HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-3-05
1 MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 22, 2005 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
Administration Annex Building, 230 Market Place Drive, Suite 110, Wilmington, NC, on March 22, 2005. Members Present Chairman Michael V. Lee,
Vice-Chairman Horace Malpass Brian Eckel Tim Fuller Ex Officio Members Present Holt Moore III, Assistant County Attorney Ann S. Hines, Executive Secretary Debra D. Wilson, Acting Executive
Secretary Hattie Moore, Clerk 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
e thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. It was properly moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the February 2005 Board meeting.
Mr. Furman swore in County staff Ms. Ann S. Hines and Ms. Debra D. Wilson. The first case to be brought before the Board was as follows: Reddlands, Inc., 6435 Carolina Beach Road is
requesting a variance from the rear and side setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 69-11 and the buffer requirements of Section 67-4(2) to construct a
building. The property is zoned B-2. ZBA-746. . The Chairman called Ms. Hines to give an overview of the case. Ms. Hines informed the Board that there is a procedural problem with hearing
this case tonight. She said it was discovered that all the adjacent property owners for this case had not been notified due to the list of adjacent property owners were presented in
two two different formats. She explained that the Ordinance requires that all adjacent property owners be notified two weeks in advance of the Board meeting. Ms. Hines said she has explained
this to the appellants and they have agreed to move their case to the April 2005 meeting.
2 The second case to be brought before the Board was as follows: Mr. and Mrs. William H. Boyd, III, 230 Beach Road North are requesting a variance from the side yard setback requirements
of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51-2 for an existing residence and existing air conditioning units. The property is zoned R-20S. ZBA-747. The Chairman called Ms. Wilson
to give an overview of the case. Ms. Wilson stated that Mr. and Mrs. William H. Boyd are seeking a variance for an existing residence at 230 Beach Road North, Figure Eight Island. She
said the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51-2 requires a minimum building setback of 15 feet from the side property line. She said the setback discrepancy was discovered
after a recent survey in preparation for the potential sale of the property and was not detected at the time of construction in 1981. Ms. Wilson said the application indicates a side
yard setback encroachment of approximately 6 inches on the southern side of the dwelling. She said the existing air conditioning units and their containment structures located on the
north and south side of the dwelling also encroach into the required 5-foot �
�variance criteria as contained in ordinance 122-1 and all parties were notified. The Chairman called those to speak
in favor of granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony. Mr. Furman swore in: Mr. G. Edward Coleman, III, Attorney Mr. Coleman stated that he
is representing Mr. and Mrs. Boyd. He said this is an identical petition to the one he presented to the Board about three months ago for the property right next door to this one. Mr.
Coleman presented a new survey that he said shows the CAMA line and shows that the position of the house on the property does not result in any additional encroachments. He also presented
photos to show the design of the units and how well they have been maintained with containment structures around both units, and protected by mature vegetation. Mr. Coleman said his
office hand delivered and mailed certified letters to adjacent homeowners and he presented copies of the mail receipts indicating that the homeowners did receive the certified letters.
He said they have not received any opposition from the homeowners or the homeowners association in regards to this variance. He said there is a very minimal encroachment of six inches
on the southwest corner of the structure, which was discovered when the survey was done in connection with a pending sale. The other two encroachments are on both side yard setbacks,
which are the two air conditioner structures, and they are requesting that the units remain where they are and not be moved. Mr. Lee asked if the structures were ever demolished or destroyed
is there enough room to reconstruct them where they would be in compliance with the setbacks. Mr. Coleman said he did not know and in the past that is a contingency that the Board has
placed on variances that they have granted. The Chairman called for those to speak in opposition to the Board granting the variance request to come forward. There was no one present
to speak on denying the variance request.
