[00:00:01]
[I. CALL TO ORDER]
TO CALL TO ORDER, UH, THE CITY OF NEW BERN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING, AUGUST 21ST, 2025.AND DO WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? YES, SIR.
MR. CHAIRMAN, START WITH, UH, BOARD MEMBER SANDRA GRAY.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, HE'S ACTUALLY HAD STEPPED DOWN, SO, UM, HE'S NO LONGER, HE, HIS TERM EXPIRED.
SO, AND BOARD MEMBER KATHLEEN MARTY.
BOARD MEMBER ASHLEY HOWELL HERE.
AND BOARD MEMBER BARBARA SAMPSON HERE.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.
AND JUST TAKE A QUICK MINUTE SINCE WE HAVE ONE OPEN SPOT.
ANYBODY WHO'D LIKE TO BE A, A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD OR OTHERS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY.
THERE'S PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES TO, TO VOLUNTEER.
AND I GUESS WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVIDUAL WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
[IV. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS]
THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING AND WE PROCEED VERY SIMILAR TO A, UH, A COURT HEARING WILL.SO WE'LL ASK THAT YOU TRY TO RESPECT EVERYBODY IN ATTENDANCE.
WE'VE GOT FIVE DIFFERENT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
UM, SO THE SOONER WE CAN PROCESS THROUGH AND THE QUICKER THE, THE WE, WE WORK THROUGH, UM, THE EVENING MIGHT NOT LAST AS LONG, SO, BUT WE'LL TAKE IT AS LONG AS IT TAKES.
UM, PLEASE TRY TO MAKE SURE CELL PHONES AND ANY OTHER ELECTRONICS, UM, ARE UN SILENT.
UM, AND IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STEP OUT OR TRY TO STEP UP, RAISE A HAND AND WE'LL DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO TRY TO HELP Y'ALL OUT.
UM, WE DO TRY TO GIVE EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
WE DO HAVE IN OUR ABILITY TO LIMIT EACH PERSON TO THREE MINUTES, AND WE DO TRY NOT TO TAKE THAT, UM, OPPORTUNITY, BUT WE WILL.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE, DO HAVE A TIMER.
UM, WE CAN OPERATE IT AND YOU'LL SEE HOW THE TIME GOES THROUGH.
UM, SO PLEASE TRY TO RESPECT THAT THREE MINUTES TO WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO START USING THE TIMER ON A REPEATED BASIS TO TRY TO SPEED THINGS UP.
UM, PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THAT TIME.
UM, AND WE CAN ASK Y'ALL TO STEP DOWN IF WE GO PAST THE THREE MINUTES.
UH, IT'S THE BOARD'S POLICY AFTER THE PRESENTATION IS HEARD FROM STAFF TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK FIRST AND LAST CITIZENS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK WE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THEIR TESTIMONY PERTAINING TO THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.
WHILE THE BOARD CAN ONLY CONSIDER FACTUAL EVIDENCE OR EXPERT OPINION IN THE DECISION, REASONABLE CONDITIONS MAY BE APPLIED BASED ON THE PUBLIC'S TESTIMONY.
SO PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, UM, WE DO LOOK FOR, YOU KNOW, PROFESSIONAL TESTIMONY.
AND THE MORE Y'ALL CAN HELP OUT ON THIS, THE MORE THE PROCESS WILL MOVE ON THROUGH.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY DECISIONS PENDING THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS? NO, SIR.
SO ANYBODY WHO, UM, IS HERE THAT IS GONNA SPEAK, WE WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO STAND, UM, SO WE CAN SWEAR YOU IN AS PRESENTERS.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD, I THINK.
AND I'M ASSUMING THAT THE REST OF Y'ALL STILL SEATED AREN'T GONNA SPEAK, RIGHT? DEAD SILENCE OUT THERE.
[VI. SPECIAL USE APPLICATION(S) ]
FIRST APPLICATION, UH, CHARLES TAYLOR BUILDING RENOVATION, UH, SPECIAL USE PERMIT 0 0 3 1 4 4 2 0 2 5.UM, IS THERE A STAFF OPINION? UH, JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS.
AND, UH, JUST AS A CHAIRMAN SAID, BASICALLY FOR OUR PROCESS, THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING, UM, WHILE MOST USES ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT, SOME USES DO REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, UH, THAT'S A BIG PART OF THE REASON AS TO WHY YOU'RE HERE.
[00:05:01]
SO THIS, THIS BOARD AND THEIR ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY IS ACTUALLY THESE S FOR, EXCUSE ME, TO BASE THEIR DECISION ON THE, THESE CRITERIA THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN.EACH CRITERIA HAS TO RETAIN AN APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
UM, THE BOARD ALSO RESERVES THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS BEYOND ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
SO I'LL NOW GO AHEAD AND START WITH OUR FIRST ITEM FOR THE, UH, CHARLES TAYLOR RENOVATION.
AND ACTUALLY, I APOLOGIZE, UM, FOR CHARLES TAYLOR BUILDING RENOVATION, I BELIEVE THERE WAS, ARE YOU THE SPOKESPERSON NOW? YES.
SO MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, I BELIEVE THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE.
UH, I DO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE BECAUSE OUR APPRAISAL REPORT IS NOT READY.
I AM THE CHAIRPERSON FOR NEW BERN HOUSING AUTHORITY.
AND, AND YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, ARE YOU ON THE LIST? I DON'T THINK I'M ON THAT LIST.
I DID SIGN IN, BUT MY NAME IS JANELLE REDDICK AND MY ADDRESS IS 1100 LONGVIEW DRIVE NEW BERN.
OKAY, WE NEED THAT FOR THE RECORD, SO WE APPRECIATE IT.
UM, DO WE NEED TO TAKE A, A VOTE TO CONTINUE? YES, SIR.
YOU'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO, I THINK THE REQUEST IS THE SEPTEMBER 25TH MEETING AND THAT MOTION WILL NEED TO CONTAIN A REASON.
SO WE NEED A REASON, UM, TO CONTINUE.
AND SO WITH THE MOTION, WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO PREVENT PRESENT ONE.
UM, MR. CHAIR, I MOVE TO, UH, CONTINUE THIS APPLICATION FOR THE CH UH, CHARLES TAYLOR BUILDING RENOVATION TO SEPTEMBER 25TH AS TO GIVE THE APPLICANT ADDITIONAL TIME TO HAVE THE APPRAISAL REPORT, UH, PREPARED TO PRESENT TO THIS BOARD.
I SECOND, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE BOARD MEMBERS? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
OKAY, OUR SECOND ITEM IS DAY SPRING MINISTRIES OF NEWBURN, UH, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, UH, NUMBER SUP 0 0 3 1 4 7 2 0 2 5.
ALRIGHT, AND THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'M GONNA INTRODUCE OUR SECOND ITEM HERE.
AGAIN, THIS IS, UH, DAY SPRING MINISTRIES OF NEW BERN AND THE PROPOSED USE, UH, IT'S IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING.
IT'S THE CHURCH USE THAT'S EXISTING ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE REQUEST SUMMARY HERE, THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER IS DAY SPRING MINISTRIES OF NEW BERN NORTH, OR EXCUSE ME, NEW BORN NORTH, NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
UM, LOCATION IS 1248 COLLEGE STREET, NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, AND TOTAL ACREAGE IS 2.08.
THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS HERE ARE EIGHT DASH 0 1 1 DASH A 2 26 AND EIGHT DASH ZERO ONE DASH A 2 28.
UM, I SHOULD BRING IT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION TOO.
THERE WAS A RECOMBINATION THAT WAS COMPLETED.
UM, AND ESSENTIALLY AS FAR AS FOR THE RECOMBINATION, IT SHOULD BE COMBINING BOTH OF THESE PARCELS TO WHERE THERE WILL THEN BE ONE PARCEL ID NUMBER, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS A 2 2 8.
UH, THE ZONING DISTRICT HERE IS COMMERCIAL THREE OR C DASH THREE.
AND HERE FIRST IS THE VICINITY, UH, MAP FOR THE TWO PROPERTIES.
AND AGAIN, WHERE YOU SEE THAT PROPERTY LINE IS ESSENTIALLY WHERE THE COMBINATION IS GONNA, OR EXCUSE ME, THE RECOMBINATION IS GONNA TAKE PLACE.
THIS IS TO, UM, SATISFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENT WHEN GOING THROUGH THE PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATION, WE NOTICED THAT THE PARKING WAS A BIT SHORT.
UM, AND THIS WAS THE WAY TO RESOLVE THAT.
THAT'S FOLLOWED BY A BUFFER MAP.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST FOR THE 100 FEET, UH, REQUIREMENT FOR THE LAND USE ORDINANCE FOR NOTIFICATION LOCATION, AND THEN THE AERIAL MAP HERE JUST TO SHOW YOU WHAT'S ON THE GROUND.
AND LASTLY, THE ZONING MAP, WHICH REFLECTS THE C3 COLOR.
AND THAT'S, UH, WE OUTLINED THE PARCEL IN GREEN INSTEAD OF RED THIS TIME.
SO, AND ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION, UH, STAFF CAN CONFIRM THAT THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED WAS DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE.
UH, WE CAN ALSO CONFIRM THAT THIS IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TABLE OF
[00:10:01]
PERMISSIBLE USES.AND LASTLY, STAFF CAN ALSO CONFIRM THAT ALL THE DRC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
AND HERE IS THE SITE PLAN JUST TO HAVE AS A, UM, A FOCUS FOR YOUR SCREEN.
UM, IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE AT THIS TIME.
DO WE HAVE MR. CHAIRMAN? SURE.
COULD YOU GO OVER WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE PARKING? SURE, PLEASE.
AND, UH, THERE WAS, UH, AS I SAID, A SLIGHT PARKING ISSUE, UM, VERY RELATIVELY EASILY RESOLVABLE IN DOING THE RECOMBINATION THAT RESOLVED THE ISSUE AS FAR AS THE PARKING, BECAUSE THE ADDITION THAT THEY'RE ADDING IS INCREASING AS FAR AS FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SO WHEN YOU HAVE A SQUARE FOOTAGE INCREASE INCREASE, TYPICALLY WHAT FOLLOWS WITH THE LAND USE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE USE IS YOU NEED ADDITIONAL PARKING.
SO THAT WAS THE REASON THAT, UM, THEY ELECTED TO GO FORWARD WITH DOING THE RECOMBINATION IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENT.
SO WHEN WE GET DOWN ON THE APPLICATION BY THE N-C-D-O-T, UM, IT, IT MENTIONS IF EXISTING DRIVES ARE USED, NO DOT PERMIT NEEDS TO BE USED.
I'M ASSUMING THAT SINCE THE RECOMBINATION HAPPENED, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT, UH, MOST LIKELY.
AS FAR AS FOR THE N-C-D-O-T REQUIREMENT, IT'S A STANDARD REQUIREMENT.
SO WHEN THEY GET TOWARDS THAT POINT, UM, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK WITH THAT, THAT ENTITY, ANY WAY OF THAT AGENCY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A DRIVEWAY, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU'RE RIGHT.
DOES WOULD THE DRIVEWAY HAVE ANY EFFECT ON ANY OF THE ADDITIONAL OR ADJOINING LANDOWNERS YOU THINK? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF MR. CHAIRMAN, AS FAR AS FOR, UH, THAT REQUIREMENT, UM, N-C-D-O-T STRICTLY HANDLES THAT AND THEY SHOULD BE, UM, PRETTY MUCH INVOLVED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS AS TO WHAT THEY NEED THAT PERSON TO MEET.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT? AND KENDRICK, UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS AN ADDITION OR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH? THAT'S CORRECT.
THERE'S A CHURCH ALREADY ON SITE.
THE USE IS ACTIVE TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
UM, THEY ARE JUST INCREASING BY ADDING AN ADDITION.
SO THAT INCREASES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH PROMPTS, UH, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, UM, IN REGARDS TO THE C3 OR COMMERCIAL THREE ZONING DISTRICT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? YEAH.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE BOARD BEFORE WE CALL FOR ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? IS THERE ANYONE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT THAT IS TO SPEAK? OH, NO SIR.
I MEAN, WE DID THE APPRA HAD AN APPRAISAL REPORT.
AND DWAYNE, WE NEED ISSUES THE PROPERTY.
WE NEED YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND FOR THE RECORD, YEAH, WE NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
WELL, THE PROPERTY IS 1248 P*****K.
WE NEED YOUR, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
OH, MY NAME IS DWAYNE BRAVO, 80 BEAMER ROAD.
ARE YOU THE AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER? YES.
YOU CAN PROCEED WITH YOUR COMMENTS.
I THINK MS. BRA, I THINK YOU WERE SAYING THAT YOU HAD AN APP APPRO, I I, IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU RIGHT, YOU SAID YOU HAD AN APPRAISAL.
YEAH, WE HAVE AN APPRAISAL REPORT AS A OLDER APPRAISAL REPORT, BUT IT TELLS YOU THAT THE BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY IS WHAT IT IS TODAY, SO TO, TO WORSHIP TIME.
UM, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO ALLOW US TO LOOK AT THAT REPORT AND JUST PUT IT IN THE RECORD FOR THIS DECISION, OR WOULD THAT BE ALL RIGHT? I'M ASSUMING THIS IS NEW EVIDENCE THAT THE CITY HAS NOT SEEN BEFORE.
IF, AND I THINK JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND, UH, THE APPLICANTS WHO ARE HERE, JUST SO EVERYONE'S AWARE, ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SO THIS IS THE QUASI-JUDICIAL, UH, PROCEEDINGS.
SO KIND OF LIKE A COURT OF LAW, ONE OF THE ELEMENTS FOR A SPECIAL USE OF PERMIT IS THAT THE USE THAT IS BEING ASKED, UH, THE USE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE VALUE OF ADJOINING OR ABUTTING PROPERTY.
UH, AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO VALUE, VALUE IS SOMETHING THAT GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS SAID UNDER STATE STATUTE, THAT IS A LAY PERSON CANNOT TESTIFY AS TO VALUE.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN EXPERT, WHICH IS TYPICALLY AN APPRAISER, UH, OR, OR YOU CAN HAVE OTHER EXPERTS LIKE A REALTOR, UH, DO A COMPS ANALYSIS.
THERE, THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHER PEOPLE WHO COULD DO THAT, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME TESTIMONY THAT SAYS, OR SOME REPORT THAT SAYS THAT THE, UH, VALUE THE, THE USE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE VALUE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS.
JUST THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC.
[00:15:01]
AND, AND FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY WHEN WE DELIBERATE, UH, IN THE FUTURE, UM, TO SAY THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THE PERMIT'S NOT COMPLETE OR THE REQUEST IS NOT COMPLETE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE THAT DESCRIBES, UM, WHAT TREY JUST TRIED TO DESCRIBE TO YOU ALL.UM, SO IT IS PART OF THE WHOLE PROCESS.
WE DO HAVE TO, UH, MAKE, UH, A, A VOTE LATER ON SIX CRITERIA AND, AND YOU'LL HEAR WHEN WE DESCRIBE IT, UM, IT MIGHT, THIS PART OF THE PUZZLE MAY FIT A LITTLE BETTER AND SO GIVE US A MINUTE OR TWO SO WE CAN KIND OF LOOK IN AT THE APPRAISAL AND PASS IT ON THROUGH IF, WHILE THE, WHILE THE APPRAISAL IS COMING ACROSS, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAVE ANY COMMENTS, UM, IN REFERENCE TO THE PERMIT OR APPLICATION PROCESS? GIVE US A MINUTE.
WE, WE, WE WILL, UH, PASS THE APPRAISAL REPORT DOWN TO LET THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE, UH, OF A STATEMENT IN HERE THAT I THINK IS GONNA BE RELEVANT TO OUR DETERMINATION ON THE ELEMENT OF SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE VALUE OF THE ADJOINING OR ABUTTING PROPERTY.
THE APPRAISAL REPORT DOES SAY, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. BRAVO'S TESTIMONY, THAT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE SUBJECT, UH, PROPERTY IS THE CURRENT USE AS A PLACE OF WORSHIP.
UM, AND SO I THINK THAT IS RELEVANT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S PUT ON THE RECORD.
WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE NEXT ONE.
SO THIS
AND AGAIN, JUST WHILE FOLKS ARE LOOKING AT IT TO KIND OF FLESH OUT OUR RECORD A LITTLE BIT, JUST TO BE CLEAR, UM, THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS, AND I BELIEVE IF I'M KNOWING THIS AREA, THAT, UH, THE DAY SPRING MINISTRIES CHURCH IS NEXT TO ANOTHER FIRST CHIN BAPTIST CHURCH, UH, ON THE SAME REDS, I BELIEVE IT'S, IT ALSO HAS ANOTHER CHURCH IN THAT AREA.
AGAIN, JUST MAKING SURE THAT THAT IS PUT ON THE RECORD.
[00:20:02]
WELL, MR. CHAIR, I'M GONNA YOU THATYES, WE'LL PASS IT DOWN SO WE CAN GO BACK IN THE RECORD.
MR. CHAIR, JUST FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED AN APPRAISER APPRAISAL REVIEW REPORT, UM, BY BANK OF AMERICA REGARDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE REPORT IN ITS ENTIRETY BEFORE WE PROCEED IN THE HEARING.
SO IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY, UH, ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANT IS GONNA SPEAK? SO DO WE HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD? SO I GUESS WE TIME TO START OUT WITH THE REQUEST PERMIT.
UH, IS IT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION? ACCORDING TO THE TABLE PERMISSIBLE USES, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.
SO WE HAVE A, A MOTION THAT THE REQUESTED PERMIT IS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES OF THE CITY OF NEWBURN.
UM, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
UH, THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION THAT THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE.
UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.
SO IF COMPLETED AS PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.
I THINK FOR THAT SECOND, UH, ELEMENT THERE.
DO WE HAVE, WAS THERE A SECOND FOR I JUST DIDN'T HEAR.
I THINK IT WAS, IT WAS SECONDED.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE, WE, WE NEED TO KEEP IT ALL KEEPING TRACK.
SO BOTH SOMEBODY'S KEEPING TRACK.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THE CHAIR WAS ASKING FOR A MOTION ON THE THIRD ELEMENT.
I WILL MOVE THAT IF COMPLETED AS PROPOSED TO THE APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
SO WE, WE HAVE A MOTION ON NUMBER THREE AS STATED.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR A.
UH, ON NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE USE WILL NOT MATERIAL ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY IF LOCATED WERE PROPOSED AND DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE PLAN.
ANY DISCUSSION? JUST TO SAY, I THINK A CHURCH DOES THE OPPOSITE.
I THINK IT HELPS THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, SO FAIR ENOUGH.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES THAT THIS USE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE VALUE OF ADJOINING OR ABUTTING PROPERTY OR THE USE IS A PUBLIC NECESSITY.
MR. CHAIR, I'LL MOVE THAT THE USE AS UH, PRESENTED WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE VALUE OF ADJOINING OR ABUTTING PROPERTY.
ANY DISCUSSION? DID YOU WANT TO SAY THAT? THE APPRAISAL? YEAH, I THINK, UH, JUST FOR THE DISCUSSION PURPOSES FOR THE RECORD IN CASE ANYONE REVIEWS THIS.
[00:25:01]
I THINK BASED ON THE APPRAISAL REPORT AND MR. BRAVO'S TESTIMONY THAT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY IS CHURCH IS CURRENTLY A CHURCH.THIS IS JUST EXPANSION OF WHAT, UH, THE USE ALREADY IS AND HAS BEEN FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
UM, AND IF IT WAS GONNA ECONOMICALLY INJURED THOSE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, IT WOULD'VE DONE SO BY NOW AND IT HASN'T.
