ZBA-1-06
1 MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT January 24, 2006 The New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meeting at 5:30 P.M. at the New Hanover Government
Complex, 230 Market Place Drive, Suite 110, Wilmington, NC, on January 24, 2006. Members Present Members Absent Michael Lee, Vice-Chairman Mike Furman, Chairman Michael Jones Brian Eckel
Dan Weldon Tim Fuller Carmen Gintoli Ex Officio Members Present Holt Moore III, Assistant County Attorney Ann S. Hines, Executive Secretary Linda E. Painter, Zoning Enforcement Official
Patricia A. Roberts, Zoning Enforcement Official Hattie Moore, Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Michael V. Lee. Mr. Lee explained to all present that the
Board is a quasi-judicial board appointed by the Board of Commissioners to consider zoning ordinance variances from residents in New Hanover County where special conditions would create
unnecessary hardships. The Board also hears appeals of the
thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. First order of business was the swearing in of a
new Zoning Board of Adjustment member, Mr. Dan Weldon. It was properly moved and seconded to table the rulings on the minutes of the November 2005 Board of Adjustment meeting until the
February 28, 2006 meeting as three of the five members present would need to abstain because they were not at the November 2005 meeting. Mr. Lee swore in County staff, Ms. Ann S. Hines,
Ms. Linda E. Painter and Ms. Patricia A. Roberts. The first case before the Board was as follows: Thomas J. Sutton, 5905 Watermill Way, is appealing the decision of the Zoning Enforcement
Official and issuance of a civil citation for violation of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 23-82 and 68.1 for the storage of inoperative vehicles, and Ordinance Section
50-2, operating an appliance business, in a residentially zoned district. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-763. Mr. Lee swore in Mr. Thomas J. Sutton.
2 Mr. Sutton said he had just been given some additional material and would need to continue the case to the next meeting so that he would have enough time to go over the materials and
respond. Mr. Lee asked Ms. Hines if she preferred to give an overview of the case first or entertain the motion to continue this case to the next meeting. Ms. Hines stated that in the
past when people have asked for a continuance, stipulations have been attached that the conditions not change or made worse on the property before the case is heard. She said that she
would not have objections to a continuance as long as the appellant agrees to the conditions. Ms. Hines asked Mr. Sutton if he could give an estimation of what is presently on his property.
Mr. Sutton said some vehicles and appliances have been removed. Mr. Lee asked Ms. Hines to give an overview of the case so the Board understands what is involved with this case. Ms.
Hines stated that this is an appeal of a determination. She said Mr. Sutton has been written on several occasions and cited three times for violations of the Zoning Ordinance on his
R-15 zoned lot located at 5905 Watermill Way in the Myrtle Gardens subdivision. She said Zoning started having contact with him in 2000, which was an inoperative vehicles violation.
She said he resolved that issue and they closed the file but in February 2005, Zoning received a complaint of several inoperative vehicles and appliances on this property. Ms. Hines
said there is not a residence on this property, just a garage storage building. She said they cited Mr. Sutton twice; once in March of 2005 and once in June for having 11 to 12 inoperative
vehicles and a number of appliances such as refrigerators, heating and air conditioning units stored on the property. Ms. Hines stated that none of those citations or violation notices
were appealed, and on December 1, 2005 they revisited the property and issued a citation for $500 on December 6, 2005. She said at that point Mr. Sutton contacted the Zoning office and
said that he wished to appeal. Ms. Hines said the inspection on December 1, 2005 revealed the same situation existing there as the previous inspections showed. Ms. Hines said she will
present exhibits showing the inventory, a number of photographs, also photographs of just about every property in Myrtle Gardens to show that this is not selective enforcement. She said
this is not typical of the majority of properties in that area and Zoning has a �
�violation did exist December 1, 2005 when inspected and that the only reason the citation would be voided
is if it was incorrect, that is, if the facts were different from what was represented. Mr. Lee called Mr. Sutton for his statement. Mr. Thomas J. Sutton stated his name and said he
just received some additional information and would like to continue his case in order to have time to read and respond to the materials. Ms. Hines said they were out to the property
on January 20, 2006 and would like to get a more definitive count of what is on the property today. Mr. Sutton said more vehicles have been scrapped, three vehicles have been inspected
and registered, approximately twenty air conditioning units have been removed, and the wrecked Acura has a current tag but has since been stolen. Ms. Hines said there are two concerns.
