►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment – May 22, 2023
Description
Regular meeting of the City of Asheville Board of Adjustment.
Access the agenda and other meeting materials at the City of Asheville website: https://www.ashevillenc.gov/department/city-clerk/boards-and-commissions/board-of-adjustment/
Participate before and during the meeting on our public engagement hub: https://publicinput.com/P6833
A
The
meeting
will
now
come
to
order
welcome
to
the
May
22nd
2023
city
of
Asheville
Board
of
adjustment
meeting.
My
name
is
Paul
wilzinski
and
I'm
the
chair
of
this
board.
The
board
of
adjustment
is
a
quasi-judicial
body
that
is
governed
by
the
North
Carolina
General
statutes
and
the
city's
unified
development
ordinance.
We
are
authorized
to
hear
requests
for
variances
from
the
city's
unified
development.
A
Ordinance
also
referred
to
as
the
Udo
appeals
from
final
determinations
made
by
City
officials
charged
with
enforcement
of
the
city,
Judo
requests
for
reasonable
accommodations
and
other
requests,
as
may
be
provided
in
the
city's
ordinances.
Our
first
agenda
item
is
the
review
and
Adoption
of
the
minutes
from
the
March
March
2023
meeting
right
yep.
A
We
now
begin
the
evidentiary
hearings
for
the
cases
listed
on
the
agenda
and
hearing
cases
the
board
conducts
a
quasi-judicial
evidentiary
hearing.
This
means
it
is
like
a
court
area.
State
law
sets
specific
procedures
and
rules
concerning
how
this
board
must
make
its
decisions.
These
rules
are
different
from
some
other
types
of
land
use
decisions
like
rezoning
cases
which
are
legislative
in
nature.
A
The
sports
decisions
are
constrained
by
the
standards
in
the
city's
ordinance
and
the
facts
presented
at
the
hearing.
The
board
hears
and
considers
evidence
presented
the
hearing
and
applies
the
standards
set
forth
in
state
law
and
the
city's
ordinance.
The
board
must
base
its
decisions
upon
competent
material
and
substantial
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing.
If
you
will
be
speaking
as
a
witness,
please
focus
on
facts
and
standards,
not
personal
preference
or
opinion
participation
is
limited.
This
meeting
is
open
to
the
public.
A
Everyone
is
welcome
to
watch
parties
have
rights
to
participate
fully
parties
May
predict
parties,
may
present
evidence
call
witnesses
and
make
legal
arguments.
Witnesses
May
testify
as
to
facts
to
which
they
are
competent
to
testify.
As
long
as
those
facts
relate
to
the
legal
standards,
in
addition,
lay
or
not
expert
women's
testimony
is
limited
to
facts,
not
opinions
for
certain
topics.
The
sport
needs
to
hear
opinion
testimony
from
expert
Witnesses.
These
topics
include
projections
on
impacts
on
property
values
and
projections
about
impacts
on
traffic
safety,
variance
requests.
A
A
A
Okay
and
raise
your
right
hand,
do
you
solemnly
swear
or
affirm
that
the
evidence
you
shall
give
to
the
board
in
this
action
shall
be
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing,
but
the
truth.
I
do.
Thank
you
first
I'm
going
to
ask
Mr
Edgerton.
If
you
want
to
deal
with
the
appeal
on
this,
or
should
we
just
wait
till
yeah.
B
I
think
I
can
give
a
summary
now
there's
a
appeal
identified
on
the
agenda
that
was
distributed
to
the
board.
That
was
not
where
there
was
a
a
question
of
whether
that
would
be
ready
to
bring
forward
this
month
or
next
month.
B
The
determination
was
that
it
would
not
be
ready
to
proceed
this
month,
and
so
we
did
not
advertise
that
item
when
we
published
the
agenda
with
the
citizen
times,
so
we
don't
need
to
do
you
don't
need
to
do
a
continuance
like
you
would
normally
do,
because
it
wasn't
advertised
it's
not
properly
before
you.
So
if
I
could
advise
anything,
I
would
say
perhaps
a
motion
to
have
that
stricken
from
the
agenda
because
it
should
not
be.
There
are
in
the
first
place.
A
A
Our
first
experience,
the
owner,
Edward
Lloyd
Raleigh,
is
requesting
a
variance
to
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
standards
in
section
71413b
accessory
uses
and
structures
accessory
dwelling
units
of
the
unified
development
ordinance.
The
petitioner
is
seeking
relief
for
an
existing
non-conforming
accessory
structure
to
be
running
as
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
at
73,
Swannanoa,
Avenue
pin
9638-63-6463.
C
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
members
of
the
board.
It
is
good
to
see
you
again
after
a
brief
Hiatus
and,
as
Mr
walzinski
has
said,
we
have
before
us
a
variance
request.
This
will
look
quite
similar
to
the
one
that
was
before
you
in
January,
which
was
addressed
at
17
Pinedale.
What
we
have
is
a
variance
request
to
turn
an
existing
existing
accessory
structure
into
an
existing
accessory
dwelling
unit
for
rental
and
the
owner.
C
Mr
Edward,
Lloyd
Raleigh,
is
with
us
today
and
we'll
speak
after
I
will
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
context.
This
is
something
that
is
seen
quite
a
bit
in
the
planning
department
down
at
161
South
Charlotte.
This
is
in
West
Asheville.
You
can
see
Haywood,
Road
and
beacham's
curve,
specifically
where
there's
archetype
Brewery
there's
a
number
of
popular
businesses
just
to
the
north.
This
is
in
West
Asheville.
C
Just
at
the
corner
of
Montana
in
Swannanoa,
the
residents
that
Mr
Raleigh
lives
in
is
addressed
as
73
Swannanoa
front
door
faces
Swannanoa
Ave
the
accessory
structure,
which
I
will
show
you
faces
Montana.
So
should
the
board
approve
this
and
the
applicant
chooses
to
pull
permits
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
it
will
be
actually
addressed
as
Montana
Avenue.
So
you
can
see
the
corner
of
where
that
is.
C
This
is
a
common
thing
we
were
seeing
because
there
are
a
lot
of
accessory
structures
in
this
rm8
residential
multi-family,
medium
density,
District
that
were
built
in
the
60s
or
or
in
the
last
20
years
that
we're
seeing
requests
to
turn
on
this
is
one
that
just
doesn't
happen
to
meet
the
setback
standards
and
was
constructed
prior
to
when
the
owner
purchased
the
home.
