ZBA 6-12 Mins
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 County Government Center
Complex, 230 Government Center Drive, in the Lucie Harrell Conference Room, Wilmington, NC, on Tuesday, June 26, 2012. Members Present Justin Lewis Michael McCulley Peter DeVita Chad
McEwen Jack Stanton II Ex Officio Members Present Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney J. Steven Still, Executive Secretary Christine R. Bouffard, Zoning Code Official Hattie Moore,
Clerk The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Justin M. Lewis. Mr. Lewis explained that the Zoning 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. He said the Zoning Board also
hears appeals of the County’s interpretation in enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lewis added that appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board
to Superior Court. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS On a motion by Mr. Stanton and seconded by Mr. McCulley the Board unanimously approved the minutes from the April 24, 2012 meeting. The Chairman
then swore in County staff Ms. Christine R. Bouffard and Mr. J. Steven Still. FIRST CASE BEFORE THE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS: Richard and Janet Jones, 4306 Lauralis Bluff Court, are requesting
a variance from New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 59-4-5 Additional Performance Controls for a proposed structure that will encroach 346 square feet into the required 75’Conservation
Overlay District setback. Property is zoned Performance Residential. Case No. ZBA-868 STAFF COMMENTS -Ms. Christine R. Bouffard stated the following: Richard and Janet Jones are the
owners of property located at 4306 Lauralis Bluff Court. The applicant is requesting a variance for an encroachment of 346 square feet into the 75’ COD setback line that was staked in
in 2007 in order to construct a new single family residence. Since COD lines are not static, a more recent line was staked in December 2011 that placed the COD line 10’ further
2 landward than the 2007 line and the applicant feels this new line substantially reduces the available building envelope for new construction. REQUIRED STANDARDS: Section 59.4-5, Additional
Performance Controls In addition to the general performance controls specified in Section 59.4-4, additional controls shall be required to protect certain conservation resources in certain
zoning districts. The Table of Additional Controls lists for each resource and district the reference number of the group of additional controls that shall be required. If the parcel
being developed is associated with two or more conservation resources with conflicting performance controls, the most restrictive controls shall apply. However, improvements specified
in Section 59.4-4(3) may be permitted within the conservation space setbacks. Additionally, decks may be allowed to encroach into the conservation space setback up to six (6) feet provided
they are uncovered and constructed so that the floorboards are spaced to allow water to flow through directly to the ground. The ground below the deck shall be either left undisturbed
or planted with ground cover or other vegetation. (4/6/92) Groups of Additional Performance Control by Reference Number Conservation Resource Residential Non-Residential Swamp Forest
(Min 5 acres) 4 3 Pocosin (Minimum 5 acres) 4 3 Savannah (Min 5 acres) 4 3 Natural Pond 3 2 Fresh Marsh (Min 1 acre) 3 3 Brackish Marsh 2 1 Primary Nursery Area 2 1 Barrier Island-Beach
Complex 2 1 Maritime Shrub Thickets 2 1 Salt Marsh 2 1 Animal and Plant (Natural) Areas of Special Significance 2 1 GROUP 2 (A) Conservation Space Setbacks -All structures and impervious
surfaces shall be setback from the conservation space, if any, whether the space is located on the parcel or on an adjacent parcel, a distance of at least 75 feet. (B) Retention of Runoff
-In addition to designing the site to control stormwater from a 10 year storm, on-site retention or percolation areas shall be required for the entire parcel sufficient to control, at
a minimum, the first .75 inch of runoff that will originate from all impervious surfaces anticipated to be on the site upon final development. The specified amount of runoff from impervious
surfaces shall be disposed of by percolation into the soil, evaporation, transpiration, or other methods of treatment or handling acceptable to the County Engineering Department.