3 Board Decision: 1. Mr. and Mrs. William H. Boyd, III, 230 Beach Road North are requesting a variance from the side yard setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance,
Section 51-2 for an existing residence and existing air conditioning units. The property is zoned R-20S. ZBA-747. 2. On a motion by Mr. Lee and seconded by Mr. Eckel the Board voted
unanimously to GRANT the variance request for the six inch encroachment and also GRANT the variance for the encroachment of the air conditioner units provided that in the event any of
the structures are materially destroyed, that the reconstruction would comply with the then existing setbacks. The third case to be brought before the Board was as follows: Mr. Michael
Ross Kersting of Michael Ross Kersting, Architecture, P.A., 8140 Market Street, is requesting a variance from the S.H.O.D. regulated side yard setback requirements of New Hanover County
Zoning Ordinance, Section 59.6-3(1) for a proposed development. The property is zoned B-2. ZBA-748. The Chairman called Ms. Hines to give an overview of the case. Ms. Hines stated this
application is for a variance from the side setback requirements of Special Highway Overlay District for property located a 8140 Market Street. She said this is a B-2 Highway Business
property that is in the process of plan development involving six buildings, parking areas, stormwater improvement and some natural areas. She said the Section of the Ordinance involved
is Section 59.6-3 Special Highway District, which runs along certain highway corridors in the County with defined areas a certain distance off the right-of-way. In this instance the
front 500 feet of the property lie within the Special Highway Overlay District, or S.H.O.D., which imposes additional development standards related to building setbacks, landscaping,
and screening of unsightly uses from the designated highway. She said the proposed building layout has buildings placed at angles in order to provide flow and a better use of the property
in the back, and a corner of two buildings within the S.H.O.D. portion of the property would extend into that 25-foot building setback from all property lines. She added that the back
is not in the S.H.O.D. Ms. Hines said Mr. Kersting is the Architect and he can speak on what led to this design. She said the way the Ordinance is worded, it is possible to mitigate
or reduce the building setback from the front in the SHOD, by adding extra trees. She said that would throw the sideline setback into the middle of that particular section and although
it was not the intent of the County, it could be read to mean that you could also mitigate the side setback, but that is not the case. Ms. Hines stated that Mr. Kersting is requesting
a variance to allow a small setback reduction of 18.75 feet instead of 25 feet. The Chairman 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. Michael Ross Kersting. Mr. Kersting stated that the property is located in the S.H.O.D. in the Porters Neck area and the street frontage does
not include the entire width of the back part of the property; it measures less than the total width of the property on the back. He said they are proposing to build a complex of office
buildings and have laid out the property with environmental sensitivity in mind. He said this
4 project would be so that stormwater management is handled in a way that water is trapped through the parking lot, off the roof into a trough system that actually absorbs the stormwater
before it hits an overflow pond on the bottom part of the site. He said they have been working on the site plan for several months and they plan to get some notoriety with this project
by doing an eco-friendly development. Mr. Kersting said in Zoning Ordinance, Section 59.6-3, you could literally take it to mean the 25-foot property line setbacks mandated in the S.H.O.D.
could be reduced by 25% if you agree to a certain level of plantings on the street front. Mr. Kersting proceeded to read the following from Section 59.6-3 of the Zoning Ordinance: (1)
Setback Requirements -All non-residential buildings and accessory uses shall set back no less than 100 feet from the right-of-way of the designated highway. No building shall be located
less than 25 feet from any property line. However, the setback may be reduced for those buildings, accessory uses and off-street parking by a maximum of 25% if the project provides additional
plantings along the right-of-way. He continued by saying they are more than happy to install the minimum amount of plantings and the only violation is that two of the buildings cross
over the setback by a very minimal amount. He said they are asking for the 18.75 because that is calculated as the 25% reduction. Mr. Lee asked Mr. Kersting if the Board grants the variance,
would he be comfortable with a site specific approved plan. Mr. Kersting said he would comfortable with that because they are going to most likely phase the construction of the project.
