BOA minutes 121012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 6/10/2013 OC Board of Adjustment – 12/10/2012 Page 4 of 6 1 Steve Keadey: On page 25, line 1349 should read, “I think I said what I can say, which is 2 that I agree with the staff’s determination in the November 10 letter.” Line 1351 should read, 3 “…State Statutes 153A-347 limits the County’s zoning authority for state land in ways that it’s 4 not limited…”. Line 1352 should read, “That statute gives this entity a different set of 5 authority, which is slightly smaller than it is for land that is not owned by the state. I think this 6 waste water system falls into that category.” Line 1355 through line 1359 should read, 7 “…Davidson County Court of Appeals decision but I think the Nash County decision is 8 directly on point. In that case, as Mr. Ferrell has described, there is an existing building with 9 a use that is not a building. And the conclusion was clear, by a unanimous panel of the Court 10 of Appeals; Zoning authority did not exist for that, no special use permit for that. I would 11 submit to you that this is the same case. That is my legal argument.” On page 26, line 1374 12 should read, “This waste water system is subject to a permit, but it is not a special use 13 permit. It is regulated by DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 14 15 Mark Micol: Page 26, line 1414 should read, “I am saying that there is a possible impact to 16 property value.” 17 18 Brian Ferrell: On page 27, line 1467 should read, “I think it is important to have facts to 19 support your decision.” 20 21 Dawn Brezina: On page 27, line 1455 should read, “I agree. In my interpretation of the 22 statute and with the…”. Line 1464 should read, “We could list different findings of fact.” 23 24 Michael Harvey: On page 27, line 1453 “water treatment system due to the wording in North 25 Carolina Statute 153A-347”. 26 27 Brian Ferrell: Please confirm line 1457 “Department of Environment and Natural Resources”. 28 29 Michael Harvey: On page 28, line 1488 should read, “water treatment system due to the 30 wording in North Carolina Statute 153A-347 and based on case law that was presented…”. 31 32 Mark Micol: On page 26, line 1409, should it read, Mr. Leath is the aggrieved party, should it 33 read Mr. Leath is potentially the aggrieved party? My intent was to say potentially. 34 35 Brian Ferrell: It is potentially the aggrieved party. 36 37 Mark Micol: We need to correct that in any further motions. It is again on page 27, line 1430 38 should read, “…based on the fact that Mr. Leath is potentially the aggrieved party”. 39 40 Mark Micol: My intention was not to make a decision on whether he was aggrieved or not. 41 42 Brian Ferrell: Keep in mind, the standing requirements require someone to be grieved. 43 44 Debra Graham: Do we leave it in? 45 46 Mark Micol: I think we leave it out because I say “possible impact on property value”. 47 48