So
as
far
as
zoning
is
concerned,
this
is
the
most
common
District
in
what
we
would
consider
geographically
and
culturally
West
Asheville
again
is
that
rm8
multi-family
medium
density
District.
C
You
can
see
the
Haywood
Road
Forum
District,
just
to
the
north
and
again
that's
where
archetype
is
there's
the
level
two
approved
14
condo
units
that
are
going
in
behind
there,
and
it
is
also
just
right
at
that
curve
which
will
take
you
from
Haywood
Road
to
Haywood
Road.
It's
a
popular
area
with
two
bus
stops
and
bicycle
Lanes.
So
it's
heavily
trafficked
as
people
are
either
traveling
Northeast
to
French
broader,
further
west,
along
Haywood
Road
to
all
the
other
Haywood
Road
amenities.
C
So
it's
a
dense
area
in
a
dense
and
popular
area
that
is
larger
than
just
that
neighborhood,
and
so
what
I
wanted
to
talk
about
before
we
got
into
the
specific
request
is
what
we
are
looking
at
today,
again
we're
looking
at
73
Swannanoa.
There
are
two
structures
there.
The
first
one
is
the
home,
the
home
that
Mr
Raleigh
lives
in
was
built
in
1964..
C
It
is
912
square
feet
and
then
the
accessory
structure
that
exists
was
built
three
feet
off
the
rear
three
feet
off
the
side
that
was
built
sometime
in
2008
and
is
actually
why
we're
here,
seeking
this
particular
variance
instead
of
setback
variances,
because
there
were
no
permits
shown
no
permits
pulled,
we're
not
sure
how
that
building
got
there.
It
seems
from
Google
Maps
and
from
everything
else
we
could
see.
It
appeared
sometime
in
2008
now,
I
want
to
be
clear
that
Mr
Raleigh
did
not
purchase
the
home
until
2012,
which
is
after
this
was
constructed.
C
So
what
we're
looking
at
are
accessory
dwelling
unit
standards
and
occupying
conforming
existing
accessory
structures,
so
by
granting
a
variance,
we
would
be
making
this
an
existing,
conforming
structure
and
then
transferring
that
into
an
accessory
dwelling
unit.
So
this
is
what
we're
looking
at.
What
is
different
from
the
case
that
you
saw
in
January,
which
is
17
Pinedale.
They
had
size
concerns.
There
are
no
size
concerns
here
with
the
accessory
dwelling
unit.
Currently
it
is
450
square
feet.
C
The
applicant
has
submitted
building
plans
which
will
extend
that
I'm
going
to
say
70
to
100
square
feet
based
on
the
plans.
He
will
have
a
635
square
foot
accessory
dwelling
unit,
as
you
can
see
here,
a
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit
must
be
the
lesser
of
70
percent
of
gross
floor
area
or
800
square
feet.
Whichever
is
lesser
70
percent
of
912
is
638,
so
he
is
under
the
requirement
by
three
feet,
which
is
still
under
the
requirement.
So
there
are
no
height
concerns.
There
are
no
size
concerns
as
opposed
to
other
structures.
C
You
will
hear
about
or
have
heard
in
the
past,
but
this
is
the
same
standard
in
that
we're.
Turning
something
that
was
previously
non-conforming
into
to
an
accessory
existing
dwelling
unit,
good
grief,
that's
hard
to
say
so,
site
photos.
Here
we
are
on
site,
you
can
see
the
home.
This
is
73
Swannanoa,
Facing
East.
This
is
on
Montana,
looking
north
towards
again
the
Haywood
Road
Forum
district,
and
then
the
it
has
the
mural
that
is
the
accessory
building
to
the
left
or
which
would
be
further
west.
There
is
one
car
there.
C
The
applicant
will
have
to
provide
another
car
space,
which
is
9x18,
but
he
has
indicated
on
his
building
plans.
He
will
do
that,
so
that
is
actually
not
part
of
the
variants
today.
What
we're
just
looking
to
do
is
make
this
existing
non-conforming
a
now
conforming
accessory
dwelling
unit,
here's
another
shot
of
it.
This
shows
exactly
where
that
property
line
is.
You
can
see
barely
this
retaining
wall
just
about
three
feet
off
that
side,
it
is
the
same
from
the
rear.
C
So
that
is
what
we
are
looking
at
today
is
just
that
variance
from
what
is
a
non-conforming
structure
that
did
not
have
any
permits
to
bring
that
into
Conformity,
which
will
be
three
feet
off
three
or
three
feet
off
the
side
and
when
constructed
635
square
feet
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit.
So
that's
all
I
have
today
can
and
I'd
happy
to
stand
for
any
questions.
Any
questions.
A
D
D
No
it's
to
keep
keep
the
structure,
but
just
to
work
with
the
current
structure,
make
it
fit
as
well
as
possible.
D
A
H
A
I
A
J
So
the
owner
Jennifer
and
her
partner,
requesting
a
variance
to
the
development
standards
and
section
714-1
accessory
uses
and
structures
of
the
Udo
seeking
100
relief
for
the
setbacks
for
the
construction
of
an
Adu
within
the
same
footprint
of
an
existing
non-conforming
garage
structure,
it's
garage
or
storage.
The
existing
structure
is
considered
non-conforming
as
the
building
encroaches
into
the
side
and
rear
yard
setbacks.
It
pretty
much
rides
the
property
line,
both
side
and
rear.
The
new
structure
would,
as
well
as
the
existing
structure,
sits
right
on
the
property
line
would
be
seeking
100
percent
variance.
J
J
Subject:
property
51,
Highland
Street
is
0.11
acre
residential
lot,
currently
zoned
RS8
bounded
by
all
sides
by
other
RS8
Lots.
The
existing
primary
structure
is
a
one-story
1056
square
foot
conventional
home
built
in
1923.
The
existing
non-conforming
garage
storage
building
is
216
square
feet
and
was
also
built
in
1923.
That's
according
to
Buncombe
County
property
card.
The
applicant
seeks
to
construct
an
Adu
within
a
similar
footprint.
J
J
So
here's
the
subject
parcel
you
can
see:
that's
the
Harris
Teeter
site
to
the
east.
