Minutes Feb 2016MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJ USTM E NT
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, February 23,2016
Members Present
Pete DeVita, Choirmon
Joe Miller, Vice-Choir
Andrew Barnhill
Chad McEwen
Raymond Bray
Members Absent
Hank Adams
Brian Prevatte
Colin Tarrant
Ex Officio Members Present
Ben Andrea, Executive Secretary
Sha ron Huffman, County Attorney
Den ise Brown, Clerk
Mr. Devita 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. The appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court.
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS
Officiol Approvol of December 2075 & lonuory 2016 minutes. Votes were unonimous
The Chairman then swore in Mr. Ben Andrea, Ms. Susan Hamilton, Mr. Ray Griswold and Mr. Jim Girdich
FIRST CASE BEFORE THE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Susan Hamilton, applicant, on behalf of Gordon Road lnvestments, LLC, property owner, is requesting a 10' variance
from the 35' structure height maximum required per Section 72-43(11) of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance.
The property is located at 4645 Gordon Road and zoned R-l5, Residential District. Case is ZBA-903.
Mr. Andrea states the case before the board is a continuance from the February 2016 meeting. Mr. Andrea states the
sub.iect property is located at 4645 Gordon Road in close proximity to the on ramp of Westbound lnterstate l-40, land
classification zone is R-15, Residential District however; there are some areas zoned R-10 Residential District further east
of Gordon Road. Mr. Andrea states residential district is the predominately land use in the area however, the property
adjacent to the north is for future expansion of the existing park in the area, Smith Creek Park. There's also a
neighboring land use classification of B-1, Business District for the future construction of an approved gas station and
conven ience store.
Mr' Andrea states Smith Creek Village is considered a high density development project according to the New Hanover
County zonin8 ordinance, and a special use permit was approved for the project on December 2074, (Cdse 5-6211. prior
to the Plannin8 Board and Board of Commissioners consideration of the special use permit granted in 2014, the proiect,spreliminary plan was also approved by the county's Technical Review Committee in August 2014. The proposed project
The meeting wqs colled to order ot 5:30P.M. by the Choirmon, Mr. Pete Devitd.
STAFF OVERVIEW:
spans a 41.21 acre site and consists of 14 multifamily residential buildings and associated parking, drive aisles, and
amenities on 27.5 acres, with the remaininB 15 acres remaining undeveloped as conservation and passive recreation
area due to the flood plain.
Mr. Andrea states because the sub.ject property is not located in a coastal high hazard area or ocean hazard area; the
building heights are limited to 35'. Mr. Andrea states only one (1) building, labeled as building #14 on the plan is subject
to setback requirements based on the building height, which is why that building is proposed for only two stories with a
25' building height. Mr. Andrea states the building classified as #14 is not included in today's variance request.
Mr. Andrea states building height of 35' are common in the residential districts in comparison to the commercial,
lnstitutional and light lndustrial districts buildin8 heights can expand to 40' and exceed this amount in some cases;
however the heavy industrial districts do not have a building height maximum. Mr. Andrea states with the proposed
complex development site plans; there should be consideration to include emergency service access. Mr. Andrea states
the applicant is requesting an expansion of 10' height to the 35' allowable height maximum to include structures for the
variance if approved of a 45' structure height maximum for buildings 1-13 at 4645 Gordon Road. The county determines
height based on a weighted average and can be found in the New Hanover County's zoning ordinance. Mr. Andrea
states the 35' building height reference in the ordinance is subject to discussion for amendment in the future; also, a
rewrite of the county's zoning ordinance is in future plans. New Hanover County's comprehensive plan addresses
building height restrictions for new development of taller buildings that are constructed not just locally but in other
states. Mr. Andrea states some construction in the city's jurisdiction may have taller construction than the county.
Mr. Andrea presented visual aerial photos and site plans were displayed.
REQUIREMENTS:
SECTION 72-4j Of the Zoning Ordinance contdins requirements for High Density Development projects, includinq
subsection (11)thdt creotes moximum building height dllowonces:
Maximum ollowoble height for structures sholl be 35 feet. However, the moximum ollowable height for piling
supported primory structures which ore located in "Coostol High Hozord Areos, V-zones" and/or Oceon Hazord
Areos as defined by the Coostol Resources Commission sholl be 44 feet, (10/5/92).