1) What existed on this property on December 1, 2005 and 2) What happens in the future. She said they want to see this lot cleaned up with no more than one
3 inoperative vehicles and no appliances stored there, and that Mr. Sutton find an appropriately zoned location to conduct his activity. Ms. Hines said a lot of staff time has been invested
in this case and Mr. Sutton has been cited a lot fewer times than they might have cited him. She also said they do not t�
�not issued in error. Mr. Weldon asked what documentation was given
to Mr. Sutton. Ms. Hines said she has copies of the field reports, photographs of the vehicles that were there, a set of photographs that she took in Myrtle Gardens yesterday, a list
of seven violations files, aerial photographs and the cover letter she sent to the Board. Mr. Weldon asked if the photographs are from the time the violations were issued. Ms. Hines
said they were taken January 2002 and it does show some vehicles on the property. Mr. Gintoli asked what would happen if the Board rejects his appeal. Mr. Lee said if the appeal is denied
and the enforcement action is upheld, Mr. Sutton would have to do what is provided. Mr. Lee said Mr. Sutton would pay the fine. Mr. Gintoli asked would Mr. Sutton be fined again if he
pays the fine but does not clean the property. Ms. Hines said yes, he would be fined again. She mentioned another case in the same subdivision that is scheduled for a court hearing two
weeks from now. She said this will not go away, and she would like to engage in some dialogue with Mr. Sutton so that he understands what the limitations of the ordinance are, so that
this can be resolved. Mr. Jones said he does not think that it matters whether the Board hears this case now or a month later because Mr. Sutton has already stated what he has moved
off the property, and that proves the items were on his property. Mr. Lee said Mr. Sutton is asking for the continuance to have the opportunity to review the new materials that he just
received tonight and how he will respond to it. �
� He asked if there is anything in the materials that would change the basis of his appeal. �
�appeal is and they are just responding to that and giving the Board documentation
to demonstrate what the history on the property is and what was the basis of the civil citation. She said if Mr. Sutton has additional material, Zoning would also like the opportunity
to review that material. Board Decision 1. Thomas J. Sutton, 5905 Watermill Way, is appealing the decision of the Zoning Enforcement Official and issuance of a civil citation for violation
of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 23-82 and 68.1 for the storage of inoperative vehicles, and Ordinance Section 50-2, operating an appliance business, in a residentially
zoned district. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-763.
4 2. Mr. Fuller made a motion to GRANT the continuance to the February 28, 2006 meeting ot
be any additional vehicles, appliances or violations on the property and provides County staff with documents in support of his appeal for their review. Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
All ayes. Mr. Sutton then left to have copies made of the printed matter and photographs he wished to submit. The second case before the Board was as follows: A to Z Properties LLC,
5556 Carolina Beach Road, is requesting a variance from the rear buffer requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 69.11 and 67-4 (5), for use as a storage area for
commercial equipment. Property is zoned B-2. Case No. ZBA-764. Mr. Lee called Ms. Hines to give an overview of the case. Ms. Hines stated that this is a construction project underway
for a new home for A to Z Equipment Rentals. She said it was approved with the required 26-foot planted buffer along the rear side where the property abuts R-15 residential property.
The property is zoned B-2 and is to the north of Rucker Johns Restaurant in the Monkey Junction area and accessed by a service road off Carolina Beach Road. She said that Rucker Johns
obtained a similar variance approximately a couple of years ago. Ms. Hines said they are asking for a 5-foot buffer width instead of a 26-foot width from that residentially zoned property
on the grounds that this is their outdoor storage behind the business. She said they would like to have the use of that additional space in order to maneuver equipment around. Ms. Hines
said the applicant has stated that the adjoining use directly behind them is not a residential use. She said a pond and some natural vegetation is located between this property and a
mobile home park. Mr. Lee called those to speak in favor of or in opposition to granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed. Mr. Lee swore in Mr. Steve Wilson.
Mr. Wilson stated that he is with A to Z Properties and Equipment Rentals. He said Ms. Hines stated their position very well and he would be glad to answer any questions from the Board.
