Wright states there was no option to modify presented that would have brought the case into compliance with the code of ordinances namely (Sec. 20-3208(f)) limit of one principal building. 6 Page 8 of 25 The applicant expresses frustration that there was no definition of principal building provided except for that from the dictionary. Staff was directed to draft a written decision for board consideration at include it for consideration by the Board at a meeting as soon as possible. Vice Chair Wright declared the hearing closed at 7:48 p.m. 4. Election of Chair and Vice Chair The recent resignation of previous chair Tycer Lewis resulted in the need for the board to consider the election of officers. In addition, Vice Chair Wright indicates she will resign from her position on the Board of Adjustment effective 4/1/2026. Clauhs made a motion to elect Larry Murray as Chair and Paul DeCrosta as Vice Chair, conditioned upon his appointment as a regular member of the Board; motion seconded by Parkin. All voted in favor, none opposed. Motion carries 5-0. 5. Adjournment There being no further business, Vice Chair Wright requested adjournment. Murray moved to adjourn at approximately 8:00 p.m., seconded by Parkin. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Attest: __________________________________ Graham Crawford, Clerk to the Board 7 Page 9 of 25  Town of Weaverville Board of Adjustment Special Called Meeting Tuesday, February 24, 2026, 6:00pm Minutes The Board of Adjustment of the Town of Weaverville met for a special-called meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, in the Community Room and Council Chambers at Town Hall, 30 South Main Street, Weaverville. Present: Chair Larry Murray, Vice Chair Paul DeCrosta, Board Members Cynthia Wright, Paul Clauhs and Roger Parkin. Board members absent: Newly appointed Alternate Member Bryson Shook Staff Present: Planning Director/Zoning Administrator James Eller, Assistant Town Manager/Staff Attorney Jennifer Jackson, Planner/Clerk to the Board Graham Crawford. Town Attorney Michael Frue served as the Board’s attorney during this meeting. 1. Call to Order Chair Murray called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. 2. Appeal of Administrative Decision on 60 Highland Street a. Motion for Rehearing Assistant Town Manager explained to the board and the appellant that the Town was requesting a rehearing on the matter based on the discovery of a definition of “building, principal” in the Weaverville Code of Ordinances. There was a lot of discussion in the previous meeting over the definition of primary or principal building and none was found during that meeting because we were looking under ‘P’ section but it was found a few days later under ‘B’. Based on the discovery of ‘new evidence’ the Board’s Rules allow for the rehearing of an appeal of administrative decision. Clauhs motioned that the board rehear the appeal of administrative decision on 60 Highland Street based on the limited basis of considering the new evidence being presented, seconded by Wright. All voted in favor, none opposed. Motion carries 5-0. b. Rehearing and Review of Board Decision on February 10, 2026, Decision Chair Murray requested the Town to present the new evidence to the Board. The definition of ‘Building, Principal’ in Weaverville’s Code of Ordinances is written as follows Building, principal. A building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot on which said building is located. Assistant Manager Jackson states that the newly found definition could be interpreted liberally in favor or the applicant and allow the Board to make a determination in the favor of the applicant and be within the bounds of the Weaverville Code of Ordinances. Clauhs motioned to repeal and rescind the previous decision affirming the staff decision to deny the zoning permit for 60 Highland Street, seconded by Parkin. All in favor none opposed. Motion carries 5-0. 1 Page 10 of 25  c. Board Discussion and Decision on Administrative Appeal Having been presented the definition of Principal Building the board decides to overturn the administrative decision to deny the zoning permit, Parkin motioned to allow the issuance of a zoning permit to allow construction of the new single-family dwelling at 60 Highland St. PIN: 9742-07-4152, with the condition that the existing dilapidated building be demolished within 30 days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Clauhs seconded, all voted in favor none opposed. The motion carries 5-0. Town staff was directed to draft the written order consistent with the decisions of the Board and bring it back for approval at the Board’s meeting on April 6, 2026. 