Ms. Suson Homilton - (opplicantl - Ms. Hamilton states she is presenting Smith Creek Village apartments for a variance
of building height requirements of 35' to be extended by 10' with a total of 45' height maximum. Ms. Hamilton states
the county's low density development/exceptional designs standards allow multifamily properties to exceed height
limitations if they meet certain criteria such as setback restraints, environmental sensitive areas. Ms. Hamilton states
there are some unique comparisons with the 35'and 45'comparisons. There is a creek surrounding adjacent to the
proposed construction site which is peculiar and limits construction. Ms. Hamilton states the dimensions of building
height restraints have been used for many years not just locally but in other states as well going back to 40 years. Ms.
Hamilton states in today's standards construction can expand much higher than 35' and the proposed construction will
include inside sprinkler system to address concerns regarding potential fires at the complex. Ms. Hamilton states she has
been involved in a code ordinance revision in the past and with the growth of the county's population extensive
consideration in building construction should be adhered to per county officials in working with developers. Ms.
Hamilton envisions future developers will request increased density; increased height will be a dominant factor in futureredevelopment. Ms. Hamilton states New Hanover County is the second'smallest county in North Carolina however, thecounty is Srowing rapidly in population and construction. Ms. Hamilton states the proposed site should be constructedwithin today's market standards with an increase in ceiling height to construct a sustainable unit size to compete withmarket demands. Ms. Hamilton states the proposed construction is a necessary hardship one not created by the owneror applicant. Ms. Hamilton states due to the proximity of the l-40 ramp the potential of a taller complex will be an
BUILDING HEIGHT - The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the proposed finished grade at the
front of the structure to the mean level of the slope of the main roof.
attribute to the location and enhance the landscape. Ms. Hamilton states the variance request is consistent with the
intent, purpose, and harmony of the county's zoning ordinance.
Mr. Jim Girdich- Mr. Girdich states he is representing Gordon Road lnvestments, LLC with the spirit of the ordinance in
requesting a variance request for a height extension for developing a multi-facility residentialsite at 4645 Gordon Road.
Mr, Girdich states consumer practices in the past warranted the 35' height of buildings however; in today's progression
some heights he's been involved in with construction locally has topped 48-50 ft. to the roof. Mr. Girdich states in the
past eight foot ceilings with the 35' height figurely worked with as it pertained to fires for housing complexes and taller
buildings. Mr. Girdich states with improved technology and market demands developers have started a trend with
height expansions especially as it refers to the 9ft ceilings. Mr. Girdich states his calculation of 42' height estimation
worked on the Mayfair pro.iect and they currently have a 9ft ceiling however, these projects are in the City of
Wilmington jurisdiction. Mr. Girdich states according to his calculations of the request he's suggesting an approval of
additional height of possibly 42ft. Mr. Girdich states in the past some construction and buildings did not have sprinkler
system and there was limited fire protection however, Mr. Girdich reiterates sprinkler systems will be implemented.
Mn Roymond Griswold -New Hdnover County Deputy Fire Md6hall - Mr. Griswold states their concern is primarily
access to the complex in the event of a fire to provide services to the complex. Also, Mr. Griswold states they have
concerns of accessing the onsite gate to be implemented at the complex if a fire starts. Mr. Griswold suggests
implementing a fire sprinkler at the top of the building to prevent excessive loss if a fire starts at the facility. Mr.
Griswold states the complex site displays a one way access which limits not only traffic but emergency services. Mr.
Griswold states sprinklers in the apartments are mainly sprayed in the apartments rather than on the side of the building
and implementing a sprinkler at the height of the building will enhance the longevity of the complex if a fire takes place.
Mr. Griswold states there is no regulation or requirement that the top of the building requires a sprinkler system
however for safety concerns a system implementation would decrease damages should a fire breakout in the future. Mr.
Roy states he would prefer the complex have two entrances in case of emergency services. Mr. Roy states there is
concern of the ownership of road access and entry passage to the locked entry-gate in the event the complex changes
ownership as he has seen this action take place with complexes in the past and fire-services were slow to gain entry. Mr.
