ZBA-939 Packet
July 23, 2019, 5:30 PM
I. Call Meeting to Order (Vice-Chairman Henry Adams)
II. Official Approval of June Minutes (currently in draft status)
June Member Attendees: Hank Adams, Kristin Freeman, Brett Keeler, Cameron Moore, Mark
Nabell
III. Regular Items of Business
1. Case ZBA-939 - Gregory Alan Heafner, PA, applicant, on behalf of Zachary and Ashley
Paulovits, property owners, is requesting a special exception for reasonable
accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act per Section 63.11 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow up to 8 residents in a group home located at 602 Everbreeze Lane.
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 25, 2019.
Members Present Members Absent
Hank Adams, Vice-Chairman Ray Bray, Chairman
Cameron Moore Joe Miller
Brett Keeler Richard Kern
Kristin Freeman
Mark Nabell
Ex Officio Members Present
Ken Vafier, Executive Secretary
Kemp Burpeau, County Attorney
Denise Brown, Clerk
Vice-Chairman Adams 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. 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.
Vice-Chairman Adams inquired of corrections to the past meeting on March 26, 2019 minutes.
Mr. Keeler referenced correction be made to page 1, paragraph 6 language as it refers to Board members Kristen Freeman,
Joe Miller and himself did not approve the minutes from the March meeting.
Mr. Keeler stated the March minutes were lengthy and later involved in an appealed case decision. Mr. Keeler stated the
document required adequate time to review for corrections as to he was not present at the March meeting.
Mr. Keeler made a motion to approve the March 26, 2019 minutes with the correction to paragraph 6 on page 1 as stated
by Mr. Keeler. Mr. Moore second the motion. All ayes to approve the minutes of March 26, 2019.
Vice-Chairman Adams stated the applicant and the opposition will have a time limit of 15 minutes for testimony and an
additional 5 minutes for rebuttal or additional time may be allotted as deemed necessary.
CASE ZBA-936
Vice-Chairman Adams swore in County staff, Ken Vafier, Ron Mays, Hill Rogers, Josh Mihaly and Matthew Nichols.
Mr. Vafier presented that Cameron Management, applicant, on behalf of Dry Pond Partners, LLC, is requesting a variance
of 5’ from the 40’ structure height maximum requirement for one building per Section 72-43(11) of the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance. The site is zoned R-15, Residential District.
The variance request is for one structure in a larger proposed development shown as “Building A” on Exhibit A-1 provided
by the applicant. The site is located at 4429 South College Road in the southern portion of the county. Mr. Vafier stated
2
the subject site is a 25.9 acre portion of a larger 65 acre tract which comprises the boundary of a conditional use
application which is currently under consideration by the county in a separate process.
The conditional use application proposes that portion of the subject site be rezoned to R-10, to allow high density
development which is defined in the ordinance as any residential development which exceeds the density limit in that
applicable zoning district. If the application is approved the high density development design parameters at the site limits
the building height to 40 ft.
Section 72-43 of the Zoning Ordinance contains requirements for High Density Development projects, including
subsection (11) that creates maximum building height allowances:
Maximum allowable height for structures shall be 40 feet. However, the maximum allowable height for piling
supported primary structures which are located in “Coastal High Hazard Areas, V-Zones” and/or Ocean Hazard
Areas as defined by the Coastal Resources Commission shall be 44 feet. (10/5/92)
Mr. Vafier stated that at the June 6, 2019, Planning Board meeting, the Board passed a motion to recommend approval
of the Conditional Use District application request to move forward to be heard at the July 1st Board of Commissioners
meeting. The merits of the Conditional Use District application are going to be considered by the Board of Commissioners
at a separate process on July 1st.
Mr. Vafier presented aerial photos of the subject site showing the location of “Building A” located in the approximate
center of the site.
The applicant’s site plan proposes increasing the subject building to 45 ft.; five feet above the maximum allowance for
buildings in a high density development. All the other proposed buildings are not to exceed 40 ft.
Per the submitted Conditional Use District application, “Building A” is proposed as a multi-family building consisting of 60
units with 75, 000 square feet. There are eleven other buildings proposed each with 24 units, in addition to a pool and
clubhouse facility.
The closest distance to a nearby property is Fox Woods Farm; with an estimated measurement of approximately 475 ft.
from “Building A”.
The applicant contends that the variance is needed due to the presence of certain features related to the site and
proposed development such as parcel shape, preservation of open space, commercial and stormwater management
areas, Comprehensive Plan place type, and building design.