J
Here
is
the
aerial
I,
don't
know
if
you
can
see
cursor
but
there's
the
existing
structure.
J
Here's
the
street
view,
although
I,
don't
really
think
that
provides
anything.
Here's
the
survey
existing
home
existing
structure.
J
And
then
this
is
kind
of
the
various
scenarios.
What
presents
the
hardship
is
in
the
current
the
proposed
layout
is
is
the
most
feasible
as
if
they
were
to
orientate
the
Adu
in
another
way
or
set
it
slightly
different
on
the
site
plan
to
where
it
would
be
conforming
with
our
current
standards.
J
You
can
see
that
the
eaves
of
the
home
would
come
close
to
touching,
as
well
as
any
fire
separation,
so
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
build
the
structure.
I
believe
it's
within
six
feet
of
the
primary
home.
J
A
K
A
L
Okay,
so
I
have
prepared
some
renderings
should
I
just
okay,
so
I
can
pass
this
around.
L
This
this
was
an
original
design
mock-up.
We
also
since
then
it's
been
several
months,
so
we've
come
up
with
a
few
different
iterations.
L
This
would
be
in
consideration
of
keeping
the
height
on
the
south
side
of
the
property
line
lower
than
I'm
sorry,
the
north
side
lower
than
the
South
Side
one
to
just
minimize
the
impact
that
it
would
have
to
the
property
to
our
immediate
left
and
then
also
to
kind
of
gain
the
most
from
where
the
Sun
hits.
That's
just
a
design
consideration
that
we
put
into
this
rendering
we
have
our
general
contractor
here
as
well.
L
If
you
have
any
questions
about
the
construction,
the
way
that
the
yard
is
situated
is
a
pretty
consistent
slope
that
goes
down
to
that
area.
So
it's
the
lowest
part
of
our
backyard,
and
for
that
reason
we
have
some
footings
that
would
raise
the
height
by
about
16,
inches
total
and
that's
in
an
effort
to
basically
mitigate
any
water
problems,
which
is
the
cause
of
the
deterioration
of
the
existing
garage
as
it
stands
today,
which
I'll
show
you
just
for
context.
L
So
that
is
not
legible,
but
here,
if
you
can
use
your
imagination,
this
is
all
deteriorated.
Original
wood,
the
roof
structure
is
caving
in
it's
it's
basically,
a
you
know
needs
to
be
demolished.
So,
while
we're
realizing
that
it
wasn't
in
good
condition
to
rebuild
it,
we
would
make
it
more
functional
for
our
lifestyle,
which
is
we
both
work
from
home.
L
We
live
in
a
two
bedroom
house
having
a
temperature
controlled,
safe
structure
where
we
can
both
use
that,
and
you
know,
add
to
our
property
value
as
well
as
just
make
it
more
functional
and
also
removing
this
unsafe
building
from
our
property.
So
those
were
the
reasons
behind
wanting
to
go
through
with
this
any
questions.
For
me.
L
Yeah
yeah,
it's
original
to
it,
has
the
same
siding
as
our
home,
so
we
assume
it
was
built
at
the
same
time
which
is
1923
26
about
and
so
like
I
said
it's
at
the
lowest
part
of
our
yard,
so
the
water
just
hitting
the
wood,
that's
touching
the
ground
is
you
it's
like
in
that
lower
left
photo
it's
not
even
touching
the
concrete
foundation.
So
we
realized
it
wasn't
a
renovation.
It
would
be
a
total
rebuild.
L
So
we
reached
out
to
some
contractors,
Jim
Schmitz
here,
to
assess
the
property
and
see
what
could
be
possible.
So
water
mitigation
is
like
one
of
our
main
drivers
of
making
sure
that
the
construction
of
it
is
responsible.
A
N
My
name
is
Kim
McCormick
I'm,
Jen's
downhill,
neighbor
at
51,
Highland
Street
been
there
since
2000..
So,
first
of
all,
we
adore
them
as
neighbors
and
they've
been
the
best
neighbors
we've
ever
had,
and
we
certainly
don't
want
to
derail
their
project
at
all,
and
we
appreciate
their
consideration
of
the
slope
towards
our
property.
What
you
saw
in
the
drawing
was
the
downside
was
really
right
at
our
friend's
line.
So
I
don't
know
how
to
work
this
thing,
but
I
have
some
pictures,
if
it's
just
sure,
all
right.
N
So
so
this
is
from
our
back
deck.
Looking
good.
E
N
So
our
as
Jen
said
our
neighborhood
is
deeply
sloped,
so
we're
at
the
bottom
of
the
hill,
so
our
yard
slopes
just
as
much
as
theirs
does
so
like
our
elevation
of
our
fence.
Top
here
is
like
about
five
feet
and
at
the
downhill
side
it's
I
don't
know
maybe
12
feet
to
their
like
to
the
gutter
of
the
roof.
So
the
midpoint,
it's
about
10
feet
from
the
ground
on
our
side
of
the
fence
to
the
bottom
top
of
the
gutter.
So.
N
Just
so,
that's
just
a
different
view
of
it,
so
we
totally
agree
that
it
needs
to
be
rebuilt
and
that
drainage
is
a
real
problem
in
our
neighborhood
and
we've
done
some
things
to
mitigate
the
drainage
that
comes
down
from
other
properties
as
have
they,
but
there's
only
so
much
you
can
do
as
Jen
said.
N
The
water
literally
pools
on
the
far
side
of
their
garage
and
then
just
comes
around,
and
we
have
some
drainage,
perf,
some
drainage,
pipe
between
our
fence
line
and
their
garage
shed,
which
diverts
around
the
property
to
a
culvert,
a
little
concrete
Culvert
that
was
built,
who
the
heck
knows
when
so
I
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
project.
My
only
just
the
only
thing
I
would
really
want
to
put
on
record.
Is
we
again?
We
appreciate
the
fact
that
they
would
be
sloping.
N
The
lower
side
of
their
design
would
be
at
our
fence
line
and
I
guess
what
I
would
say
about
that
is.
I
would
just
hope
that
the
roof
line
on
our
fence
line
side
side
wouldn't
be
higher
than
say,
16
feet.