Mr. Lee asked Mr. Wilson if he knows who owns the property immediately behind them and subject to the easement. Mr. Wilson said Rucker Johns, A to Z Properties and Market Street LLC.
He said they all jointly own the property under the company name of GP Pond Associates. Mr. Weldon asked if the pond is zoned R-15 and Mr. Wilson answered yes. Mr. Gintoli asked if they
plan to put up a fence that would continue along the access road. Mr. Wilson answered yes. He said they plan to put up a black chain link fence. Mr. Gintoli said he would prefer the
fence be wooden to shield the equipment. Mr. Wilson said most all of the equipment would be enclosed in the building except for the scaffolding and transport trailers.
5 Mr. Weldon asked the setbacks of Rucker Johns. Ms. Hines said five feet. Board Deliberation Mr. Gintoli said he would not be opposed to the variance if the owner would put a wooden
fence up to shield the scaffolding and other equipment. He said the fence should be at least 6 feet to deter vandalism and prevent people from trying to climb over it. Mr. Lee reopened
the public hearing. Mr. Wilson said there is nothing on the west side and nothing can be built in that area, so a fence would not be needed. Mr. Gintoli said the reason he wants the
fence extended across the western property line is because of the mobile homes behind it. Ms. Hines said a 6-foot tall fence is the minimum that our ordinance calls for and from experience
that height is not adequate. Ms. Hines suggested an 8-foot fence might be better as a privacy fence and some type of screening across the back might be desirable because you cannot count
on easements to look and stay the same way forever. She said the Board needs to be specific about at what part of the building the fence would start. She also said there is a canopy
storage area with a roof on it and no sides on the back and the Board needs to be specific about whether that area would require screening by a fence, as well. The Board entered into
discussion about the placement and height of the fence. Board Decision: 1. A to Z Properties LLC, 5556 Carolina Beach Road, is requesting a variance from the rear buffer requirements
of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 69.11 and 67-4 (5), for use as a storage area for commercial equipment. Property is zoned B-2. Case No. ZBA-764. 2. Mr. Jones entered
a motion to GRANT the variance request to reduce the buffer from 26 feet to 5 feet with the provision that the property owner install an 8-foot visual obscuring fence along the rear
property line and buffer zone. Mr. Lee seconded the motion. 4 ayes 1 nay (Mr. Gintoli). The third case before the Board was as follows: Sea Coast/Blue Water Motels, LLC, 5318 Carolina
Beach Road, is requesting a variance from the building setback and buffer requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 69-11 and 67-4(2) to construct a hotel building
with parking. Property is zoned B-2. Case No. ZBA-765. Mr. Lee called Ms. Hines to give an overview of the case.
6 Ms. Hines stated that this property is on the opposite side of Carolina Beach Road from the shopping center where Lowes Foods and a Burger King are located. She said this parcel is
zoned B-2, Highway Business and a hotel is a permitted use. She said the site plan shows a building with a roof height of 39 feet 9 inches, which complies with the Zoning Ordinance requirements,
and the applicant is asking for a variance in several places on the property in order to provide sufficient parking and a canopy for the hotel lobby entrance. Ms. Hines stated that the
request is for a building setback variance on the south side for the drive through canopy only and a variance for the buffer width along that south side that ranges from a reduction
of 5 feet to a reduction of 35 feet. She said the minimum buffer width is 55 feet and in the rear there is a larger setback and buffer requirement from the R-15 tract behind it. She
said there is a mobile home residence on the very back part of the Matava property, which wraps wraps around this property on the north and west. She said the north side of the Matava
property is zoned R-15 and extends from the back corner of this property up about 105 feet, and from that area there is a required building setback equal to what is on the south side
as well as the required 55-foot buffer on that side. Ms. Hines said the back corner of the building intrudes slightly into that setback area and the parking spaces slightly intrude into
the buffer area on that side. Mr. Lee called Ms. Cindee Wolf for testimony. Ms. Wolf stated that she is representing the applicant who is the owner. She said they planned this permitted
use project so that the impact is as far away as possible from any residentially zoned property. Ms. Wolf stated that the property to the rear and the R-15 property to the northwest
and to the southwest are vacant, other than an unoccupied mobile home. She said the variances in all the different locations are for the purpose of providing the essential site improvements,
which are the minimum number of parking places. She said they have not gone over the required number of parking spaces, they have not expanded on the site work or the design of the building,