3 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT: The applicant has asserted the following preliminary “findings of fact.” Staff, in its review of the case, has commented on the assertions of fact. The
Board’s findings may agree or disagree with the following statements. 1. The Board must find that if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically, compliance
with the required 75’ COD setback he (can/cannot) secure a reasonable return from, or make reasonable use of his property. A. Applicant’s Proposed Finding: Dick & Janet Jones have made
a significant investment in a lot on the south side of Whiskey Creek to build their retirement home and a place for their children and their families only to find that they are unable
to make a reasonable use of their property. Lot 2 of The Bluff at Trails End is shown on the subdivision plat (the “Subdivision Plat”) recorded in Map Book 51, Page 283 of the New Hanover
County Registry (See Exhibit A). The Subdivision Plat shows the location of the “Approximate Mean High Water Line,” which is the same line shown on the Subdivision Plat as the “CAMA
Veg” line. The Subdivision Plat also shows the 75’ COD Setback line, which appears to be located 75’ from the “Approximate Mean High Water Line”/“CAMA Veg” line. The Owners understand
that these lines were staked by New Hanover County officials in 2007 and subsequently placed on the plat by McKim & Creed. The Subdivision Plat was approved by New Hanover County prior
to being recorded. As part of the Owners’ due diligence prior to purchasing the lot, they obtained a survey of the land (the “Survey”) from Hanover Design Services, PA which also showed
the 75’ COD Setback line in the same location it is shown on the Subdivision Plat (See Exhibit B). The Survey shows this setback line as the “Approximate 75’ CAMA Line, Map Book 51,
Page 283.” The surveyor has confirmed that, on this Survey, the terms CAMA line and COD Line are used interchangeably, because they are both 75’ setbacks. The Owners’ intent was to build
a residence on the property to serve as a home for themselves, their two children and grandchildren and other family to use in the future. Much of the home was to be located on the ground
floor so that the Owners, who are senior citizens, could enjoy single level living as they grow older. Children’s and guest bedrooms only were to be located on the upper level. After
the Owners purchased their lot, they invested in an architectural design of the home for this property. This design, prepared by Jay DeChesere, AIA, Architect, LEED AP, a local architect
with extensive experience in sustainable design, has determined that a “heated and cooled area” of 2,264 sf. is required for the “ground level” as indicated on Exhibit C. This heated
and cooled area, when combined with a screened in porch, reasonable outdoor decks, plus a two-car garage with space for storage of kayaks, bicycles and recreational equipment, offsite
parking for two cars required by the Homeowners Covenants (see Exhibit D) and maneuvering space for vehicles, results in space needs of 4,455 sf. of developed area as indicated on Exhibit
C. As part of Mr. DeChesere’s design process and as required prior to obtaining a building permit, the County was requested in December 2011 to visit the site and flag the edge of the
conservation resource from which the 75’ COD setback is measured. Once the County’s
4 delineation was indicated on a survey, the Owners were shocked to learn that the County’s delineation and the resulting 75’ COD Setback was materially different from the delineations
that the County made in 2007 for the same purpose and that were shown on the Subdivision Plat. In fact, the edge of the conservation resource established by the County as of December
30, 2011 resulted in a 75’ COD setback that is an average of 10 feet further away from the creek and a reduction of approximately 1050 square feet of buildable area. The difference between
the COD Setback shown on the Subdivision Plat (the “2007 COD Setback”) and the COD Setback based on the County’s 2011 measurements (the “2011 COD Setback”) is illustrated on Exhibit
E. Even though Whiskey Creek is not a body of water where the shoreline would be thought to change in just 4-5 years, the Owners have not been able to obtain an explanation as to what
caused this major deviation. It is the Owners’ belief, based on reasonable and diligent investigation, that due to the material change in the County’s flagging of the conservation resource
from 2007 to 2011, as well as the additional factors described below, the area left for the footprint of a residence, required parking and driveways, patios and other ancillary spaces
normally associated with a home of this nature cannot possibly accommodate their needs or the needs of any home of reasonable size on this lot. As such, the Owners honestly feel that
they cannot make a reasonable use of their property and if they had to reduce the home to the size that would fit within the restricted buildable area, they could not accommodate what
they feel are reasonable requirements for a retirement home for them and their family. B. Staff: Staff feels that the applicant can secure a reasonable return from or make reasonable
use of the property without a variance. 2. The Board must find that the hardship in which the applicant complains results from unique circumstances related to the applicants land. A.
