ZBA-6-06
1 MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 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 June 27, 2006. Members Present Members Absent Mike Furman, Chairman Dan Weldon Brian Eckel Michael Lee Michael Jones Carmen Gintoli
Ex Officio Members Present Holt Moore III, Assistant County Attorney Ann S. Hines, Executive Secretary Shawn Ralston, Asst. Chief Zoning Enforcement Official The meeting was called to
order by the Chairman, Mr. Mike Furman. Mr. Furman 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 in
enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. He added that appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. The Chairman explained that the Board
tonight would consist of four members instead of five members, which means there has to be a unanimous vote to obtain a variance. Mr. Furman asked if anyone preferred to continue their
case to the July meeting. The following cases will be continued to the July 25, 2006 meeting: Donald Register, 5901Watermill Way is requesting a variance from the setback requirements
of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52.5-2 for an existing garage. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-770 Peter L. Wilson, 7612 Mason Landing Road is requesting a variance
from the setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 51-2 to construct a new single family residence. The property is zoned R-20S. Case No. ZBA-775 Lance and
Gale Smith, 7405 Anaca Point Road, are requesting a variance from the minimum lot size requirements for New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52-2 to construct two homes on the
lot. Property is zoned R-20. Case No. ZBA-782 Mr. Furman informed everyone that the Ward case would not be heard tonight. Mr. Moore added that they are considering a special meting on
July 10, 2006 to hear the Ward case.
2 Board Decision: 1. On a motion by Mr. Eckel and seconded by Mr. Jones the Board voted to continue the three cases to the June 27, 2006 meeting. All ayes. It was properly moved and
seconded to accept the minutes of the May 23, 2006 meting. The Chairman called County staff to be sworn. He swore in Ms. Ann Hines and Ms. Shawn Ralston. The first case before the Board
was as follows: R. Scott Kern, 147 Brentwood Drive, is appealing the Zonithat the structure on his property
is being used as a stable. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-778 Mr. Furman called Ms. Hines for testimony. Ms. Hines said it would not be necessary for this case to be heard because
County staff received some new evidence and have reversed their decision that was being appealed. She said the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the appellant and the County,
and the civil citations are being voided, also the County will be refunding his filing fee. fee. The second case before the Board was as follows: John Stirewalt for Ed Turlington, 14
Sandy Point, Figure Eight Island, is requesting a variance from the front and side yard setbacks of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51-2 for residential additions and alterations.
Property is zoned R20-S. Case No. ZBA-779 The Chairman called Ms. Ralston to give an overview of the case. Ms. Ralston stated that Mr. Stirewalt is requesting a variance from the front
and side yard setback of Section 51-2 of the New Hanover County Zoning ordinance for residential additions and alterations to an existing house on 14 Sandy Point Lane, Figure Eight Island.
She said the property is zoned R-20-S and the required setbacks are 30 foot front and 15 foot side yard. Ms. Ralston stated the home was built in 1978 and encroaches into the front and
side setbacks. She said the current owner purchased the property without knowing of the encroachments and would now like to construct some additions and alterations that would increase
the footprint of the property Mr. Furman called those to speak in favor of granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony. He swore in Mr. John Stirewalt.
Mr. Stirewalt stated that he is representing Ed Turlington. He said the house, built in 1978, encroaches into the front yard setback 169 square feet. Mr. Stirewalt said it is a triangulated
area that goes through the existing front deck and also there is a 2 square foot encroachment on the right rear corner of the house. He said their plan is to remove the roof and add
to the existing second floor on the right side of the house and there would not be any new encroachments into the footprint. Mr. Stirewalt said they are proposing to have a swimming
pool and deck in the rear,
3 which they are allowed to have at grade level. Mr. Stirewalt also said the project would be in harmony with the neighborhood and would allow Mr. Turlington to make good use of his
property. Mr. Gintoli asked if the upper right deck is a continuance of the drip through deck and if it is allowed in the setback. Mr. Stirewalt answered yes and Ms. Ralston said it
is allowed in the setback. Mr. Furman called for those to speak in objection to granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn for testimony. There was no one present to object
to the Board granting the variance request. Board Decision 1. John Stirewalt for Ed Turlington, 14 Sandy Point, Figure Eight Island, is requesting a variance from the front and side
yard setbacks of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51-2 for residential additions and alterations. Property is zoned R20-S. Case No. ZBA-779 2. On a motion by Mr. Gintoli
and seconded by Mr. Jones the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request. The third case before before the Board was as follows: John David Eakins, 310 Brookfield Drive is
requesting a variance from the side yard setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 59.2-4 to construct a carport. Property is zoned AR. Case No. ZBA-780 Mr.