Although the building heights for Whiskey Branch are limited to 40’ per Section 72-43(11) of the Zoning Ordinance,
structures may exceed 40’ in other situations as prescribed in the county’s zoning regulations.
Structures in the coastal high hazard areas or V-zones as designated by FEMA, or in Ocean Hazard Areas as defined by
the NC Coastal Resources Commission, may reach up to 44 ft.
The subject site is not in any of the Coastal High Hazard areas therefore the maximum allowance on building height is 40
ft. The applicant is requesting relief from the building height to exceed to 45 ft.
The proposed building is within a wooded lot, and has not been developed as of yet.
Mr. Keeler asked if the Planning Board specified conditions on the conditional use district application.
Mr. Vafier stated no conditions apply to the application.
3
Mr. Keeler asked if the applicant displayed a request for “Building A” to be 45 ft. on the application.
Mr. Vafier stated the application at the Planning Board displayed the building height of “Building A” at 40 ft.
Mr. Keeler inquired of reasonable use of the site if the variance is not approved.
Mr. Vafier stated the applicant must be heard for all parties to make adequate determination of the sites use.
Mr. Moore asked if all the Residential zoning districts have the same building height requirements.
Mr. Vafier stated most residential districts are 35 ft. however, 40 ft. height is solely for high density development.
There are allowances that building height can exceed 40 ft. in the O & I, B-2 and I1 district. I2 does not limit building
heights.
Mr. Moore asked about the Comprehensive Plan as it applies to height restrictions.
Mr. Vafier stated each height dimensions are described in stories in the Comprehensive Plan. The current site is split
between two place types: General residential and a Community Mixed Use. Each place type has a recommended height
for the building in stories.
Mr. Matt Nichols, PLLC- Mr. Nichols presented representing the applicant in the height variance request. The subject
tract is 26 acres of a larger tract which entails roughly 63 acres located at 4400 South College Road. Mr. Nichols stated
the applicant is seeking a conditional use rezoning of the reference tract to R-10 to accommodate the high density special
use permit which proposes 324 apartments at the subject site.
Mr. Nichols stated at the Planning Board meeting held on June 6, the board recommended approval of the rezoning and
the special use permit. The final decision of the recommendation will be heard at the next Board of Commissioners
meeting. The variance request is for an additional 5 ft. height for the main building of the 12 building apartment complex.
Mr. Nichols presented handouts presented at the June Planning Board meeting that referenced the applicant’s
application, the staff letter results of the Conditional Use Special permit approval, staff summary from ZBA-903 variance
request in 2016, by the Smith Creek Village applicant and the ZBA-903 Board Order of approval for the Smith Creek village
project.
Mr. Nichols stated the current proposal labeled as Phase 2 of the project is the apartment complex. This overall project
will complement the county’s Comprehensive Plan by including various types of housing choices in the unincorporated
areas.
Whiskey Branch will have eleven buildings with building heights that adhere to the county’s 40 ft. height regulation. The
main building will be the focal point of the site constructed with unique architectural design. This building is the sole
building for which the variance is requested for at the site.
The main building is the sole structure to have an elevator for tenants to access; which will individuals with disabilities.
Mr. Nichols stated the applicant would adhere to any conditions that the Board would impose on the variance.
Mr. Nichols stated this board approved a similar case for the project located at Gordon Road in 2016. At the time of this
request the height allowance for building in this district was 35ft. The applicant requested a height variance of an
additional 5 ft. in addition to 10 ft. to the 35 ft. whereby the height approval was 40 ft.
4
Mr. Nichols stated in the ZBA-903 case hearing that the applicant requested 10 additional ft. to be added to 12 of the 13
buildings at 4645 Gordon Road project. The Board granted an approval of this request.
Mr. Nichols stated ZBA-903 resembles similarities in the proposed plan in the variance request presented today.
Mr. Nichols stated the expectation of tenants and quality of housing has improved over the years. Mr. Nichols stated the
Smith Creek project variance that was approved in 2016 has a mixture of houses types similar to the Whiskey Branch site.
Mr. Moore inquired of the housing type diversity.
Mr. Nichols stated the proposed 324 units be half in 1 bedroom units and half 2 bedroom units.
Mr. Moore inquired of the hardship in regards to this case as oppose to the ZBA-903 case.