Applicant’s Proposed Finding: In addition to the material change made by the County’s 2011 flagging of the edge of the conservation resource and the resultant 2011 COD Setback as described
above, the hardship is also a result of several unique circumstances related directly to their particular piece of property. This is demonstrated in the following paragraphs. First,
parcels of land along an irregular shoreline vary in size and configuration. The lot purchased by the Owners is an extreme “trapezoidal or pie-shaped” lot with the narrow end (only 38
ft.) oriented toward the main access road. When the COD setback is applied to a lot of this particular configuration, it reduces the buildable area to a substantially greater degree
than it would on a standard rectangular lot or a lot with a narrower dimension adjacent to the protected resource as indicated in Exhibit F. It is illustrated here that the reduction
penalty ranges from 7.4 & 17.5 percent of the lot area. Second, in most cases the “rear property line” of residential parcels is at the same location as the normal high water line. However,
in this instance, the rear property line as shown on the Subdivision Plat extends well into Whiskey Creek, a distance of up to 29 feet, if using the County’s 2011 measurements. As such,
the point from which the
5 2011 COD setback line is measured increases the reduction, diminishing the site area as much as 1,177 sf as shown in Exhibit G. Third, the buildable area is further reduced by the
fact that the edge of the protected resource on which the lot is located “wraps around” the lot due to the fact that it is on a point overlooking the Whiskey Creek. As such, the 2011
COD Setback Line further impinges on the buildable area as illustrated in Exhibit H. The total area penalty due to the configuration of the resource is an additional 882 sf. Fourth,
there are two large (24 and 25 inch caliper) live oak trees located almost directly along the 2011 COD setback line. These are regulated trees under the Land Development Code and the
Owners strongly wish to preserve them as well. In order to preserve these trees, the space within the drip line should be left undisturbed. This area within the drip line of these trees
further diminishes the buildable area by and additional 635 sf. as shown on Exhibit I. Each of the four factors above have a significant reduction on the buildable area and each one
of these circumstances is unique to this property. These areas are summarized below: Shape of Lot: 7.4% x 15,000 sf. lot area 1,110 sf. Location of edge of resource related to property
line 1,177 sf. Configuration of resource 882 sf. Area within drip line of trees 635 sf. Potential reductions if combined 3,804 sf. B. Staff: Staff agrees that the trapezoidal shape of
the lot could be a factor in reducing the buildable area. Staff agrees that the two large live oak trees should be preserved. However, staff feels that the presence of the COD is not
unique to the lot as it is also located on other lots within the subdivision as well as all tidal creeks in New Hanover County. 3. The Board must find that the hardship is not the result
of the applicants own actions A. Applicant Asserts: As part of the Owners reasonable and good faith due diligence before purchasing their lot, they inspected the site, analyzed the Subdivision
Plat and also obtained a new survey. The location of the 2007 COD Setback noted on the Subdivision Map and the new survey, on which the Owners reasonably relied when purchasing the property,
was an average of 10 feet closer to Whiskey Creek than the 2011 COD Setback. As shown on Exhibit E, the change made by the 2011 COD Setback has reduced the Owners’ buildable area by
approximately 1050 square feet. This 1,050 square ft. is in addition to the 3,804 square feet of reductions due to the unique factors associated with the land as noted in Item 2 above.
The Owners are not at fault for this unanticipated situation. The Owners reasonably relied on the Subdivision Plat and the 2007 COD Setback as measured and approved by the County, so
they should be permitted to continue to rely on the 2007 COD Setback. They have worked diligently with their architect to minimize their house plans as much as possible in order to request
a very minor variance over the 2007 COD Setback.
6 B. Staff: Staff would like to note the distinct possibility that the 2007 ‘COD’ line delineated by surveyor was more likely flagged as a ‘Normal High Water’ line and not a COD line,
which may have caused an approximate 10’ difference between the 2007 staking and the most recent December 2011 staking, and it is widely known that these terms and lines as well as CAMA
lines and Wetland lines are often confused and intermingled. Staff agrees that fault does not lie with the homeowner who did perform due diligence and that the error may have occurred
during the surveying process. However, the 10’ difference would not substantiate a 346 square feet encroachment into the COD area. The presence of the COD was identified on the original
plat for the subdivision therefore the applicant had full knowledge of the possibility of a COD presence prior to purchasing. 4. The Board must find that if granted, the variance will
be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and will preserve its spirit. A. Applicant Asserts: The purpose and spirit of the ordinance, as stated in Section 59.4.1
of the Land Development Code, is to: Protect important environmental and cultural resources within the County To maintain the County’s diverse and ecologically important natural
systems To preserve the County’s estuarine systems important for fin fishing and shellfishing To provide open space To retain the County’s archaeological and historical heritage