AND SO I THINK THE APPRAISAL, UH, SATISFIES THAT ELEMENT.
AND FOR THE, AND FOR THE RECORD, WE ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE DATE ON THE APPRAISAL BECAUSE I THINK THE DATE WAS WAS IT'S, UH, 21.
AND, AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT'S WHY WE ASKED.
AND SO IT WAS THE CURRENT USE AT THAT TIME AND STILL IS THE CURRENT USE.
ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR EXCUSE ME, DO WE HAVE A ALL IN FAVOR? YEAH, I'LL SECOND IF NOBODY SECOND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES THAT THE LOCATION AND CHARACTER OF THE USE IF DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED, WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS TO BE LOCATED AND IN GENERAL, CONFORMITY WITH THE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.
UM, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND AND A SECOND.
ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? THE ONLY DISCUSSION I'D ADD AGAIN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT THIS HAS BEEN A CHURCH.
IT'S BEEN A CHURCH FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
IT'S SURROUNDED BY ANOTHER CHURCH.
UM, AND SO I THINK THAT SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO THE LOCATION AND CHARACTER OF THE USE, UH, THAT THERE'LL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE AREA.
SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, FINDING EACH OF THE SIX ELEMENTS SO WE CAN GRANT THE PERMIT? IS THAT TIME TO, TO DO THAT? YES.
I BELIEVE WE FOUND, UH, WE FOUND IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ON ALL SIX OF THE ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
AND SO I WOULD MOVE TO ISSUE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO THE APPLICANT WITHOUT CONDITIONS.
SUE, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? I OR A SECOND? I SECOND.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND.
ANY OPPOSED? YOU HAVE A PERMIT.
KENDRICK, IT'S, UH, SERVES YOU RIGHT? IT'S DEFINITELY WORKING, WORKING THROUGH.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND I'LL, UH, PRESENT OUR THIRD ITEM FOR TONIGHT.
THE EPIPHANY SCHOOL OF GLOBAL STUDIES IS OUR THIRD ITEM AND THE PROPOSED USE IS A SNACK BAR AND PARKING LOT.
SO ESSENTIALLY JUST UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS ANOTHER SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS THAT YOU JUST HEARD.
UM, THERE IS AN EXISTING SCHOOL THAT'S THERE AND THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY EXPANDING UPON THAT SAME SCHOOL USE.
THE SCHOOL USE IN ITSELF PROMPTS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SO THAT'S WITH EXPANSION OR ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT PARTAKES WITH THE EXISTING USE.
SO, UM, THIS IS IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING.
JUST TO CLARIFY THE REQUEST SUMMARY HERE, THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THE EPIPHANY SCHOOL.
THE LOCATION IS 2301 TRENT ROAD, NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA.
AND THE TOTAL ACREAGE IS 11.63.
UH, THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER THERE IS EIGHT DASH 0 4 3 0 5.
AND THE ZONING DISTRICT, EXCUSE ME, DISTRICTS ARE RESIDENTIAL 10 OR R DASH 10 AND COMMERCIAL FOUR OR C DASH FOUR.
AND THE FIRST MAP YOU HAVE HERE FOR YOUR VIEWING IS THE VICINITY MAP AND IT'S HIGHLIGHTING THE PARCEL IN RED.
AND THAT'S FOLLOWED BY OUR BUFFER MAP.
AND ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S JUST THE A HUNDRED FEET REQUIREMENTS.
IT'S SHOWING FOR THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AND THERE IS AN AERIAL MAP AND THAT IS TRUE TO WHAT'S THERE FROM WHAT I CAN SAY.
AND THAT'S FOLLOWED BY OUR ZONING MAP, WHICH SHOWS THE SPLIT ZONING, IF YOU WILL, AND, UH, BOTH DISTRICTS BETWEEN THE C DASH FOUR AND THE R DASH 10.
ONCE MORE, UH, STAFF CAN CONFIRM THAT THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED AND WAS DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE.
AND THE STAFF CAN ALSO CONFIRM AS FAR AS FOR THE REQUEST WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES, IT IS.
AND LASTLY, STAFF CAN ALSO CONFIRM THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS HAVE ALL BEEN ADDRESSED OR DRC COMMENTS.
AND LASTLY, UM, FOR YOUR REVIEWING, UH, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT IS CURRENT AND
[00:30:01]
WHAT WAS SUBMITTED.UM, THIS IS THE REVISED PLAN ACTUALLY, EXCUSE ME.
BUT IF THE BOARD HAS ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS ITEM, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE RIGHT NOW.
MR. CHAIRMAN KENDRICK? YES MA'AM.
UH, IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS CORRECTLY, THE SNACK BAR IS REALLY AT THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, SO WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SEE FROM THE STREET IDEALLY.
UM, IT'S TOWARDS THE, I GUESS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, THE EASTERN PORTION, BUT AS YOU SAID, YES, IT'S BEHIND THE SCHOOL MORE SO, BUT YES, YOU, YOU WOULD BE CORRECT.
SO THERE, ARE THERE ANY BUFFERS ALREADY EXISTING OR IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT ON BUFFERS? THERE IS NOT, NOT FOR SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED, ESSENTIALLY.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT'S SPEC, I GUESS IT'S SPECIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT PROMPTS AN ADDITIONAL, UH, BUFFERING IN RE IN THAT RESPECT WHEN THEY'RE DOING AN ADDITION OF SOME SORT.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, KENDRICK, THIS IS A USE, THIS IS AN EXPANSION OF USE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THE PROPERTY? YES, SIR.
AND, AND JUST TO CLARIFY THE RECORD, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, MR. STANTON, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS, UM, SCHOOL HAS ALREADY BEEN PERMITTED THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS? THAT IS CORRECT.
THIS IS ACTUALLY, I GUESS A REVISIT IF YOU WILL, BUT NOT A CONDITIONAL, BUT INSTEAD A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THIS DID RECEIVE A CONDITIONAL PERMIT, I BELIEVE, UM, AND MS. MADAM ATTORNEY, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO CORRECT ME HERE.
IF IT WAS BACK IN 2010 OR 2011, I'M NOT QUITE A HUNDRED PERCENT ON THE DATE, BUT IT HAS HAD A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALREADY AUTHORIZING THE SCHOOL USE.
AND AT THE TIME THAT THE CITY OF NEW BRON WAS ISSUING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN OVERSAW THAT PROCESS? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO IT'S BEEN SOME YEARS? YES MA'AM.
AND DO YOU RECALL, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION AND OR PERMIT? UH, I BELIEVE I SAW THE APPLICATION.
I APOLOGIZE IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
AND WAS THERE ANYTHING ON THE APPLICATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ABOUT THIS AREA OF THE SCHOOL CAMPUS? TO MY RECOLLECTION, I BELIEVE IT WAS DESIGNATED AS GREEN SPACE.
UM, IN THE INITIAL, AND THIS IS KIND OF WHAT ALSO PROMPTED THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.
SO WITH THE CHANGE BASED ON ITS CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, YOU'RE NOW KIND OF FAST FORWARDING TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS BEING ACTIVE, UM, WITH THEM WANTING TO ADD THIS ADDITION.
SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER, OH, LIKE CHALLENGES WE'LL SAY, UM, USING GREEN SPACE FOR A STRUCTURE? NO SIR.
THE APPLICANT'S FOLLOWING THE CORRECT PROTOCOLS WITH GOING BACK FOR, UM, THE NOW DESIGNATED BOARD TO MAKE THIS DECISION.
BUT I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS WAS A USE THAT WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED AND PERMITTED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS HAS EXISTED.
AND THIS IS JUST AN EXPANSION OF A USE THAT IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.
THAT'S CORRECT, CORRECT? YES SIR.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR KENDRICK? NO.
IS IS THE SNACK BOX IT GOING TO BE A SEPARATE, IS IT GONNA BE SEPARATE FROM THE BUILDING OR IS IT GONNA BE FROM NICK BESIDE THE BUILDING? UH, SO THIS IS SEPARATE.
IT'S ACTUALLY, IT'S HARDER TO KIND OF PINPOINT IT HERE, BUT IF YOU SEE MORE SO WHERE THE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DARKER ON SOME OF THE CIRCLES.
IT'S TOWARDS THE EASTERN PORTION.
UM, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE SNACK BAR IS IN THE PARKING LOT IS RIGHT TOWARDS, PRETTY MUCH IN FRONT OF IT.
AND THE TENNIS COURTS ARE RIGHT BELOW IT.
SO THIS IS SEPARATED TO MY KNOWLEDGE FROM, UM, THE MAIN STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE.
SO DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, UM, IN FAVOR, UM, OR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY? IS, IS THE APPLICANT HERE OR ANYONE FROM THE APPLICANT HERE TO TESTIFY? I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
COULD YOU COME AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME, PROFESSION, TITLE, ADDRESS, OFFICE ADDRESS PLEASE? YEP.
I'M CHRIS WALKER, UM, THE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT.
BUT DID YOU SIGN THE SIGN IN SHEET? I DON'T, WE MIGHT HAVE TO SWEAR TO YOU IN AGAIN IF YOU HAD SWEAR, YOUR HONOR.
YEAH, YOU, IT'S, YOU NEED HAVE MR. CHAFFEE JUST SWEAR HIM IN BECAUSE I THINK HE MISSED THAT AND THEN HE CAN PROVIDE HIS TESTIMONY.
[00:35:01]
RIGHT.DO DO WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO SWEAR HIM.
NEED TO GET YOU TO RAISE YOUR HAND AGAIN AND, UM, DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? I DO.
YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB, MR. CHAIR.
DO I NEED TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? UH, COULD YOU JUST, UH, AGAIN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, STATE YOUR NAME, WHERE YOU WORK, YOUR PROFESSION? OKAY.
YOU'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT? YEAH.
I'M CHRIS WALKER, ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT.
WORKED FOR THE WALKER GROUP ARCHITECTURE.
UM, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT.
UM, DO AND DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW LONG THAT THIS EXISTING USE HAS BEEN IN THE AREA AS A SCHOOL? DO YOU KNOW THE EXISTING USE OF THE BUILDING? MM-HMM
UM, I BELIEVE THEY, THEY DID THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION BACK IN 2012, I WANNA SAY.
AND I MEAN, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE AS AN ARCHITECT, HAS ANY OF THE ECONOMIC HA HAVE ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES HAD ANY KIND OF ECONOMIC IMPACT AS A RESULT OF THIS EXISTING USE? NO.
UH, AND THIS IS A, IT'S A SCHOOL USE AND THERE'S SOME COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND THEN RESIDENTIAL ON THE OTHER SIDE, UM, KIND OF OF THE SCHOOL, RIGHT? CORRECT.
YEAH, IT'S ALL KIND OF COMMERCIAL USE ALONG TRENT ROAD THERE AND ALL RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, AND IS THE SNACK BAR IS PROPOSED, IS THE SNACK BAR ALREADY BUILT AND BEING USED OR THIS IS A PROPOSED TO BE BUILT, RIGHT? THIS IS A PROPOSED TO BE BUILT, YEAH, WHICH IS JUST, IT'S A STANDALONE STRUCTURE THAT'S GONNA GO IN THE, THE BACK OF THE LOT NEAR A NEW PARKING LOT BACK THERE.
AND AND I'M ASSUMING THAT IT'S THE SNACK BAR THAT'S GONNA BE OPEN FOR WHEN THEY HAVE SPECIAL EVENTS OUTSIDE SPORTING EVENTS, THOSE TYPES OF, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, RIGHT? EXACTLY.
YEAH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S FOR THAT USE AND THERE'S ALSO BATHROOMS AND LOCKER ROOMS ATTACHED TO IT.
SO TEAMS CAN COME THERE AND, AND CHANGE INSTEAD OF GOING INTO THE, THE MAIN FACILITY TO USE THE RESTROOMS THERE.
I'M CONFIDENT THAT EVERY SINGLE TEACHER THERE WILL APPRECIATE THE TEAMS CHANGING IN THE OUTDOOR LOCKER ROOM, NOT IN THE BUILDING.
THEY'VE BEEN MEETING THIS FOR THAT ALMOST MAKES IT A PUBLIC NECESSITY.
ARE ARE WE GOOD? DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO, NONE.
I THINK THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND BUSINESS NAME IF AND OCCUPATION.
I'M A, UM, REAL ESTATE APPRAISER BY TRADE.
UM, I HAVE BEEN, UH, ENGAGED BY MY CLIENT TO DETERMINE, UH, THE IMPACT OF A CONCESSION STAND ON ADJOINING AND ABUTTING PROPERTY VALUES.
UM, I WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE, UM, THAT THERE IS NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON THESE VALUES, UH, OF ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
UM, I'VE GOT A NICE PREPARED STUDY HERE IF YOU GUYS WANT TO SEE IT.
UM, BUT IN A NUTSHELL, IT'S ABLE TO GO TO A ANOTHER FACILITY THAT HAS AN EXISTING, UM, CONCESSION STAND AND BATHROOM BUILDING THERE, FIND A ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT'S SOLD AND COMPARE THAT TO THE MARKET OF PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NO PROXIMITY TO A SPORTS FIELD WITH A CONCESSION STAND.
AND, UM, THIS DATA SET CLEARLY SHOWS THAT PROPERTY NEXT DOOR TO THE SPORTS FIELD, UM, SELLS, UM, RIGHT IN LINE WITH THESE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NO PROXIMITY ON BOTH A, A TOTAL SALES PRICE AND A PRICE PER UNIT BASIS.
UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF BASICALLY THE, THE ANALYSIS THAT I DID.
AND IF YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT OR WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANYTHING YOU YOU'VE GOT.
WELL, I GUESS KENDRICK, THE FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE APPRAISAL? I DO NOT, BUT, UM, HIS TESTIMONY CAN SERVE JUST AS THE SAME MR. CHAIRMAN.
SO WE, DO WE WANT TO TAKE A, OR IS EVERYBODY, WELL, I GUESS WE NEED TO SAY THAT WE ARE ACCEPTING IT IN AS WELL.
CERTAINLY IF, IF THE WITNESS HAS A PREPARED REPORT, WE CAN INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE RECORD IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE.
UM, BUT BASED ON HIS QUALIFICATIONS AND HIS, UM, THE DEMONSTRATION OF HIS METHODS IN COMING TO HIS OPINION, YOU ALL CAN FIND THAT HIS EXPERT TESTIMONY IS SUFFICIENT, UM, TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THIS PARTICULAR ELEMENT.
MR. MOODY, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A REAL ESTATE APPRAISER? I'M SO WHAT, HOW LONG HAVE YOU, UH, WORKED AS REAL ESTATE? UH, 20 YEARS.
[00:40:05]
AND I NEED TO ASK ALSO, ARE YOU STILL REALTY SERVICES OF EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA OR IS THERE A NAME CHANGE? ALRIGHT, MY NAME HAS CHANGED AND I'VE GOTTA ASK THAT SINCE MY BROKER'S LICENSE IS WITH REALTY SERVICESAND IT JUST AS A DISCLOSURE STANDPOINT.
SO THAT'S WHY I HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW.
WELL, YOU'RE GETTING A NEW COMPANY, TIM.
SO JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, MR. BECK, DO YOU HAVE ANY FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP AT ALL WHATSOEVER TO THE WITNESS WHO'S JUST OFFERED TESTIMONY? I DO NOT.
UM, HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THIS WITNESS OUTSIDE OF TODAY'S HEARING, UM, SUCH AS YOU'VE ENGAGED IN AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION? I DO NOT OR DID NOT.
UM, IS YOUR KNOWING OF THIS GENTLEMAN OR KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT HIS BUSINESS IN SOME WAY PREJUDICING YOU IN ONE WAY FOR OR AGAINST THIS APPLICATION? NO.
DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT YOUR ABILITY TO BE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL DECISION MAKING, UM, IN TONIGHT'S PROCEEDINGS IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS JUST OCCURRED BETWEEN YOU AND THE GENTLEMAN WHO'S A WITNESS TONIGHT? I DO NOT.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH ATTORNEYS.
YOU MAKE ONE SIMPLE JOKE AND THEN IT GETS OUTTA HAND
UM, WELL I HAD TO DO IT FOR THE RECORD.
UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE'RE LOOKING AT EASTERN VALUATION AND CONSULTING INCORPORATED REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS REPORT.
AND THEN I THINK BASED ON THE EXTREMELY COMPETENT TESTIMONY OF MR. MOODY, UM, I, I THINK THIS PROPOSED USE IS NOT GONNA ECONOMICALLY INJURE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AS IS HIS TESTIMONY.
SO JUST KEEPING THAT NUGGET IN THERE FOR WHEN WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ELEMENTS AGAIN.
HAS EVERYBODY GOT COPIES? YEP.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY? DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD ON NUMBER ONE, THE REQUESTED PERMIT IS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO THE STATE, EXCUSE ME.
ACCORDING TO THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USE, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR A MOTION? SO MOVE.
SHOULD WE HAVE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
SHALL WE HAVE A MOTION? AND SECOND THAT THE PERMITTED REQUEST IS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, ACCORDING TO THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR EXCUSE ME, DO WE HAVE A VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
UH, NUMBER TWO IS IF THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE SHALL MOVE.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
UH, NUMBER THREE, IF COMPLETED IS PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR A MOTION? SO MOVED.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? ALL YES, SIR.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES THAT THE USE WILL NOT MATERIALLY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY IF LOCATED WHERE PROPOSED AND DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR A MOTION? SO MOVED.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND.
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND ANY DISCUSSION? UH, JUST TO SAY AGAIN, JUST FOR THE RECORD.
I MEAN BASED ON THE TESTIMONY FROM THE ARCHITECT, I THINK, AND, UM, THE APPLICANT'S AGENT IS THE ARCHITECT THAT THIS IS AN EXISTING USE THAT HAS BEEN, UH, THIS IS JUST AN EXPANSION OF THAT.
UH, AND SO I THINK THAT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, EVIDENCE THAT THE EXISTING USE IS NOT ENDANGERING THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.
AND SO THIS EXPANSION IS NOT GOING TO ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
I CALLED THE JUST DO WE HAVE A VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
SO ON NUMBER FIVE, I BELIEVE, YES SIR.
UM, THAT THE USE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE VALUE OF ADJOINING OR A BUDDING PROPERTY OR THAT THE USE IS A PUBLIC NECESSITY.
AND SO IF WE, WE HAVE A DISCUSSION OR MOTION WOULD PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA TO SEPARATE.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, UM, MS. MARTY, IS YOUR MOTION THAT THE USE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE VALUE OF THE ADJOINING OR ABUTTING PROPERTY? THAT IS CORRECT.
ALRIGHT THEN I'LL SECOND THAT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[00:45:01]
THAT THE USE WILL NOT INJURE ADJOINING PROPERTY, UH, IN REFERENCE TO VALUE.DO YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? I THINK THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE RECEIVED AND FROM THE APPRAISER, UH, AS WELL AS FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE ARCHITECT SHOWING THE EXISTING USE HASN'T IN THE HISTORY OF THIS USE INJURED ECONOMICALLY, THE SURROUNDING AREA, BUT ALSO WITH THE APPRAISER THAT UH, THIS ELEMENT IS SATISFIED.