Mr. Josh Mihaly stated the apartment projects have elevated in quality in the last ten years. The ceilings are at a minimum
constructed with 9 ft. ceilings. These building are attracted by potential residents who have downsized over the years
and demand higher level amenities. The HVAC will be housed on the roof which is more efficient.
Mr. Mihaly stated the other building are proposed to be 34-35 ft. in height. The idea is to have more amenities to meet
the high demand of residents proposed to be housed in these units. ADA standards will be met with 64 units in the main
building.
Ms. Freeman asked how many units are in the other buildings and with the increase in units, does it make it more
affordable to residents.
Mr. Mihaly stated these types of units are expensive to construct, however with the number of proposed residents to live
at the site it makes the project more affordable. Mr. Mihaly stated in comparison to past construction projects in Raleigh
people are paying higher amounts for apartments with more amenities.
Mr. Hill Rogers stated the cost of an elevator in a higher number resident building makes the cost affordable as opposed
to elevators in every building. The more units in a building, the more affordable they are to the residents.
Mr. Ron Mays (4625 Weybridge Lane; community resident) Mr. Mays stated he is in favor of affordable housing in the
area. However, with the proposed construction it will impose multiple trips to the area and a traffic light is desperately
needed in the area. Mr. Mays stated the area is resembling more of apartment complex with less visibility of trees as
traditionally seen in the county. Mr. Mays stated with all the construction to this area, he and some of the neighbors feel
construction should be scaled back.
Mr. Mays stated he lives at Fox Run Farm and he is against the height of the proposed building. Mr. Mays stated the
applicant should adhere to the standard height as Mayfaire apartments have 3 buildings with access to elevator.
Mr. Nichols (Rebuttal)- Mr. Nichols stated most of the comments by Mr. Mays would be best presented by him at the
upcoming Board of Commissioners meeting. Mr. Nichols reiterated the height request for the Smith Creek site in 2016
was approved which similar to today’s request. Mr. Nichols implores the Board to consider the height request as the
board order drafted for the ZBA-903 case is similar to today’s case hearing.
Mr. Keeler informed board members that the applicant’s representative is providing additional testimony of the variance
request rather than addressing the opposition’s height request concerns.
Mr. Burpeau mentioned to the applicant’s representative Mr. Nichols, to specifically address the concerns of the
testimony presented by opposition of Mr. Mays regarding the height request.
5
Mr. Nichols concluded that the county ordinance does not require the applicant to demonstrate height construction at
the site. However, the applicant stated that based on the proposed site plans and in reference to the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan, the height variance request is a reasonable request. Mr. Nichols stated the applicant is not stating that a 35 ft.
building could not be constructed at the site.
Mr. Nichols stated that for a variance approval, it is not necessary to provide proof of a 35 ft. building could be constructed
at the site. Mr. Nichols stated it would be a disservice to not allow the variance for the project. The subject site
compliments the county’s Comprehensive Plan that includes various types of housing in the county.
Mr. Ron Mays- (Rebuttal)-Mr. Mays stated there are several apartment complexes located around the county such as
The Pointe which offers a one bedroom at $1500 monthly. Mr. Mays stated affordable housing should be directed to the
lower income bracket. Mr. Mays stated to construct a building with the height requested here is extreme. Mr. Mays stated
there is much construction going on around the county with apartment complexes whereby the landscape is aggressively
changing.
Mr. Moore asked the applicant if fill dirt will be required for the building.
Mr. Hill Rogers (Cameron Management)- Mr. Rogers stated they have not completed a fill dirt analysis as of yet. Mr.
Rogers stated the subject site is flat and all the soils present have not been completed to know the levels of elevation in
constructing at the site.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
BOARD DELIBERATION:
Mr. Keeler stated the Board should not consider past case decisions as a precedent and that each case is decided based
on its unique factors presented.
Mr. Burpeau stated each case is unique and the Board is to decide based on testimony. However, the Board could refer
to past discussions if they choose to in deliberation. Past case decisions prior actions of the Board do not have to be
disregarded. Mr. Kemp stated if prior case decisions are useful in deciding factors they can be considered.
Vice-Chairman Adams asked if anyone has a motion.
Mr. Moore made a motion to approve the height variance as it meets two of the findings of fact. Mr. Moore stated the
request has been presented within the spirit of the county’s Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Keeler stated that the motion to approve the request should meet all four findings of fact.
Mr. Moore stated for his own personal decision he finds approval in 3 out of the four findings to make a motion of
approval.