3. Adjournment Parkin motioned to adjourn at approximately 6:15pm Clauhs seconded. All in favor, none opposed. Motion carries 5-0. Attest: __________________________________ Graham Crawford, Clerk to the Board 2 Page 11 of 25  TOWN OF WEAVERVILLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEM Date of Meeting: Monday, April 6, 2026 Subject: Approval of an Order Presenter: Planning Director / Town Attorney Attachments: Order Modifying an Administrative Decision – 60 Highland Street Description: Attached you will find a proposed order modifying an administrative decision from the February 24, 2026 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. Page 12 of 25  ORDER ISSUED BY TOWN OF WEAVERVILLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MODIFYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION APPLICANT/APPELLANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Cynthia Zalman-Wolhart PROPERTY LOCATION: 60 Highland Street, Weaverville, NC DEED REFERENCE: Book 6368/Page 544 PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 9742-07-4152 PROCEDURAL MATTERS: On or about January 12, 2026, an agent for the property owner, Nathan Elliott, applied for a zoning permit to construct a second principal dwelling on the Property. This zoning permit was denied based on Code Sec. 20-3208(f) which provides: “Limit of on principal building. Only one principal building and its customary accessory building(s) may hereafter be erected on any lot, except as authorized by a special use permit or a conditional district, except for multi-unit residential development.” The Board of Adjustment of the Town of Weaverville (hereinafter “Board”) held a quasi- judicial evidentiary hearing (hereinafter “Hearing”) on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, at 6 p.m. in Council Chambers at Town Hall at 30 South Main Street, Weaverville, on the appeal of the denial of the zoning permit and, upon motion of the Town of Weaverville, re-heard the matter on February 24, 2026 at 6 p.m. in Council Chambers at Town Hall at 30 South Main Street, Weaverville (“Re-Hearing”). At both the Hearing and Re-Hearing a quorum of the Board was all of the following Board Members in attendance: Cynthia Wright, Larry Murray, Paul Clauhs, Roger Parkin, and Paul DeCrosta. Town Attorney Michael Frue, Zoning Administrator James Eller, Assistant Town Manager Jennifer Jackson, and Clerk to the Board Graham Crawford 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. The applicant waived formal notice of the Re-Hearing. 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. James Eller reported that he lives at 18 Highland Street which is in the vicinity of the Property, but that the decision to deny the zoning permit was made by Zoning Administrator Graham Crawford so his ownership in the area did not factor into any actions taken in this matter. No one expressed a concern or objected to Eller’s continued participation in this matter. No other issues 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. 1 Page 13 of 25 At the Hearing on February 10, 2026, Vice Chair Wright presided as the Acting Chair. At the Re-Hearing on February 24, 2026, the Chair Larry Murray presided. STANDING: The Board acknowledged that the following had standing to participate in the hearing and were made parties to this matter: Appellant/property owner Cynthia Zalman-Wolhart, and the Town of Weaverville. At the Hearing the following individuals were sworn in and testified concerning standing: Kayla Councell, Michael Dunn, Cynthia Dunn, Anne McFarland. The Board found that Kayla Councell is Cynthia Zalman-Wolhart’s daughter and is the project manager, but did not hear any evidence that she would be specially damaged in the matter and was denied standing. Michael Dunn and Cynthia Dunn were found to be neighbors of the appellant and expressed concern about the existing structure and the opinion that the new structure and demolition of the existing structure was in everyone’s best interest. The Board found that there was not enough evidence of a special damage to the Dunns and denied standing as to both. Anne McFarland was found to live next door to the appellant and expressed concern about safety related to the existing house. Standing was denied to Anne McFarland as no special damages were established. It was noted that these individuals could offer testimony which could be considered if competent and material to the appeal, even though they were denied standing. FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS: After having held the Hearing and Re-hearing in this matter and having considered all the evidence and arguments presented, the Board of Adjustment for the Town of Weaverville finds as fact and concludes as follows: 1. Documentary evidence was submitted and admitted into evidence as follows: a. Eller reviewed the administrative materials that included the following: Public Notice; Application to Appeal Decision of Zoning Administrator dated January 20, 2026, and Supporting Documents; Staff Report; Town Code provisions; Affidavit of Mailing and Posting. Said packet was admitted into the record without objection as Exhibit A. Eller also presented a copy of the property owner’s deed and that was admitted into the record without objection as Exhibit B. b. Zalman-Wolhart presented documentary evidence marked as Exhibit C and consisting of the following: A. Appeal Application and Administrative Denial Letter; B. Site Plan Showing Existing and Proposed Structures 2 Page 14 of 25  C. Construction Timeline & Sequencing Plan; D. Lender Letter Regarding Subdivision/Recombination; E. Contractor Affidavit on Construction Feasibility; F. Code Excerpts: Sec. 20-3208(f) and 20-3309; G. Demolition Plan & Proposed Timing; H. Applicant Statement of Compliance Intent; I. Pictures of Existing House and New House Site. The Town of Weaverville objected to the following portions of Exhibits C: C-C and C-E based on the contractor not being available to be cross-examined on his opinions, and C-D based on it being an undated and unsigned correspondence that could not be verified. The Board of Adjustment admitted Exhibit C into the record, except for documents marked as C-C, C-D, and C-E, which the Board found to be not competent for consideration. 