Furman called Ms. Ralston to give an overview of the case. Ms. Ralston stated that
requirement of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 59.2-4 in order to construct a carport. She said Mr. Eakins states that the e
the property line, and he at property
line, in order to be inline with the side of the existing garage and garage door. The Chairman swore in Mr. John David Eakins. Mr. Eakins stated they are requesting this variance because
that garage is 5 feet from the property line and the setback is 10 feet which would place the carport post inside the garage door. He said he wants the post to align with the ends of
the garage. Ms. Hines said the setback was 10 feet when the house was in an R-15 zone, but it is actually a 20 foot setback now that it is in the AR zone. Mr. Gintoli asked Mr. Eakins
if he had plans to enclose the carport and Mr. Eakins said no. Mr. Jones asked the minimum setback for a detached carport.
4 Ms. Ralston said 20 feet but a structure less than 600 sq. ft. would have a 5 feet setback. Mr. Gintoli asked the size of the garage and the carport. Mr. Eakins said the garage is
800 sq. ft. and the carport is 528 sq. ft. Ms. Ralston said that would make the carport an attachment to the existing structure. Mr. Furman called for those to speak in objection to
granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn for testimony. There was no one present to object to the Board granting the variance request. Board Decision: 1. John David
Eakins, 310 Brookfield Drive is requesting a variance from the side yard setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 59.2-4 to construct a carport. Property
is zoned AR. Case No. ZBA-780 2. On a motion by Mr. Gintoli and seconded by Mr. Jones the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request with the condition that the carport not
be enclosed. The fourth case before the Board was as follows: Joanne Siebert, 7711 Marymount Drive, is requesting a variance from the setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning
Ordinance, Section 52.5-2 to screen in the existing patio. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-781 Mr. Furman called Ms. Ralston to give an overview of the case. Ms. Ralston stated
Ms. Seibert is requesting a variance from the minimum 20 foot setback of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51.5-2 for multiple dwelling units. Ms. Ralston said the home has
an attached cement patio and Ms. Seibert is applying for a variance in order to construct a roof and screen over the existing footprint of the patio. She said the new building would
encroach on the required setback by 6.6' for a total setback of 13.4' between dwellings. Ms. Ralston noted that in 2002 the Board did grant a variance for a similar case in the same
neighborhood. The Chairman swore in Mr. George Lewis. Mr. Lewis stated that he is the contractor and is representing Ms. Seibert. He said there have been variances granted in that area
for the same type project. Mr. Lewis said Ms. Siebert has letters from her neighbors that show they do not oppose the project. He said she also has approval from the homeowners association
and the maintenance group for their subdivision. Mr. Lewis said it is inside a 6 foot wooden fence and the homeowners association said that is allowed because it is within her domain.
Mr. Furman called for those to speak in objection to granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn for testimony. There was no one present to object to the Board granting
the variance request.
5 Board Decision: 1. Joanne Siebert, 7711 Marymount Drive, is requesting a variance from the setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52.5-2 to screen in
the existing patio. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-781 2. On a motion by Mr. Gintoli and seconded by Mr. Eckel the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request. The fifth
case before the Board was as follows: Lance and Gale Smith, 7405 Anaca Point Road, are requesting a variance from the minimum lot size requirements for New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance,
Section 52-2 to construct two homes on the lot. Property is zoned R-20. Case No. ZBA-782 Mr. Furman called Ms. Ralston to give an overview of the case. Ms. Ralston stated Mr. and Mrs.