Mr. Moore reiterated his motion still stands as recommend approval of the variance.
Mr. Vafier stated the findings of facts does not necessary have to be stated in the motion. Mr. Vafier stated the board
should discuss to support the motion on the table or discuss additional findings to fill in for a decision of the request.
Ms. Freeman second the motion on the table to grant the height variance request.
Mr. Keeler stated he is not in favor of granting the height variance. Mr. Keeler stated the applicant is requesting additional
allowances for 45 ft. as if the subject site was in a V-Zone. Mr. Keeler stated the subject site is not in a V-Zone.
6
Mr. Keeler stated the applicant’s request does not present with a hardship. Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant owns the
64-acre property and the request is not consistent with the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Burpeau stated that in past, some of the case law was more receptive in allowing a board to make decisions on broad
conclusions. Mr. Kemp stated currently courts are looking for specific justification to include points; each of the four facts
of findings in decision making. Mr. Burpeau stated it is feasible that the Planning Staff assist the board in the potential
findings in the final decision.
Mr. Burpeau stated the board could decide based on the uniqueness of the site and proposed building configuration of
the development.
Mr. Vafier stated typically the minutes are reviewed and findings for the board order are extracted from the approved
minutes document.
Mr. Vafier stated a few things mentioned to support in the Board discussion regarding findings presented by applicant:
1. The minimum ceiling height is typically ranging from 9-10 ft. in ceiling height.
2. The HVAC units are typically on the roof.
3. The height definition could provide challenges in future construction
4. The proposed plan is within the spirt of the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Vice-Chairman Adams inquired how does the elevator in the one building comply with ADA compliance.
Mr. Moore stated in some apartment complexes in the county that house an elevator, they typically include a
commercial element. Mr. Moore stated a topographical map was not provided however, he’s very familiar with the site
and it is a flat area.
Mr. Moore stated the cut sheet was not provided by the applicant displaying the soils and possible fill dirt if required,
but typically in constructing multi-family structures it can get troublesome due to irregular level spots of the area,
creating a hardship.
Mr. Moore stated he was not on the board in 2016, however it’s possible the applicant in case ZBA-903 requested the
height variance for the total of buildings due to the site irregularities in elevation.
Mr. Nabell made a motion to table the decision and wait for the decision of the Board of Commissioners approval of the
applicant’s rezoning request.
Mr. Moore amended his motion to approve the height variance include a condition that the applicant’s rezoning and
Conditional Use Rezoning application must be approved by the County Commissioners next meeting.
Mr. Vafier reiterated the Conditional Use Rezoning approval requires the County Commissioners approval of a rezoning
and a special use application to be presented at the next Board of Commissioners meeting.
Mr. Nabell second the amended motion.
Mr. Moore stated the applicant must meet all fire safety regulations.
Vice-Chairman Adams called for a final vote.
The board vote was 4-1 to approve the amended motion, with Mr. Keeler voting against the variance approval.
7
BOARD DECISION:
On a motion by Mr. Cameron Moore and seconded by Mr. Mark Nabell, the board voted 4-1 to grant the height variance
at 4429 South College Road. Approval of the accompanying Conditional Use District Request consisting of a rezoning and
special use permit for a high density development.
The Board's decision was based on the following conclusions and findings of fact:
1. It is the Board's conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specially the 40’
maximum height requirement for a high-density development required per Section 72-43(11) of the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. (It shall not be necessary to demonstrate
that, in absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.) This conclusion is based on the
following FINDINGS OF FACT:
Current construction practices in multi-family buildings are including ceiling heights of 9-10’ and HVAC units
are proposed to be located on the roof behind a parapet, necessitating a 45’ minimum building height for this
structure.
The current definition of Building Height results in difficulty in meeting the maximum building height for the
proposed structure due to variations in grade elevation and roof height.
2. It is the Board's conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results from unique circumstances
related to the subject property, such as location, size or topography. (Hardships resulting from personal
circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general
public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
The site contains variations in the average elevation at the existing grade which result in a grade that is not
uniform.
3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property
owner. (The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a
variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF
FACT:
The applicant has not taken any action that has caused a hardship.
4. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if granted, the variance will/will not be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and
intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. This conclusion is
based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
The request is within the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as the building to which the
variance would apply is proposed to be a part of a mixed-use development.
All minimum fire codes are required to be adhered to, ensuring life safety for residents in the building.