they have addressed all the general requirements of the ordinance, and in doing so, it does not all fit within the boundaries of the setback requirements of the ordinance. Ms. Wolf said
the setbacks in some situations seem to be excessive and New Hanover County is one of the few jurisdictions where she has worked that has a factor for calculating setbacks from building
height and buffer setbacks would be half of that figure. She said you have to basically design the building before you can even determine whether your site is usable. Ms. Wolf said they
have moved the building as far as they can into the corner of the lot, and in doing so they still have the ability to provide a 54-foot buffer at the rear. She said they have a 35-foot
buffer along the southern side to the parking spaces at the left entry road. She said the canopy height is 22 feet and meets its setback if it were not part of the building, but because
the entire building is 39 feet 9 inches the canopy setbacks would also be included in the individual structure. Ms. Wolf stated that if the variance on the width of the buffer yard can
be approved in exchange for the construction of an 8 foot fence and the required landscape plantings along those property boundaries, then that would serve the letter of the ordinance
in providing a visual screening for those adjacent properties. Mr. Fuller asked where the fence was shown on the site plan. Ms. Wolf said the fence was not shown on the site plans but
the fence would be a 20-foot offset from the entire property boundary and between the fence and property boundary would be two rows of 6-foot high shrubs to provide 100 % opacity within
one year. Mr. Gintoli asked Ms. Hines how the building height is determined. Ms. Hines said it is the mid point of the main roof. Ms. Hines then asked Ms. Wolf if they plan to place
plantings on the inside of the fence to accommodate for the wider buffer in some locations.
7 Ms. Wolf said they plan to put the plantings on the exterior of the buffer with the option to place a fence. She said there is 35 feet between the access easement and the back of curb
and they plan to put the fence within that area, no less than 20 feet off of that access easement. Ms. Hines said she needs that clarified because if it is going to be a buffer, it needs
to be planted. Mr. Gintoli asked the ratio for required parking for a hotel. Ms. Wolf said it would be a 1 to 1 ratio with hotels. Mr. Gintoli asked if that would be 87 parking spaces
and Ms. Wolf answered yes. Mr. Lee called for those to speak in opposition to granting the variance request to come forward. There was no one present to speak in opposition to granting
the variance request. Mr. Lee asked Ms. Hines if she wished to add anything. Ms. Hines said our ordinance does exempt wetland areas from having to have any buffers installed but there
is one area on the north side that is slightly notched out of the wetlands on this parcel, where where a buffer would be required unless the Board waived it. She said the entirety of
that area need to be a planted buffer and not have an offset that might be lawn under the Ordinance. Mr. Lee closed the public hearing for Board deliberation. Mr. Weldon asked what was
the 15-foot private access. Ms. Wolf said it is a deeded access easement that goes back to the Matava property. Mr. Jones asked what happens with the easement if he would sell the property.
Mr. Lee reopened the public hearing for additional testimony. Ms. Wolf said it is a private access easement and he could use it to put a private driveway within the 15-foot that would
come 5 feet off the edge of the curbing. Ms. Wolf said he would not have it from that direction as far as any development potential because it would be a 40-foot minimum as a right-of-way,
or 30 feet as a private access easement. She said right now it is a private access easement for a single home driveway and would probably not be used. Mr. Lee asked if they could meet
the setbacks if the canopy was not attached. Ms. Hines said if it were freestanding, there would need to be a 5-foot separation from the other buildings. Mr. Gintoli said his concern
is the angled parking going towards the mobile home park. He said they could eliminate three or four spaces and turn it to keep in line with the rest of the parking spaces. Ms. Wolf
said they could add a space beside the two handicapped spaces and make it 45 feet instead of 54 feet and add a space at the end of both runs to eliminate three of the spaces. She said
that
8 would be a 15-foot buffer from the private access easement and they would not lose any parking spaces. Ms. Hines said she is most interested in not having the fence offset a significant
distance off the parking lot with nothing planted there to fulfill some of the buffer obligations. Mr. Fuller said the Board could stipulate that both sides of the fence remain a vegetated
buffer and not to be landscaped. Ms. Wolf said the ordinance requirement would be that they have 2 rows of shrubs on the outside and on the inside place plants along the fence. She said