Smith are requesting a variance from the minimum lot size requirements of Section 52-2 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance in order to construct two homes on the lot. She said
the property is zoned R-20 which requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for a single family and would require 40,000 square feet for two house. She said the parcel was recently
surveyed and showed the lot to be 39,152 square feet which is 848 square feet short of the required minimum lot size of 40,000 for two residences. Ms. Ralston stated the applicants are
asking for a variance in order to construct two homes on a 39,152 square foot lot. Mr. Furman called those to speak in favor of granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn
or affirmed for testimony. He swore in Mr. Lance Smith. Mr. Smith stated that the adjacent property owners have no objection to their project and also the property owners across the
street. He said his stepson would like to build a house on the property and a friend of his stepson also wants to build a house on the property. He emphasized that they would not be
spec or rental houses. Mr. Smith said they did approach the adjacent owners to see if they would sell them enough land in order for them to meet the lot requirements but they all had
various reasons reasons why they would not sell. He said one family is preparing to add another wider trailer on their property, another owner is concerned with the new tax assessments
and another owner plans to give her lot to her daughter. He said the property has an unusual shape; it is shaped like an M. Mr. Smith said the houses that they want to build would be
within the required setbacks of the R-20 zone. Mr. Furman called for those to speak in objection to granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn for testimony. There was
no one present to object to the Board granting the variance request. Board Deliberation Mr. Furman said there are two criteria; one is creating a hardship and the other is if there is
an unusual situation regarding the property.
6 Mr. Gintoli asked staff if there is a lot coverage restriction in R-20. Ms. Hines said the only time you will encounter a lot coverage restriction is where there is an existing or
new storm water plan. She said if there is enough area coverage in developing the lot, it would have to involve the County Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Ms. Hines said there are
exemptions for single family developments, which might be the case here tonight. She said the property, as a whole, is below the threshold for lot coverage and restrictions. Ms. Hines
added that if the property were within 75 feet of the water it would be 30 % lot coverage. Mr. Jones asked if there are going to be two houses on one lot with two different addresses
or if the lot will be subdivided. Ms. Hines said there may be two addresses but not two lots. Mr. Smith said they will ultimately have to address that issue because it will be separate
property owners; his stepson and the other property owner. Ms. Hines said that is something the Board needs to see in terms of the lot division because right now the Board is only going
to approve two houses on one lot. She informed Mr. Smith that he would need to come back to the Board to get permission to subdivide the lot. Mr. Jones said the Board would need to physically
see a drawing to show how the lot is going to be divided. Mr. Moore said the Board has to know where the lot is to be divided because it would be bound by it. He said it appears that
it is two lots each 424 feet short. Mr. Gintoli suggested that Mr. Smith re-plat the lot into 2 lots and come back to the Board for approval. Ms. Hines aid it appears that this would
be exempt from the Subdivision Regulations because of the small size and the small number of the relative lots. Ms. Hines said Planning would need to sign off on it before it was recorded
because they would be looking for a variance to be in place. Ms. Hines said if the Board is agreeable to it, this case could be continued to the next meeting in order to keep it as a
live case. Mr. Gintoli agreed. He said the appellant could make one lot 20,000 square feet and the other one the remainder, so that he would only need a variance on one lot. Mr. Jones
said legally, how would the Board know where the lots would go and which lot would be 20,000 square feet. Ms. Hines asked if the Board is going to continue this case or are they insisting
that two new cases be filed with two new filing fees. She said in regards to a title search, it could be indexed so that two addresses would show up on the record.
7 Board Decision 1. Lance and Gale Smith, 7405 Anaca Point Road, are requesting a variance from the minimum lot size requirements for New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52-2
to construct two homes on the lot. Property is zoned R-20. Case No. ZBA-782 2. On a motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Gintoli the Board voted unanimously to CONTINUE this case
to the July 25, 2006 meeting. The sixth case before the Board was as follows: Beau Rivage Golf and Resort LLC, 649 Rivage Promenade, are requesting a variance from the maximum height
restrictions for signs under the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 94-4(1) in order to replace a freestanding sign. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-783 Mr. Furman called
Ms. Ralston to give an overview of the case. Ms. Ralston stated Beau Rivage Golf and Resort has requested a variance from the maximum height restrictions for signs under the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance, Section 94-4(1). She said the applicant would like to replace an existing freestanding sign with a larger freestanding sign. The applicants state that the existing
sign is outdated, not aesthetically pleasing and cannot be easily �
�with a total of 192 square feet in sign area. She said and under Section 94-4(1) of the Zoning �
�exceed 150 square feet in
sign area. Mr. Furman called those to speak in favor of granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony. He swore in Mr. Charles Walker. Mr. Walker
stated the sign is small, outdated and cannot be seen. He said other signs are at least 6 feet high. He said he bought the business 3 months ago and he is loosing money because the sign
is not visible. He submitted pictures to the Board that he said shows other businesses in area with larger signs, and he also submitted pictures of the sign that he wants to erect. Mr.