N
You
know
something
in
that
range
which
would
be
about
six
feet
higher
than
what
it
is
now
and
then,
of
course,
they're
designed
would
slope
it
up,
but
we
bought
in
this
neighborhood
many
years
ago
because
we
believe
in
property
rights
and
we
didn't
want
a
whole
bunch
of
we
didn't
want
to
HOA
or
anything
to
tell
us
what
to
do
with
our
property,
and
we
appreciate
that
they
have
the
same
right,
and
so
that's
what
I
would
say
about
that.
N
My
only
other
real
concern-
and
maybe
this
is
already
addressed
in
the
Udo
and
I-
haven't
read
it
is
that
if
they
say
you
you
prove
it
for
I,
don't
know.
If
25
feet
is
the
maximum,
they
can
build
I'm,
not
familiar
with
the
Udo,
but
whatever
is
approved.
Is
that
transferable
to
another
owner?
My
concern?
Is
we
love
them?
N
J
N
Okay,
so
we
don't
have
a
problem
with
that,
so
we
just
again
we
we
appreciate
them.
We
know
it
needs
to
be
rebuilt.
You
could
with
four
of
us.
We
could
probably
push
it
over
at
this
point,
so
it
definitely
needs
to
be
restructured
and
Jen's
got
a
great
design
sense.
So
we
we
want
that
to
happen.
We
just
wanted
to
say
our
bit.
So
thank
you.
Any
questions.
A
E
J
J
K
L
Okay,
so
so
the
first
floor
is,
is
basically
12
by
18..
L
The
second
floor
wouldn't
be
the
full
width
necessarily
because
we
would
have
to
put
a
stair,
so
it
would
be
about
half
that
of
the
the
floor,
the
first
floor
footprint
and
due
to
the
sloped
ceiling
as
well,
that
all
that
area
would
not
be
considered
habitable
space
because
it
would
be
at
a
slope
so
we're
still
in
the
design
phase.
E
E
L
So
if
we
needed
to
you
know
if,
if
there
were
any
chance
of
it
Crossing
that
line,
we
would
have
to
make
the
footings,
maybe
decrease
the
size
in
total,
just
to
make
sure
that
we
have
enough
space
for
the
footings
to
not
encroach
past
the
line
or
get
too
close
I
mean
part
of
it.
Like
we
were
saying
with
the
water
containment,
we
need
to
make
sure.
There's
you
know,
considerations
built
into
the
foundation,
so
we
need
space
to
kind
of
work
around
that
too
so
I
mean.
L
If
anything,
we
would
make
it
smaller
and
bring
it
in
more
from
the
property
line
in
in
favor
of
going
outside
of
it
at
all.
So
that's
we
definitely
have
no
intentions
of
going
past
the
line,
or
you
know,
in
order
to
construct
it
too
there's
going
to
be
need
to
be
some
space.
N
Kimberly
McCormick
again,
so
we
already
told
Jen
and
John
that
we
are
happy
to
take
down
the
fence
panels
on
our
side
of
the
fence
during
the
construction
to
allow
easy
access
for
that
and
what
the
pictures
didn't
show
is
the
back
corner
of
their
shed
garage
is
actually
there's
a
couple
feet
back
there
and
it's
part
of
that
is
actually
open
to
another
neighbor's
yard.
N
So
our
side,
we're
willing
to
give
them
access
to
in
order
to
have
this
happen
and
the
the
back,
probably
maybe
four
or
five
feet,
of
their
shed,
there's
probably
four
feet
between
that
and
the
neighbor's
metal
shed.
So
there
is
some
work
around
room
on
the
back
side
and
we're
willing
to
work
with
them
to
make
it
happen.
G
N
Well,
like
I,
said
they're
the
best
neighbors
we've
had
and
we
we've
been
there
20
some
odd
years
and
I
think
they're
going
to
address
some
of
the
drainage
concerns.
I
mean.
Is
it
going
to
benefit
me?
No
it'll
be
a
higher.
N
B
Chair
I
would
just
add
that
the
our
ordinance
allows
you
to
condition
the
issuance
of
a
variance
on
whatever
conditions
you
think
appropriate.
So
if
there
was
a
desire
to
modify
the
motion
to
say
that
it's
recommended
to
be
approved
conditioned
on
a
requirement
that
Footers
not
extend
over
the
property
line,
you
could
certainly
do
that
and
that
would
be
appropriate
or
even
with
respect
to
the
height.
If
you,
if
you
felt
that
was
necessary,.
E
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
amend
the
previous
mission
to
include
a
condition
where
Footers
for
the
new
structure
do
not
extend
over
the
property
line.
K
B
A
Okay
board
reference:
when
I
say
your
name
say
irony:
aye,
Mr,
Smith,
aye,
White,
Ms,
wise
and
Paul
wozinski
says
I'm
the
request
for
the
variances
granted
and
that
being
said,
I
just
want
to
make
a
comment.
It's
fine
I
was
very
impressed
with
the
application
that
you
filled
out.
I
have
never
seen
anyone
answer.
Those
four
questions
in
in
the
details
that
you
did
and
I
would
I
would,
just
as
a
friendly
thought
suggest
that
if
you're
ever
looking
for
a
side
gig
as
it
gets
sold,
there's
not
a
lot
of
business.
A
You
patriotic
well,
you
can
speak
that
way.
You're
welcome
Okay
the
third
case
the
owner
I,
unfortunately
neglected
to
read
the
second
case.
I
apologize,
the
owner,
Darren's
business
LLC,
is
requesting
a
variance
to
the
storm
water,
soil
erosion
in
sedimentation
control
standards
found
in
section
7122e2a,
mandatory
standards
for
land
disturbing
activities
and
7
12
2
F,
3
aquatic
buffers
of
the
unified
development
ordinance
udl.
A
98-29
Mr
Kelly
will
be
presenting
and
let
me
just
ask
in
the
beginning:
is
this
one
variant
or
two
variances
or
is
the
one
combined
variance.
J
One
combined
yeah
the
one's
conditioned
on
the
other,
so
you
need
both
and
yeah.
Okay,
okay,
okay,
please
go
ahead
all
right
again:
Tyler
Kelly
residential
review
specialist,
with
DSD
198
Hanover
Street
have
the
owner
here:
Darren
Darren's
business
LLC
I'll
avoid
the
word
salad
since
we've
covered
that
already
from
the
board,
so
Darren's
requesting
the
variance
on
the
standards
in
712
to
E2,
A1
and
712
to
F
3,
a
aquatic
buffers
variance
request
is
needed
to
disturb
within
the
protected
30-foot
aquatic
buffer.
