WSMU_MRSV_Variance Request_19970516_Annotated

AGENDA ITEM#4
REQUEST FROM THE TOWN OF MOORESVILLE FOR REVIEW
AND APPROVAL OF A MAJOR VARIANCE,AS REQUIRED UNDER
THE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED PROTECTION RULES,FOR
A SITE WITHIN THE LAKE NORMAN WS-IV WATERSHED
On May 16, 1997, the Town of Mooresville applied for a major variance as prescribed under the
Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules [15A NCAC 2B .0104(r)]. The Water Supply Watershed
Protection Rules require Environmental Management Commission (EMC) review and approval for all
major variances defined as "...a variance from the minimum statewide watershed protection rules that
results in the relaxation by a factor greater than five percent of any buffer, density or built-upon
requirement under the high density option ..." [15A NCAC 2B .0202(36)]. The Town is requesting
permission to grant the applicant a reduction,by 50 percent, of the buffer requirement on a high density
development site. (� r
BACKGROUND ‘rfve x' I W��� �1 G `l ��-- /Csf� ( 1%
The proposed development,which is the subject the variance request, consists of
approximately nine acres which would be developed w' a new auto sales and service lot for a Ford
dealership. The site is located on NC Highway 150 in ooresville within the Lake Norman WS-IV
watershed protected area in the Catawba River Basin. Under the Water Supply Watershed Protection
Rules, development within WS-IV Protected Areas may contain up to 70 percent impervious surface
area with the use of engineered stormwater controls. The Rules also require a 100 foot vegetated buffer
along perennial streams for all non-residential development which exceeds 24 percent impervious
surface area.
The subject site is triangular in shape,bordered on one side by Highway 150 and on the
remaining two sides by perennial streams (see attached site illustration). The applicant claims that
Ford franchise requirements recommend a minimum five to six acres of impervious surface for the
intended use. If the applicant were to use the 100 foot buffer as required under the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Rules along both perennial streams,3.8 acres or 42 percent of the site tould be
covered by impervious surfaces. The applicant is requesting a variance of the buffer requirement by 50
percent (50 feet along each stream). If the reduction is approved, the applicant could develop 5.8 acres
or 64'percent of the site with impervious surfaces.
On April 7 1997, the Mooresville Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the major
variance request based on e following findings of factee attached Fv
- --�'
1. The applicant's property is unique and the applicant proposes to mitigate the effects of
stormwater runoff using the following means:
rtdl•ad. wed
a) The applicant is proposing to detain all> off fro the impervious areas on the site.
b) The only water which would fall in the buffer i natural rainfall.
c) The applicant proposes to design the stormwater detention pond at 1.3 times the
required storage.
2. The variance request is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and
preserves it's spirit.

E r.p -e-•i (' yg 11(0 �1-1µy 1,14er,6. Go"n apvlk,)
ANALYSIS
(r)
The Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules under 15A NCAC 2B .01044require local
watershed review boards to make the following findings of fact. In granting variances,ces, local boards and
the EMC must find that all these standards are met.
0 There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that prevent compliance with
the strict letter of the ordinance;
0 the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the local watershed G �'
protection ordinance and preserves its spirit; and
0 in granting the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and (_�sS ,,s'
substantial justice has been done. 2 d�
0 The Town concluded and ' staff agrees that the property has unique
shape and is somewhat constrained due to the presence of the perennial streams on two sides: However,
review of the record submitted does not indicate that the applicant could not comply with the strict
letter of the ordinance. The applicant's written justification (see attached) states that the Ford Motor
Company merely"recommends",not requires,a minimum five acres of impervious surface area for a
Ford franchise. There is no evidence that the development could not be located on the site using 3.8
acres of impervious surface and providing the required 100 foot buffers along the perennial streams.
Furthermore, even if denied this request,the applicant could place any other reasonable use on the NS-�
land. En&r ."s n. 4114. t .+,.'e -,4- '- 574Jci C�a,'I' 4-1.c elf kCec. weSti-�1d -�iul�4 44-' I'1
.�,e, , .-.'1 - Psi-sr- e l.c.{ . 0...,c-e4f IA-1•taF 13-N re�ec1-fi, a 1-4- r..6b. l- 4-1%L
ZStaff does not concur with the Town in their assessment that the're uest is in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the ordinance and that its spirit is preserved. nder zoning law, 1,....A
R;variances may on1Ey be, ranted to allow the minimum deviation necessary from ordinance requirements. �P
r. .q esI eJ k , This variance requ s i�xcessiv According to the applicant's own justification, the minimum Ford '1
franchise recommendation is five acres of impervious surface,not the requested 5.8 acres. Under no i
circumstances does this request attempt to preserve the spirit or intent of the perennial stream buffer
'J
requirements. ..rk.s r k 4 �
Finally, the Town made no finding of fact showing that public safety and welfare have been �'Y �""j "`l�l�
1�
0assured and substantial justice done. The applicant has offered to mitigate some of the potential .4L impacts of the increased impervious surface area on the site by oversizing the stormwater pond. �t Imo.- Ars
However, the proposed development and additional impervious surface area would significantly
reduce e vegetation and interrupt the natural drainage pattern of the site. The lack of substantial
proof of a hardship, other than an economic one to the property owner, increases the potential of this
variance setting a precedent- the cumulative resu�l�tp of which could cause substantial harm to the water
quality in Lake Norman. � �,( 41«/drams o- kin ces-f.v
A - P‘a .--. I•r*
RECOMMENDATI�? -------__._
16,s Staff recommends denial of the major variance request submitted because the applicant failed r.e100604
conclusively prove that the buffer requirements of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules /" �
burden this site such that no reasonable use could occur. addition, the Town did not make all the,o(� ,�C�L"- ill
fired findings of fac n" J�„ /(£M c
�, v.-pikes-7
As stated above, staff agrees that the site is uni ue in its shape and composition;however, it is
• not evident that the hardship is caused by the site itself reel tome Town
proved by thgEMC.}— l ep) 6.)
VV top3- $ ^
MIA IMr - 9 S
(
11414:Cr....r.. kji_ pi,a -J.,.,✓1z) ,44D,'cis 2. 6.0
S0 5,8