UH, ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
AND ON THE SIXTH ITEM THAT THE LOCATION AND CHARACTER OF THE USE IF DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED AND WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS TO BE LOCATED AND IN GENERAL, CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANET DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY OF NEW BERN.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTION? SO MOVED.
SO WE HAVE A SECONDED, SORRY, I GOT TOO QUICK ON YOU THERE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UH, ANY DISCUSSION AND FOR A VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? SO DO WE HAVE A FINDING THAT, UH, ALL SIX ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN MET, UH, SO WE CAN ISSUE A PERMIT? SO MOVED.
SO WE HAVE A, A MOTION, UH, SO WE HAVE A SECOND.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT, UH, ALL SIX FINDINGS, UM, ARE THERE AND THAT WE CAN ISSUE A PERMIT.
SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM D.
UH, MR CHAIR, AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING FOR ITEM D AND ITEM E, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCLOSE, UH, SOME INFORMATION THAT COULD, THE BOARD COULD DETERMINE IS A POTENTIAL CONFLICT.
UM, AS YOU ALL KNOW, I AM RUNNING TO BE, UH, AN ALDERMAN HERE IN NEWBURN AND SO AM ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR D AND E.
UH, UNRELATED TO THIS PROCEEDING HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO MY POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
UM, WHILE I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WILL IMPEDE MY ABILITY TO BE IMPARTIAL FOR THE SAKE OF FULL AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT I NEED TO RECUSE IN LIGHT OF MADAM ATTORNEY.
I THINK YOU PROBABLY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
WELL, I THINK IN LIGHT OF THAT DISCLOSURE, THE, THE, THE OPPORTUNITY THAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT REMAINING BOARD MEMBERS IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER MR. FERGUSON NEEDS TO HEAR EITHER ITEMS D OR E.
IF YOU DETERMINE IN LIGHT OF THE INFORMATION THAT HE'S DISCLOSED, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO HEAR, UM, THESE ITEMS AND BE A FACT FINDER.
YOU CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO EXCUSE MR. FERGUSON FROM VOTING ON ITEMS D AND E ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT OF MR. FERGUSON, I KNOW MAKES CONSCIOUS DECISIONS, UM, A MOTION THAT HE RECUSE HIMSELF FROM DNE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT HE PROVIDED.
SHOULD WE HAVE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION AND OR A SECOND? SECOND.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECRUIT MR. FERGUSON DUE.
THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO POLITICAL, UH, PARTY, OR I SHOULDN'T SAY PARTY, BUT POLITICAL VOTE, UM, FOR ALL.
UH, WHAT ARE YOU RUNNING FOR? TRE WARD WON.
ALDERMAN BOARD WON AL, THERE WE GO.
UM, SO THERE'S BEEN A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION TOO, SO, UM, TIME FOR VOTE.
MR, ARE WE READY FOR OH, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I'LL PROCEED WITH THE NEXT ITEM HERE.
AND THIS IS KING AND LASSO BAR IN CIGAR LOUNGE.
AND THE PROPOSED USE OR USE, EXCUSE ME, IS UH, 1.300 AND THIS IS THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE USE.
THIS IS A REQUIRED SPECIAL USE PERMIT PER THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES.
THE SECOND USE BEING, UH, 8.300.
THIS IS CARRY OUT SERVICE CONSUMPTION OUTSIDE FULLY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE ALLOWED NO DRIVE IN SERVICE AND IT READS JUST LIKE THAT, UH, VERBATIM FROM THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES.
IT ALSO REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE C FOUR ZONING DISTRICT.
AND THE REQUEST SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT IS SPECTRUM CUSTOM BUILDERS.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DION KING.
THE LOCATION IS 500 QUEEN STREET, NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA.
AND THE TOTAL ACREAGE IS ASSESSED AT 0.69.
APPROXIMATELY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS EIGHT DASH 0 0 3 DASH 0 9 7.
[00:50:02]
AND THE ZONING DISTRICT, UH, IS COMMERCIAL FOUR OR C DASH FOUR.AND THE FIRST, UH, MAP YOU SEE HERE AGAIN IS THE VICINITY MAP.
THIS IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED FOR THE ACTUAL PARCEL, AND THAT'S FOLLOWED BY OUR A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER MAP.
UM, AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE, THIS IS THE BUFFER THAT IS APPLIED FOR THE ZONING, OR EXCUSE ME, THE, UH, NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
AND THAT IS FOLLOWED BY OUR AERIAL MAP.
AND ONCE AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS WHAT'S ON THE GROUND IS VACANT, UM, AND I CAN CONFIRM THAT AS WELL.
AND HERE IS THE ZONING MAP AND THAT JUST REFLECTS THAT C DASH FOUR ZONING DISTRICT.
AND THE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, UH, STAFF CAN CONFIRM THAT THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED WAS DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE.
I CAN ALSO, UH, ASK STAFF CONFIRM THAT THE REQUEST IS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES, AND STAFF CAN CONFIRM THAT THE ITEM DID ADDRESS ALL OF THE DRC COMMENTS OR DEPARTMENT OF SITE PLAN COMMENTS.
AND HERE IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED, AND IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, I WILL TAKE THOSE.
SO THIS IS A VACANT LOT AND THIS IS NEW CONSTRUCTION? YES SIR, IT IS.
AND SO HOW DOES THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT FIT INTO THE PROCESS WITH THE CITY? SO PRIMARILY FOR THIS BOARD IS JUST AUTHORIZATION OF THE DIFFERENCES OF TWO USES.
BOTH USES REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
SO YOU HAVE THE MULTIFAMILY THAT'S TAKING PLACE AND, OR EXCUSE ME, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE.
AND YOU ALSO HAVE THE SECOND USE BEHIND THAT AS A, IT'S INCLUSIVE TO THREE USES.
IT'S A RESTAURANT BAR AND LOUNGE.
AND BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS CIGAR BAR AND THE LOUNGE, IT'S INCLUSIVE AS TO NEEDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS WELL.
SO IT'S BASICALLY A COMBINATION THEREOF FOR USES.
UM, BOTH REQUIRING, AGAIN, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
SO IT'S SPECIFIC TO THE USE OR USES AND, AND WE ARE SIMILAR USES, UM, INDOOR ZONING IN THE AREA.
UM, I WOULD, I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY YES, UH, JUST BEING THAT IT'S IN THE DOWNTOWN, UM, DISTRICT, OR AT LEAST IN THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT AS WELL.
YOU DO HAVE A, UH, PLETHORA OF A COUPLE DIFFERENT BARS.
I GUESS I WOULD, I WOULD SAY, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT'S SUPER DEFINITIVE BECAUSE I DIDN'T CANVAS THE AREA SPECIFICALLY, BUT I CAN SAY, UH, YOU DO, YOU'RE GONNA PASS THROUGH OR BE AROUND OTHER BAR LOCATIONS AND OTHER LOUNGE LOCATIONS, UM, OTHER, UM, INTERTWINED MULTIFAMILY ALONG WITH, UH, DIFFERENCES OF BUSINESS USES.
SO YES, I DO KNOW THAT THERE IS A BAR, THE OLD PEX BAR IS DIRECTLY, UH, CATTY CORNER ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS LOCATION.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION? MR. CHAIRMAN? I WANTED TO ASK, UM, FOR NUMBER TWO, WHAT DID, DID YOU NOTE THAT THE APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE AND DID I MISS THAT? YES MA'AM.
MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, THE DEPARTMENTAL SITE PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST THAT I'M LOOKING AT IS BLANK.
UM, YOU SAID, DID I GET A BLANK ONE? UH, IT COULD BE THAT, OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT THEY JUST DIDN'T, UH, FILL IN THE SPECIFICS.
BUT WHEN WE REVIEW THE ACTUAL PLAN ITSELF, THAT'S A CHECKLIST THAT WE USE PREDOMINANTLY TO MAKE OR TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS FROM A PLANNING AND ZONING PERSPECTIVE.
UM, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT POINT.
THEY DID ADDRESS AND MEET ALL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMENTS.
SO DID THIS ONE HAVE AN APPRAISAL ASSOCIATED WITH IT? I BELIEVE THEY HAVE, UM, THE SAME GENTLEMAN, MR. MOODY TO TESTIFY, UM, ON THEIR BEHALF.
DO WE KNOW IF THIS IS A TWO-STORY BUILDING? A MULTI-STORY BUILDING? MY, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I BELIEVE IT IS GOING TO BE, UM, MULTI-STORY.
I WILL LET THE APPLICANT CONFIRM THAT, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY ADDITIONAL FLOOR PLANS FOR UPPER LEVELS.
I JUST SAW THE FIRST FLOOR PLAN IN MY PACKET.
SO I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE MULTI-FAMILY.
I WILL LET THE APPLICANT GIVE YOU A DEFINITIVE ON THAT.
UH, THIS ONE BE TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
THE BOND LOUNGE ONE BE SEPARATE FROM THE
AND THAT MAY BE ANOTHER, UM, POINT FOR THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS, BUT IT APPEARS THAT THE, THE MULTIFAMILY
[00:55:01]
ASPECT IS SEPARATED.I DON'T, I BELIEVE THE BAR AND LOUNGE IS ALL INCLUSIVE TO THAT MAIN STRUCTURE.
UM, BUT I'LL AGAIN LET THE APPLICANT JUST CONFIRM THAT 'CAUSE I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR THAT.
AND THEN WOULDN'T THE USE OF THE SMALL BUILDING ON THE OUT PARCEL TO THE SOUTHWEST, DO WE KNOW WHAT IT IS? UH, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ONE THAT'S ON A DIFFERENT PROPERTY, MR. CHAIRMAN? CORRECT.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT'S ALSO A BUSINESS AND A STRUCTURE THAT'S HAS A APARTMENT INCLUSIVE INTO IT.
I BELIEVE IT'S A OFFICE OF SOME SORT.
IT'S UM, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE THAT'S MARKED ADJACENT EXISTING BUILDING? YES.
YES, THAT'S ACTUALLY THE R APARTMENTS.
AND I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS ON THAT, BUT YES, I BELIEVE IT'S, UH, GOT BOTH IN THERE.
I THINK IT'S OFFICE AND APARTMENTS.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? THANK YOU.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE THAT'S GONNA COME FORWARD AND SPEAK, UH, IN REFERENCE TO THIS PROJECT? UH, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU MIGHT WANT TO ENTERTAIN SOME COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE OR REPRESENTATIVE OF, WE'RE, WE'RE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT HERE.
I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT ON MS ONE AS WELL.
AND IF YOU, JUST FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND JUST INTRODUCING YOURSELF AGAIN SIR.
I'M WITH THE WALKER GROUP ARCHITECTURE, UM, REPRESENTING DION KING FOR THIS PROJECT.
DID YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION TO COME WITH OR, UM, WE DID HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL IMAGES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW HERE.
UM, WE JUST WANTED TO, TO SHOW KIND OF WHAT THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
THIS IS, UH, A CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS OF, OF THE, THE FRONT ENTRYWAY HERE.
UM, THE BAR LOUNGE, PART OF THE, OF, OF THE BUILDING IS ALL ON THE FIRST LEVEL.
AND THEN WE HAVE TWO APARTMENTS ON THE SECOND LEVEL AND THEN THERE'S A DETACHED GARAGE ON THE BACK THAT HAS AN APARTMENT ABOVE THAT AS WELL.
AND IT'S ALL KIND OF CONNECTED ON THE BACK WITH, UM, WOODEN WALKWAYS AND STAIRS.
AND YOU CAN FLIP TO THIS KIND OF ROTATES AROUND THE BUILDING TO KIND OF SHOW YOU THE SIDES.
UM, THIS IS THE PARKING LOT SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
YOU CAN SEE THE DETACHED STRUCTURE OF THE GARAGE ON THE, THE RIGHT SIDE THERE.
AND THIS IS KIND OF ZOOMING BACK AROUND A LITTLE BIT FURTHER OUT TO KIND OF SEE THE FORM OF THE BUILDING THERE.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE LAST ONE.
I JUST WANTED TO, TO SHOW YOU, GIVE YOU GUYS A VISUAL VISUALIZATION OF WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
I THINK IT ANSWERED A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ALL HAD
AND VERY SIMILAR WITH THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING THAT ON IS ON THAT ADJOINING PROPERTY ALSO.
UM, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO SEE THE ADJOINING PROPERTY.
YEAH, I THINK ON THE FIRST IMAGE YOU HAD ON THE FIRST IMAGE, YEAH.
YOU KIND OF SEE THE RELATION, SEE YEAH.
WE WERE KIND OF USING THE MATERIALS TO MATCH UP WITH THAT, THAT BUILDING ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
AND JUST ONE THING TO NOTE, WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE HPC REVIEW PROCESS ON THIS.
WE KIND OF WENT ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT BACKWARDS.
UM, WE DID OUR INITIAL REVIEWS THROUGH THEM AND WE'VE MET ALMOST ALL OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIAL USE THEY SENT US BACK HERE TO GET THIS, UM, FIGURED OUT BEFORE THEY WOULD GIVE US APPROVALS.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ENTRY TO THE APARTMENTS? IT'S ALL FROM THE BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THE BACK UHHUH,
UH, WE HAVE A SEPARATE PARKING LOT IN THE BACK THERE THAT'S, UM, CONNECTED TO THE GARAGES.
SO THAT'LL BE ALL IN THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING ON THE BACKSIDE AND THE RESIDENTS WILL GO UP THE BACK STAIRS TO GET UP TO THEIR APARTMENTS.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN TO AT LEAST GIVE YOU, UH, THIS BIT OF INFORMATION.
THERE WAS A PERSON HERE BY MS. NAMUS, CHRISTIE WEST.
SHE'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE PRESENTING A PART OF, UH, POWERPOINT.
SO IT'S INCLUDED IN THIS POWERPOINT AS WELL.
I BELIEVE SHE MAY BE THE FIRST PERSON THAT HAD SIGNED IT.
[01:00:01]
BE, BEFORE WE GET TO ANY OTHER PARTIES, I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS AN EXPERT WITNESS AND I THINK THAT THEY WANT TO CALL THE APP THE APPRAISER.GUESS MIKE NEED TO HAVE HIM NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN.
AND I DO I NEED TO ALSO SAY AGAIN THAT I'M REALTY SERVICES OR ARE WE GOOD? WE'LL LET HIM INTRODUCE HIMSELF AND THEN WE'LL UNPACK HIM.
AGAIN, I AM STILL MIKE MOODY AND I AM A, UM, REAL ESTATE APPRAISER WITH EASTERN VALUATION AND CONSULTING.
I WAS, UM, HIRED BY MY CLIENT TO, UM, DETERMINE, UH, THE IMPACT OF, UM, THIS PROPOSED USE ON ADJOINING AND BUDDING PROPERTY VALUES.
MR. MOOD, BEFORE YOU DIVE TOO FAR INTO YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. BECK, I KNOW THAT THERE'S, THERE'S SOME, UM, TANGENTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EITHER YOURSELF AND MR. MOODY OR YOURSELF AND PERHAPS HIS LICENSING AGENCY.
YEAH, SO THE FORMER COMPANY, WELL YOU COULD PROBABLY EXPLAIN IT BETTER THAN I, BUT REALTY SERVICES USED TO HOLD THE APPRAISAL BUSINESS AND BROKERAGE SERVICE.
AND MY LICENSE IS WITH REALTY SERVICES, WHICH IS NOT THE BROKE THE APPRAISAL SERVICE ANYMORE.
SO YOU USED TO BE LICENSED UNDER THE SAME BROKERAGE FIRM AND THAT'S JUST OCCURRED JULY 1ST, I THINK IS WHEN THE SPLIT WAS APRIL.
SO YOU'RE NO LONGER LICENSED UNDER THE SAME BROKERAGE FIRM THAT THAT IS CORRECT.
I AM NO LONGER A PART OF REALTOR SERVICES.
SO, UM, SO YOU ALL DO NOT HAVE A FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE ANOTHER? WE DO NOT.
YOU DON'T HAVE A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE ANOTHER? WE DO NOT.
HAVE YOU HAD MR. BECK, HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR. MOODY ABOUT THIS, UM, AGENDA ITEM? NO.
ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THIS GENTLEMAN? NO.
HAVE YOU HAD ANY INFORMATION OTHER THAN WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT AND IN YOUR PACKET THAT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO FORM AN OPINION THAT CANNOT BE CHANGED ABOUT THIS ITEM? NO.
HEARING THAT INFORMATION, IF NO ONE HAS ANY CONCERNS ABOUT A POTENTIAL, UH, CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH MR. TABAK, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THEY USED TO BE LICENSED UNDER THE SAME BROKERAGE AGENCY, IF THERE'S NO CONCERNS, THEN WE CAN PROCEED WITH MR. MOODY'S TESTIMONY.
UM, SO, UH, TO GET BACK, I GUESS TO, TO MY ROLE IN THIS, UM, HEARING WAS TO TURN AN IMPACT OF VALUE, UM, ON ADJOINING NEARBY PROPERTIES.
UM, JUST LIKE OUR LAST HEARING, I WAS ABLE TO GO OUT IN THE MARKET, UH, FIND SOME DATA SETS TO COMPARE, UH, PROPERTIES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A BAR, USE, UH, A RESIDENTIAL USE, UM, TO ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES THAT, UM, HAVE NO INFLUENCE OF A BAR PROXIMITY TO THEM.
UM, AND WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE FROM THIS, UH, STUDY THAT THERE WAS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON VALUE.
UH, THE PROPERTY THAT I USED WAS ACTUALLY A BREWERY 99 RIGHT DOWN ON P*****K STREET.
THERE'S A, UM, TWO STORY DUPLEX THAT SOLD ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT PROPERTY, UH, AFTER THE BREWERY WAS THERE.
UM, THAT PROPERTY ACTUALLY, UM, SOLD AS ONE OF THE HIGHEST, UH, PRICES, UH, TOTAL SALES PRICE, PRICE PER UNIT PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT OF, UH, DUPLEX, UM, THAT SOLD DURING THAT TIME PERIOD.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, UH, WELL I I THINK FROM THAT IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE PROXIMITY OF BREWERY 99 HAD NO EFFECT ON THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, THIS PROPERTY HAS A, UM, MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT.
THE APARTMENTS UPSTAIRS THAT ARE ALSO PART OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS PERMITTED UNDER THE EXISTING C FOUR ZONING.
SO WE ALSO LOOKED AT, UM, THE IMPACT THAT MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE ON SINGLE FAMILY ADJOINING PROPERTIES TO DO THAT.
AGAIN, WENT OUT IN THE MARKET, WE'RE ABLE TO FIND A PROPERTY THAT SOLD, UH, ADJACENT TO A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
AND WE COMPARED THAT PROPERTY TO, EXCUSE ME, TO, UM, OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NO INFLUENCE OF THE MULTIFAMILY ASPECT TO THEM.
AND, UM, TO DO THAT WE WENT INTO THE DERBY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WOULD IMAGINE EVERYBODY'S PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
THERE'S A HOUSE THAT BACKS UP TO A MULTIFAMILY TOWNHOUSE USE.
UM, THAT HOUSE SOLD, UH, RIGHT IN LINE ON A TOTAL SALES PRICE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT BASIS AS, UM, ALL THE OTHER, UH, RECENT SALES IN THE DERBY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD THAT, UM, DO NOT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE OR PROXIMITY OF A MULTIFAMILY USE.