The Owners are asking, through this variance, for permission to use impervious area equal to only 7.1% (730 sf. /10,149 sf.) of the area protected by the 2007 COD setback as shown on
Exhibit J and only 19.2% (730 sf. /3,804 sf.) of the sum of the “area reductions related to the land” noted in Item 2 above plus minimal pervious decking as shown Thus, the impact to
open space of the Conservation Setback area will be minimal. The total “impervious area” for the Jones’ home is 3,832 sf. The Bluff at Trails End subdivision has in place a stormwater
management permit permit issued by both New Hanover County and the State of North Carolina that provides for the construction of “up to 4,667 sf. of impervious area on each lot” as stipulated
in the Covenants. The Owners are only using 82% of this allowable area further reducing the stress on the stormwater management system that is in place. The aforementioned stormwater
permit is designed to allow stormwater runoff from the roof areas from homes in The Bluff at Trails End to be connected to an inlet that channels this water to an underground holding
area where the flow is slowly released into a sediment basin and a vegetated swale before entering Whiskey Creek. However, as good stewards of the environment, the Owners plan to provide
1046 sf. of rain gardens in three locations on the property to allow a substantial portion of this stormwater to be returned to the aquifer rather than the creek. In addition, they do
not intend to have any conventional turf areas, but plan to plant the site with native and drought resistant plants further reducing runoff from vegetated areas. They intend to
7 engage Lara Berkley, LEED AP, Landscape Architect, who is experienced with this and other LID concepts to implement this plan. In addition, any driveway area will be generally level
and will be constructed of “pervious paving” which should handle all but the most intense rainfalls. The sub-soils are sandy and are expected to have an infiltration rate of greater
than 14 inches per hour and the seasonal high water table is relatively deep, based on information provided by the engineer of record for the stormwater permit. These infiltration tests
can be provided upon request, however new tests will be performed before the BMP’s are designed. The home is also designed to provide up to 560 sf. or 15% of its impervious area as a
“green roof.” According to Low Impact Development (LID) specialists, this stormwater strategy can retain from 15 to 90% of rainfall. While not a part of this application, the Owners
are considering and may decide to use all or a portion of the roof area as a green roof to further reduce reduce runoff and to illustrate to the public how this strategy can be used.
Rainwater harvesting, again, while not a part of this variance request, may be used to an extent to provide water for outdoor use, irrigation and flushing toilets. The release of any
overflow can be channeled to the Bluff at Trails End system, reducing concerns for maintenance of these systems. The Owners understand and respect the County’s intentions and goals and
concur with the protection of the environment and the waters of Whiskey Creek having chosen to make this residence their final home. The placement of the home on this property and its
very minor placement within the 2007 COD Setback, through the stormwater management systems in place and those planned or possible, will have little or no effect on the environmental
resources of the County, will not affect the ecology of Whiskey Creek, will preserve the estuarine system and open space, and will have no effect on the County’s archeological or historical
resources. B. Staff: Staff: The applicant intends to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance by implementing green building standards to mitigate his impacts,
however, staff feels that these measures alone should not encourage development in the COD as the intent of the COD ordinance is to set aside these areas for natural environmental functions
as opposed to engineered alternate design which require maintenance. 5. The Board must find that if granted, the variance will secure the public safety and welfare and will do substantial
justice. A. Applicant Asserts: With regard to public safety and welfare, the request would have no effect. The Owners’ have taken great precaution with their architect to ensure that
the construction of their retirement home will not obstruct the views of their neighbors. They have obtained the support of their next door neighbors on both sides of their lot for this
variance. The construction of their retirement home as contemplated in this application
8 will increase the value of all of the lots in the Bluff at Trails End subdivisions. This variance will cause no harm to any neighbors but will be a great benefit to both the Owners
and the Bluff at Trails End community. With regard to substantial justice, the COD ordinance implemented by the City of Wilmington was virtually identical to that of New Hanover County
until June 2011 when City Council passed an ordinance allowing exceptions to their COD, now referred to as the Conservation Resource Setback, as indicated in Exhibit K. These exceptions
allow, 1) “improvements to encroach into the Conservation Resource Setback up to 25% of the buildable area exclusive of other required setbacks, provided other exceptional design conditions
are met” and; 2) “when the Conservation Resource reduced the buildable area by 50% or more on a previously subdivided parcel, then the front and setbacks may be reduced up to one-half
or the total setback width or the Conservation Resource Setback may be reduced by up to one-half of its depth along no more than one-half of the length of the setback.” These exceptions,