This variance is also subject to the following condition:
Approval of the accompanying Conditional Use District Request consisting of a rezoning and special use
permit for a high density development (Case Z 19-03).
8
MEETING ADJOURNED.
Please note the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings.
_______________________________________ ______________________________
Executive Secretary Chairman
ZBA-939
Page 1 of 3
SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
July 23, 2019
CASE: ZBA-939
PETITIONER: Gregory Alan Heafner, PA, applicant, on behalf of Zachary and Ashley Paulovits, property owners.
REQUEST: Special exception for reasonable accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act per Section
63.11 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow up to 8 disabled persons residing together in a group
home.
LOCATION: 602 Everbreeze Lane
PID: R04306-014-071-000
ZONING: R-15, Residential District
PETITIONER’S REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a special exception for reasonable accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act
to deviate from the maximum number of 6 residents that may be allowed in a group home to allow up to 8
residents at 602 Everbreeze Lane.
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant intends to permit a group home run by the Oxford House at the subject property. The New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance allows up to six disabled persons to reside in a group home by-right in the R-15 zoning
district per Section 63.11 (1). Additional standards for group homes are also part of Section 63.11, as well as a
process described under subsection (6) by which a group home provider may petition for a special exception for
reasonable accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act to vary any of the provisions outlined in Section
63.11, including the number of residents, parking allowance, or distance requirement:
Disabled Persons – Individuals with disabilities, including individuals recovering from alcoholism and/or
drug addiction, who are protected by either the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
42 USC 12101, the Fair Housing Act, 42 USC 3601 et. seq., or NCGS Chapter 168, Article 3, as each may be
amended.
Group Home – A home in which more than three (3) unrelated Disabled Persons live together as a self-
supporting and self-sufficient household unit.
Permitted Uses
PD R
20S
R
20
R
15
R
10
R
7
B
1
B
2
I
1
I
2
O
&
I
A
R
A
I
S
C
R
A
R
F
M
U
Supp
Regs
N
A
I
C
S
Group Homes P P P P P P P P
ZBA-939
Page 2 of 3
Section 63.11: Group Homes
Group homes shall be permitted in accordance with the table of permitted uses in Section 50 and the
following standards:
1. Group homes shall be limited to six (6) Disabled Persons living together as a self-supporting and self-
sufficient household unit.
2. No group homes shall be occupied or operated without zoning approval.
a. Group homes that are exempt from licensure pursuant to NCGS § 122C-22 must recertify their
exemption status annually; and
b. Group homes for special needs persons must recertify qualification of all residents as special
needs persons annually.
3. Parking shall be provided in accordance with Article VIII: Off-Street Parking and Loading.
4. Group homes shall not be located closer than 2000 feet to any other existing group home, measured
by a straight line from the nearest property lines, irrespective of municipal boundaries.
5. With respect to the distance between the proposed use and the existing, permitted uses described in
subsection 4 above, the distance shall be reduced by the right-of-way of a major thoroughfare
exceeding one hundred (100) feet, major topographical features such as a major watercourse, or by
major nonresidential or public uses such as a park, school, or religious institution.
6. Special Exceptions
a. Applicability. The Board of Adjustment is authorized to grant special exceptions for the special
circumstances set forth in this section to allow for a reasonable accommodation under the
Federal Fair Housing Act.
b. Application. An application for a special exception under this section shall be submitted to the
Board of Adjustment by filing a copy of the application with the Planning Director or their
designee. No filing fee shall be required for such application.
c. Approval process. The procedures set forth in Section 121-3 for variances and appeals shall
apply to Staff Review and Report, Public Hearing Notice and Action of the Board of
Adjustment.
d. Approval criteria. The Board of Adjustment shall grant a special exception to any provision of
this ordinance as a reasonable accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act if the Board
finds by the greater weight of the evidence that the proposed special exception is:
i. "Reasonable." An accommodation will be determined to be reasonable if it would not
undermine the legitimate purposes and effects of existing zoning regulations, and if it
will not impose significant financial and administrative burdens upon the County
and/or constitute a substantial or fundamental alteration of the County's ordinance
provisions; and
ii. "Necessary." An accommodation will be determined to be necessary if it would provide
direct or meaningful therapeutic amelioration of the effects of the particular disability
or handicap), and would afford handicapped or disabled person’s equal opportunity
to enjoy and use housing in residential districts in the County.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment is authorized to grant special exception requests after a public hearing and finding
that the request is “reasonable” and “necessary” as described further later in this document under Board of
Adjustment Power and Duty.