UM, AND AGAIN, I'VE SUMMARIZED MY,
[01:05:01]
UH, STUDIES FOR YOU GUYS, UM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE 'EM AND I'LL BE GLAD TO, UH, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.SO, KENDRICK, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT? YOU, SO WE NEED TO ENTER THESE INTO TESTIMONY OR YES, SIR.
MR. CHAIRMAN, JAMIE, DO WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT IT INTO TESTIMONY OR NO, SIR.
YOU CAN HOWEVER NOTE THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT HAS JUST BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS IS A, UM, VALUATION FROM EASTERN VALUATION CONSULTING INC.
UM, AUTHORED BY MICHAEL MOODY.
AND THE DATE ON HIS VALUATION IS AUGUST 20TH, 2025.
I THINK THAT'S THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEFORE YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MOODY? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
SO DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL EXPERT WITNESSES TO TEST? YES.
UM, CHRISTIE WA FOR PERMISSION, THANK.
SO, UH, JUST TO CLEAR IT UP, I AM THE OWNER OF THE ROWAN HOTEL, THE SMALL POSTAGE DAM NEXT TO HIS PROPERTY.
I'M THE ONLY, UH, CONTIGUOUS OWNER ON THAT BLOCK.
UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? I'M SORRY.
MICROPHONE'S RIGHT IN MY EYES.
UM, SO, UM, I WAS GONNA SKIP OVER A LITTLE BIT OF, I I I DO, I WAS GONNA SKIP OVER A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS 102 YEARS OLD.
UH, BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, SO IT'S CALLED THE RONE HOTEL.
IT WAS THE FIRST BLACK HOTEL AND THE ONLY ONE THAT'S STILL STANDING IN NEWBURGH RIGHT AFTER THE 1922 FIRE.
UM, IT ORIGINALLY WAS A ROOMING HOUSE AND THEN SOMEWHERE AROUND THE 1970S IT WAS CONVERTED INTO FOUR APARTMENTS.
IT'S WAS FOR PERSONAL APARTMENTS, LONG-TERM RENTAL FOR, UNTIL MY BROTHER AND I BOUGHT THE BUILDING FOUR YEARS AGO.
AND, UM, NOW WE HAVE SOME MIDTERM AND, AND ONE AIRBNB IN THE BUILDING.
UM, BUT WE'RE, ANYWAY, SO YOU PROBABLY PASSED BY IT MANY TIMES.
UM, I WANTED TO GO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY BECAUSE, UH, MR. KING'S SITE PLAN IS CLOSER TO THE BUILDING THAN, UH, IT HAD ANYTHING ELSE HAS EVER BEEN BEFORE.
AND WE HAVE HAD SOME BIG BUILDINGS RIGHT NEXT TO US.
SO IF YOU JUST LOOK AT, WELL, SORRY, I POINT AT THE RIGHT PLACE.
SO SEE THE CIRCLE THERE? THIS IS BEFORE THE FIRE.
HOW DID YOU, I WANTED TO SHOW YOU BEFORE THE FIRE.
[01:10:01]
HAD A SLIDE IN THERE.ANYWAY, IT WAS THE ORIGINALLY, OH, THERE IT IS.
I'M, I'M WAS, IT WASN'T LOOKING CORRECTLY.
THAT WAS ORIGINALLY A FAMILY HOME AND IT HAD A RESTAURANT IN FRONT.
AND THEN, AS YOU KNOW, THAT WHOLE AREA WAS COMPLETELY BURNT TO THE GROUND EXCEPT FOR THE TRAIN STATION.
UM, BUT IT WAS THE OWN FAMILY HOME.
SO THAT'S WHAT THE TRAIN STATION LOOKED LIKE RIGHT AFTER THE FIRE.
UH, THESE ARE BLACK NURSES THAT WERE PASSING OUT FOOD.
THE REASON THAT'S IMPORTANT IS CHARLOTTE RONE AND HER SISTER ARE THE ONES WHO BUILT THE HOTEL.
UH, AND WHILE THEY WERE DOING THAT, THEY HOUSED AND FED A THOUSAND PEOPLE FOR OVER A YEAR IN TENTS AFTER THE, UH, AFTER THE FIRE.
OH, CHARLOTTE RONE WAS THE FIRST BLACK NURSE IN NORTH CAROLINA, AND SHE TOOK ON THIS HUGE PROJECT.
SHE IS, SEE, SHE HAS SUCH SIGNIFICANCE TO NEW BERN AND HER HOTEL.
SO I HAD A QUESTION WHEN I WAS LISTENING TO THE APPRAISER, WHEN HE WAS CONSIDERING THE VALUE NEXT TO THE PROPERTY, WHAT DID HE CONSIDER? ANY ONES THAT WERE HISTORIC AND A REAL VALUE AND A, AND A REPUTATION AND A PLACE IN VERIN HISTORY.
SO THAT'S JUST AN OPEN QUESTION.
I DON'T NEED IT TO BE ANSWERED.
I JUST WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER IT.
UM, SO ANYWAY, I'M GONNA POINT TO THE RICE PLACE AT SOMETHING.
SO THEN A FEW YEARS AFTER THE, UM, UH, SO THE ROWAN HOTEL ACTUALLY WAS ONE OF THE FIRST BUILDINGS THAT WAS BUILT.
IT ONLY TOOK A YEAR, UM, IF YOU'VE EVER DRIVEN BY IT'S GOT SOME PRETTY FANCY BRICK WORK ON IT.
BUT THEY DID IT IN A YEAR WHILE SHE WAS TAKING CARE OF THESE THOUSAND PEOPLE,
AND YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE POSTAGE STAMP OF THE PROPERTY THAT MR. KING HAS PURCHASED AND IS BUILDING ON.
AND THERE WAS A ROW OF IT, SORT, SORT OF LIKE AN OLD FASHIONED SHOPPING MALL THAT YOU'D ARRIVE IN THE TRAIN STATION AND, UM, THEN YOU'D GO TO ALL THESE STORES AND RESTAURANTS.
SO THE ROWAN HOTEL WAS THERE BECAUSE NO ONE, THERE WAS NO BLACK, NO PLACE FOR BLACKS TO STAY UNTIL THIS WAS BUILT.
THE CONDUCTOR THAT WERE THE BLACK, BLACK PERPEN THAT, THAT WORKED ON THE TRAIN, THEY'D SLEEP ON THE FLOOR OF THE TRAIN INSTEAD OF, UH, GOING TO THE WHITE HOTEL, WHICH WAS ACROSS THE STREET.
BUT EVENTUALLY WE HAVE, SEE THERE, IT'S THE BIG BUILDING AND OURS IS THE LITTLE ONE IN THE CIRCLE ON THE LEFT.
UH, YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD OF THE SEWING ROOM OR THE TAYLOR FACTORY.
SO THAT WAS APPARENTLY TORN DOWN, MAYBE 1985 OR SOMETHING.
UH, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED WITH A BIG BUILDING.
I'LL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE THE PROXIMITY OF THAT BUILDING TO THE ROME HOTEL.
SO HERE, YOU SEE, SO THE SMALL CIRCLE AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE WIDTH OF MY BUILDING, MY BUILDING'S BASICALLY ABOUT 30 FEET WIDE AND 50 FEET LONG.
SO IT'S ABOUT THE WIDTH OF MY BUILDING BEFORE THE BIG FACTORY, UH, IS NEXT.
AND THE SITE PLAN THAT I HAVE SEEN OF THIS PROJECT IS MUCH CLOSER, ABOUT HALF.
THIS, WAS JUST PROGRESSING FORWARD OF THIS IS THE SAME BUILDING TRAIN STATION, THAT BUILDING AND THEN THE OWN HOTEL.
THE REASON I BRING UP THAT IS BECAUSE IT WAS A COMPLETELY WHITE FACTORY, ONLY WHITE WORKERS, AND IT WAS A BLACK HOTEL.
THEY WERE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
AS I HAVE INVESTIGATED THE HISTORY OF THIS BUILDING WHILE OWNING IT, IT WAS AN INTEGRATED, PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD A HUNDRED YEARS AGO WHEN THERE WAS CIVIL, CIVIL RIGHTS DISTRESS FOR MUCH IN OTHER PLACES.
BUT THIS WAS KIND OF A MIRACLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THAT'S THE PICTURE OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
I WANT YOU TO NOTICE THE BIG TREE THAT'S ON THE RIGHT, AND IT WOULD BE RIGHT ABOUT WHERE THAT SIGNPOST IS IN THE MIDDLE IS ABOUT WHERE HIS BUILDING WOULD START.
SO THE TREE IS ACTUALLY ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY.
AND THAT POST IS, IT'S ON HIS PROPERTY.
EVEN THE YELLOW POST IS ON THE PROPERTY.
NO, THE YELLOW POST IS A STREET SIGN THAT THE CITY PUT UP.
AND I'M JUST USING THAT AS A MARKER.
IT'S ALSO IN FRONT OF HIS PROPERTY.
SO HERE'S THE OTHER LITTLE INTERESTING HISTORICAL FACT,
THERE WAS A FAMILY HOME WHEN THEY BUILT THEIR OWN HOTEL AS A REPLACEMENT.
IT WAS A WOOD HOME, AND THEY WILTED IT, BUILT IT AS A BRICK.
THE SISTERS WHO BUILT IT, THEY USED EVERY BIT, EVERY INCH OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY OWNED.
SO WHEN MR. KING HAD HIS SURVEY DONE, IT TURNS OUT THAT MY PROPERTY LINE IS MY WALL THAT FACES PASTOR STREET.
THERE'S NO SETBACK, THERE'S NOTHING.
AND THAT'S JUST FROM A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
UH, THE PREVIOUS OWNERS WERE THE KORAN FAMILY, AND I WAS VERY FRIENDLY WITH THEM, AND I ACTUALLY OFFERED TO BUY 10 OR 15 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF MY, YOU KNOW, ON THAT SIDE OF MY BACK OF MY PROPERTY.
BUT THEY KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO SELL, AND THEY NEVER, WE NEVER AGREED ON IT.
UM, UH, AS I SAID, MY BROTHER AND I BOUGHT IT IN 2020.
[01:15:01]
MY MOTHER HAD ACTUALLY LIVED THERE SINCE 2008.WE DID A LOT OF REPAIRS AT AN OLD BUILDING.
WE PUT A LOT OF MONEY INTO IT, TRYING TO RESTORE IT TO ITS FORM OF GLORY.
AND THIS IS APPROXIMATE VIEW OF THE FUTURE.
MY APOLOGIES TO, UM, MR. WALKER, THE ARCHITECT.
I DID NOT HAVE THE RENDERING TOOLS THAT HE HAS, BUT I TOOK HIS VERY SLANTED ONE WHERE YOU COULD SEE THE ROW IN THE BACKGROUND AND I WAS ABLE TO CUT IT APART IN PIECES AND PUT IT BACK TOGETHER.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT QUEEN STREET, THIS IS APPROXIMATELY WHAT YOU WILL SEE.
THEY'RE ABOUT THE SAME HEIGHT.
THEY USED BRICK ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
AND IT'S, TO ME, IT'S VERY CLOSE.
AND WHAT YOU SEE IN THE BACK SORT OF IS A, UH, WOODEN FENCE, I THINK.
I THINK IT'LL BE WOODEN THAT COVERS UP THE STAIRS TO THEIR APARTMENTS THAT ARE ON THE BACK.
SO ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS, YES, IT'S BEEN VACANT A VACANT LOT FOR A LONG TIME.
THE WAY THEY HAVE DESIGNED THEIR SITE PLAN, THEY'RE GONNA COMPLETELY ENCOMPASS MY HISTORIC LANDMARK WITH BACK AND JUST A FEW FEET FROM MY PARKING SPACE IN THE BACK WAS, IS THERE SEPARATE GARAGES AND, UM, APARTMENTS ABOVE, APARTMENT ABOVE, AND THEN HIS BUILDING WHERE IT IS.
SO THAT FENCE THAT YOU POINTED OUT GOES ALL THE WAY BEHIND YOUR EXISTING PROPERTY, BECAUSE THAT'S HIS PROPERTY? YES, I GET A PARKING SPACE IN THE BACK.
SO I HAVE MY PROPERTY AND THERE'S ONE PARKING SPACE, AND THEN I, I DON'T MIND HAVING A FENCE IN THE BACK, BUT THERE ALSO SEEMS TO BE ONE THAT'S CLOSER.
UM, LIKE WHEN YOU FIRST, YOU SEE WHERE THE, WHERE THE COLORFUL TREE IS ON THE LEFT? YES.
THAT'S THE 15 PER, THAT'S THE 15 FEET I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
THE THING I SAW ON THE MOST UPDATED SITE PLAN WAS THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A PRIVACY FENCE.
SEE WHERE IT'S LABELED IN BROWN? UP THERE IN BROWN, YES.
PRIVACY FENCE THAT GOES ACROSS.
UM, MY, YOU KNOW, TO THE RIGHT, MY PARKING LOT IS, I'M, I'M CORNERED BY BOTH TREES.
SO THERE'S A TREE IN THE BACK THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT BEING CUT DOWN.
AND THERE'S A TREE ON THE SIDE THAT IS, THAT YOU SAW FROM THE STREET.
THE FENCE, THE PRIVACY FENCE GOES TO ON THE SIDE OF MY PARKING SPOT, WHICH IS FINE, BUT IT TURNS THEN TO THE CORNER WHEN, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS NORMAL OR NOT, BUT WHEN YOU PUT A ADJACENT PROPERTY, THEY DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT MY WINDOWS ARE.
I HAVE, I PUT THE MARKERS IN THERE ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
I HAVE, UM, FIVE, SEVEN FOOT BY, UM, 13 FOOT WINDOWS.
AND THE PRIVACY FENCE IS ACTUALLY GONNA CROSS OAK ENC CLOSE TWO OF THEM.
UM, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S WOOD WHERE I CAN'T USE THE WINDOWS TO ESCAPE OR IF THERE WOULD BE A FIRE.
SO, UM, I'M, I'M MOVING ON TO A DIFFERENT TOPIC.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT PRIVACY FENCE IN A MINUTE.
TRY AND TRY TO TRY TO SPEED THINGS UP A LITTLE BIT IF YOU CAN.
UM, THE, WHERE THE ARROWS ARE, THAT'S WHERE THE PARKING LOT WILL COME OUT.
I PUT IN THE OTHER, UM, UH, PROPERTIES THAT ARE CLOSE BY THERE, THE PINK, THE PINK AND THE BLUE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF COOL STREET.
THEIR HOUSES ARE VERY CLOSE, ARE RIGHT ON THE ROAD.
UM, COOL STREET IS, I HAVE A TRAFFIC REPORT THAT I MADE FOR MYSELF.
AND, UM, IT'S A ONE LANE ROAD THAT'S TWO WAY TRAFFIC, AND IT HAS FROM 40 TO 83 TRIPS PER DAY.
AND MANY TIMES PEOPLE USE, HE'S GONNA HAVE SCREENING AND HIS BUSHES AND STUFF.
BUT, UM, WE USED THE NO CURB AND THE GRASS IN ORDER TO PULL OVER.
SO THERE WAS A TRUCK THERE YESTERDAY WITH A BIG LAWN EQUIPMENT AND STUFF THAT BLOCKED THREE QUARTERS OF THE THING.
SO I'VE SEEN PEOPLE HAVE TO DRIVE INTO COOL STREET BACK ALL THE WAY OUT IN ORDER TO GET PASSED.
SO I THINK THERE'S A TRAFFIC ISSUE THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE CREATED.
I REALLY HOPE THERE'S NO DRIVEWAY ON THE STREET.
THE CHAIR, I, I HATE TO INTERRUPT THE TER THE TESTIMONY HERE, BUT I THINK WE'RE VENTURING INTO A TERRITORY WHERE WE'RE AT GIVING OPINIONS ABOUT TRAFFIC STUDIES.
I THINK WE NEED TO LAY A FOUNDATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS WITNESS HAS THE QUALIFICATIONS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THESE STATEMENTS.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU MAY WANT TO INQUIRE.
I'M HAPPY TO DO IT TO ASSIST WITH THE BOARD.
I DO NOT HAVE THOSE QUALIFICATIONS.
SO WE NEED TO KIND OF BYPASS AND, AND REALLY WE'RE, I THINK WE'RE INTO ALMOST NINE MINUTES NOW, SO WE OKAY.
WE'VE GIVEN A LOT OF LEEWAY TO ALLOW YOU TO SPEAK.
I APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE I'M VERY, THIS IS THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT I DID INSIDE THE CAMERA, BUT YOU COULD SKIP OVER.
WELL, WE CAN'T LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC STUDY SIDE.
SKIP, I'D APPRECIATE IF YOU'D TAKE THAT AWAY.
[01:20:01]
THE DRC PROCESS, SO LET'S MOVE PAST THAT.UM, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE PRIVACY FENCE THAT BLOCKS MY WINDOWS.
I REALLY HOPE SOMEBODY WILL CONSIDER THAT.
IS, IS THERE LIKE A SENTENCE THAT YOU CAN MAKE TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE, YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT? THAT'S WHAT MY WINDOWS WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THE FENCE WERE PUT UP.
I THINK THAT SAYS IT FOR ITSELF.
UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S IN HARMONY WITH THE HISTORIC AREA FOR THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, FOR THE, UM, THE LEGACY TREES THAT WOULD BE TAKEN DOWN.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE TRASH CANS ARE GONNA GO.
UM, I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE TREES, NO TREES AND OH, SO THE BACK BACK WINDOWS WILL HAVE A PRIVACY FENCE ACROSS 'EM, AND THE FRONT WINDOWS WILL, UM, BE STARING AT A SOLID BRICK WALL WHERE THE RED ARROW IS.
AND I, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT BLOCKING MY, NOT MY VIEW, BUT BLOCKING A FULL SIDE OF MY WINDOWS.
UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT DOESN'T DAMAGE MY PROPERTY VALUE.
SO JU I THINK THERE'S A QUESTION, BUT IT WAS ALSO PHRASED AS A STATEMENT.
I THINK THE BOARD NEEDS TO CLARIFY IF THE WITNESS IS OFFERING TESTIMONY ABOUT AN IMPACT TO ADJOINING PROPERTY VALUES OR IF SHE'S POSING A QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED BY THE APPLICANT.
I, I'M PO ANY QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED BY YOU, I DON'T KNOW.
OTHER, ANY OTHER WAY TO SAY IT? OKAY.
I THINK ONE REASON WE'VE TRIED TO GIVE AS MUCH LEEWAY AS POSSIBLE IS FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, BUT WE'RE STARTING TO GET INTO SOME PROFESSIONAL PARTS OF THINGS WHICH WERE ON THE LINE OF, UM, NOT ACCEPTABLE, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, OR I UNDERSTAND.
PUSHES US TO A DECISION ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE A DECISION WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, EXPERT WITNESS OR NOT.
UH, I'M JUST AN EXPERT ON THE OWN HOTEL
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE, YOUR WINDOWS IN YOUR BUILDING, ARE THEY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR EMERGENCY EVACUATION? YES, THEY OPEN THEM.
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT WITH DIFFICULTY.
I MEAN, I WOULD BREAK THEM IF I HAD TO GET THROUGH THEM, BUT NO, BUT AN INDIVIDUAL COULD GET THROUGH THEM.
BUT THE FENCE YOU'RE POINTING OUT IS GOING TO BE HOW CLOSE TO YOUR IT, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, BUT IN THE LAST SITE PLAN THAT WAS ON THE 21ST OF JULY, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S INCHES NOT FEET.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ASK.
YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, I'D LIKE TO HOW MUCH SPACE THERE IS BETWEEN THAT FENCE, NO DOUBT.