Walker presented a petition to the Board, which he said has signatures from fifty-seven people in the development, stating the sign is not visible from Carolina Beach Road when driving
the speed limit and could cause accidents. He also presented seventeen additional letters stating the same complaint and that the sign is ugly, small and outdated. He read excerpts from
some of the letters. Mr. Furman called for those to speak in objection to granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn for testimony. He swore in Mr. David Girardot.
it is not in the best interest of the public. He said the reason
for implementing this ordinance was large public interest in controlling the proliferation of these large signs. He said he was on the Planning Board during that time and they asked
the Planning staff to draft an ordinance. He said they also held several public hearings and received a lot of positive input from the public towards implementing control over
8 those massive signs. He said the County Commissioners passed the ordinance unanimously. Mr. Girardot said the appellant has not presented a case for obtaining a variance although he
does have some subjective judgments that his business is being affected by the height and dimensions of the sign. He said he does not agree with that and has not seen any positive proof
of that argument. Mr. Girardot said in order to have control of these signs and maintain a viable ordinance, we need to enforce it otherwise the door would be opened to anyone that thinks
their business needs a bigger signs. Mr. Girardot said he respectfully request that the variance be denied. Mr. Ralston mentioned that there are several nonconforming signs presently
in place and they have until year 2011 to reduce the size of their signs to the requirement of the ordinance. Mr. Furman said that the Board would be remiss if they allowed a variance,
even with the few remaining years left because the problem was getting out of hand and that is the reason for the ordinance. He also said this is not the first case like this to come
before the Board. Board Decision 1. Beau Rivage Golf and Resort LLC, 649 Rivage Promenade, are requesting a variance from the maximum height restrictions for signs under the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance, Section 94-4(1) in order to replace a freestanding sign. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-78 2. On a motion by Mr. Eckel and seconded by Mr. Jones the Board
voted unanimously to DENY the variance request. The seventh case before the Board was as follows: Watermark Marina of Wilmington LLC, 4110 River Road, are requesting a variance as required
under the New Hanover County Floodplain Ordinance, Article 4, Section E(3)(b) in order to construct a functionally dependent facility in the flood zone. Property is zoned I-2. Case No.
ZBA-784 Mr. Furman called Ms. Hines to give an overview of the case. Ms. Hines stated that this is a two part case. She said the attorneys for Watermark Marina have filed a request for
a variance from the Floodplain Regulations involving a dry boat storage marina on River Road. Ms. Hines said the appellants feel that there is justification that the current Floodplain
Regulations does not apply to this building and the County differs with them on that. She said, however, they have received some additional material that was delivered to the County
Attorneys office on Friday afternoon and the County is not in a position to argue the merits of that portion of that appeal tonight, but they are in support of the variance being heard
tonight. Ms. Hines said this project has been in the design stages since the early part of 2005 and there has been some difficulty. She said they had a problem getting a DOT driveway
permit which delayed the County approving a building permit for this building back in January 2006. She said at that time, the County had a Floodplain Ordinance and a set of floodplain
maps that essentially had not been changed since the mid 1on April 3, 2006 the County adopted new flood maps which show a different base flood elevation by a foot
for this property. She said it has not changed but the way they express those elevations has changed. Ms. Hines explained that the old flood maps were under a 1929 vertical datum called
NGVD and the new maps are under a new datum called NAVD, which now has the conversion factor in the County down a foot. Ms. Hines said the building permit was not issued for this building
and new plans had to be submitted around June 1, 2006. She said the
9 new ordinance specifically states that functionally dependent uses, which this is considered to be, need a variance in order to proceed. She said this is a large building and they
had proposed to proceed in phases. She said the bulk of this building is made up of racks for boat storage and a small portion is for restrooms, office space and a mechanical room. Ms.
