Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 1.11.23 <br /> 1 Pat Mallett: What is being considered is that location of the house on Mrs. Stoke's property. There is no modification to <br /> 2 the property line, there's no gain on her end or loss on your end or any adjacent property owners. There is no change <br /> 3 in the property boundary line. That's the whole point of this request, keep the property line intact but allow for building <br /> 4 setback which normally would go all the way down to there (demonstrated). There is no change to your property line, <br /> 5 it's comparatively speaking what you see with the house and property is the same. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Eric Thompson: Our property line actually goes all the way down to the end of her property line. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Pat Mallett: There is no change to that property line. This is the configuration of the lot lines today and configuration it <br /> 10 would be tomorrow and so on and so forth. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Eric Thompson: So no property around it will be down. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Pat Mallett: No, this is only dealing with the setback requirement for the house. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Leon Meyers: Arguably the improvement that Ms. Stokes plans to make on this parcel would have a positive impact on <br /> 17 your adjacent property. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Eric Thompson: My interest was not to prevent her, I just wanted, my interest was our property and knowing exactly <br /> 20 what is going on. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Leon Meyers: I understand thank you for coming. Are there any other questions? We will close the public hearing and <br /> 23 the matter is before the Board. Thoughts? <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Beth Bronson: No, I have no questions. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Nathan Robinson: I am just looking, in Section 2.10.4, where it identifies approved variances, as I move through a, b, c, <br /> 28 d it seems this request fits the reason for approval in it. That's about it for me. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Jeff Scott: I think it was maybe a year ago but we had something, it wasn't a new construction house but it was a <br /> 31 variance for an existing, the setbacks where the wetlands area and it is pretty minor and so it's not that president that <br /> 32 we would grant something like this. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Leon Meyers: I would say the motion would be in order. James guide me here? It would need to refer to those four <br /> 35 findings in 2.2? Is that right? <br /> 36 <br /> 37 James Bryan: Yeah, that's right so this would be just like any other case where you need Findings of Fact and then <br /> 38 conclusions of law. What you have here is two people testified, or really three people testified but only Pat gave <br /> 39 substantive evidence. You don't have any conflicting facts so I don't want you to, you could just that put that into the <br /> 40 motion for the record that the Board has received no conflicting evidence. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Leon Meyers: So Board, the two motions we recognize, Findings. The 4 findings related to in the UDO they're going to <br /> 43 require for a variance first and the second motion we will grant a variance, do I understand correctly? <br /> 44 <br /> 45 James Bryan: First is Findings of Fact and that is just all the facts which is basically you are relying on the reports and <br /> 46 stuff like that. You don't have, there's no conflict, you don't have to go into great detail. I think the motion would be <br /> 47 something to the effect of the Board makes the Finding of Fact that there is competent substantial material evidence to <br /> 48 support its conclusions and that there is no evidence in controversy. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Leon Meyers: Anybody here to make that motion. <br /> 8 <br />