AND EMERGENCY ACCESS FROM THE, UH, EXISTING HOTEL.
YEAH, I'D LIKE MR. WALKER TO COME BACK UP.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST TO KIND OF INTERJECT HERE, THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC DISTANCE THAT'S CALLED OUT BETWEEN, BETWEEN THE PRIVACY FENCE AND THE ACTUAL BUILDING, BUT PROBABLY THE ARCHITECT OR, UM, THE OTHER GENTLEMAN MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.
AND JUST TO KIND OF ALSO CLARIFY, AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE AS IT PERTAINS TO DEFENSES.
OF COURSE, AS BOARD, IF THEY CHOOSE TO IMPOSE SOME TYPE OF CONDITION, YOU HAVE THAT ABILITY, UM, BUT IT DOES NOT IMPACT OR DISRUPT FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE.
I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO BE AWARE FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
SO FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, WHAT, WHAT QUESTIONS DO, ARE WE ALLOWED TO LISTEN TO CONSIDER, UM, AND PROCEED ON? WELL, YOU CAN ASK, UH, A WITNESS WHO HAS THE ABILITY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT, THAT REASONABLY RELATE TO SAFETY AS IT RELATES TO THIS PROJECT.
SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR ANY OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ABOUT DISTANCES, ABOUT HEIGHTS, ABOUT ANY OF THOSE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE, THE PROPERTY THAT, UM, THIS WITNESS WAS TALKING ABOUT, THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE.
SO TO, TO TRY TO EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, UM, IF WE'RE CONSIDERING THE WINDOWS AS INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SAFETY, WHAT OTHER WAYS ARE THERE FOR A PERSON TO INGRESS AND EGRESS THE BUILDING? OTHER THAN THROUGH THE WINDOWS? UM, THERE'S A BACK DOOR AND THERE'S A FRONT DOOR.
IT'S A, IT'S A, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? A SHOTGUN COMPARTMENT APARTMENT THAT IT GOES THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING.
I'M ONLY CONCERNED BECAUSE I HAVE MY ANTIQUE WOOD WINDOWS.
IF IT'S GOING TO BE A WOODEN FENCE, HE HAS A SPRINKLER SYSTEM FOR SAFETY REASONS AND HIS DISTANCE THAT HE CAN HAVE HIS BUILDING.
BUT IF SOMETHING, IF THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, A BARBECUE WAS OUT IN THE BACK AND THE FENCE CAUGHT FIRE, IT WOULD IMMEDIATELY PUT MY BUILDING ON FIRE AND THERE MIGHT BE NO ACCESS
[01:25:01]
TO GET OUT THE BACK DOOR.UM, AND THEN I GUESS ANOTHER QUESTION WE'LL HAVE, SINCE WE DISCUSSED THE FENCE AND PARKING SPOTS, WHAT ARE WE ALLOWED TO CONSIDER IN REFERENCE TO THE STREET BEING NARROWER? THE WIDTH AND PARKING SPACES WITH ONE STRUCTURE VERSUS ANOTHER? YOU CAN ASK A WITNESS WHO IS COMPETENT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE ABILITY FOR CARS TO SAFELY EXIT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ENTER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
SO, SO BACK ON YOUR STATEMENTS IN REFERENCE TO PARKING AND THE WIDTH OF KO STREET.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE ONE THAT WAS WITH KOOL FERENCE WITH STREET NORTH.
COOL STREET IS LIKE A DRIVEWAY.
MOST PEOPLE THINK IT IS DRIVEWAY
SO WITH FOUR, UM, I THINK WE HAVE FOUR, FOUR CURRENT DEPARTMENTS IS OR THERE ARE FOUR RESIDENCES OR FOUR? THERE ARE FOUR APARTMENTS IN MY BUILDING, YES.
SO HOW MANY SPACES? ONE, THERE'S ONLY ONE APARTMENT THAT GETS A SPACE.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS PUBLIC STREET PARKING.
AND IS, ARE ANY OF THOSE OFFICE BUILDINGS OR ARE THOSE FOUR PLACES WHERE FOR PERSON FOUR PRIVATE RESIDENCES.
SO WHERE, WHAT DOES THE CITY REQUIRE IN REFERENCE TO PARKING, UM, IN THE STREET AND ARE, ARE THE REQUIREMENTS? SO AS FAR AS FOR PARKING IN, IN TERMS OF ON STREET PARKING, YOU CAN'T HAVE ON STREETE PARKING TO SATISFY THIS PARTICULAR USE.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE OFF STREET PARKING, WHICH THEY'VE SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENT FOR.
FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, THEY HAVE MET THAT REQUIREMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME? OKAY, THANK YOU.
I WENT TOO LONG, BUT I GOTTA SAY I'M VERY IMPRESSED WITH THIS WHOLE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE DRC KENDRICK, MATT, SHELLEY, YOU GUYS, I, I LIVED IN, LIVED IN A LOT OF PLACES.
I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING AS ORGANIZED AS THIS.
I'LL GIVE EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY.
AND, AND DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE THAT'S GONNA SPEAK IN REFERENCE TO THE PROJECT BEFORE WE ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I SEE A LOT OF, THERE'S TWO OTHER, I GUESS.
SO IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON QUESTIONS FOR KENDRICK OR, OR SHOULD WE BRING AN APPLICANT BACK UP AND ASK SOME QUESTIONS? I'D LIKE TO, UM, ASK MR. WALKER SOME QUESTIONS.
BEFORE WE ASK YOU QUESTIONS, CAN YOU CLARIFY KENDRICK ON, UM, I KNOW THE TERM HISTORY IS BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF TIMES AND ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT'S MORE CLARIFIED BY THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AND NOT US PER SE? AS FAR AS THE HISTORIC IMPACTS OF AN AREA? UH, YES, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS ON OR AGAINST MR. MATTHEW.
SHELLEY, MY COLLEAGUE, HE HEADS THAT BOARD AND SO, AND THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF ALSO KIND OF GOING THROUGH THAT AT THE SAME TIME.
UM, SO ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC TO THAT COMMISSION.
AND, AND TO THAT POINT, UM, THIS BOARD HAS PURVIEW OVERUSES.
SO YOU ARE ANALYZING WHETHER THE USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE LAND USE ORDINANCE BASED ON THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN THE ORDINANCE.
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION IS GOING TO LOOK AT ALL THE EXTERIOR FEATURES OF THIS CONCEPT.
SO THEY'RE GONNA LOOK AT MASS SCALE, SIZE, FORM, RHYTHM, AND MAKE SURE THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE ARE COMPATIBLE OR NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH OTHER HISTORIC STRUCTURES WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
SO DEPENDING ON A DECISION, THE HPC THEN WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE REVISIONS TO A PLAN TO COMPLY WITH THEIR RULES AND REGULATIONS.
IF, IF YOU ALL ARE INCLINED TO GIVE ZONING APPROVAL, THEN THAT WILL ENABLE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO HEAR THE APPLICATION THAT'S PRESENTED BEFORE THEM AS TO THE LOOK, FEEL, MASS SCALE RHYTHM OF THE BUILDING.
AND THEY WILL APPLY THE NEWBURG HISTORIC STANDARDS TO THE APPLICATION TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS ABOUT THOSE VARIOUS DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.
SO THE, THE DRAWINGS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU, I THINK I WOULD DEFER TO MR. WALKER ARE CONCEPTS.
UM, THOSE ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL APPROVALS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD.
SO, AND, AND I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS TO WHERE HOPEFULLY WE CAN ALL GET SOME GOOD QUESTIONS TO ASK ALSO IN, IN, IN THE RIGHT LINE OF PERSPECTIVE.
UM, IN THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE, IF A PERSON WAS TO APPROVE A USE, IS A CONDITION POSSIBLE WITHIN THAT USE THAT WOULD RESTRICT OR NOT RESTRICT WHAT THE HPC MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO? OR IS THAT OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW? THAT THAT MAY BE A BIT OUTSIDE YOUR PURVIEW? DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS.
UM, IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC SAFETY CONCERN THAT YOU ALL ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AND THINK THAT A CONDITION
[01:30:01]
IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN, THAT CERTAINLY WOULD IMPACT THE LAND, WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY IMPACTS WHAT THE HPC CAN OR CANNOT CONSIDER.UM, BUT LET'S, I THINK GET YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED FIRST AND IF WE GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE'RE INTERESTED IN CONSIDERING SOME CONDITIONS, THEN WE CAN HAVE A MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME.
SO WE NEED TO START OUR QUESTION PROCESS, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS.
UH, I'M LOOKING AT OUR, UH, MATERIALS PROVIDED AND UM, UNDER BUILDING INSPECTOR OURS, UM, THERE'S INFORMATION THAT IT'S LOCATED IN THE FLOOD PLAIN FLOOD ZONE AE BUT THEN, UM, THE OTHER PAPERWORK I READ THAT, UM, A PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED.
SO THE, OUR CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR, HIS, THAT GENTLEMAN'S NAME IS MATTHEW BOSWELL.
HE ESSENTIALLY ACTS AS OUR FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR AS WELL IN AN SENSE.
UM, SO HE CARRIES TWO HATS, BUT BASICALLY HE'S ASSESSED THIS AND FOUND IT TO BE IN A FLOOD ZONE, WHICH WOULD BE THAT AE FLOOD ZONE AND A FLOOD PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED UPON THEM PROCESSING AND GOING FORWARD.
SO THAT DOESN'T AFFECT OUR DECISION.
THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, I'M CONFUSED.
IS THERE, UM, A KITCHEN AND IS FOOD IS GOING TO BE PROVIDED, IT SEEMS LIKE I SEE IN TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS THAT YES, THERE IS AND NO, THERE IS NOT.
THERE IS NOT, NO, THERE WILL BE NO FOOD SERVED IN THIS BUILDING.
DID I NOT HEAR YOU REFER TO A RESTAURANT THOUGH IN, IN YOUR EARLIER PRESENTATION? OR WAS I MISHEARING? YOU MAY HAVE MISSPOKE THERE IF, IF I DID SAY THAT.
UM, SO IT'S, IT'S JUST A BAR AROUND, IT'S A BAR, IT'S NOT A RESTAURANT.
SNACKS ARE PROVIDED, BUT THEY'RE NOT COOKED ON THE PREMISES.
IT'S JUST, SIR, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND COMING TO THE, THE MICROPHONE AND INTRODUCING YOURSELF, PLEASE.
NAME AND ADDRESS AND JMN 1 0 9 GATEWOOD SPECTRUM CUSTOM BUILDER.
IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROJECT.
SO, UM, NO, WHAT IT IS, IS, IS REFERRED TO AS A SPEAKEASY, WHICH IS LIKE A, A BAR, BUT A QUIET BAR, NOT LOUD, OBNOXIOUS BAR.
AND SO WE WILL NOT HAVE, WE WILL NOT HAVE A KITCHEN IN ANY FORM OR FASHION IN THIS PLACE.
WE'RE NOT GONNA BE SERVING FOOD.
UM, SO NO, IT DOES NOT HAVE THAT ANYWAY.
AND I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT UNDER THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADMINISTRATOR, AND MAYBE THAT IS NOT OUR PR PURVIEW, UH, IT TALKS ABOUT THE, UM, HV AC UNIT, UM, LOCATION IN THE PAPERWORK.
THAT WAS ASSESSED BY, UH, THE H HP SEAT, OR EXCUSE ME, HPA, I GUESS THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADMINISTRATOR, MR. MATTHEW SHELLEY.
AND HE HAD MADE HIS INITIAL COMMENT WHERE I GUESS THE HPC WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THE LOCATION THAT WAS CURRENT.
SO THE APPLICANT, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, REVISED AND WENT BACK TO MOVE THIS OR APP PIECE THAT, THAT, UH, DISGRUNTLEMENT.
AND SO THAT, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IT'S BEEN CONFIRMED AND IT'S GOOD TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT SIDE OF THINGS.
SO THEY RELOCATED THAT HVAC SYSTEM.
SO THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED? YES, MA'AM.
AND, UH, MR. J, WERE YOU SWORN IN BY CHANCE? I JUST WANTED, YES.
ANY ADDITIONAL? MR. MARK, DO YOU KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY FEET THIS BUILDING WILL BE FROM THE EXISTING HOTEL? WE HAVE IT AT 20 FEET AWAY FROM OUR BUILDING.
AND THEN HOW MANY FEET WOULD THE FENCE BE? SO THE FENCE, WE HAVE IT SHOWN A LITTLE BIT CLOSER ON OUR PLAN RIGHT NOW, BUT, UM, WE CAN MOVE THAT AWAY FIVE FEET AWAY FROM HER BUILDING JUST TO GIVE CLEARANCE FROM THE BUILDING FOR ANYBODY COMING OUT OF THAT WINDOW FOR EGRESS PURPOSES, FIVE ADDITIONAL FEET TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY STATED, FIVE FEET FROM HER BUILDING HER PROP.
THE PROPERTY LINE IS RIGHT ON HER BUILDING.
SO IT'S FIVE FEET OFF OF HER BUILDING TO GIVE AN AFFIRMATIVE CLEARANCE THERE.
AND SO THE, THE, MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, IS THAT AN HPC SITUATION OR IS THAT A CONDITION FOR US? THAT'S A CONDITION FOR YOU ALL.
AND, AND A DISTANCE FROM THE BUILDING WOULD BE AT CHOICE FIVE 10.
I I THINK THE, THE BUILDING IS EXISTING SO WE KNOW WHERE IT'S LOCATED AND I THINK THE GENTLEMAN WHO'S REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT MAY BE PROPOSING TO REVISE
[01:35:01]
THE APPLICATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU TO SITUATE THE FENCE FIVE FEET FROM THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT'S NEIGHBORING THIS PROJECT.SO DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT REVISION? YES.
AND IS THAT WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ENTERTAIN AS A CONDITION AT THE END? THAT'S FINE.
AND I GUESS WE COULD ASK FOR LESS OR MORE ALSO IF, BUT FIVE FEET IS WHAT'S ON THE TABLE.
FIVE FEET IS THE REVISED APPLICATION.
IF YOU ALL IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS ABOUT SAFETY AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, UM, HAVE A, A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION OR A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD ENGAGE IN TONIGHT.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, MR. CHAIRMAN? I HAVE ONE MORE.
UM, I WAS GETTING DIFFERENT VIEWS OF WHERE THE ACTUAL GARBAGE CANS FOR THE BAR WOULD BE LOCATED IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE HOTEL AND THE PARKING LOT, ET CETERA.
ON OUR SITE PLAN, WE HAVE A, A DESIGNATED LOCATION FOR THE, THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE.
IT'S ON THE BACK OF THE PARKING LOT AND IT IS IN ENCLOSURE.
AND ALL OF THAT WILL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY HPC BY OKAY.
TRYING TO GET US BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SURVEY.
CAN, CAN YOU READ THE SCALE? I MEAN, I CAN JUDGE BY ONE TIME AT THE BOTTOM CORNER.
I, I'LL JUST TRY TO GIVE AT LEAST THE LOCATION OF THOSE DUMPSTERS ARE ON THE FAR NORTH SIDE.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN QUITE SEE IT, BUT TOWARDS THE, TOWARDS THE FAR NORTH, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHERE THE PARKING LOT IS KIND OF ALMOST AT ITS PEAK, UM, AND SLIGHTLY CLEAR WEST.
SO THERE, THERE THEY'RE WELL BEHIND THE CONSTRUCTION.
AND, AND SO ON THIS ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN WHERE IT SAYS PRIVACY FENCING, THE FENCE THAT IS IN QUESTION IS THE ONE THAT'S ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT HAS AN LHA.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THEN BEHIND THE BUILDING, THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THE FENCE, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ALL THE ONE THAT'S TO THE EAST, IS THAT CORRECT? OR IT, IT FOLLOWS THE PROPERTY LINE AND THEN CONNECTS BACK TO THE, TO THE GARAGE STRUCTURE THERE.
AND, AND SO THAT THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT, OF HER BUILDING OR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WE'LL SAY, IS SIGNIFICANTLY NORTH OF THE BUILDING LINE ITSELF.
AND THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE, THE SCALE OF THE MAP TO TRY TO JUDGE THE DISTANCE FROM THAT FENCE BACK TO THE, ACROSS THE PARKING SPACE, TO THE WHAT WOULD BE THE NORTH WALL OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.
SO SMALL WITH A LOT, A LOT OF INFORMATION ON A, ON A LITTLE, LITTLE SHEET OF PAPER THERE, YOUR HONOR, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE WITH ALL THAT.
BUT WE ARE ADHERE THROUGH ALL, ALL OF THE SETBACKS, UH, THE HP SETBACKS FOR THIS DISTRICT.
UM, OR WELL WITHIN
AND I'M SURE IT WOULD BE WEEKLY AND IT'S ALL THE WAY IN THE BACK PARKING LOT.
UM, SO YES, IT BE EASILY ACCESSIBLE AND IS THE FAR FURTHEST POINT AWAY FROM THE BUILDING FOR FARTHEST POINT.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR DO WE WANT TO ASK ANYBODY ELSE TO COME UP AND ASK ANOTHER QUESTION OF, OR ARE WE READY TO MAKE SOME CONSIDERATIONS AND NEED TO VOTE? DO WE CONSIDER HOURS OF OPERATION? HOURS OF OPERATION? OKAY.
I GUESS THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION.
OUR HOURS OF OPERATION, I GUESS IF WE HAVE, IF, IF WE HAVE RESIDENCES, WE KNOW THAT'S A 24 7, 365.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
THE HOURS SHOWN HERE ARE 11:00 AM TO 11:00 PM OKAY.
[01:40:01]
AND AND IS THAT WHERE YES.IS THAT THAT CORRECT? WE, I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR THAT.
I'M NOT SURE IF THE GENTLEMAN IN THE HAT, HE'S BEEN SWORN THAT'S, SO THE FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE ARE DID YOU SIGN IN AND ARE YOU SWORN? WELL, ALRIGHT, UH, HE'S THE PROPERTY.
HE'S THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO HE'S, SO LET, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SWEAR HIM IN.
MR YEAH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND UH, SWEAR YOU IN.
LET ME GET BACK TO THE CHIEF HERE.
UH, WE NEED TO GET YOU RAISE YOUR, UH, RIGHT HAND AND DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? I DO.
AND THEN WE NEED NAME AND ADDRESS.
DION KING, UH, 2 1 1 5 HIDDEN HARBOR, NEW BY NORTH CAROLINA.
AND THEN RE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROJECT THE OWNER.
AND THE QUESTION WAS, HOURS OF OPERATION.
I WOULD JUST ASK IF YOU PLAN FOR THE HOURS OF OPERATION TO COMPLY WITH TOWN ORDINANCES.
THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE CIGAR LOUNGE AND ALSO CIGAR LOUNGE WILL BE DIFFERENT.
IT'LL BE 10:00 AM TO 8:00 PM OUR BARRED WON'T OPEN UP UNTIL ONE.
UH, AND THAT CLOSES ROUGHLY AROUND EIGHT AS WELL.
AND, AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S REGULATED BY SOME ORGANIZATION GROUP? NO, SIR.
ARE YOU, ARE YOU GONNA BE A RESIDENT OF THE BUILDING? NO.
IF SO, I'LL PUT MY MAMA UP THERE FIRST.
SO TELL ME AGAIN THE CLOSING TIME.