Hines said that proposed portion of the building is elevated to the proper elevation and the remainder is supposed to have flood vents. She said the Civil Engineer has completed a report
which is required by the Floodplain Ordinance addressing a number of pertinent facts. Ms. Hines said County staff supports this variance and they were prepared to approve the plan without
the variance, but they could not because the permit was not approved at the time the new flood ordinance took affect. She said in the report there are references to elevation , finished
floor elevation of 12 feet and a base flood elevation of 10 feet and because of he new vertical datum will you see 11 feet instead 12 feet and 9 feet instead of 10 feet for base flood
elevation. Mr. Jones asked if there are a certain number of flood vents that have to be installed per square footage. Ms. Hines said yes, and further explained that it is a minimum of
one square inch of net opening, unimpeded, for every square foot of enclosed space. She said there are some engineered vents on the market that are approved by FEMA for a specific amount
floor area enclosure but this is wire mesh opening to keep animals out.
they submitted
in the itemized listing. She said because of the size of the building it cannot be treated as an inconsequential storage building which they have verified with officials at North North
Carolina Department of Emergency Management. Mr. Furman asked if granting the variance
Ms. Hines said no because this is not the same type of variance as with building a house and the floor level was accidentally placed too low. She said this variance is in order for this
Board to review those technical standards submitted in this report and to make sure it meets the ordinance. Mr. Jones asked if the Board is only required to consider the location of
the building. Ms. Hines said that is correct. She said the building application shows 127, 000 square feet for the building Mr. Furman called those to speak in favor of granting the
variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony. He swore in Mr. Stuart Monson. Mr. Monson stated that he is representing Watermark Marina. He said this is a functionally
independent facility for dry stack boat storage on a 5-tier racking system using a fork lift for moving the boats. He said the location of the structure is the central focus of the discussion,
in that there are no other reasonable locations on the site for constructing this building. He said they have taken every precaution to ensure that in the event of a flood there would
be no structural damage or collateral damage to adjacent property from floating debris or boats. He said they would either tether the boats or relocate them to a higher elevation somewhere
on the property. He said they
10 have designed and redesigned based on criteria that was introduced at a later date. Mr. Monson said the proposed project is 127,000 square feet of which they plan to build on one-half
(63,500 feet) and in a subsequent phase, build out the balance. He said the building is constructed of steel and the only portion of the structure that would be affected by flooding
is elevated and the balance is boat storage. Mr. Monson said this is not a habitable structure and they have taken precautions in terms of water movement so that water can go in and
through the building by means of continuous venting approximately a foot high that would run through the entire perimeter of the building with screening to keep debris or any other objects
in or out of the building. He said it would diminish any hydraulic effect on the structure, itself. He ended by asking for approval of their variance application so that they can proceed
with construction. He also said their Engineer was present to answer any technical questions. Mr. Furman called for those to speak in objection to granting the variance request to come
forward to be sworn for testimony. There was no one present to speak in opposition to the Board granting the variance request. Board Deliberation Mr. Gintoli said it would have been
nice to see a drawing or site plan showing the structure with relationship to the river, the height and flood line. Mr. Furman said he just received a floodplain document which allows
for special use when it is
Ms. Hines said she just got that document from the Planning Department this afternoon. She directed the Board to page 5 Functionally Dependant Facility and a facility
which cannot be used for its intended purpose unless it is located in close proximity to water such as a docking or port facility necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or
passengers, ship building or ship repair. The term does not include long term storage, manufactured sales or service facility. She
the only controversial thing and she could not see any way around that except to say that what they are doing is storing boats in dry boat slips, which is the high
ground equivalent to permanent dockage. Ms. Hines said the idea is to allow more people access to the water when there is a limited amount of dockage space and wet boat slips, and the
�
�Procedure. She read paragraph 3...Variances may be issued for the repair or rehabilitation of historic structures. She also read letter BFunctionally dependent facilities, if determined
to meet the definitions as stated in Article II of this Ordinance, provided the following provisions in the next Section has been satisfied, and the facilities are protected by methods
that minimizes flood damage. She said that protection would be the flood vents and the elevation of the office area. Mr. Gintoli asked if there was a line from the Cape Fear River back
towards River Road where that flood plain begins. Ms. Hines presented a map to the Board which she said shows four street addresses on it and in the middle it is marked AE 9. She explained
that the cross hatched area is the flood plain and the entire tract is in that flood plain.