another option would be to put the fence at a 5-foot offset from the back of the curb and they would only have grass placed between the parking and the fence. Board Decision: 1. Sea
Coast/Blue Water Motels, LLC, 5318 Carolina Beach Road, is requesting a variance from the building setback and buffer requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 69-11
and 67-4(2) to construct a hotel building with parking. Property is zoned B-2. Case No. ZBA-ZBA-765. 2. Motion by Mr. Lee to GRANT the variance request subject to the condition that
an 8-foot privacy fence is placed along the area that begins on the southern boundary close to the first parking spaces running down the southern boundary line to the western boundary
line and north, as shown on the site plan hand drawn this evening, and a 10-foot offset from back of curb with two rows of exterior plantings and one row of interior plantings, based
upon the evidence presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jones. All ayes. The fourth case before the Board was as follows: Ms. Elsie Brisson, Coastal Door and Window, 6752 Gordon
Road, is requesting a variance from the side yard setbacks and buffer requirements of New Hanover County Ordinance, Sections 67 and 69.11 to construct an 18-foot-high structure. Property
is zoned I-1. Case No. ZBA-766. Mr. Lee called Ms. Hines to give an overview of the case. Ms. Hines stated this variance involves an existing commercial business on Gordon Road zoned
I-1 Industrial. She said the undeveloped adjoining property on the side towards Market Street is zoned R-15 Residential. Ms. Hines stated that the request is to put a 3,600 square foot
warehouse and more parking in the back corner of the Brisson property. Ms. Hines said there is a proposed 35-foot side setback and 20-foot buffer yard which would be a reduction from
a 49-½ foot building setback and a 24-¾ foot buffer yard. Mr. Lee called those to speak in favor of or in opposition to granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed.
Mr. Lee swore in Ms. Cindee Wolf and Mr. Mark Brisson. Ms. Wolf stated that she is representing Mrs. Elsie Brisson, the owner of the property. Ms. Wolf stated that the ordinance provides
that for setbacks within commercial, office, institutional and industrial districts abutting residential districts, the minimum required setbacks for structures and
9 abutting residential uses and/or platted lots on residentially zoned property, shall have their setbacks based upon this table. Ms. Wolf said they believe that the adjacent property
is an acreage tract and not a plotted residential lot. She said this is a wide-open parcel of land that is adjacent to them that Mr. Dukes used for farmland. Ms. Wolf said there is a
lot of existing vegetation in the rear along the 20-foot buffer line, which would be left undisturbed, and also the corner property, which Mrs. Dukes owns. She said they are willing
to provide the proposed building, which would still be the minimum setback if it were not adjacent to residential and they would also add conditions that no openings be placed on that
side of the building and that a fence be placed along the boundary in order for them to expand the parking to four spaces in the front and additional new parking. Ms. Wolf said she would
like for it to be decided that this setback is not required by virtue of it not being a platted residential lot.
part of this property. Ms. Hines said it might be removed by a couple hundred
feet but is still essentially one tract. She said for example, if Mrs. Dukes wanted to build an outbuilding that straddled her own property line, they would not object to that. Ms. Hines
said there should be a setback from the residential use. Mr. Moore said he is in accord with what Ms. Hines stated. He said if there were an issue with the interpretation of it being
a recorded plat, there would be an appeal option of that interpretation. He said it should be stated that this is a variance case and not an enforcement interpretation. Mr. Lee called
those to testify in opposition to the Board granting the variance request to come forward for testimony. There was no one present to speak in opposition to granting the variance request.
Mr. Fuller asked Ms. Wolf if any consideration was given to using the gravel area for parking. Ms. Wolf said that is a staging area for trucks and access to the back of the warehouse
building. Mr. Fuller asked Ms. Wolf who would be using the parking. Ms. Wolf said it is additional parking for the people that lease the offices and showroom. She said the employees
that presently park in the front would then be able to park in the back area and the clients would park in the front. Mr. Gintoli commented that there is nothing in the R-15 zoning to
into individual lots in the future. Ms. Wolf said if you look at the zoning demographics that are moving along that road,
chances are that it will fill in with an office or some type of transitional zone. She said it is doubtful that there will be residential development in those lots. Mr. Brisson said
they have been there since 1994. He said Mrs. Dukes is a friend and they got her permission to do this project. He added that the highest economical use for her property would be commercial.