if applied to the Owners’ lot, would allow either a 2,537 sf encroachment, (25% x 10,149 sf. buildable area as indicated in Exhibit L) or a 2,231 sf encroachment (60’ half of COD line
x 37.5’ half of COD depth). The Owners, as previously noted, are asking for only 730 sf. of additional area and less than 23 ft of depth, which is substantially less than the 37.5 feet
that they would be allowed under the City CRS Ordinance. As lots directly across Whiskey Creek are granted this exception, it would be considered to be substantial justice if the Jones
were allowed an area up to this exception, similar to their neighbors on the same protected resource. In addition, the minor area of 346 sf. that the Jones are requesting beyond the
2007 COD line is not substantially more than the area between the 2007 and 2011 COD lines under the drip lines of the two County regulated live oaks that they wish to keep. This direct
correlation of area requested to area taken from them is a just exchange and another form of substantial justice. B. Staff: Staff feels that it is possible to build in accordance with
the COD requirements and that a variance will not secure substantial justice as adjacent neighbors were able to construct a home in full compliance with the COD ordinance. See exhibits
A & B. Ms. Bouffard’s PowerPoint presentation consisted of aerials of the property, site plan, plat, floor plans, various photographic views of the property, coastal vegetation, pictures
of the CAMA staked line and flagged COD. Mr. Lewis called for those to speak in favor of granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn for testimony. He swore in Mr. Richard
Jones, Mrs. Janet Jones, Ms. Faison Sutton and Mr. Jay DeChesere. Mr. Richard Jones stated they would like to build a single story retirement home but due to circumstances related to
the site configuration and the COD setback they are requesting 346 sq. ft. beyond the 2007 COD setback line. Mr. Jones said prior to purchasing the lot, they reviewed the
9 recorded subdivision plat and saw the COD line. He said because the lot is on a protected waterway they wanted to make sure that they could maximize the views and keep the large oak
trees. He said due to the close proximity to Whiskey Creek they wanted to stay in compliance with some of the stormwater and runoff issues. Mr. Jones said they had a survey done to identify
the drip line of the trees, topography and confirm the COD. He said there was a difference between the original COD identification on the 2007 survey and the one on the 2008 survey which
reduced the buildable area by 1,050 sq. ft. He said on the eastern edge of the property it is a difference of 7 ft. between the two COD lines and on the western edge it is a difference
of 17 ft. Mr. Jones said he gathered data on several homes in the vicinity and his findings show that the square footage of adjacent homes in that area built within the past 5-6 years
range from 2900 sq. ft. to over 5800 sq. ft. Mr. Jones said their footprint would be 2264 sq. ft. and factoring in the 1st and 2nd floor it is 3200-3300 sq. ft. He said the unique circumstances
would be: (1) The trapezoidal shape of the land; (2) Property line. He said their property line is in the water resulting in a loss of 1700 sq. ft. of space, (3) Located on a protected
resource which takes up 880 sq. ft. of buildable area, and (4) Regulated large oak trees. Mr. Jones said the impact is about 3800 sq. ft. that is unbuildable. He said their request is
a minimal portion of the protected resource – about 7% and they plan to put in rain gardens and green roof. Mr. Jones presented letters of approval from the adjacent neighbors for their
project. Mr. Jones’ PowerPoint presentation consisted of drawings showing the footprint of the house, preliminary design, pictures showing 2 COD line discrepancies, various drawings
of the proposed house. Mr. DeVita asked if the rain gardens would be placed on high ground or would they create wetlands. Mr. Jones said the lot is 18 to 19 ft. above the water table.
He asked Mr. DeChesere to further explain. Mr. DeChesere said it would become alternately wet and dry. He said an engineer prepared an estimate of the rain gardens and the square footage
it would handle. He said it is a shallow depression to channel water from the roof and uses the filtration data of the soil to estimate the time that the water would infiltrate the soil.
Mr. DeChesere said the engineer said the rain gardens could handle over the size of the house. Mr. Lewis asked if the drip line was the reason the house cannot be moved backward. Mr.
Jones said the drip line is a part of the reason but they also want to keep the oak trees. Mr. Stanton asked the reason why the COD line moved. Ms. Bouffard said terms frequently get
mixed up and it may not have been a COD line that was staked in 2007; it could have been a normal high water line. She said the COD line is definite because it is staked at the edge
of the resource. Ms. Bouffard said when she was at the site in December she observed another outcropping of Spartina which is used for a normal high water line and would have been 7-10
feet away from where she placed the flags. Ms. Bouffard said it is possible for a COD line to move. Mr. Still said the COD lines have the possibility to change and these determinations
are only good for 90 days. He also said it is possible that the original staked COD line could be the mean high water line. Mr. McCulley said if the Board goes by the 2007 line they
would still need a variance. He also asked Mr. Jones why the house plans project into the area where they knew the COD line was located.