J
That's
measured
from
the
top
of
Bank
from
the
stream.
Second
variance
is
same
variance.
Condition
on
the
on
the
first
section
is
needed
to
install
permanent
Improvement
within
that
same
Disturbed
area.
The
parcel
is
zoned
as
neighborhood
business
district,
which
makes
this
a
little
bit
unique.
So
we
would
then
use
or
would
need
a
third
variance
for
setbacks,
but
in
this
case,
neighborhood
business
district
has
setback
of
zero
along
the
side.
J
So
the
proposed
plan
shows
an
area
of
600,
roughly
600
square
feet
of
temporary
disturbance,
345
square
feet
of
disturbance
and
250
square
feet
of
permanent
impervious
area.
J
J
J
J
J
Here
is
the
survey
the
house
is
located
in
the
rear
corner,
it's
designed
in
a
manner
which,
which
is
to
minimize
the
impact
to
the
Aquatic
buffer.
So
just
take
a
hint
at
the
try
to
remember
that
key
because
I'm
going
to
zoom
in
on
the
next
slide.
J
So
the
green
is
temporary
disturbance.
The
unshaded
diagonal
blue
is
permanent
and
then
the
250
square
foot
shaded
diagonal
blue
is
impervious
area.
That's
obviously
where
the
home
will
be.
I
E
Well,
I
mean
just
in
our
previous
case.
We
were
talking
about
putting
a
building
right
on
the
property
line
when
there
were
setbacks,
and
now
we've
got
a
piece
of
property
where
you
are
afforded
to
have
no
setbacks
and
yet
you've,
given
yourself
five
feet
on
the
side
in
the
rear,
which
would,
if
you
were
and
I'm,
not
saying
to
build
it
on
the
property
line.
But
if
you
could
come
inside
of
those
setbacks,
you
can
shift
your
building
further
out
of
the
buffer,
making
this
variance
to
me
a
little
more
palatable.
I
K
E
Know
that
that
was
my
first
thought
when
I
looked
at
the
plan,
it
is
definitely
a
challenging
lot.
No
doubt
so.
I
I
I
see
your
pickle
for
sure.
G
E
I
B
With
a
condition
you
could
or
if
your
thought
is
to
Grant
less
than
what
is
being
requested,
you
could
just
do
it
as
a
a
partial
Grant
of
the
variance
request.
That's
the
phrasing
I
would
use
if
you're
thinking
to
go
three
feet
off
as
opposed
to
five
feet
off,
but
then
to
be
to
be
clear.
I
think
we
do
also
need
to
do
a
little
bit
of
math
to
calculate
what
that
does
to
the
impact
into
the
buffer,
because
that's
what
the
variance
is
not
yeah,
it's
good.
A
E
I,
so,
based
on
what
the
applicant
said,
he's
got
a
set
of
drawings
that
he
wants
to
work
with
and
and
I
understand
that,
but
a
24
foot
wide
house
is
really
wide
house.
I
know
you're
having
to
make
it
quite
shotgunny,
but
you
can
put
decking
in
the
buffer,
correct
Nancy
you
can.
A
A
And
and-
and
it's
going
to
be
more
than
just
a
simple
well
actually,
we've
already
made
if
someone's
going
to
modify
the
motion,
it's
okay!
If
we
run
the
modification
past
Mr
Arrowwood
to
see
right,
yeah,
okay,
would
someone
like,
without
requesting
a
modification
to
the
motion
at
the
moment
when
someone
propose
what
they
might
request
as
a
modification
of
the
motion,
so
Mr
Arrow?
What
can
comment
on
what
he
feels
is
the
feasibility
of
it.
I
D
I
G
K
A
A
A
Just
so
I
know
what's
happening
if
everybody
has
finished
thinking
and
there's
nothing
else
to
say
if
they
could.
Let
me
know:
okay
she's
doing
that,
I'm
thinking,
okay,
so,
okay,
as
long
as
you're
still
thinking.
A
Okay,
does
anybody
have
a
yeah
have
a
modification
to
the
to
the
variance
repair.
H
E
Me
there
there's
hardship
on
the
land,
but
there
is
not
a
hardship
in
relation
to
the
application.
The
building
could
be
two
stories.
It
could
have
a
smaller
footprint.
It
could
be
placed
in
the
property
line
they
can
put
decking
over
the
stream
buffer
and
Orient
the
house
in
a
completely
different
way.
There's
many
many
options,
because
it's
it's
not
existing
construction,
it's
making.
We
should
and
that
that's
where
I'm
coming
from
it
changes
the
application.
I
E
A
A
A
Are
you
ready
for
the
next
one?
Yes,
yes,
okay,
the
owner,
Catherine
M
Estrada
is
requesting
a
variance
of
the
stormwater
soil
erosion
and
sedimentation
control
standards
found
in
section
712,
2E
2A,
mandatory
standards
for
land
disturbing
activities,
boy
that
sounds
like
and
712
to
F3
aquatic
bufferings
of
the
unified
development
ordinance
Udo.
The
petitioner
is
seeking
relief
from
the
30-foot
undisturbed
aquatic
buffer
requirement
along
perennial
The
Perennial
stream
and
786
F9
development
standards.
Parking
loading
for
property
located
at
24,
Florida
Avenue
in
9638.
A
-36-4060
Mr
Mr
Kelly
will
be
presenting,
so
this
is
three.
J
E
K
J
J
So
the
712
to
e1a
is
similar
to
the
last
case
in
which
they
would
be
seeking
the
variance
for
disturbance
within
the
Aquatic
buffer.
The
second
variance
would
be
for
786
F9,
which
is
dependent
on
the
layout,
so
one
for
the
hardship
of
the
of
the
driveway
that
we're
going
to
review
and
then
the
little
turnouts
or
parallel
parking
spot
within
the
front
setback.
J
So,
like
I
stated,
the
first
variance
request
is
needed
to
disturb
within
the
protected
30-foot
aquatic
buffer.
Again,
that's
measured
from
the
top
of
Bank
from
the
Stream.
The
second
variance
would
be
you
know.