Mr. Lee closed the public hearing for Board deliberation.
10 Mr. Fuller said he agrees with Mr. Gintoli that the Board has to look at the zoned use and not what will happen when Mrs. Dukes sells the property. He said he is inclined to grant
the variance with stipulations. Mr. Lee reopened the public hearing. Mr. Gintoli asked where the fence would be placed. Ms. Wolf said there is a barbed wire fence there now on the property
boundary and they would place the 8-foot solid wood fence at a 20-foot offset and it would run the entire length, stopping at the street yard line. Mr. Fuller asked if they would need
a tree clearance permit. Ms. Hines said yes, and she has reviewed requirements with them already. She also said appropriate protective measures would need to be in place such as temporary
fencing along that buffer line and possibly more between the existing building and where the fence will be placed. Board Decision 1. Ms. Elsie Brisson, Coastal Door and Window, 6752
Gordon Road, is requesting a variance from the side yard setbacks and buffer requirements of New New Hanover County Ordinance, Sections 67 and 69.11 to construct an 18-foot-high structure.
Property is zoned I-1. Case No. ZBA-766. 2. On a motion by Mr. Gintoli and seconded by Mr. Fuller the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request with the provision that an
8-foot high sight-obscuring fence be placed aligned along the back of curb from the rear property line to
the 25-foot street yard. The fifth case before the Board was as follows: Michael and Katie Richardson, 140 Arlington Drive, are requesting a variance from the rear setback requirements
of New Hanover County Ordinance, Section 52.5-2 for a new storage building. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-767. Mr. Lee called those to speak in favor of or in opposition to granting
the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed. He swore in Mr. Michael Richardson. The Chairman called Ms. Hines to give an overview of the case. Ms. Hines stated that
Mr. Richardson wish to erect an out building for storage in the rear of his property property located in an R-15 zoning district on Arlington Drive. She said the proposed building would
measure 32' x 24' in the footprint area. She said this size building would require a 20-foot minimum rear yard setback; however the ordinance does allow a reduction to 5 feet for out
buildings with a footprint of 600 sq. ft or less, but his is bigger than that. Mr. Richardson stated that he has an existing building on his property and his neighbor has an existing
building on his property. He said with a 20-foot setback if would appear that his building is
11 sitting in the middle of his yard and not inline with his neighbors. He said he would like to get a 10-foot setback to keep it aligned with his neighbors and would use the building
to store classic cars. Mr. Gintoli asks what the distance would be from the house to the new building if the variance is granted. Mr. Richardson said approximately 15 to 20 feet and
10 feet off the property line. Mr. Richardson presented photographs to the Board and they proceeded to discuss the photographs. Mr. Gintoli asked how far the building of the neighbor
is from the property line. Mr. Richardson said the building is 5 to 10 feet off his property line. Mr. Gintoli asked Mr. Richardson if he would be repairing cars in the building. Mr.
Richardson said no, he has a shop on Bell Street where they do restoration works on the cars. Mr. Gintoli asked Mr. Richardson if he owns the cars that he will be storing and he answered
yes. Mr. Lee asked Ms. Hines if she had anything she would like to add. Ms. Hines said in her discussions with the applicant, she asked him what he planned to put in the building and
what he said here tonight is consistent with what he has told her. Ms. Hines said he also indicated that they plan to use skylights, rather than power which would inhibit them from using
it for anything other than storage. Mr. Jones asked if the building foundation would be concrete. Mr. Richardson said it would be reinforced fiberglass concrete slab. Board Decision:
1. Michael and Katie Richardson, 140 Arlington Drive, are requesting a variance from the rear setback requirements of New Hanover County Ordinance, Section 52.5-2 for a new storage building.
Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-767. 2. On a motion by Mr. Fuller and seconded by Mr. Gintoli the Board voted to GRANT the variance request based on the findings of fact and other
evidence presented. All ayes. The Board also voted to accept the 2006 Board of Adjustment calendar as is with no changes. There being no further business before the Board, it was properly
moved and and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. Executive Secretary Vice-Chairman