Business

Zoning board narrowly upholds event barn permit

Stan Shelley argues in favor of revoking a permit for an event barn on Bradley Road at N.C. 191.

By Bill Moss, Published: July 26, 2017

Residents wearing stickers that read "Revoke!" fell silent and supporters of event barn owners Bill and Tamra Crane clapped and cheered after the Henderson County Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 3-2 to uphold a permit for the facility, which has sparked a bitter neighborhood dispute and triggered a broader discussion of commercial uses in residential zones.

The Zoning Board of Adjustment decision Wednesday lets the Cranes move ahead with plans to operate the 3,500-square-foot event space, which is under construction and expected to be finished by October. But there is no sign that next-door neighbors Stan Shelley and dozens of allies will drop their effort to derail the facility.

Shelley and his neighbors on Country Road and their supporters, many of whom live far from the site, argue that noise alone would be disruptive enough to cause significant depreciation in their homes' values. They also say traffic and light would disrupt the otherwise quiet area on N.C. 191 across from Rugby Middle School. The Zoning Board of Adjustment ignored all these factors, the Shelleys argue, when it issued a special-use permit for the event barn in an R-2 residential zone in 2015. Attorney Robert Oast urged the board to revoke the permit.

Attorney Chris Stepp argued on behalf of the Cranes that the couple followed every rule and procedure and should not be denied the use that the county initially granted in October 2015. The Shelleys challenged the order in Superior Court and in the N.C. Court of Appeals, losing both times.

After an hourlong hearing and board discussion, the Zoning Board voted to uphold the permit. County Attorney Russ Burrell warned the board that it would be on precarious legal ground if it revoked the permit on the grounds of noise, since there is no noise until the facility opens. That left the issue of whether a 400-square-foot discrepancy in the size of the facility was enough to warrant revocation. The Cranes initially filed a site plan showing a 3,072-square-foot barn; the final plans showed a 3,472-square-foot building.

Under questioning from Stepp, Zoning Administrator Toby Linville said the Cranes had told him of the dimensions of 72x48 feet when they received a building permit.

"Did you have any problem with that?" Stepp asked.

"I did not," Linville said, "because the larger size of the building does not encroach into any setbacks or the buffer. To us, the size did not matter, 8 feet, 10 feet."

"My personal loss of property value — I'm one neighbor — my loss is nearly $100,000," Shelley said. "The loss to the neighbors is vastly superior to what the loss the Cranes would have."

Asked to explain his statement, Shelley said he and his wife, Jane, spent $65,000 on a swimming pool and a screened porch two years ago. "No one buying our home now with an event barn right across the fence is going to pay a penny for that," he said. "I have been told by real estate appraisers that I could get nothing for the pool and the screened-in porch."

Tamra Crane testified that the family has spent $60,000 so far (the amount is not larger because her husband, a contractor, is building the barn himself).

To Shelley's comments about noise, Stepp said the Zoning Board of Adjustment had issued the special use permit "despite having heard those arguments. ... I oppose you reconsidering this. I oppose you relitigating the issue of whether or not this meets the requirements for a special-use permit, because it has already been granted."

Board members debated whether the 400-square-foot difference should trigger revocation.

"At this point I don't see any violation of the permit as it has been issued," said Hilliard Staton.

"I don't think that the noise issue is before us, although there's been discussion of it," said David Sandler. "Are we only dealing with the 400 square feet or are we dealing with other issues apart from that?"

"If they haven't had an event, I don't know what the noise level is," said Chairman Ron Kauffman.

"All of this under discussion today was addressed during that 20-hour hearing they had in the first place," Staton said. "The permit was granted. It was then appealed before two different courts, which upheld the decision, and that's where my sticking point comes in. We're still looking at the same thing."

Kauffman and Jim Hysong voted to revoke the special use permit.

"Whatever the perception was initially, when they first met, I have a feeling from what I've read and what I've seen that the party barn is a bigger intrusion into that established neighborhood than was perceived originally," Hysong said.

The zoning board can only revoke the permit, said Burrell, the county attorney, if the Cranes had violated conditions in the permit. Noise "may be a problem later on" but it is not a condition that the facility violates "because it hasn't happened yet."