NOW THIS, THIS COURSE FRIDAYS ARE KIND OF LIKE, OR SATURDAYS WILL BE OUR LATER DAY, WHICH WILL CLOSE AROUND NINE 30 OR THE, UH, EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY FOR THE BAR BUT 10, SO 10 TO EIGHT IS OUR CIGAR LOUNGE HOURS.
OUR BAR HOURS WILL BE ONE TO NINE.
IT'S NOT REALLY MUCH GOING ON OVER THERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO PEOPLE LIKE THEIR SLEEP AND I LIKE MY SLEEP AS WELL.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? YEP.
UM, ON NUMBER ONE, THE RE THE REQUESTED PERMIT IS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UH, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? A.
UH, ON NUMBER TWO, THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE, A MOTION THAT THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE.
SECOND, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND THAT THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE.
ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.
UH, NUMBER THREE, IF COMPLETED IS PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR A MOTION? SO MOVED.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND IT.
ANY DISCUSSION? MR. CHAIRMAN? I HAVE A, UH, CONCERN ABOUT THE SAFETY ISSUE THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED EARLIER.
WOULD THAT FALL UNDER THAT? I THINK CURRENTLY WE'RE ON, UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE.
COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE.
BUT THEN THE NEXT STATEMENT JAMIE SAYS, CONSIDER ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED USER MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
YOU CERTAINLY CAN ADDRESS IT NOW OR YOU CAN ADDRESS IT.
NUMBER FOUR, PROBABLY BE A BETTER PLACE TO FINE DISCUSS IT.
UM, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR NUMBER THREE, UM, IF COMPLETED AS PROPOSED AND THE APPLICATION AND DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
UH, ON NUMBER FOUR, UM, THAT THE USE WILL NOT MATERIAL ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY LOCATED WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSED AND DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED.
SO I THINK THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE A GOOD BIT OF DISCUSSION POTENTIALLY, UM, BEFORE WE EVEN ENTERTAIN IT.
YEAH, I PROPOSED THAT WE CONSIDER WHAT THE ARCHITECT, I THINK THAT'S WHAT, UM, HAD PROPOSED WITH THE FIVE FEET.
[01:45:01]
I THINK THAT THAT'S A, A FAIR AMOUNT OF SPACE TO ALLOW, UM, TO ADDRESS THE SAFETY ISSUE AS WELL AS ALLOW THEM THE USE OF THEIR LAND.UM, BUT I I THINK THAT FIVE FEET IS A FAIR, UH, AMOUNT FOR FIRE SAFETY AND NEEDED IF THOSE WINDOWS ARE CONSIDERED EGRESS FOR THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR.
SO IF WE WERE TO, IF FIVE FEET IS SOMETHING OR ANOTHER FOOTAGE THAT WE WERE TO AGREE UPON, DO WE TALK ABOUT NUMBER FOUR WITH A CONDITION LATER OR DO WE, HOW, HOW DO, HOW WOULD THAT PROCESS WORK FOR US? VERY GOOD QUESTION, MR. CHAIR.
SO THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY REVISED HIS APPLICATION SUCH THAT THE FENCE IS SITUATED FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE BUILDING.
SO THE, THE MOTION THAT YOU WOULD ENTERTAIN AS IT RELATES TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS BASED ON THAT REVISED APPLICATION.
IF THEREAFTER YOU THINK CONDITIONS ARE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THAT FIVE FEET IS MET OR SOMETHING IN EXCESS OF FIVE FEET IS NECESSARY BASED ON THE COMPETENT MATERIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, THEN YOU WOULD ADDRESS IT WHEN WE GET TO THE SECTION ON CONDITIONS.
SO, UM, KENDRICK, ARE WE SURE THAT THE WAY THE APPLICATION READS NOW THAT WE'RE AT FIVE FEET, THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE APPLICATION READS NOW.
BUT THE APPLICANT AT ANY POINT CAN REVISE HIS APPLICATION LIVE IN THE HEARING.
OUR LAND USE ORDINANCE PERMITS THAT, OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO NOT FEEL THE FIVE FEET IS ADEQUATE.
WHAT, WHAT TYPE OF DISTANCE DO YOU THINK WOULD BE MORE SUITABLE? I WOULD PROBABLY GO WITH 10 FEET.
ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD? AND I GUESS WE ALSO NEED TO ASK IF 10 FEET WILL FIT IN WITH THE PLAN SOMEWHAT.
IS THAT, AND, AND I'M HEARING JAMIE, THAT IF, IF THAT WAS AGREED TO TONIGHT, THAT WOULD BE A NEW REVISED APPLICATION.
IF 10 FEET OR SO, WE'VE ALREADY REVISED TO FIVE FEET.
SO THAT'S OUR APPLICATION THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING.
IF THE BOARD IS INCLINED TO REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET SEPARATION, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO DISCUSS WITH THE APPLICANT.
AND ALSO YOU WANNA MAKE SURE IN MAKING THAT REQUEST OR MAKING THAT CONSIDERATION THAT WE'RE POINTING TO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT NECESSITATES SUCH A CONDITION FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT.
WE WANNA VERBALIZE WHAT THOSE SAFETY CONCERNS ARE.
YEAH, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY 10, WHY YOU FEEL 10 FEET'S NECESSARY.
I I HAVE A SAFETY CONCERN AND I FEEL THAT, UH, THAT IT'S FIVE FEET'S NOT ADEQUATE.
SO IN, I GUESS THE NEXT QUESTION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE WOULD BE AT THE, THE BACK OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND I, THIS WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE OWNER.
I, I THINK IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WAS A BACK DOOR.
SO MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE, HOW HIGH IS THE BUILDING OFF THE GROUND AND HOW FAR THE STEPS GO OFF FROM THE BUILDING? AND ONCE WE GET AWAY FROM THE BUILDING, HOW MUCH SPACE IS THERE FOR A PERSON TO GET OFF OF THE STEPS AND AWAY FROM THE BUILDING TO THE STREET? SO YOU COULD COME BACK UP TO THE FRONT AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION FORCE OR, OR, UM, WE'LL GET BOTH OF Y'ALL TO TELL THE, SO WE HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY.
UH, THE BUILDING IS ELEVATED TWO FEET.
SO WE HAVE TWO STEPS DOWN TO GET OUT OF THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
UM, I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THE 10 FEET.
UM, I THINK FIVE FEET IS CONSIDERED AN ACCESSIBLE PATH FOR A DA PURPOSES.
ANYBODY WITHIN THAT, THAT WIDTH CAN MAKE IT TO A WINDOW.
A FIREFIGHTER CAN GET TO A WINDOW WITHIN THAT WIDTH.
UM, THAT'S A, THAT'S A CODE REQUIREMENT IS FIVE FEET ACCESSIBLE WEIGHT AROUND A BUILDING.
UM, IF WE DO HAVE TO GO TO A 10, 10 FOOT WIDTH BETWEEN THE BUILDING, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE JUST TAKE THE FENCE OFF COMPLETELY.
'CAUSE I THINK WE'RE GONNA GET TOO FAR TO THE BUILDING AT THAT POINT AND THERE WON'T BE ENOUGH ROOM IN BETWEEN THE FENCE AND HIS BUILDING AT THAT POINT.
MAY I HAVE SOMETHING HERE? YEAH, SURE.
THE, THE PURPOSE OF, UH, THE FENCE WAS PUT INTO PLACE TO SEPARATE THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE VERSUS HER PROPERTY.
UM, NOW GRANTED HER PROPERTY KIND OF SITS RIGHT ON MY PROPERTY LINE IF YOU GUYS CAN LOOK ON THE IMAGE DISPLAYED.
BUT IF THE FENCE IS THE ISSUE, I DON'T GOTTA HAVE IT.
WE, WE KNOW THAT I OWN THE PROPERTY SO I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT FENCE THERE.
THE PROPERTY PRIVACY FENCE GOING ALONG THE BACK HALF.
I MEAN LIKE I CAN KEEP THAT AS WELL, BUT I DON'T WANNA GET TOO HUNG UP ON FENCE OR, OR PRIVACY FENCE 'CAUSE I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED IT.
[01:50:01]
SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S THERE AND WHAT'S NOT.SO IF THAT WOULD SWAY YOU GUYS TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND THAT THAT'S, IT'S GONE MS. MARTY.
SO THE FIVE, I'LL GO BACK TO THE, I CAN, I CAN REALIZE THE, THE PRIVACY FENCE POSSIBLY COULD BE VERY IMPORTANT TO GIVE SOME PRIVACY TO THE HOTEL.
UM, AND, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A, A DIVISION BETWEEN THE TWO BUSINESSES, LET ME SAY YES.
UM, THE FIVE FEET IS ACCEPTABLE TO PUBLIC SAFETY IN REGARDS TO FIREMEN ACCESSING A BUILDING OR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T GET OUT THE FRONT DOOR OR THE BACK DOOR AND THEY HAVE ANOTHER ACCESS, WHICH WOULD BE THE HO WHICH WOULD BE THE WINDOWS.
IS FIVE FEET ACCEPTABLE BY THE FIRE MARSHAL? LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, CAN I CAN'T SPEAK.
WE, I CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT JUST REGARDING THE DRC COMMENTS.
THE FIRE MARSHAL DIDN'T MAKE ANY COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE DEFENSE.
UM, AND HE'S, THAT INDIVIDUAL SHOULD HAVE MR. JEREMY BLAYLOCK.
HE'S SEEN THE SAME PLAN THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED TONIGHT.
SO HE DIDN'T NOTE IT AS A CONCERN EVEN WITH IT UP AGAINST THE BUILDING.
I'LL PROBABLY WITHDRAW MY CONCERN ABOUT THE 10 FEET AND, AND GO WITH THE, UH, DISCUSSION OF FIVE FEET.
SO WE, HOW ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE? ARE WE THERE? IT'S FIVE FEET.
ANOTHER THING YOU PROBABLY CONSIDER IS VISITATION.
UM, SO WE CAN JUST DO A VEGETATION BUFFER THAT'S THERE INSTEAD OF THERE BEEN A PRIVACY FENCE.
YEAH, I MEAN WE, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, HER CONCERNS IS THE, YOU KNOW, JUST THE THAT'S FINE MAN.
UM, SO THE, ONE OF THE CONCERNS, YOU KNOW, WE WANT THAT PRIVACY BUFFER.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO SEE THAT STUFF.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO SEE OUR STUFF KIND OF DEAL.
BUT ALSO JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S MAINLY JUST, IT'S, IT SAYS IT'S A PRIVACY FENCE, BUT IT'S MAINLY JUST TO HELP.
LIKE, IF SHE HAS GUESTS IN THAT ROOM, THEY'RE NOT STARING AT, YOU KNOW, AT THIS.
SO, AND IF WE HAVE PEOPLE SITTING HERE AND PEOPLE ARE WALKING AROUND, THEY DON'T PULL THEIR SHADE.
SO IT'S KIND OF JUST A LITTLE THING JUST TO KIND OF HELP OUT.
MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF A NOISE BUFFER.
BUT, UM, I KNOW THAT WHEN WE DO ALL THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, A LOT OF TIMES WE JUST DO LIKE A, A SMALL ROW, YOU KNOW, OF BUSHES THAT WE TRIM TO ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FIVE, SIX FOOT HIGH AND THAT KIND OF DOES THE SAME THING.
SO IF YOU'RE CONCERNED, I MEAN SHE'S GOT TWO FORMS OF EGRESS, YOU KNOW, THE FRONT AND BACK DOORS.
AND IF THEY'RE GONNA COME AND GET SOMEBODY OUT, THEY WOULD GO OUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE FRONT AND THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
'CAUSE THAT'S THE EASY ACCESS.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, RUN THE FIRETRUCK DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDINGS AND PICK IT UP.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PROBABLY WHY WE WERE JUST DOING THAT.
JUST TO KIND OF HAVE SOME CONSIDERATION FOR HER AND FOR THEIR, YOU KNOW, FOR THEIR STUFF.
AND, AND ALSO JUST TO KIND OF GIVE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SITTING OUTSIDE IN THAT AREA SOME PROPHECY.
I PERSONALLY WOULD GO WITH THE FENCE OVER, UH, THE, THE BUSHES.
UM, UH, MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT THOSE ARE OFTENTIMES NOT VERY SATISFACTORY, BUT A FENCE IS MUCH MORE PRIVATE.
WELL, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A SEPARATION.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A PROPERTY THING BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THE PROPERTY LINE THROUGH BUILDING IT IS MORE LOGISTIC KIND OF A BARRIER FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THOSE ROOMS AND YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ON THE BOARD.
SO IF, IF WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO DEFENSE, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE FIVE FEET? YES, I AM.
SO JUST SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR, THE APPLICATION THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING TONIGHT IS A MODIFIED APPLICATION FROM WHAT WAS SUBMITTED WHEREIN THE FENCE THAT IS LOCATED, THE PRIVACY FENCE, IT'S LOCATED ON THE, I GUESS SOUTHEASTERN CORNER.
SOUTHWESTERN CORNER, RATHER CLOSEST TO THE RONAN HOTEL, WILL BE SITUATED FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE RONAN HOTEL.
EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT? YES.
UM, MS. WEST, CAN YOU COME FORWARD SINCE, SINCE THE QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT VEGETATIVE BUFFER VERSUS SOLID BUFFER BEING A, A FENCE.
UM, AND I, AND I GUESS MY THOUGHT IN SOME CASES A VEGETATIVE BUFFER GROWS AND WE MIGHT START OUT WITH FIVE FEET AND IT MAY NOT BE THAT WAY FOREVER.
BUT DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION? I PREFER TO LOOK AT VEGETATION
I HAVE, UM, THE, THE FENCE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT GOES PORTO'S MOTHER, MY PARKING SPACE IN THE BACK, WHICH IS WONDERFUL.
UM, THE ONE ON THE SIDE IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
[01:55:01]
SO IT WOULD BE THE FRONT OF MY PARKING SPACE AS I PULL IN LIKE THIS.UM, UM, IS IT MARTY, MR. MARTY? UM, THE, THE FENCE WOULD BE PREFERABLE FOR ME.
SOMETIMES THEY'VE HAD WILD PARTIES IN THE BACK IN MY PARKING SPACE AND I I KNOW WHAT THE OPPOSITE MIGHT BE IF THEY WERE HAVING PARTIES ON THEIR SIDE OF THEIR APARTMENTS.
AND COULD I JUST CLARIFY? YOU ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT TRASH AND THEY ANSWERED YOU ABOUT THE DUMPSTERS.
THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE THE THREE TO THREE APARTMENTS THAT HAVE REGULAR TRASH BINS THAT GET PICKED UP WEEKLY.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THOSE ARE GONNA GO, BUT I THINK THEY'RE GONNA BE RIGHT NEXT TO MY PARKING SPACE.
THAT'S THE OTHER, THE OTHER REASON A FENCE WOULD BE PREFERABLE.
THEY'D BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE.
IN OTHER WORDS THOUGH, THEIR THEIR SIDE.
CAN I JUST ADD ONE OTHER THING YOU SAID ABOUT THE TRAFFIC? I'M NOT ALLOWED.
I CALLED PUBLIC WEEKS TO SEE IF THEY EVER DID ANY TRAFFIC ON.
THEY DIDN'T, THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I DID MY OWN.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, DISCUSSIONS? UM, I, WHEN I READ NUMBER FOUR, UM, I KNOW I NEED TO ADD IN THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REVISED PLAN AT FIVE FEET.
SO WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE A STAB THERE AND, AND, AND MOVE ON FROM THERE.
SO THAT THE USE WILL NOT MATERIAL ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY IF LOCATED WERE PROPOSED AND DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE PLAN IS SUBMITTED.
AND I GUESS I NEED TO SAY THE REVISED PLAN AS AGREED UPON AT TONIGHT'S MEETING TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT FENCE.
FIVE FEET FROM FIVE FEET FROM, FROM THE ADJOINING PROPERTY.
AND, AND IS THAT THE WAY IT'S REVISED? I SAID, HAVE I SAID THAT PROPERLY? IS THAT THE LOCATION THAT THE APPLICANT IS TALKING ABOUT? FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE? FIVE FEET FROM THE HOTEL.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'VE DONE THIS CORRECTLY SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY CHALLENGES DOWN THE ROAD, SO THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? DO WE A MOTION AND OR SO MOVE? OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION.
UM, ALL IN FAVOR? A ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIE? THAT THE USE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE VALUE OF ADJOINING OR ABUTTING PROPERTY OR THAT THE USE IS A PUBLIC NECESSITY? AND SO AS WE TALK, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT BOTH, UM, AND OR CHOOSE A MOTION THAT HAS ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS.
SHOULD WE PUT IN THE RECORD THAT WE DID RECEIVE AN APPRAISAL REPORT REFLECTING THAT THE VALUE DOES NOT AFFECT PROPERTIES ADJACENT DATED AUGUST 20TH, 2025.
THAT STATEMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO DOCUMENT THAT INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD? YES MA'AM.
IN ADDITION TO THE ORAL TESTIMONY.
SO WE'LL NEED A MOTION TO INCLUDE IT.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, IS THE MOTION THE USE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE VALUE ADJOINING ORAL BUDDING PROPERTY? OR IS THE MOTION THE USE IS A PUBLIC NECESSITY THAT IT WON'T AFFECT? YEAH, THAT IT WON'T AFFECT.
SO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS THE USE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE VALUE OF ADJOIN REBUTTING PROPERTY.
CORRECT? IS THAT THE SECOND AS WELL? IT IS, YES.
DO WE NEED TO INCLUDE THE VERBIAGE IN REFERENCE TO THE APPRAISAL? NO, SIR.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A SECOND.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE GOOD THERE AS, AS WE'VE GOT THIS WRITTEN.
UM, ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
UH, NUMBER SIX, THAT THE LOCATION AND CHARACTER OF THE USE IF DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED, WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS TO BE LOCATED AND IN GENERAL CONFORMITY WITH THE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
SO WE HAVE A OF MOTION AND A SECOND.
UH, MY ONLY QUESTION IS DO WE NEED TO MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE HPC SINCE THAT HAD COME UP OR ARE WE CLEAR WITHOUT, NO SIR.
YOU WANT TO CONDITION THE APPROVAL ON HPC APPROVAL? I GUESS SHE COULD NOT LEGALLY NECESSARY, BUT TO ADDRESS ITEM NUMBER SIX IS NOT NECESSARY.
[02:00:01]
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.SO BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT ISSUING A PERMIT, WE MAY NEED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IF THERE'S A CONDITION THAT ANYBODY WANTS TO DISCUSS.
SINCE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMMENTS.
IS THERE ONE, UM, CAN WE PUT A TIMEFRAME ON THE CONDITION TO BE OR, OR REVISED THE PLAN? IT CAN BE SUBMITTED RESUBMITTED? UM, YES MA'AM.
YOU CAN ASK, UH, YOU CAN REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT REVISED PLANS TO STAFF INDICATING THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED TONIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO RESUBMIT A PLAN BASED ON THE, UM, REVISED DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD TONIGHT ABOUT THE FIVE FOOT.
SO DOES THE CONDITION GET APPROVED PRIOR OR AFTER WE, I THINK THE, THE APPLICANT SAID THAT IT'LL BE DONE TOMORROW MORNINGS.
SO IF THAT'S THE ONLY CONCERN THAT WE HAVE TONIGHT THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED WITH THE CONDITION, UM, THE, THE CHAIR CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ISSUE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH THE CONDITION THE APPLICANT SUBMIT REVISED PLANS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED TONIGHT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION AS STATED? SO MOVED
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UM, ALL IN FAVOR TO ISSUE THE PERMIT, AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? PERMITS ISSUED AND WE'LL HAVE A REVISED PLAN I GUESS TOMORROW MORNING FOR YOU.