He said they do not have tenants for the three buildings that are farthest from the street or the front building. He said the middle two buildings will be built as phase one and there
is a chance that they may get a tenant who would like to revise the plan on the back side and then they may not need to do the 18.75 foot variance, but he would prefer to have the latitude
for some flexibility back there. Mr. Lee asked, if the Board grants the variance request, how long would the applicant have to get the building permit. Ms. Hines said the time frame
is two years. She said there are two ways of looking at this and one is that each of those buildings be started within 2 years or say it is part of a master plan. Mr. Kersting said their
intention is to install an infrastructure for everything initially, but they do not plan to build the three buildings in the back until they find tenants. Mr. Eckel questioned if they
could move the building 6.25 feet and still construct the innovative eco green space building. Mr. Kersting answered no, because they would have to redesign the stormwater system, and
revise their permitting with State Stormwater. Mr. Lee asked Mr. Kersting if he could use the formula set forth in the ordinance for setback requirements for mitigating. Mr. Kersting
said yes, but most of their property is not on the street. He said by the time they put the roadmap with the entryway in, there is a minimum amount of area to landscape and they intend
to plant a heavy wooded area in that location. He said the lot has a significant slope and as it trails off Market Street the trees will become taller than the buildings, making it very
hard to see the
5 buildings. Mr. Kersting also said he recommends that the wording in the ordinance be revised to clearly state that setback reduction is only on the street. Ms. Hines said Planning
Staff are looking into clarification and rearrangement of this section of the ordinance, so as to avoid future instances like this one. The Chairman called for those to speak in opposition
to the Board granting the variance request to come forward. There was no one present to speak in opposition to the variance request. Board Deliberation Mr. Moore said the hardship or
argument in this case would be that they have spent a significant amount on their preparations under their understandable interpretation of the ordinance. Mr. Lee said he does not have
a problem with the variance on the setback. He said he does not think it is possible for the additional plantings in the right-of-way but the additional plantings on the project are
possible. Board Decision 1. Mr. Michael Ross Kersting of Michael Ross Kersting, Architecture, P.A., 8140 Market Street, is requesting a variance from the S.H.O.D. regulated side yard
setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 59.6-3(1) for a proposed development. The property is zoned B-2. ZBA-748. 2. On a motion by Mr. Eckel and seconded
by Mr. Malpass, the Board voted to GRANT the variance request based on the findings of fact presented with the stipulation that the applicant complies with the S.H.O.D. Ordinance to
reduce the setback requirements with minimal plantings in the street yard area. All ayes. The fourth case to be brought before the Board was as follows: Ms. Emmy S. Hewlett and Mr. Michael
Coston, 1619 Rossmore Road, are appealing a Stop Work Order and seeking a variance for the placement of a second mobile home on the property. The property is zoned AR. ZBA-749. Ms. Hines
overview of the case: Mrs. Emmy Hewlett is purchasing the lot at 1619 Rossmore Road from Mr. Michael Coston, and has obtained building permits and other necessary permits to place two
mobile homes on on the property. Attached is a timeline summarizing her account of her efforts to secure all necessary permits and authorizations to place the two mobile homes on the
property. She states she received misinformation from both the Planning Department and the Zoning Division of the Inspections Department, neither of which departments discussed with
her the need for one acre of land, or 43,560 square feet, for each mobile home under the Airport Residential Zoning District. The subject property contains a little over 30,000 square
feet, well under the minimum lot size. The Glynnwood Subdivision, of which this lot is a part, was platted before the institution of AR zoning in the area, and the lots are all substantially
smaller than the current AR standards. The
6 lots are buildable as long as the minimum building setbacks for AR are met. The Board has granted a number of setback variances in this area over the years to accommodate change-outs
of mobile homes to larger, newer models. Mrs. Hewlett and Mr. Coston, the seller, had assumed that two homes were allowed on this property because in years past, a second mobile had
sat behind the principal residence (also a mobile home, which has been removed). The Zoning Ordinance allows such a nonconforming use to continue as long as the use is not interrupted
for a period of 180 days (Ordinance Sec. 46-1). The second home that was on this property was removed a number of years ago after the death of Mr. Cost
By the time the building
permit applications were submitted for review, Health Department approvals had been obtained and a new street address (1623 Rossmore) assigned for the second mobile home. Both street
addresses appeared on the County GIS (computerized mapping) system, and to the naked eye, the lot did not appear substandard in size when compared to the neighboring properties. The
Zoning Official who reviewed the application did not question the two street addresses, nor did she verify the length of time the second mobile home had been gone from the property.
