BOA agenda 021020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Draft 12.9.19 3 considered to be noncompliant. With respect to the Hall property, specifically 1019 US 70 West in the Hollsborough 1 Township of the County, staff determined that the flag was larger than 24 sq.ft. As we reference within the abstract, 2 staff based this determination on the following: a zoning compliance permit was issued in January of 2018 to allow for 3 the erection of a 60 ft. flagpole. I will note for the record, we did not require nor did we ask the size flag that would’ve 4 been erected as there were no regulations in place limiting the size of flag at that time. As detailed on page 15 of the 5 abstract, staff observed the flag without a breeze meaning it was lying flat against the pole. Staff estimated the flag to 6 be approximately 25 ft., or roughly half the size of the pole. Upon completing research, staff surmised the width of the 7 flag against the actual pole itself to be approximately 15 ft. thereby deducing that the flag at 1019 US Highway 70 W. 8 was approximately 375 sq.ft. in area. The property owner, Mr. Hall, was given until September 9th to either replace the 9 nonconforming flag with a 24 sq.ft. flag or appeal staff determination to the Orange County Board of Adjustments. In 10 reviewing this request, I will remind the Board that while this is a public meeting, participation is limited to those 11 individuals with standing. In the appeal application, page 29, the applicant admits the flag is larger than 24 sq.ft. 12 confirming staff’s determination as articulated in our August 9th letter. I will remind the Board you do not have the 13 authority to review or otherwise reverse the decision made by the County Commissioners to amend the UDO and 14 establish regulations governing the allowable size of a flag. Per Section 2.26.5 of the UDO, legislative decisions made 15 by the BOCC are subject to review at the request of any aggrieved party to Superior Court. This appeal must be filed 16 within one year from the date of adoption of the ordinance in dispute. As a reminder, per Section 2.26.4 of the UDO, all 17 decisions made by this Board (Board of Adjustment) are subject to review at the request of any person with standing as 18 detailed in the NC General Statute 160A-393 by Superior Court. This appeal must be filed within 30 days of the 19 availability and notice of decision in accordance with the UDO. We are obligated to give the applicant a formal notice 20 in writing via certified mail of the Board’s decision within five business days. To summarize, staff has articulated how 21 we arrived at the determination that the flag was larger than 24 sq.ft. and it is our contention that the actual appeal 22 application supports our determination as referenced within the notice of violation. The only responsibility you have is 23 to ascertain whether or not staff erred in rendering that determination, specifically if the flag is larger than 24 sq.ft. in 24 area. It is not your place to review and appeal the County Commissioners’ decision as was made on May 15, 2018. 25 That is the purview of the court system. With that be more than happy to answer any questions. 26 27 Randy Herman: Do the members of the Board have any questions? 28 29 Leon Myers: Just a clarification about the extent of the violation. As I understand, both the height and the position of 30 the pole represent a violation of the current ordinance. 31 32 Michael Harvey: The height of the existing pole does represent a violation of current regulations, but as we articulate 33 within this abstract, and in Attachment 2, the height of flag poles were not part of the amortization policy adopted by the 34 County Commissioners. As the pole was legally erected, it is allowed to remain as a 60 ft. tall pole. It is not to be 35 removed, altered, or lowered. If an act God takes to pole down, it can only be re-erected in compliance with the 36 ordinance. 37 38 Leon Myers: Thank you. 39 40 Randy Herman: Any other questions from Mr. Harvey? (none) 41 42 Constance Lowe: Good evening, I represent Robert Hall. Before agreeing to take this case, I wanted to make it clear 43 that he had actually applied for and received a permit to erect a sixty foot or sixty-three foot flagpole on his property and 44 did lawfully obtain a permit. We asked him if when he went down to get the permit if he mentioned what type of flag he 45 would put up. And he said, yes. After hearing that other attorneys were reluctant to take this case because of the type 46 of flag that he had, I decided to take it. 47 48 Randy Herman: Please state your name for the record. 49 50