2. The following individuals were sworn in and testified as to the merits of the appeal: James Eller, Graham Crawford, Cynthia Zalman-Wolhart, Kayla Councell, Michael Dunn, and Cynthia Dunn. 3. The appellant owns real property located at 60 Highland Street which is located within the Town of Weaverville bearing Buncombe County parcel identification number 9742-07-4152, and which is zoned R-1 residential (“Property”). A house is currently existing on the Property as a principal building. The house is in dilapidated condition and neighbors question its safety. 4. On or about January 12, 2026, an agent for the property owner, Nathan Elliott, applied for a zoning permit to construct a second principal dwelling on the Property. 5. Staff informed the appellant in writing that the zoning permit was denied based on Code Sec. 20-3208(f) which provides: “Limit of on principal building. Only one principal building and its customary accessory building(s) may hereafter be erected on any lot, except as authorized by a special use permit or a conditional district, except for multi-unit residential development.” 6. On January 20, 2026, the property owner appealed the denial of the zoning permit and that application stated: “Only one house on the property will be occupied at any time. Upon completion of the new (proposed) house the existing house is to be demolished and disposed of.” 7. Appellant agreed that Sec. 20-3208(f) indicates that there can only be one principal residence on the property at a time. Appellant testified that her intent is to reside in one residence at a time and to move into the new residence once it is constructed and receives a certificate of occupancy. 3 Page 15 of 25  8. The appellant testified that she is under a contractual obligation with her construction loan lender to demolish the existing residence within 30 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy on the new residence and that sufficient funds have been included in her construction loan to pay for the demolition. 9. There was no evidence to indicate that the intended result of a new residence being constructed on the Property as a substitute for the dilapidated existing residence would be contrary to public interest. 10. Town Code Sec. 20-1202 defines “principal building” as: “Building, principal. A building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot on which said building is located.” 11. The administrative decision to deny the zoning permit was well-reasoned but did not consider a liberal interpretation of the definition of “principal building.” 12. Town Code Sec. 20-3108 allows the Board to consider appeals of administrative decisions, including a decision to deny a zoning permit. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, the Weaverville Board of Adjustment concludes that: (1) it has jurisdiction to hear this appeal of an administrative decision; (2) the definition of “principal building” should be liberally interpreted under this unique circumstance in order to preserve the rights of the appellant. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the decision to deny the property owner’s request for a zoning permit to allow a second principal building on the property located at 60 Highland Street is modified to allow a zoning permit to be issued for the construction of a new residence on the Property, conditioned upon the existing structure being demolished within 30 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the new residence, with the understanding that upon demolition of the existing structure Sec. 20-3208(f) will be fully complied with, and failure to demolish the existing residence will result in a Code violation and violation of this Order and will subject the appellant or property owner to legal action. ORDERED THIS the 24th day of February, 2026; and WRITTEN DECISION approved by the Board on the 6th day of April, 2026, in a vote of ____ in favor and ____ against. __________________________________________ Larry Murray, Chair Board of Adjustment ATTEST: ______________________________________________ Graham Crawford Clerk to the Board 4 Page 16 of 25  TOWN OF WEAVERVILLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEM Date of Meeting: Monday, April 6, 2026 Subject: Educational Material Presenter: Assistant Town Manager Attachments: Making Quasi-Judicial Decisions Description: Attached you will find an article from the North Carolina School of Government titled “Making Quasi-Judicial Decisions” for conversation during tonight’s meeting of the Board. Action Requested: None. Page 17 of 25 99 ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ"#$ÿ%ÿ&$'#(ÿ&$ 0112334546478 Page 18 of 25 )''* $+$++#,!$ - 9-.-./01!#$ 2 01021345ÿ2789ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ  Page 19 of 25 !711"""1#13$301$%1$%1& ' (1 31) 01021345ÿ2789ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ  Page 20 of 25 !711"""1#13$301$%1$%1& ' (1 01) 01021345ÿ2789ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ  Page 21 of 25 !711"""1#13$301$%1$%1& ' (1 %1) 01021345ÿ2789ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ  Page 22 of 25 !711"""1#13$301$%1$%1& ' (1 81) 01021345ÿ2789ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ  Page 23 of 25 !711"""1#13$301$%1$%1& ' (1 41) 01021345ÿ2789ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ  Page 24 of 25 !711"""1#13$301$%1$%1& ' (1 )1* 01021345ÿ2789ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ  Page 25 of 25 !711"""1#13$301$%1$%1& ' (1 )1)