The Inspections Department only became aware of the error in permitting after both homes had been delivered to the property for setup. Once the problem came to light, Mrs. Hewlett was
given the option to proceed with inspections for one of the homes, with all work to cease on the second home until the Board could consider a variance request. Work has continued on
the home site identified as 1623 Rossmore. The variance sought is from the minimum lot size only; all building setbacks have been met. The applicant has submitted proposed findings of
fact. All interested parties have been notified. The Chairman called those to speak in favor of granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony. Mr.
Furman swore in: Mr. James A. MacDonald, Attorney Ms. Emmy Mae Hewlett Mr. Michael Gene Coston Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett to state her name, for the record. Ms. Hewlett replied
Emmy M. Hewlett. Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett if she has property at 8100 block of Market Street and Ms. Hewlett replied yes. Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett if she was approached
about selling that property and Ms. Hewlett said yes, she was approached last June about selling the property. Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett if she had some relatives that lived on
the property. Ms. Hewlett answered yes, her sister and adopted brother lived there. Mr. McDonald asked Ms. Hewlett if her sister and adopted brother lived in mobile homes on the property
and she answered yes.
7 Mr. McDonald asked Ms. Hewlett if she eventually entered into a sale for that property on Market Street. Ms. Hewlett said yes, but the condition of the sale was that she would find
property where she could move the two mobile homes. Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett if the contract for the sale of the property on Market Street was conditioned on her getting satisfactory
permits for the replacement property to relocate the mobile homes. Ms. Hewlett answered yes. Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett, as a result of an interest in her Market Street property,
did she start making inquiries about obtaining a replacement property. Ms. Hewlett said yes, the person that wanted to buy the Market Street property offered to look for a piece of property
for her and she was also looking for another property. Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett if she was ultimately able to locate another piece of property and Ms. Hewlett answered yes. Mr.
MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett where that property was located and who owned the property. Ms. Ms. Hewlett said the property was located at 1619 Rossmore Road and the owner was Michael
Coston. Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett if Michael Coston was related to her and Ms. Hewlett said he is her brother-in-law. Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett what inquiries did she make
to the County about the suitability of the property to relocate those two mobile homes. Ms. Hewlett said she and her husband went to the County Planning Department in November 2004 to
inquire about putting the two mobile homes on the Rossmore property and they were told that it would be no problem but they should check with Zoning. She said they talked to a Zoning
Official who also told them there would be no problem in placing the two mobile homes on the Rossmore property. She said they were then told to go to Environmental Health and apply for
permits. Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett were they issued an Environmental Health permit for a perk test. Ms. Hewlett said yes they were issued a permit November 5, 2004 for a perk test
and they paid $120.00. She said they also applied for well and septic permits on November 29, 2004, paid impact fees on December 9, 2004 of $614.25, and on December 16, 2004 they were
issued building permits and paid $120.00. She said based on the fact that she had been issued all her permits, they spent $6,380 to clear everything, $1,000 for new rail, and $2,600
for a new septic tank system. Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett when did she sell her property on Market Street. Ms. Hewlett said the sale of that property was on January 7, 2005
8 Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett as result of that sale, was she required to remove the mobile homes within 60 days. �
�amount of time in which she was required to remove them. Mr. MacDonald asked
Ms. Hewlett the present location of the mobile homes and she said they are on the Rossmore property. She said it cost $2,500.00 a piece to move them. Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Hewlett
if she received the Stop Work Order somewhere between the end of February and the first of March. Ms. Hewlett said yes, somewhere in that time frame. Mr. MacDonald asked Mr. Coston to