The specific request is to allow up to 8 disabled persons instead of up to 6 disabled persons to reside in a proposed
group home at 602 Everbreeze Lane. According to New Hanover County tax records, the home lies on a 0.34-acre
parcel and contains 2,095 square feet of living area. A copy of the property record card is included as an addendum
to this staff report.
ZBA-939
Page 3 of 3
Included with the petitioner’s application is a statement of justification for the special exception request, as well
as the Oxford House Manual.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT POWER AND DUTY:
The Board of Adjustment is authorized to grant special exceptions for the special circumstances as set forth in
Section 63.11 of the New Hanover County Zoning ordinance to allow for reasonable accommodation under the
Federal Fair Housing Act. The Board of Adjustment shall grant a special exception as a reasonable accommodation
under the Federal Fair Housing Act if the Board finds by the greater weight of the evidence that the proposed
special exception is:
1. "Reasonable." An accommodation will be determined to be reasonable if it would not undermine the
legitimate purposes and effects of existing zoning regulations, and if it will not impose significant financial
and administrative burdens upon the County and/or constitute a substantial or fundamental alteration of
the County's ordinance provisions; and
2. "Necessary." An accommodation will be determined to be necessary if it would provide direct or
meaningful therapeutic amelioration of the effects of the particular disability or handicap), and would
afford handicapped or disabled person’s equal opportunity to enjoy and use housing in residential districts
in the County.
ACTION NEEDED (Choose one):
1. Motion to approve the special exception request based on the findings of fact (with or without
recommended conditions)
2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or documentation (Specify).
3. Motion to deny the special exception request based on specific negative findings in either of the
two categories above.
ORDER TO GRANT/DENY A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST – Case ZBA-939
The Zoning Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on July 23, 2019
to consider application number ZBA-939, submitted by Gregory Alan Heafner, PA, applicant, on behalf of
Zachary and Ashley Paulovits, property owners, a request for a special exception for reasonable
accommodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act to allow up to eight disabled persons to reside
together in a group home located at 602 Everbreeze Lane, and having heard all the evidence and
arguments presented at the hearing, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT and draws the following
CONCLUSIONS:
1. It is the Board’s conclusion that the request to deviate to eight from the limit of six disabled
persons living together in a group home at 602 Everbreeze Lane is / is not reasonable. Note: an
accommodation will be determined to be reasonable if it would not undermine the legitimate
purposes and effects of existing zoning regulations, and if it will not impose significant financial
and administrative burdens upon the County and/or constitute a substantial or fundamental
alteration of the County’s ordinance provisions. This conclusion is based on the following
FINDINGS OF FACT:
_______________________________________________________________________.
_______________________________________________________________________.
_______________________________________________________________________.
_______________________________________________________________________.
2. It is the Board’s conclusion that the request to deviate to eight from the limit of six disabled
persons living together in a group home at 602 Everbreeze Lane is / is not necessary. Note: an
accommodation will be determined to be necessary if it would provide direct or meaningful
therapeutic amelioration of the effects of the particular disability or handicap), and would afford
handicapped or disabled persons equal opportunity to enjoy and use housing in residential districts
in the County. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
_______________________________________________________________________.
_______________________________________________________________________.
_______________________________________________________________________.
_______________________________________________________________________.
THEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the application for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION
from New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance from Section 63.11(1) to allow up to 8 disabled persons to
reside together in a group home located at 602 Everbreeze Lane, be GRANTED/DENIED.
ORDERED this 23rd, day of July, 2019.
____________________________________
Henry Adams, Vice-Chairman
Attest:
____________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board
New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment
Vicinity MapE180FeetCase: ZBA-939
July 23, 2019
Address: 602 Everbreeze LaneSpecial Exception RequestApplicant: Greg HeafnerOwner: Ashley Paulovits and Zachary Paulovits
R-15
R-10
New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment
Zoning MapE250FeetCase: ZBA-939
July 23, 2019
Address: 602 Everbreeze LaneSpecial Exception RequestApplicant: Greg HeafnerOwner: Ashley Paulovits and Zachary Paulovits
GORDON
Case: ZBA-939
New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment
Aerial MapE250Feet
Address: 602 Everbreeze LaneSpecial Exception RequestApplicant: Greg HeafnerOwner: Ashley Paulovits and Zachary Paulovits
July 23, 2019