I GUESS YOU CAN DO THAT ON AUTOCAD OR SOMETHING.
YOU CAN DO IT THAT QUICK I GUESS.
UM, WE'RE ON NUMBER 5 5 4 E FIREFLY CAFE, UM, SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN US WITH THIS LAST ITEM.
THIS IS FOR FIREFLY CAFE AND THE PROPOSED USE IS 8.300, UH, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'VE ACTUALLY PREVIOUSLY HEARD, BUT THIS IS REGARDING A RESTAURANT.
AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING RESTAURANT THERE CURRENTLY.
UM, IT ACTS UNDERNEATH A DIFFERENT USE CATEGORY AS FAR AS FOR THE NUMBER THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
UM, I SHOULD REFRAIN FROM SAYING CATEGORY.
IT'S STILL WITHIN THE SAME RESTAURANT BUSINESS USE, BUT IT IS A DIFFERENT NUMBER ASSOCIATION.
SO THIS PARTICULAR, UM, USE IS TO ALLOW FOR CONSUMPTION OUTSIDE OF THE ACTUAL, UH, RESTAURANT AND ALONG WITH SERVICES AND THINGS THAT PARTAKE WITH JUST NORMAL SERVICES FOR, FROM A RESTAURANT.
UM, AND AGAIN, I'LL READ THAT, CARRY IT, IT IS DESIGNATED AS CARRY OUT SERVICE CONSUMPTION OUTSIDE FULLY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE ALLOWED NO DRIVE IN SERVICE.
AND THIS IS, UH, PER THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES.
AND THE REQUEST SUMMARY HERE, THE APPLICANT'S ARE SEAN AND SARAH ROSS.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS BURN INVESTMENT GROUP INC.
AND THE LOCATION IS 9 0 1 B P*****K STREET IN NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA.
THE, UH, TOTAL ACRES APPROXIMATELY 0.55 AND THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS ASSOCIATED ARE EIGHT DASH 0 0 9 DASH 0 9 3 AND EIGHT DASH 0 0 9 DASH 0 9 4.
THE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE RESIDENTIAL SIX OR R DASH SIX AND COMMERCIAL FOUR OR C DASH FOUR.
AND THE FIRST MAP WE HAVE HERE IS THE VICINITY MAP.
AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE BOTH PARCELS ARE DESIGNATED.
THEY'RE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED, UH, THAT'S FOLLOWED BY THE BUFFERING MAP.
AND AGAIN, UH, THAT'S A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER FOR THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
AND THEN YOU HAVE HERE THE AERIAL MAP OF WHAT'S EXISTING ON THE GROUND.
AND THAT'S FOLLOWED BY OUR ZONING MAP JUST TO REFLECT THOSE TWO DIFFERENCES.
DISTRICTS, THE, UH, BOTH COMMERCIAL FOUR AND I BELIEVE R DASH, LIKE R DASH SIX OR R DASH EIGHT, I'M SORRY, AND ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.
UH, SO FOR STAFF, WE DID CONFIRM THAT THE APPLICATION, UM, WAS COMPLETE AND THEN IN TECHNICALITY, UH, YES.
UM, FROM A CONFIRMATION STANDPOINT IN TERMS OF FOR ITS, ITS JURISDICTION WITHIN THE TABLE OF PRINCIPLE USES, THAT IS CORRECT.
[02:05:01]
ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS WERE NOT ADDRESSED, UH, SPECIFIC TO THE POINT OF THE SITE PLAN, UM, JUST NOT BEING SUBMITTED BY AND ESSENTIALLY CONDUCTED OR, UM, COMPLETED BY A PROFESSIONAL.UH, HOWEVER, IN THIS ADDITIONAL SLIDE, I'D ALSO LIKE TO MAKE, UH, ANOTHER MENTION.
SO WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION CONTINUED JUST SO THAT THE BOARD HAS MORE CONTEXT TO THE SITUATION, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED BY A BUSINESS CALLED TAP, THAT BEER AND WINE BAR.
UH, THIS BUSINESS OPERATED UNDER THE SAME USE, UM, WITH THE SAME OUTDOOR SPACE THE FIREFLY CAFE, UH, DESIRES TO CONTINUE USING AND THE STAFF ATTEMPTED TO LOCATE THIS PERMIT FILE AS FAR AS FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE TAP THAT BEER AND WINE BAR, UM, TO PROVIDE THE SITE PLAN AND THE APPRAISERS REPORT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE CURRENT OWNERS.
UM, THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD HAVE ACCOMPANIED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS, UH, THAT WAS UH, ESTABLISHED THERE.
AND THEN AS FAR AS FOR STAFF, UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS WAS NOT ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND USE ORDINANCE BY FORMER STAFF MEMBERS.
UM, SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY AND BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE.
SO UNFORTUNATELY THAT IS WHAT HAS FULLY TAKEN PLACE.
UM, THE LAST BIT OF THIS, THE CURRENT OWNERS, WHICH IN FACT THEY WERE TO OUR, TO OUR KNOWLEDGE NOW, THEY WERE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION AND THE IMPRESSION THAT THE USE OF THE OUTDOOR SPACE WAS ALREADY APPROVED BY THE CITY AS IT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED AND USED SIMILARLY FOR YEARS PREVIOUSLY.
SO I JUST WANTED YOU TO ALL TO HAVE BOTH SIDES OF THE CONTEXT.
UM, THERE'S REALLY NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT I CAN PROVIDE OUTSIDE OF THAT, BUT THAT'S JUST SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE, THE FULLNESS OF THE SITUATION.
AND THERE IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND IF THE BOARD HAS ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK.
SO THE, THE FIRST QUESTION FOR ME WOULD BE, HAS THE BUILDING BEEN VACANT FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME? NO SIR.
IT HAS, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING SINCE THAT POINT OF 2020, UM, I'M UNDER, I'M IN THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING, UM, THROUGH AND THROUGH.
I DO NOT BELIEVE IT'S BEEN VACATED FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS.
SO HAS, IS THIS A NAME CHANGE? UH, ESSENTIALLY, YES SIR.
UM, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, TAP THAT WINE AND BAR AND FROM WHAT I NOW UNDERSTAND, FIREFLY CAFE HAD THEN PURCHASED IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A BUSINESS IN BETWEEN THAT WE WERE GOING OFF THE RECORDS THAT AS FAR AS FOR WHAT WE COULD FIND THAT WERE WITHIN OUR SYSTEM, UM, FROM THE PREVIOUS STAFF THAT WAS WORKING TO AUTHORIZE THIS USE.
SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN JUST THE TAP THAT WINE AND BAR, UM, AND THEN IT TRANSITIONED INTO FIREFLY.
SO I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE FOR JAMIE.
UM, DO WE GET INTO A LEGAL CHALLENGE BY ACCEPTING WHAT WAS ASSUMED IF, IF THERE WAS AN ASSUMPTION THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE IN A FILE ORIGINALLY AND THEY'RE NOT THERE FOR THE CURRENT OWNER? AS YOU ALL KNOW, THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AND WE DEAL IN FACTS.
SO WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE FACTS THAT ARE EITHER IN THE RECORD OR FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN THE RECORD TO BASE OUR ANALYSIS.
UM, PEOPLE'S ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT FACTS.
SO CERTAINLY YOU CAN ENTERTAIN TESTIMONY TONIGHT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE USE EITHER COMPORTS OR DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE.
YOU CAN MAKE INVESTIGATION OR INQUIRY FROM MR. STANTON ABOUT WHETHER THIS USE HAS BEEN PERMITTED IN THE PAST AS A SPECIAL USE, UM, AS INDICATED ON THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES, BUT EVALUATING WHAT SOMEONE THOUGHT OR FELT THAT'S NOT BACKED UP BY ANY FACTUAL INFORMATION IS OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF WHAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS EXIST SOMEWHERE? AS FAR AS THE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE RESEARCH THAT WE DID, WE HAVE TWO SYSTEMS THAT I'LL JUST SHARE.
WE UTILIZE SHAREPOINT, UM, IT'S A SYSTEM THROUGH MICROSOFT AND ESSENTIALLY PRETTY MUCH EVERY AND ALL DOCUMENTS ARE GONNA BE STORED IN THAT AREA.
UM, WE'VE DONE A COMPLETED SEARCH THROUGH SHAREPOINT AND THIS IS A MULTITUDE OF US.
THIS IS MYSELF INCLUDED, MY SUPERVISORS, UM, AND SOME ADDITIONAL STAFF THAT JUST WE'RE TRYING TO ASSIST IN THE PROCESS.
WE DID NOT LOCATE ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE PERMIT THAT WAS INITIALLY, UM, ISSUED THROUGH THE PREVIOUS, MY PREDECESSOR, IF I'M RECALLING THAT CORRECTLY.
AND IT DID NOT INDICATE A SPECIFIC USE PROFILE, WHICH IT BREAKS OUT INTO FOUR CATEGORIES AND I'M NOT GONNA TRY TO CONFUSE ANYBODY, BUT IT GOES FROM 8.100 TO 8.400 AND YOU HAVE A MULTITUDE OF USE, UH, USES UNDERNEATH THE ONE CATEGORY THAT GIVES SPECIFICS AS TO OUTSIDE CONSUMPTION AND OR, UM, WITH ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION KIND
[02:10:01]
OF INVESTED INTO SOME OF THE WRITINGS AS WELL.UM, THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE AS TO EXACTLY HOW HE ISSUED THE PERMIT TO, UM, THE PREVIOUS, UH, OWNERS FOR THIS LOCATION.
AND SO, AND I SAY THAT TO KIND OF SEGUE INTO THE SECOND SYSTEM WE CHECKED, WHICH IS CALLED INTER GOV.
UM, THIS CONTAINS A LOT OF OUR BUILDING PERMITS AND RECORDS AND THERE WAS A BUILDING PERMIT, UM, THAT WAS FOUND IN A ZONING PERMIT FROM WHAT I CAN RECALL ISSUED IN THE REGARDS OF JUST ESSENTIALLY OPERATING, UH, THE RESTAURANT.
SO TO, TO THAT POINT, MR. STAN, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR, THAT THE BOARD IS CLEAR.
WAS THERE A TIME WITHIN THE LAST YEAR WHEREIN THE CURRENT OWNERS OF FIREFLY SUBMITTED A ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF NEW BERN? THERE WAS, YES MA'AM.
AND WHAT WAS THAT ZONING APPLICATION PRESENTED FOR WHAT USES THAT ZONING PERMIT WAS SPECIFIC TO 8.100.
UM, IT WAS ISSUED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING BASED ON WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO US AS A FLOOR PLAN.
UM, WE DID NOT SEE ANY INDICATION AS FAR AS FOR OUTDOOR SEATING ON THAT PLAN.
THAT WAS THE FLOOR PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THAT APPLICATION.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOUR TESTIMONY IS CLEAR.
SO THE ZONING APPLICATION FOR A USE THAT WAS PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
WAS ACCOMPANIED WITH A, A SKETCH OF SOME SORT? YES, MA'AM.
A FLOOR PLAN, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE HERE, MINUS IT DID NOT HAVE THE OUTDOOR SEATING.
UM, I DO HAVE THAT PRESENT AND WITH ME IF THE BOARD NEEDS TO SEE THAT.
JUST FOR REFERENCE AND CONTEXT.
HOWEVER, THE OUTDOOR SEATING WAS NOT INDICATED, SO WE AUTHORIZED IT WITH A USE THAT WAS PERMITTED BY WRIGHT IN THAT RESPECT, AND THAT WAS THE 8.100.
THIS USE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR OUTSIDE SERVICE OR CONSUMPTION.
SO THAT KIND OF BRINGS US TO FAST FORWARDING HERE WHERE WE ARE NOW TRANSACTION.
SO THEY'RE AFTER, AFTER THAT INITIAL ZONING PERMIT WAS ISSUED, CORRECT.
BASED ON THE FLOOR PLAN THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE CITY THAT DID NOT DEPICT THE OUTDOOR DINING SERVING EATING AREA? THAT'S CORRECT.
MADAM ATTORNEY, THERE IS A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR EATING DINING CONSUMPTION USE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS, THAT IS CORRECT.
SO IS THE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE? THE APPLICATION, UM, FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS TECHNICALLY NOT INCOMPLETE.
WE DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT PER SE, FOR THE APPRAISAL.
UM, THEY ARE ABLE TO DO THAT AND ESSENTIALLY HACK UPON THEMSELVES TO SUBMIT IT DURING THE HEARING OR RIGHT BEFORE OR ANY TIMEFRAME THAT'S ENTER ENTERTAINING THE HEARING.
UM, THEY DID SUBMIT AN APPLICATION, THE OWNER DID SIGN OFF.
THEY HAVE A, A PLAN IN THEORY IS THE ARGUMENT TO BE MADE IS WHETHER THE PLAN ITSELF WOULD JUSTIFY ENOUGH AS I GUESS A PROFESSIONAL, UM, MAKING OR DEEMING THIS A.
SO, MR. STANTON, PUTTING THIS FORWARD, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR, UM, LAND USE ORDINANCE SECTION 1573 ARTICULATES THE REQUIREMENT FOR SITE PLAN SUBMISSIONS.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT SECTION? YES, MA'AM.
AND IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT SECTION SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THAT A SITE PLAN BE PREPARED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, OR OTHER LICENSED PROFESSIONAL WITH DEMONSTRATED SKILLS TO COMPLETE A SITE PLAN AT SCALE? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND IN YOUR REVIEW OF THE SUBMISSION PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT, DOES THIS DOCUMENT, THIS, UM, FLOOR PLAN APPEAR TO COMPORT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 1573 A? IT DOES NOT.
THE, THE PLAN THAT'S HERE THUS FAR, UH, MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN SHED MORE LIGHT TO THIS POINT.
I WILL ALSO, UM, EXPLAIN AND EXPRESS TO THE BOARD I DID NOT ACCEPT, UH, THIS APPLICATION AND I WAS ACTUALLY AWAY FROM THE OFFICE, SO I DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADVISE OR AT LEAST PARTAKE IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT.
UM, HOWEVER, JUST SO THAT THERE'S CLARITY AND MORE CLARITY TO BE ADDED, THE CITY DID ACCEPT THE APPLICATION.
SO IN TURN, UM, IT'S AFFORDED A COMPLETION IN THAT MANNER.
BUT MADAM ATTORNEY IS NOT INCORRECT.
THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE LAND USE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A PROFESSIONAL TO PROVIDE SAID PLAN.
AND THAT CAN TYPICALLY BE DONE THROUGH AN ARCHITECT, ENGINEER OR A SURVEYOR.
SO IS THE BUSINESS CURRENTLY OPERATING? YES, SIR.
AS IN WHICH MANNER? UH, TO THE 8.100.
THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO OPERATE.
WE HAD ENTERTAINED SOME COMPLAINTS, UH, REFERENCING THE OUTSIDE CONSUMPTION AND THINGS THAT WERE BEING DONE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
SO THIS KIND OF PROMPTED AN INVESTIGATION WHICH LED US TO THIS NEW, UH, USE THAT THEY'RE APPLYING FOR UNDERNEATH THE RESTAURANT CATEGORY, WHICH IS TO CONDUCT THE SERVICING OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
AND I, WHILE IT'S AN ASSUMPTION, UM, THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS WAS OPERATING IN A, THE
[02:15:01]
EXACT SAME FASHION, AND SO IT WAS UNDERSTOOD BY THE APPLICANT THAT THEY WERE ONE AND THE SAME BASICALLY.UM, ALTHOUGH WE AUTHORIZED THE ZONING PERMIT IN THE CORRECT MANNER, WHICH ONCE THE FIREFLY DID APPLY FOR THAT, IT WAS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE TO 8.100, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW FOR OUTSIDE CONSUMPTION AND SERVICE TO THAT POINT.
SO THE LEGAL ISSUES AT THIS JUNCTURE ARE, ONE, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SATISFY YOURSELVES THAT THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE OR CAN YOU GET SUPPLEMENTARY E SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE, UM, IN THIS VENUE TONIGHT TO SATISFY YOURSELF THAT THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE? THAT'S ONE.
AND THEN TWO, UM, I THINK MR. STANTON HAS FORECASTED THAT WE MAY LACK EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF EFFECT ON ADJOINING VALUES.
AND YOU ALL KNOW THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE SATISFIED THAT HAS COME OUT SEVERAL TIMES TONIGHT.
UM, SO ON THAT FRONT, WE HAVE TWO POTENTIAL DEFICIENCIES IN THE RECORD TONIGHT THAT MAY SEVERELY IMPAIR YOUR ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD IN MAKING A DECISION.
SO I KNOW THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS FOR YOU ALL TO DISCUSS, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF BEING EFFICIENT, YOU MAY WANT TO FOCUS YOUR ANALYSIS ON THOSE TWO DEFICIENCIES THAT WE IDENTIFY AT THIS, AT THIS JUNCTURE.
SO AS WE PROCEED ON WHAT OPTIONS DO WE HAVE, IS IT, UM, ONE THAT WE CAN DENY AND OR CONTINUE AND OR ISSUE ALL THREE OR SO WHAT YOU CAN, WHAT YOU MIGHT DO IS IF THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE, YOU MAY INQUIRE OF THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD MORE EVIDENCE TO THE RECORD THAT MAY SATISFY YOU, UM, AS IT RELATES TO YOUR, THE BURDEN OF PRODUCTION IN THIS CASE.
IF AFTER THAT INQUIRY, IF YOU'RE STILL NOT SATISFIED THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD FOR YOU TO FIND ALL THE SIX CRITERIA THAT YOU NEED TO FIND, THEN YOU CAN CONTINUE THE APPLICATION, WHICH YOU'VE ALREADY DONE ONE TONIGHT TO GIVE THE APPLICANT ADDITIONAL TIME TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD.
OR IF YOU FIND THAT THERE'S INSUFFICIENT REC INFORMATION IN THE RECORD AND THAT INFORMATION CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE PRODUCED, THEN YOU CANNOT FIND ALL OF THE CRITERIA THAT ARE REQUIRED BY LAW.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.
WE NEED TO STATE NAME AND ADDRESS SEAN ROSS, 1100 NAVI BANK COURT, NEWBURN, NORTH CAROLINA.
I'M THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF FIREFLY CAFE.
HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN IN TONIGHT? YES, MA'AM, I HAVE.
AND I GET YOU, YOU HEARD SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE YES, SIR.
SEEN WITH THE PRESENTATION, SIR.
SO MAYBE YOU CAN KIND OF HELP US UNDERSTAND, SIR, WHERE WE'RE AT AND, AND ALSO TRY TO NOT GO OVER THE EDGE TOO FAR.
YEAH, WE WON'T GO AS FAR AS THE PROFESSIONAL STANDPOINT.
UM, BUT, UH, AND WE CAN GIVE YOU MORE THAN THREE MINUTES.
UM, SO WE'VE BEEN IN OPERATION FOR FOUR MONTHS.
UM, WE DID PUT THE, UH, APPLICATION IN THROUGH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WHICH MR. MATT BOSWELL, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR CAME OVER, AT WHICH POINT I DID DISCUSS WITH HIM THE OUTDOOR DINING.
UH, IT WAS ALSO DISCUSSED WITH MR. MATT SHELLEY OF THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE BECAUSE HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE GARDEN AND THE PLANTS THAT WE WERE PUTTING IN.