Griswold states all locked entry gates must adhere to regulation and they have over-ride approval if needed.
Ms, Sharon Huffmon- Deputy County Attorney- Ms. Huffman advised the board the majority is need in voting to
approve minutes. Ms. Huffman states the board can choose to discuss all finding of facts individually or vote on the case
as a whole. Ms. Huffman states generally if a member has concerns on of the facts of findings that particular finding is
discuss in length until a census is obtained by all board members.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
on a motion by Mr. Bray and second by Mr. Barnhill the board voted unanimously to grant a 10, variance to the 35,structure heiSht maximum required per section 72-43(11) of the zoning ordinance for the three story buildings(buildings 1-13) shown on the approved special use Permit site plan for smith Creek Village, citing the findings of factspresented by the petitioner in their presentation and application materials:
Mr. Devita inquired of the proximity of the building that does not have the setback or height restraints. Mr. Devita
states the ordinance basically outlines a height that was common in recent years of common building heights of 35' or
less however, with new development of taller buildings the ordinance might be obsolete in terms of building restrictions
as of today's development. Mr. McEwen inquired as to what methods are used to determine a buildings height
calculation. Mr. Barnhill inquired of other cases involving building height expansions presented to the county. Mr.
Barnhill inquired of fire services main concern of the extended height. Mr. Miller inquired as to other locations in the
county that exceed the building height requirements also Mr. Miller inquired of any staff concerns regarding the
variance request. Mr. Bray inquired has there been opposition regarding the variance request. Mr. Bray states the height
maximum has been regulated since 1992 and today's standard may warrant other height extensions.
BOARD DECISION:
1. lt is the Board's conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically
the requirement under 72-43(11) that limits the structure height for buildings in a high density development
not in "Coastal High Hazard Areas, V-zones" to 35', that an unnecessary hardship would result. (lt sholl not be
necessory to demonstrote thot, in the obsence of the varionce, no reosonoble use con be mode of the
property.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
The quality of multifamily development has dramatically improved in recent years and the expectation
of tenants has also increased. As a result, the 35 foot height limitation listed in the Zoning Ordinance
dictates a design standard of 8 foot ceilings, a lower pitched roofline and limited elevation detail, all of
which could become attributes of the project as well as the neighboring properties. As a result, strict
application of Section 72-43(L7l for this project is causing an unnecessary hardship on the developer,
who wishes to build a high quality project.
2. lt is the Board's conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results from unique
circumstances related to the subiect property, such as location, size, or topography. (Hordships resulting lrom
personal circumstonces, ds well as hordships resulting from conditions thdt ore common to the neiqhborhood
or the qenerol public, moy not be the basis for gronting a voriance,) This conclusion is based on the following
FINDINGS OF FACT:
The proximity of the site to the l-40 on-ramp makes this site unique in New Hanover County. The
location of this property lends itself to additional height because it is ad.iacent to this major highway.
Allowing an additional 10 feet of height at Smith Creek Village will provide an increase in visibility and
improve the aesthetics in this location. Additionally, each unit will have 9 foot ceilings instead of the
more traditional 8 foot ceilings. This accommodation will increase the curb appeal of the pro.iect,
improve the overall building aesthetics, and enhance the quality of life for the residents and surrounding
p ro pe rt ies.
3. lt is the Board's conclusion that the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the
property owner. (The oct oI purchasing property with knowledge thdt circumstdnces exist thdt moy justily the
gronting of a varionce sholl not be rcqarded os o self-creoted hordship,) This conclusion is based on the
following FINDING5 OF FACT:
The developer has not taken any action that has caused a hardship
4. lt is the Board's conclusion that, if granted, the variance will be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent
of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantialjustice is achieved. Thisconclusion is
based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
This request is consistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the land classifications of urban
(tall buildings and increased density) and conservation (preservation of the natural resources on the site,
less lot coverage). Each building, with the exception of the z-story building on the south side of the
plan, will remain 3-story, with higher pitched rooflines. Public safety will not be jeopardized in any
manner as a result of this variance. The site plan will be developed as approved by the New Hanover
County Commissioners.
MEETING AD.'OURNED
Executive Secretary Chairman