Yr ,iitikiii•1tinlidddll?,''',.l ,, Ir 11 ..,,, r ,,..�„,:i�„„, .,:„.
o d •
Md 1 i�ftl':='PUE�LI�..;€ii�1_ Help
� fit r� - Zoom Out
(d F1 zoo■ I n
ENTERPRISES. LLG 13 - to Return to Ilencriotion Arrou Keys - Ilv/noun/Left/Rin6 v • 1
PLAZA , - Print Screen ESC to Return to Main_ Menu ( 21 •_��
(A4657[i33713.000Li �/ 2,...... 1�' v \-.
10.10 AC PIN , ) O �4 \\k-
.
LJ 1a70 �`�7 tti�
r i I 'l V T\.
4 e,•1
G q 22ti �o 4312 \
Vl \ 5371 �%,
d 31 4LI 4 's
.� 2223
. /I (p\ ,
N z j f 33
294 Y F �,
U j 2
`3+--i SO rn 1 : 1 7 �� 1.
JJ �•.> j 759
-It5_e n Buz _ ) 1 zz3 b7✓4J r ,» zis
o KC �Q11� Q 4093 6)194 \ ..4.4 /ea, r, • ti� 2,�• 'z�7J{ tx 452 7
r(
!99 IB( 212 'i 1P W! ;•!'KEEL 1 !)) 0952 ry Jr 9��g ^. OJ340iZ?5{3
?I2 f { n, 2-' , S • 150
o A912 1* ! � /60 y 344 -"y �o Ln arar.D15
0 2 / M is a Vie
(,
N anti / �C , f 2D� Etal ' 1 to (�
J015 1,,, 'AN �, ,/ � h )�
,�y7 • 1', i ;'" 43D l �0,-`-
/� 1J ` J 1 17 / 0` � ' e»
Z3 4� tll. i 9025
tO 'no
1 p'' 66 r
4'�° t-I a: l i i, aac
`2i, A • rt,N
cr�'
ir
100 ^ . ,! ,1 ru
(5 •Y n, ,r it
in
995302 6333
v
�(S': eta
` 235 Ali- to•
1� 'L91 ,r / ,JD
• t
,ti 3 I i19 � � 6150 i r,. '
00 , :Ci°
��
•
101� •a 3133 o siJ ,� �1 5063
4111gr f, ;,) �JJ 9021 7 3-a 2097
r '
co. r.lnrar_

Aug-22-97 03 : 42P Attachment 2: Town of Mooresville
Findings of Fact
TOWN OF Erskine Smith,Jr,AICP
Planning Director
Town of Mooresville
MOORESVILL 413 N.?Odin Street
��j P.O.Box 878
Mooresville,NC 28115
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
The Mooresville Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the •
major variance request based on the following finding of fact and
evidence presented:
1. The applicant's property is unique due to the fact that the property is
bordered by two perennial streams and that the applicant is mitigating
the effects of storm water runoff by the following means and for the
following reasons;
a. That the applicant's is proposing to detain all water runoff from all
impervious area on his site.
b. That the only water that would fall in the buffer are would be the
natural rainfall. In addition, no offsite storm water would flows
through this site.
c. That the applicant is designing the storm water detention pond 1.3
times the required storage are thereby reducing possible storm
surge.
2. • That the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
the ordinance and preserves it's spirit based on the evidence
presented above.
4L..4 lft
Joe V. Kno . Mayor Da e
Post-it'Fax Note 7671 Hahn Pagges`�- �t
To C 'From 45g/ Stale.— S(t� . E 1 3 E D
Co/Dept. L4J� N Co. �..c�.�+ AUG 2 2 l' )/
F' nI 733 Phone* JUt GZ 3/3i
Fax* ci 1 q 7 f 5 d 0? Fax It 70 (o4Z—ZO 'x:CIt;TIES ASSESSMENT UNIT