WE HAVE ALSO PUT AN APPLICATION IN THROUGH THE STATE IN, UH, A BC COMMISSION AND ARE APPROVED BY A LE TO HAVE OUTDOOR CONSUMPTION.
THE APPLICATION WAS PUT THROUGH THE CITY AS ALL STEPS ARE REQUIRED BY THE N-C-A-B-C.
AND EVERYTHING WAS APPROVED BY BUILDING FIRE, ZONING, POLICE, AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE.
AND WENT THROUGH AND WE'VE HAD AN APPROVED PERMIT.
WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR CONSUMPTION OF MALT BEVERAGES AND, UH, NON FORTIFIED WINES.
WE'RE NOT A BAR, WE'RE NOT LIKE TAP THAT BEFORE.
WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE A SMALL CAFE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING MORE INTO.
SO WE, UH, WENT OFF YES, OF THE ASSUMPTION THAT BECAUSE TAP THAT DID OPERATE FOR FOUR YEARS WITH OUTDOOR CONSUMPTION, THAT IT WOULD BE APPROVED.
AND AT NO POINT DID WE RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY DURING OUR APPLICATION WHEN WE SAID WE WERE GONNA HAVE OUTDOOR, UH, CONSUMPTION AND HAVE THAT SPACE RENOVATED AS A GARDEN.
ADDITIONALLY, WE ALSO APPLIED FOR A GRANT THROUGH SWISS BAY.
SWISS BAY KNEW THE EXACT PLAN THAT WAS SHARED WITH THE, UH, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
ALSO, AFTER WE WERE APPROVED, THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM CAME OUT AND HAD LUNCH IN OUR GARDEN, WHICH IT WOULD BE A PERFECT TIME FOR THEM TO SAY, THIS IS NOT APPROVED AS AN OUTDOOR CONSUMPTION.
SO YOU CAN SEE MY CONFUSION AND SOME FRUSTRATION IN THIS PROCESS, BUT WE'VE BEEN OPERATIONAL FOR FOUR MONTHS AND NOTHING WAS SAID TO US UNTIL ANOTHER BUSINESS COMPLAINED ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T DO THE SAME THING WE WERE.
SO AT THIS POINT, WE'RE ONLY TRYING TO CONTINUE OUR BUSINESS.
IF WE DO LOSE THE OUTDOOR CONSUMPTION OF OUR GARDEN SPACE, IT WILL BE A DETRIMENT TO OUR BUSINESS.
UM, THE GARDEN WAS COMPLETELY RENOVATED.
I KNOW THAT SOME FOLKS THAT WERE ON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AND ALSO THE BILLING DEPARTMENT FREQUENTED, TAPPED THAT AND TOLD ME THAT WE MADE A HUGE IMPROVEMENT FROM WHAT IT WAS BEFORE THEY APPROVED, UM, ASTROTURF AND PLANTS THAT WEREN'T EVEN NATIVE TO THE AREA.
[02:20:01]
WE WENT BACK AND REPLANTED COMPLETELY EVERYTHING, PUT GRASS IN THERE, BEAUTIFY THE AREA, AND MADE IT A SPACE FOR FOLKS TO COME AND HAVE A MEAL, ENJOY THEMSELVES AND TO BEAUTIFY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.AND SO ONE OF THE BIG CHALLENGES, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE NOW, UM, IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO, UM, CONSIDER, UM, WE'RE HEARING A LOT OF HEARSAY AND WE, AND WE KNOW THE DOCUMENTS DON'T EXIST, UM, OR THEY HAVEN'T BEEN FOUND.
IS THAT TRUE OR WHERE ARE WE AT? WELL, LET'S, LET'S JUST CLARIFY ONE POINT, SIR.
IS YOUR, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY TONIGHT THAT YOU APPLIED FOR A ZONING, APPLI ZONING PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF NEW BERN AND RECEIVED A PERMIT TO DO OUTDOOR DINING? I APPLIED FOR THE BILLING PERMIT.
I APPLIED AND TOLD BOTH MATT BOSWELL AND THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
I ALSO SPOKE TO JESSICA RU REGARDING THIS BECAUSE WE HAD ISSUES WITH MR. MATT SHELLEY THAT IT WOULD BE OUTDOOR DINING.
AND AT NO POINT DID THEY SAY THAT IT WAS NOT ALLOWED IN OUR ZONE.
IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY TONIGHT THAT YOU SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR DINING FOR FIREFLY RESTAURANT? NO, MA'AM.
IT, I, I SUBMITTED FOR OUR ENTIRE BUSINESS PLAN AND THAT WAS INCLUDED IN IT.
AND WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU REFERENCED YOUR ENTIRE BUSINESS PLAN, ARE YOU REFERENCING A SKETCH THAT YOU WOULD'VE ATTACHED TO THE ZONING APPLICATION? THERE WAS A BUSINESS PLAN THAT INCLUDED ALL THE OUTLINES OF EVERYTHING? YES, THERE WAS A SKETCH, I, I CAN'T REMEMBER TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IF IT HAD THE GARDEN IN IT, BUT WHEN WE APPLIED FOR THE A BC PERMIT, WE WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THAT AND PROVIDE IT TO THEM, WHICH WAS UNTURNED APPROVED THROUGH THE STATE.
SO THE A BC PERMIT WENT TO THE A BC COMMISSION WHEN YOU GOT THAT? YES MA'AM.
BUT THE ZONING APPLICATION THAT YOU REFERENCED IN YOUR TESTIMONY, JUST SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR YES, MA'AM.
WAS FOR FOR THE BUSINESS? YES.
BUT DID NOT INCLUDE THE OUTDOOR DINING SPACE AT THAT TIME? NO, BECAUSE IT IS MY ASSUMPTION THAT THE SCENE THAT PREVIOUS BUSINESS HAD USED IT FOR FOUR YEARS AND ASSUMPTIONS I KNOW ARE NOT LEGAL.
BUT ALSO I DID PROVIDE MR. KENDRICK A, UM, SITE PLAN FROM 2010 THAT WAS FROM, UH, BURN INVESTMENTS GROUP THAT INCLUDED THE GARDEN SPACE THAT AT 2010 THEY APPLIED FOR THE GARDEN SPACE BACK THEN.
SO THIS GARDEN SPACE HAS BEEN KNOWN SINCE 2010 FOR 15 YEARS.
THIS HAS BEEN KNOWN BY THE CITY, AND THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PRESENTATION.
DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WAS EVER A CESSATION OF THE USE OF THE GARDEN SPACE FOR 180 DAYS OR MORE IN THAT 15 YEARS? UM, THEY SHUT DOWN IN 2000, OR EXCUSE ME, THEY SHUT DOWN IN JULY OF LAST YEAR.
SO WE MADE THAT 180 DAY REQUIREMENT.
SO, BUT IN THE PREVIOUS I 14 YEARS TELL I CANNOT, MA'AM, I DID NOT RENT THE SPACE OR I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE SPACE AT THAT TIME.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY YOU? YES, MA'AM.
UH, MS. KATHLEEN, IF YOU'RE SPEAKING TO WHAT WAS SUBMITTED DURING THE TIME OF THE ZONING PERMIT ISSUANCE, I HAVE THAT WITH ME AND I CAN DISTRIBUTE THAT TO THE BOARD.
THAT IS, THAT'S NOT THE SAME PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
SO WHAT YOU RECEIVED IS NOT THIS, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
THAT'S THE PLAN FOR THE, FOR THIS APPLICATION.
BUT I CAN LET YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE IF YOU WOULD PREFER AND I WOULD HAVE A COPY FOR THE APPLICANT.
YEAH, I WOULD LIKE WOULD TO SEE THAT.
SO WHAT KENDRICK'S DOING, AND I GUESS ONE GREAT QUESTION IS WHAT, WHAT TYPE OF BURDEN WOULD IT BE TO CONTINUE, UM, AND PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION THAT'S BEING ASKED IN AN EFFORT TO THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF LOAN ON THIS WHEN THIS WAS NOT BROUGHT TO LIGHT TO ME IN THE BEGINNING.
WE'RE A NEW BUSINESS IN THIS TOWN TRYING TO MAKE IT.
AND EVERY STEP ALONG THE WAY, WE HAVE HIT SOME ROADBLOCK BECAUSE OF THE CITY THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED FROM, FROM THE PREVIOUS.
I, I HAVE MULTIPLE THINGS THAT I CAN BRING TO LIGHT AND I HAVE BROUGHT IT TO LIGHT TO THE, THE, THE CITY MANAGEMENT, MR. FOSTER HUGHES.
WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS, BUT THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ALONE FOR US, YOU, YOU TAKING THE GARDEN AWAY IS, ESPECIALLY WITH, WELL, I I DIDN'T ASK IF WE WANTED TO TAKE THE GARDEN AWAY, I GUESS THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE AND BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION TO PROVIDE PERMIT PERMIT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE.
BUT, BUT DOT I CRO TS, UM, PER SE, UM, TO TRY TO GET OVER THE CHALLENGES AND, AND I'M NOT SURE IF I'M STEPPING OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDS OF WHAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO.
UM, BUT IF, IF AS WE GET INTO DISCUSSION, IF WE ALL WERE TO CHOOSE TO DENY, I MEAN, THAT MIGHT SHUT YOU DOWN.
WHEREAS IF WE, IF WE WERE TO DISCUSS AND CHOOSE TO CONTINUE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT DOCUMENTATION WOULD BE PERMITTED, UM, OR, OR PRESENTED FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, UM, THAT WOULD PROBABLY ALLOW YOU TO CONTINUE OPERATING AND GET THE DOCUMENTATION TOGETHER AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, I THINK YOU'D STILL HAVE TO COME HERE TO THE BOARD, UH, TO GET THE PERMIT.
BUT AT LEAST WE WOULD HAVE ALL THE
[02:25:01]
DOCUMENTATION PRESENT AND WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE DECIDING WHETHER WE HAVE HEARSAY OR WE DON'T HAVE HEARSAY.AND IF THERE WAS EVER SOMETHING THAT THE CITY HAD IN A FILE THAT WAS LOST, UM, SO TO, TO ME, AND, AND I'M, I'M, I'M, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR US AS A GROUP, WE HAVE TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION THERE, BUT THAT MAY BE THE SAFEST THING TO DO.
YOU KNOW, TO SAY, YES, WE WILL, UM, AGREE TO DISAGREE AND, AND, AND MOVE ON AND, UM, WE CAN CONSIDER A CONTINUATION AND, AND PROCEEDS.
BUT, BUT YOU HAVE TO TELL US THAT.
I MEAN, IF, IF, IF YOUR CHOICE IS TO, TO STAND AND SAY, WELL, AND WE KNOW IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, WE'RE GONNA STAND BY THE HEARSAY, THEN WE ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER DISAPPROVING.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IF THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO GO, I JUST WANNA MOVE FORWARD FROM THIS AND CONTINUE OUR BUSINESS IN A PART OF TOWN THAT I THINK NEEDS A NEW BUSINESS.
AND WHAT I'M IN, THAT WHAT I'M HEARING, I THINK IT, THAT'S, THAT'S TRUE OF EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM.
AND I, I THINK THE BOARD WOULD PROBABLY APPRECIATE THAT ALSO.
UM, BUT, BUT AGAIN, YOU, SINCE THERE'S AN APPLICATION, YOU NEED TO TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD PREFER SO THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER IT.
I PREFER TO MOVE FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN SO WE CAN GET BACK TO REGULAR BUSINESS.
BUT, UH, ADDITIONALLY, THE, THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE, UH, ENFORCEMENT OF ZONING AND THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS, HEARSAY OR NOT, I, I'VE GOT MULTIPLE MEMBERS FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THAT SAID THEY SAT IN THAT GUARD WHEN IT WAS TAP THAT THEY KNEW AND THEN TO NOT TELL US THAT YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
WELL, I, I THINK FROM A QUAI JUDICIAL STANDPOINT, WHICH IS OUR POSITION, THAT HEARSAY IS WORST THING THAT WE CAN GO BY.
AND I THINK THAT IF, IF WE DO TALK ABOUT HEARSAY, THAT MAY BE SETTING A WORSE PRECEDENCE THAN WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED.
WELL, I'LL LET, AND I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD.
UH, HOW DID WE ARRIVE AT THIS KENDRICK IN OUR PACKET? IF THIS WAS WHAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT? SO INITIALLY THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A ZONING PERMIT TO ESTABLISH ESSENTIALLY FIREFLY, WHICH WAS PERMITTED AND AUTHORIZED, BUT IN A DIFFERENT, UM, USE PROFILE.
THERE'S FOUR DIFFERENCES OF USES THAT ARE WITHIN THAT RESTAURANT CATEGORY.
SO IT WAS PERMITTED AS 8.100 'CAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS PERMITTED BY RIGHTS.
WE ARRIVED AT THIS POINT BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY HE'S HAS SERVICES THAT ARE OUTSIDE, UM, THAT LEAD INTO, YOU KNOW, THE PICNIC TABLES AND DIFFERENCES OF TABLES THAT HE HAS SHOWN THAT USE REQUIRED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT.
MAY I ASK WHO DREW THIS? I DID, MA'AM.
SO WE WOULD NEED A, A, UH, PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL TO ACTUALLY DRAW THIS TO SCALE IF YOU WERE TO RESUBMIT THIS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THERE IS A SCALE PLAN PROVIDED TO YOU THAT SHOWED THE GARDEN SPACE FROM 2010.
SO, AND AS LONG AS NOTHING HAS CHANGED, IF NOTHING, IT'S SAME EXACT GARDEN SPACE.
SAME EXACT GARDEN SPACE TABLE.
THE ONLY PLACEMENT AND TABLES HAVE CHANGED AND THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD COULD CONSIDER.
ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF VALUE, WHICH YOU ALL ARE VERY WELL ACQUAINTED WITH.
SO YOU MAY WANT TO INQUIRE THIS EVENING AS TO WHAT, IF ANY INFORMATION THE APPLICANT IS PREPARED TO PRODUCE THAT SATISFIES THE STATUTE ON THE ISSUE OF VALUE.
SO WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO GET AN APPRAISAL IF NEED BE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD? I WILL GET AN APPRAISAL.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY? YES, SIR.
AS OPPOSED TO MA'AM, THE INCOME OR THE REVENUE IN, UH, EXPECTED TO BE RAISED BY HAVING THE OUTDOOR SEATING? THAT IS CORRECT, MA'AM.
MY QUESTION IS TO SET, UH, CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE, WHETHER THE USE WILL SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE VALUE OF ADJOINING ABUTTING PROPERTIES OR IT'S A PUBLIC NECESSITY.
THE ADJOINING AND ABUTTING PROPERTIES JOINING A BUDDING BEHIND US IST COURT ACROSS THE STREET IS FRESHWATER A NEIGHBOR THAT WE'RE HELPING TO HELP THEIR BUSINESS.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS A PARKING LOT.
YEAH, DOCUMENTATION SOMETIMES GOES A LONG WAY THOUGH, THAT THAT'S PART OF OUR CHALLENGE.
AS YOU KNOW, ONE 60 D 1402 REQUIRES THAT WE MUST HAVE EXPERT TESTIMONY ON THE ISSUES OF PROPERTY VALUES.
SO ALTHOUGH WE HAVE ANECDOTAL INFORMATION THAT CAN LEAD US TO DRAW CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS, WE HAVE TO SATISFY THE STATUTE.
AND I THINK THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PROPER TONIGHT SHOWS US THAT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT THIS EVENING, BUT WE MAY BE ABLE TO SATISFY IT IN THE FUTURE.
SO WOULD, WE WOULD, SO IF WE COULD GET, UH, EXPERT, UH, TESTIMONY ON THE VALUES OF THE PROPERTIES AND HOW THIS WOULD, UH, AFFECT, UH, ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND ALSO, AND TO GET A PROFESSIONALLY
[02:30:01]
DRAWN TO SCALE, UH, OF THE OUTSIDE DINING SPACE, WHICH WHICH WOULD BE, I PROPOSE THAT WE JUST DO A CONTINUANCE SO THAT HE CAN GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO GET THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE NEED TO MOVE ON FOR WHAT HE NEED.THE TIMEFRAME IN THIS WAS VERY CONSTRICTIVE.
WE WERE TOLD OF THE, UH, COMPLAINTS TO GET US, AND THEN TOLD THAT WE HAD TO SHUT DOWN OUR GARDEN IMMEDIATELY, WHICH, UH, WE DIDN'T EVEN GET A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WHEN WE WERE TOLD THAT AND THEN TOLD WE HAD TO PUT THIS APPLICATION IN WITHIN THE TWO WEEKS.
THE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GET AN ARCHITECT AND AN APPRAISER AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO GET THIS FORWARD BEFORE YOU TO BE HERE, WAS VERY CONSTRICTIVE AT THAT POINT.
SO, WELL, WE COULD ASK FOR CONTINUANCE.
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE I THANK YOU MR. LIVING NOW.
IF WE FOLLOW THE RULES, YOU KNOW, I MEAN IF, YOU KNOW, WE READY TO FOLLOW THE RULES, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GIVE HIM THE PERMIT ANYWAY, BUT I'D RATHER NOT MAKE A RULING AND GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO GO AHEAD AND GET THE THINGS THAT HE NEEDS SO THAT YOU KNOW, HE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
SO, MS. SAMPSON IS YOUR MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE SEPTEMBER MEETING OR THE OCTOBER MEETING, GIVEN THERE MAY BE SOME TIME THAT'S NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO GET THE DOCUMENTATION THAT'S NEEDED.
SO DO YOU THINK YOU COULD GET THINGS TOGETHER BY SEPTEMBER OR WOULD GETTING 'EM TOGETHER BY OCTOBER BE A MORE, I, I THINK SEPTEMBER WOULD BE CUTTING IT KIND OF TIGHT.
MY LANDLORD JUST GOT OUT OF A SURGERY AND I NEED TO TALK TO HER REGARDING THIS.
'CAUSE IT IS HER PROPERTY THAT IT'S, IT'S CONCERNING.
SO MAYBE OCTOBER, WOULD THAT BE YES, OCTOBER WOULD BE GOOD.
THE DATE CERTAIN MR. CHAIRMAN LOOKS TO ME, IF I'M NOT SPEAKING INCORRECT, OCTOBER 23RD, 2025.
SO, SO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO CONTINUE, UM, THIS APPLICATION UNTIL THE OCTOBER 23RD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING TO WHERE WE WOULD HAVE A COMPLETE APPLICATION TO CONSIDER AND THE COMPLETE APPLICATION WOULD CONSIST OF AN APPRAISAL, UM, TO SCALE DOCUMENT.
UM, WAS THERE A THIRD ONE OR WERE THOSE THE ONLY TWO? TWO.
SO IF WE HAVE A MOTION AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SIR, YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? THE MOTION CARRIES TO CONTINUE TILL THEN TO GET THE DOCUMENTATION TOGETHER.
BOARD APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, JUST GOING TO THE NEXT SLIDE HERE.
IN REFERENCE TO NEW BUSINESS, THERE IS NO NEW BUSINESS FOR THIS HEARING UNLESS THE BOARD WANTS TO OPEN AND DISCUSSION ON SOME TYPE OF TOPIC IF THEY SEE FIT.
UM, YOU HAVE THAT ABILITY, BUT I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL BUSINESS TO ASK.
SO IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS OR DO WE WANT TO ADJOURN OR WOULD NONE FOR ME.
WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.