Due
to
the
approved,
we
can't
approve
the
design
of
the
driveway
due
to
the
exceedance
and
width
of
the
proposed
driveway
within
the
front
setback,
and
that
standard
is
18
feet.
J
So
the
applicant's
request
is
around
570
square
feet
of
existing
gravel
driveway
within
the
Aquatic
buffer,
so
that
the
driveway
was
existing
prior
to
the
recombination
of
the
two
Parcels
which
we'll
discuss
here
in
a
second
and
then
again.
The
variance
for
the
driveway
would
be
park
in
front
of
to
have
the
the
driveway
exceed
18
feet
within
the
front
setback.
J
So
the
existing
site
conditions
provided
by
the
applicant
appear
to
show
one
jurisdictional
stream
running
along
the
west
of
the
newly
created
parcel
in
2020.
That
was
a
recombination,
The
Aquatic
buffer
stretches
towards
the
existing
misspelling,
sorry
home
and
existing
Gravel
drive.
The
underlying
Zoning
for
the
parcel
is
residential,
multi-family
medium
density
and
has
a
required
front
setback
of
15
feet.
J
Combined
with
the
neighboring
parcel.
The
required
parking
was
on
the
old
neighboring
property
so
to
have
legal
established
parking
they'll
have
to
that's.
Why
they're
here,
to
seek
the
variances
to
get
a
legal
established
parking
for
the
recombined
parcel?
J
A
neighboring
parcel
would
be
difficult
to
develop.
Do
the
Aquatic
buffer
and
stream,
as
we
saw
in
the
last
case,
gravel
parking
area
existed
before
the
recombination.
The
owner
intends
to
create
a
parallel
parking
space
along
the
southern
property
boundary
to
reduce
the
impact
within
the
Aquatic
buffer.
J
J
J
J
They
would
be
required
to
construct
a
new
10-foot,
concrete
apron
to
connect
the
gravel
driveway
to
the
city
right
of
way
and
pavement
jurisdictional
stream.
You
can
see
plan
left
and
they
have
labeled
the
drainage
flow
as
well.
J
J
J
I
haven't
seen
the
building
plans,
I
think
we're
dependent
on
this
variance
the
you
know.
The
options
can
vary
hugely
here,
so
currently
they
would
need
three
to
ex
to
meet
this
layout.
So
you
can
see
the
parking
spots
labeled.
One
two
three
I'm.
A
J
Correct
so
if
you
were
to
measure
from
the
plan
left
to
the
end
of
parking
spot,
one
on
the
far
right
that
would
exceed
the
18
feet
allowed
in
the
city's
standards
for
driveway
with
within
the
front
setback.
J
So
once
you
pass
that
front
setback
which
the
front
setback
here
is
15
feet,
you
can
make
your
driveways
as
wide
as
you
want,
but
what
we
don't
want
to
see
is
mainly
a
parallel
parking.
Is
why
that's
there,
but
then
also
you
know
you
don't
just
want
to
have
the
whole
front
yard
paved.
Those
are
the
current
standards
as
a
art
today.
So
that's
how
we
interpret
the
code.
J
It's
it's
vacant
and
it
was
recombined,
so
it
was
two
Parcels
now
it's
one
larger
parcel
I
assume
due
to
the
difficulty
to
construct
on
the
previous
existing
parcel,
which
would
have
been
covered
entirely
by
The
Aquatic
buffer.
J
J
K
E
So
if
it's
a
duplex,
that's
two
units
and
based
on
the
parking
requirements
in
the
Edo,
two
bedrooms
or
less-
can
have
one
parking
space
per
unit,
so
that
would
really
require
only
two
parking
spaces
unless
they
were
looking
at
wanting
to
do
a
three
bedroom
again,
that's
a
bit
of
a
choice
and
it
looks
like
there
was
already
a
curb
cut.
That
was
there
but
I
guess
that's
not
to
code,
and
it
was
probably
just
previous
just
like
the
encouragement
into
the
buffer.
It's
all
just
I.
A
Mr
Kelly
Ms
Estrada
has
indicated
that
he
may
have
some
comments
or
answers
some
of
your
questions.
Could
you
be
interested
in
her
coming
up
while
you
are
still
there
and
working
together.
J
M
M
A
M
E
F
E
E
K
E
M
E
The
purchase
of
that
second
lot
was
really
it
would
just
land
yeah.
M
K
M
Huge
portion
of
it
was
was
going
to
be
within
that
buffer.
M
J
M
Some
affordable
housing
and
Asheville
my
family
five
will
live
in
the
bottom
through
our
kids,
getting
through
all
the
high
school
and
driving
that
we're
doing
right
now,
getting
them
all
around
and
then
the
upper
apartment
will
be
will
qualify
for
affordable
housing,
as
will
the
bottom
they've
never
moved
out
of
it
as
a
family.
M
I
I
don't
know
if
there's
any
like,
knowing
that
they're
two
separate
dwellings
does
it.
You
know
like
one.
There
would
always
have
to
be
one
person
from
another
unit
being
asked
to
move
if
they
were
the
third,
like
I,
think
we
assumed
that
the
lower
the
unit
that
needed
two
spaces
would
park
on
that
existing
gravel.
M
Because
then,
if
you
have
to
ask
someone
from
your
own
home
to
move
and
the
planners
that
we
talked
to
recommended
the
parallel,
because
then
that
would
be
they
would
be
able
to
like
turn
around
and
and
come
out
into
that
that
curve
more
safely
so
I
I.
Guess
we
didn't
that
wasn't
part
of
what
they
advised
I
guess
when
we
were
speaking
with
them
at
the
planning.
Pre-Planning
meetings
so
not
opposed
to
it,
but
just
seeing
how
that
could
affect
potentially.
E
Location
on
your
drawing
and
we
may
need
to
bring
it
back
up,
but
I
think
you,
you
know
what
it
looks
like,
but
you've
got
the
like
the
green
circles
and
these
arrows
pointing
to
is
that
that
would
be
where
water,
drainage.
M
E
F
M
Okay,
all
right
yeah,
that
makes
sense.
Okay,
it's
just
yeah,
just
to
show
that
women
being
very
considerate
of
how
drainage
is
moving
off
of
that
structure.
To
minimize
my
hopefully
I
mean
based
on
how
it's
shown
on
us.
There's.