11 Board Decision 1. Watermark Marina of Wilmington LLC, 4110 River Road, are requesting a variance as required under the New Hanover County Floodplain Ordinance, Article 4, Section
E(3)(b) in order to construct a functionally dependent facility in the flood zone. Property is zoned I-2. Case No. ZBA-784 2. On a motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Gintoli the
Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request. The eighth case before the Board was as follows: Wade H. and Sandra D. Hargrove, 20 Backfin Point, Figure Eight Island, are requesting
a variance from the front yard setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 51-2 to enclose the front stairs and for a proposed 8" 8" width addition to the deck,
located 5' 1" over the fron t setback line at an existing residence. Property is zoned R-20S. Case No. ZBA-777 (Continued from the May 23, 2006 meeting) Mr. Furman called Ms. Ralston
for an overview of the case. Ms. Ralston stated that Wade and Sandra Hargrove, 20 Backfin Point, Figure Eight Island, are requesting a variance from the front yard setback requirements
of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 51-2 in order to enclose and widen the front staircase and deck of an existing residence. She said the applicants state that they bought
the home in 1985, unaware that the
and they would now like to enclose the staircase and deck, which they state would be in harmony with other houses adjacent to theirs. Ms. Ralston said the applicants further state that
they cannot create a satisfactory �
� Mr. Furman called those to speak in favor of granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony. He swore in Ms. Faison Sutton and Mr.
Mark Saulnier. Ms. Faison Sutton stated that they have made a change from the information submitted for the May meeting and they did provide a revised application. She said Mr. and Mrs.
Hargrove initially thought they would need to go further toward the front property line but have since discovered they do not have to go further towards the street and are now asking
for additional deck width. She said Mr. and Mrs. Hargrove bought this property over 20 years ago in 1985 and at that time it was a spec house under construction and jut being completed.
She said the rear line of the property faces the Figure Eight Island channel and the front line faces the street of Backfin Point. She said they would like to add to the house to make
it more comfortable and secure and part of the proposed additions include the enclosure of the front staircase that faces the street. She said that would bring the house inline with
the other houses on the street. She said through Mark Saulnier, their architect, they discovered their existing deck was located 5 feet 2 inch over the front setback line, which they
were not aware. She said they had a survey in 1985 when they closed on the house but it does not show the distance from the deck to the property line and she pointed out on the survey
where it states on the bottom that there is no encroachments. She said they have worked with Mr. Saulnier to come up with revised architect plans to enclose the front stairs without
increasing the current deck
12 encroachment. Ms. Faison presented three reasons that she said shows they meet the standards for granting the variance: 1. Mr. and Mrs. Hargrove are not at fault. They did not own
the property when it was constructed and they did obtain a survey before closing on the house. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Hargrove are now senior citizens and want to enclose the front staircase
for increased security and protection from the elements. 3. Neither the existing deck, nor the proposed addition would obstruct light or water views or overcrowd the land. She continued
by stating that getting this variance would enable Mr. and Mrs. Hargrove to increase their home security, protect them from the elements, and increases the value of their property and
. She said their requested variance will not harm anyone but will provide a great benefit to Mr. and Mrs. Hargrove and the Figure Eight
Island community. Mr. Saulnier said he is the architect for Mr. and Mrs. Hargrove and he has worked worked with them to try and reduce the amount of encroachment towards the front property
line. He said he basically tried to tie the existing deck into the new enclosed staircase and that is the reason for requesting additional width. He said there have been other variances
granted for front setbacks at Figure Eight Island and Figure Eight Island only requires a 20 foot setback but the County requires a 30 foot setback. Board Decision 1. Wade H. and Sandra
D. Hargrove, 20 Backfin Point, Figure Eight Island, are requesting a variance from the front yard setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 51-2 to enclose
the front stairs and for a proposed 8" 8" width addition to the deck, located 5' 1" at an existing residence at an existing residence. Property is zoned R-20S. Case No. ZBA-777 (Continued
from the June 27, 2006 meeting) 2. On a motion by Mr. Gintoli and seconded by Mr. Jones the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request. There being no further business before
the Board, it was properly moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All ayes Acting Executive Secretary Chairman