10 Mr. Jones said after they looked at the issues of how much was taken away and the other unique circumstances, such as the trees, they were not able to slide the house back an extra
14 ft. Mr. DeVita said if the trees were removed they could build the house in compliance. Mr. DeChesere said they originally designed the house further out but decided to back the house
up because of the trapezoid shape of the lot, but the further back they moved the closer they would get to property lines. Ms. Faison said the subdivision map shows that the Jones lot
is the only lot in that area with that trapezoid shape. Mr. DeChesere said there are lines used to measure from: (1) Mean High Water which is an elevation, (2) Normal High Water based
on 3 types of vegetation, (3) Coastal Wetlands which is freshwater and based on 10 species of plants, and (4) 404 Wetlands established by US Army Corps of Engineers based on hydrology
and other plant species. He said there is not a definition in the County Ordinance for the edge of the resource and the closest definition from another part of the county states that
the river’s edge shall be defined as normal high water measured from the water’s edge. Ms. Huffman asked staff how the applicants could build the deck differently to be in compliance.
Mr. Still said the COD ordinance allows for 6 ft. of uncovered
decking so they would need to be 6 ft. wide with no cover over the deck. Mr. McEwan asked if the Board needs to decide if the 2007 or 2011 COD line would be used in considering the variance
request. Ms. Huffman said the Board does not have to first decide which line would be used. She said it could be that the Board makes the decision that they are going to use the 2007
line and that they would not give a variance beyond that line. Mr. McEwan asked if there was any mechanism in place to provide credits for BMPs or anything related to encroachment in
the COD. Mr. Still said the County does not allow credits for anything encroaching into the COD. Mr. Still also said he discussed that with County Engineering and was told that the COD
was created to protect those natural areas. Mr. Lewis called for those to speak in opposition to granting the variance request to come forward for testimony. There was no one present
to speak in opposition to granting the variance request. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED – Board Discussion Mr. DeVita said the County does not have a vehicle in place to give credit when encroachments
occur. He said the impact is minor and not affecting the neighbors. Mr. Stanton said the applicants seem to be going out of their way to protect the trees. He also said the County should
have standards in place to avoid future complications.
11 Mr. McCulley asked staff if the applicants do not do the BMP’s or do them incorrectly could the Board have conditions in the variance that would require that these things need to
be done correctly and maintained. Ms. Huffman said the Board could tie the variance to the site plan submitted. Mr. Still referenced a previous case where the house was partially constructed
in the COD. He said the Board approved the variance based on all the BMP projects that they said would be placed for stormwater but the case is currently in litigation. Mr. Still said
the variance was conditioned so that those items had to be constructed and maintained, but none of the rainwater structures have been placed or BMP projects and there is nothing Zoning
can enforce because it is in litigation. Mr. Stanton asked what BMP’s would be placed. Mr. Lewis re-opened the public hearing to have Mr. DeChesere address Mr. Stanton’s question. Mr.
DeChesere said a filtration test will be done on the property and a civil engineer will design the BMP’s. He said the applicants have not decided if they would have a green roof so that
will not be included in the application. He said currently there is a State and County permit that allows 4,666 sq. ft. of impervious area that would go into the storm drainage system.
Mr. DeChesere suggested that if the Board wants to place a condition on the variance they could say the applicants must connect to that system. BOARD DECISION 1. Richard and Janet Jones,
4306 Lauralis Bluff Court, are requesting a variance from New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 59-4-5 Additional Performance Controls for a proposed structure that will encroach
346 feet into the required 75’Conservation Overlay District setback. Property is zoned Performance Residential. Case No. ZBA-868 2. On a motion by Mr. McCulley and seconded by Mr. Lewis
the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request conditioned on everything as proposed in the application including the square footage, house footprint, all proposed BMP’s and
any other stormwater management features listed in the application must be done properly and maintained. There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved by Mr.
DeVita and seconded by Mr. McEwen to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. 7:00 P.M. Acting Executive Secretary Vice-Chairman