1I3°1`1q'r
Attachment 3: Applican 's
4
Justification
Major Variance Request
from Watershed Regulations
Mooresville, NC 28115
The following are considerations in determining the uniqueness of the site circumstances and
constraints in favor of granting a major variance from the Mooresville Watershed Regulations.
The subject site is located in a WS IV Protected Area of the Catawba River Watershed on
NC 150 within the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Mooresville, NC. The site is 9.080 acres in
size excluding areas in the NC 150 right of way. The subject site is triangular in shape, and is
bounded on two sides by perennial streams and bounded on the third side by NC 150. The attached
site plan shows the site and the applicant's proposed site plan.
The applicant purchased the site for use as a new car dealership with service and used car
sales as additional customer services to be rendered under the franchise requirements of Ford Motor
Company. Franchise guidelines recommend at minimum 5.0-6.0 acres of impervious area for a new
dealership with these additional services.
The applicant plans to use the high density option to achieve a 70% impervious area for his
intended use. Due to the constraints imposed by the required 100' buffer along both perennial
streams, the applicant is only able to achieve somewhat over 3.8 acres (42%) impervious area. A
site plan utilizing a minor variance (10%) along the but er areas, 4.6 acres (51°° impervious area
is attainable. With the reduction of the 100' buffer along the perennial streams to 50', 5.823 acres
(64%) impervious area is attainable and appropriate for the intended use of the site. Without a major
variance, the applicant falls out of compliance with the guidelines of his franchise agreement.
The applicant is requesting a 50% variance to the 100' buffer along the perennial streams
which border the site. The applicant is also requesting a variance in the buffer area at the eastern
corner of the site to accommodate a driveway entry point as shown on the attached proposed site
plan which has been approved by NCDOT. The driveway entrance has been located to provide a
reasonable safe distance from the nearby intersection.
Technical arguments for granting this variance request include:
!7 The site is truly unique in character in that it is triangular in shape and bordered on two sides
by perennial streams.
V Applicant's site lies at the ridge of the watershed affecting his site. Offsite storm water
flowing onto this site is minimal.
�� Applicant's site plan provides for the containment of all storm water generated by the
impervious area of his site.
�! Applicant's detention pond plans provide for 1.3 times the required storage area in his
detention pond thereby reducing the potential of storm surge inundating his pond.
A 50' buffer exceeds minimum buffer standards in a low density development by 20'.
64% impervious area meets the site demands of the applicant's intended use.
Other arguments for granting this variance:
\ There are practical difficulties/hardships in carrying out the ordinance due to this site's
characteristics.
3b

The constraints of applying the ordinance adversely impacts the usefulness of the site based
'v on franchise requirements for new car dealerships.
The site with reduced buffers would comply with new car dealer franchise requirements.
The site with full 100' buffers renders the site less than marginally acceptable
?k,
The hardship to the applicant is not the result of the applicant. The applicant has maximized
the use of available area in his site design and remains out of compliance with franchise
guidelines without the requested variance.
It is the opinion of the applicant and his civil engineering consultants that sufficient detention
and storm water containment can be designed to keep the variance in harmony with the general
purpose of the ordinance; preserve the spirit of the ordinance; provide sufficient safeguards to protect
the public safety, welfare and assure substantial justice has been done; and that the variance makes
possible the reasonable use of the applicants land.
.c — h, p1 v./1)1 -1-� k-. C a a r 1-4- v Cho 1 6 f i 04 {-U A u g
�� Y
" r �
frfitel � ---� h• re-, ttS { i5, h• F 4
• (es. 22 4c►zs wz ii� L-O. 4- 30 1� rr)
li
5* 1,,,15c 0 0,2) -11-( if I rra-v ,p,„_ 7 .7e 5-
0 ,c,,,, 1,-(,(-1,41.,--id LD foi--/ 6-,i, fl.kril---?c,0
L�#,c ,,4 ,,2-e a 5-1,,„..,0v, 4- )6 c,Ib)
)c.11.E. ...., 0 3 )0114064 rvl ''‘. r 1 r 'A
ot ctgl T ins M ieh` c.I rrol oo-f o— c f �k e` 7. 1-5�). hiltt- " /4/1
•
�' , -w .c►iat,- Illit Fps?
t f►,dw 11-4.1.o{-Y- I\ 461 I114L 44 r_ 61` (5 l; �c�"lb�
9Y,s44a swAi (J
37