J
E
Yes,
so
Nancy
do
you
there's
there's
nothing
in
the
language
in
the
aquatic
buffer
section
where
you
can
mitigate
and
encouragements
or
so.
J
H
A
P
What
encouragements
we
can
allow
at
a
staff
level
and
the
mitigations
associated
with
it.
And
so
we
look
to
that
as
guidance
for
when
we're
trying
to
mitigate
storm
water
or
mitigate
impacts.
The
Aquatic
buffer,
when
working
with
basically
new
development
and
residential
development
dealing
with
the
Aquatic
buffer.
So.
P
P
They
can
use
previous
Paving
they
aquatic
buffer,
but
it's
yeah
yep.
Sorry,
they
can
use
previous
pavers
in
the
Aquatic
buffer,
but
it
doesn't
negate
the
need
for
a
variance
because
it's
not
something
that
we
can
approve
within
the
table
of
uses
that
was
adopted
by
Council,
because
it's
still
a
permanent
impact
to
the
Aquatic
buffer
and
if
they're
not
maintained,
then
they
can
become
not
impervious.
G
P
E
E
K
G
K
A
A
I
said:
does
anyone
else
have
any
questions
or
either
the
applicant
or
Mr
Kelly?
No?
Okay!
Thank
you.
That's
a
that's
a
unanimous
note.
Okay,
thank
you.
Is
there
anyone
from
the
public
who
would
like
to
comment
on
this
request.
A
E
What
are
we're
making
a
motion
on
the
first?
Oh.
A
E
K
A
So
there's
no
other
discussion
on
that
variance
request
when
I
say
your
name,
please
say
irony:
scottsy,
aye,
Mr,
Smith,
aye,
Ms,
White,
aye,
Ms,
wise,
yes
and
I,
say
yes
hi,
so
the
first
variance
request
is
granted.
Is
there
a
motion
on
the
development
standards,
parking
and
loading
variance
requests.
E
H
K
A
A
E
H
B
E
A
A
K
A
A
Okay,
the
owners
Douglas
a
Murray
and
Greg
pavlet
are
requesting
a
variance
to
the
grading
extent
set
by
the
table
for
steep
slope,
Zone,
B
and
section
712
for
F1,
steep
slope
and
Rich
top
development
of
the
unified
development
ordinance.
The
udl.
The
property
is
known
as
108
Cole,
Ridge,
Road
pin
9750-39-1547.
J
Hello
again
Tyler
Kelly
residential
review
specialist
with
DSD,
so
the
owners
are
requesting
a
variance
to
the
development
standards
and
712
for
F1,
steep
slope
and
Ridge
Top
development.
The
parcel
is
within
steep
slope,
Zone
B,
with
an
elevation
of
2510
and
a
slope
of
43
percent,
putting
it
into
the
most
restrictive
category
within
the
steep
slope
table.
J
So
for
15
of
their
current
lot
area,
which
is
1.06
Acres,
would
be
6926
square
feet
proposed
amount
of
land
disturbance
is
10
862,
which
is
0.25
Acres.
So
the
variance
would
be
a
15.6
allowance
based
on
that
calculation
to
go
from
a
grading
extent
of
15
to
23.5
of
the
total
lot
area,
and
you
can
stop
me
anytime.
If
you
need
to
ask
questions:
love
the
Chromebook
okay,
let's
see
so.
The
current
lot
is
zoned
RS4
bounded
to
the
Northwest
and
South
by
other
steep
slope.
J
Rs4
Lots
Eastern
property
line
touches
a
large
parcel
Zone
rm16
parcel
is
deed,
restricted
and
requires
a
two-story
home
to
be
at
least
1500
square
feet
on
the
main
level.
The
conceptual
design
of
the
proposed
home
includes
1587
square
feet,
main
level
and
a
lower
walkout
basement
with
860
square
feet.
The
total
living
conditioned
area
of
the
home
is
2447.
J
The
parcel
as
it
exists
is
a
non-conforming
lot,
as
the
frontage
is
too
narrow
to
meet
the
underlying
development
standards
of
RS4,
which
is
a
frontage
of
60
feet.
The
lot
was
created
in
2007
before
the
steep
slope.
Ordinance.
Therefore,
it
qualifies
for
the
variance
the
Eastern
portion
of
the
property
is
bounded
by
a
ravine
that
significantly
increases
the
slope
average.
J
The
Eastern
portion
of
the
property
is
bounded
by
a
ravine
that
significantly
increases
the
slope
average,
so
the
city
uses
a
steep
slope
calculator
that
looks
at
the
total
parcel
area
to
calculate
the
average.
What
I
meant
by
that
statement
is
that
the
Eastern
portion
of
the
property
significantly
affects
that
average.
J
J
And
I
didn't
put
this
one
in
it
seemed
easier
to
navigate
this
way
in
a
larger
format.
So
this
is
the
overall
zoning
map
you
can
see
the
RS4
and
the
rm16
to
the
east
for
context.
This
is
pretty
much
as
far
as
you
can
get
into
the
Beaver
Dam
neighborhood
within
City
jurisdiction.
J
Here's
a
closer
review,
so
each
and
every
adjacent
parcel
is
developed.
J
J
J
I
think
with
the
the
current
layouts
and
the
narrow
access
and
then
the
deed
restrictions
I
think
it
would
be
possible,
but
it
would
be
extremely
restrictive.
I,
don't
think
I
can
speak.
Other
I
can't
really
speak
to
that
issue.
So
yeah.
J
And
I
attached
these
because
I
know
the
applicant
will
like
to
present,
but
here's
some
proposed
renderings
I'll
leave
my
presentation
there.
Any
additional
questions.
E
I,
don't
have
any
questions
right
now,
but
I
did
want
to
say
that
Stephen
Lee
Johnson
in
my
office
prepared
some
of
these
graphics
for
the
applicants.
E
However,
he
did
that
as
a
favor
as
a
friend
and
so
there's
no
conflict
of
interest
for
me
to
sit
here
so
I'm
not
going
to
accuse
myself
as
long
as
everyone's
okay.
With
that
there's
a
red
one
who
thinks.
F
G
J
O
O
We
just
included
some
renderings
of
houses.
We
kind
of
wanted
to
build
something
similar
to
that's.
Why
you
have
these
pictures
that
we
included
that
can
scroll
here
a
little
bit
more.
We
don't
want
to
build
anything
ostentatious.
We
love
the
land,
we
love
how
private
it
is.
We
want
it
to
blend
in
with
the
land,
but
we
do,
as
Tyler
said,
have
a
restriction
in
our
covenants
for
the
subdivision
of
1500
square
feet
on
the
main
level,
so
we're
proposing
a
house
1587
on
the
main
level.
O
O
O
H
Prior
to
selling
it
we
had
to
get
a
variance
from
the
zoning
board,
because
again
we
could
not
get
enough.
We
were
then
contemplating
building
a
house
on
Lot
C,
but
we
could
not
get
the
you
know
for
the
code
it
didn't
allow
for
enough
Disturbed
area
for
us
to
build
a
house,
so
we
were
awarded
a
variance
back
then
on
the
adjacent
lot
unanimously
and
that
one
was
for
a
little
bit
greater
Disturbed
area
than
what
we're
asking
for
now.
The
house
that
was
built
on
the
lot
is
very
beautiful.
H
It's
a
little
bit
larger
than
what
we're
proposing
to
build
on
our
lot
on
lot,
D
and
so
I
guess
you
know,
based
on
that,
we
feel,
like
our
request,
is
within
the
spirit,
the
intent
of
the
Udo
and
how
it
has
been
interpreted
and
applied
in
the
surrounding
area.
Neighborhood
yeah.
O
And
I'll
just
add
that
you
can
see
from
the
picture.
Lots,
C
and
D
are
pretty
much
equal
size
or
both
about
Brown
an
acre
and
when
the
variance
was
approved
back
in
2012
that
was
approved
for
39
to
start
land
now
granted
I
think
the
steep
slope
rules
have
changed.
It
was
a
little
different,
but
they
built
a
much
larger
house
than
what
we're
planning
as
Doug
said
so.
H
And
I
think
the
biggest
difference
between
the
two
lots,
which
is
very
easily
seen
right
at
the
get-go,
is
what
you
see
obviously
has
a
lot
more
Street
Frontage
and
a
little
bit
more
wiggle
room
in
terms
of
engineering
access
to
the
building
fight.
We
really
kind
of
have
like
one
straight
shot
from
like
from
lot
D,
it's
kind
of
not
much
else.
You
can
do.
H
O
For
the
line,
I
think
to
answer
your
question
I
think,
regardless
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
get
to
15
percent
of
disturbed
area.
We
can't
get
there
because
there's
a
straight
shot
in
the
driveway
and
we
have
to
disturb
that
land
for
the
driveway
to
get
to
the
house.
So
we
can't
make
the
house
much
smaller
than
it
is
so
we're
kind
of
constrained.
E
Eat
up
a
lot
of
your
disturbance,
just
getting
beyond
that
pinch
point,
so
you've
got
that
disturbance
first
and
then,
if
you
were
just
pretend
that
was
there
and
then
you
know
and
go
for
the
rest
of
it.
You
know
you
can
see
how
it
starts
to
quickly
add
up,
and
it
looks
like
in
your
limits
of
disturbance.
E
You
have
given
yourself
a
gracious
10-foot
swath
to
build
your
walls
and
to
get
all
the
construction
in
which
is
reasonable,
because
you
don't
want
to
come
back
and
have
to
ask
for
more
disturbance,
because,
obviously
you
know
you're
going
to
be
building
walls.
Their
walls
are
already
identified
here
and
I
have
to
zoom
in
and
see
how
significant
but
you're
having
to
construct
some
some
walls
to
basically
what
I
call
like
pancake
a
site:
split
it
down
the
middle,
have
a
retaining
wall
here
and.
K
E
O
And
this
is
this:
is
a
forever
home
we've
loved
the
Beaver
Dam
Valley
I
mean
we've
owned
there
for
20
over
20
years.
So
this
is
our
retirement,
so
we
needed
two
cars.
H
That's
something
that
we're
still
playing
around
with
that.
To
be
honest
with
you,
we're
in
the
process
of
getting
a
total
survey
of
the
area
of
the
house
to
be
done.
So
we
know
exactly
what
elevation
points
we're
going
to
be
dealing
with.
So
we
can
better
engineer
like
what
laws
will
be
needed
in
the
height
of
them
and
obviously
we'd
like
to
try
and
minimize
walls
as
much
as
we
possibly
can.
But
we
also
want
the
structure
to
safe
and
sound.
Q
Hi,
my
name
is
Becca
knuth
and
I
I'm
right
below
them,
where
they
want
to
build
and
I.
Don't
don't
have
a
problem
with
you
guys
building
at
all
our
main
concerns
I.
A
Yes,
thank
you.
Sorry
do
solemnly
swear
or
affirm
that
the
evidence
you
shall
give
to
the
board
in
this
action
shall
be
the
truth.
The
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth.
I.
Q
Swear
so
obviously
my
only
concern
being
below
them
is
the
storm
runoff.
You
know
drainage
from
construction.
That's
really!
We
just
got
wind
of
this
last
week.
So
I
don't
really
know
anything
except
what
we've
seen
today,
but
that's
just
my
concern
being
directly
below
the
building
site
because,
as
they
pointed
out,
you
know
we
are
on
a
ravine.
So
there's
a
lot
of
water
and
in
the
past
several
years
on
Pinecroft
road
we've
had
a
lot
of
issues
with
storm.
Runoff,
a
house.
That's
lit
off.
You
know
things
like
that.
A
J
E
J
Think
a
slow
stability
will
have
to
be
provided
at
the
end,
as
well
as
I.
Think
they'll
have
to
show
the
plans
for
it's
like
a
double
layered
cell
fence
yeah
and
then,
as
you
saw
on
the
site
plan,
they
do
intend
to
do
some
replantings
and
anything
done
is,
has
to
be
replanted
in
accordance
with
the
ordinance.
O
Great
path
like
again
just
FYI,
we
have
engaged
Gentry,
Geotech
engineering
they've
already
been
to
the
site.
We
have
a
completed
report.
Everything
is
good
with
the
soil.
A
Okay,
close
public
comment:
is
there
a
motion
from
the
board.
A
A
A
A
If
there
are
no
objections,
we
will
adjourn
the
meeting.
Are
there
any
objections?
No,
there
are.
None
is
meeting
in
the
church.