state his name. Mr. MacDonald asked Mr. Coston if that property on Rossmore Road had been in his family
for a period of time and he said yes. Mr. MacDonald asked Mr. Coston if his father and uncle lived on the property at the same time and in the same dwelling. Mr. Coston said yes they
lived on the property but did not live in the same dwelling. He said he and his father, Marvin Coston, lived in the mobile home in the front nearest to the road and his uncle, �
�
Mr. MacDonald presented Mr. Coston with a document and photo and asked him to identify them. Mr. Coston said the document was a monthly food
stamp report from DSS for his uncle Morris, showing his address as 1617 Rossmore Road, and the photo shows the trailer, a shed and a jeep where they lived on Rossmore Road. Mr. MacDonald
asked Ms. Hewlett whom she had anticipated would live in those trailers and she said her sister and adopted brother that had lived on the Market Street property. Mr. MacDonald asked
Ms. Hewlett if she had any other property where she could place them and she said absolutely not. Ms. Hines said the way the lot slopes it will take more than the standard concrete mobile
home type steps to get in and out of the homes, and she wanted to know the setback situation on the sides for the steps. S�
�wall of the home but she said it appears to be a little more than 20 feet. Ms. Hines
said this is s the time to address that issue.
Mr. MacDonald said they could create a landing and run the steps parallel to the trailer. Ms. Hewlett when they had the trailers on Market Street, it came out the door and had a little
platform.
9 Ms. Hines asked if they had dimensions and Mr. MacDonald said he would anticipate that it would be 4 or 4-1/2 feet from the trailer. He also said he is not sure if the sketch from
the Health Department is an accurate representation. Ms. Hines asked Ms. Hewlett if that means the steps are not an issue and Ms. Hewlett said that is correct. Mr. MacDonald said the
applicant acted in good fact by applying for the permits under the belief that she was entitled to receive them. He said she spent a substantial amount of money getting these properties
ready for her two relatives to live there. He said she thought everything was in order but received a Stop Work Order. Mr. MacDonald said this is a clear case of a hardship for her and
her family and they are requesting a variance to allow them to keep the mobile homes on that lot. Ms. Hines said Ms. Hewlett got some bad information. She said an assumption was made
that since they had been two mobile homes on the lot, then two residences could again be on the lot. She said the question that should have been asked is how long was the second mobile
home removed from the property. Ms. Hines said the Zoning Ordinance states that if you have a non-conforming situation and discontinues that use for a period of six months, you cannot
resume the non-conforming use. She said in fact, the second mobile home was gone from the property for more than six months, however the County did not have a problem assigning a street
address to the second property. She said she does not know how that happened and everyone was acting in good faith but things were missed. The Chairman called for those to speak in opposition
to the Board granting the variance request to come forward. Mr. Furman swore in: Ms. Rosa Morgan Mr. Kevin J. Campbell Ms. Morgan stated that she does not believe they (the Costons)
were ever given permission to put the second trailer on the Rossmore Road property. She said they placed the trailer behind the one trailer that was already there and it has been gone
for over 10 years since Mr. Morris Coston died. She said she was under the impression that in an Airport Residential zoned area, where they are, you are not supposed to have but one
mobile home per acre. She said per their wind zone code, the trailer has to be no more than 10 years old. Ms. Morgan said they had no problem with the other trailers because they were
placed behind each other, facing the road. She said although she
trailers were placed facing each other they would look better. Mr. Campbell said if the trailers were parallel to the
road it would not look like an eyesore. He said he originally had a 1984 single wide mobile home and when he bought his 1996 double wide he was told by the New Hanover County Inspections
Department that once that mobile home is removed from the lot it could no longer be set up in New Hanover County because of wind restrictions. He said one of those mobile homes is older
that 1984 and would not meet the wind requirements. He asked if the Stop Work Order was issued at the end of February, does that include all the electrical, plumbing and all aspects
of the construction.
10 Ms. Hines said the Stop Work Order was issued on only one of the mobile homes, not on both of them and it does not stop work on other things like connecting water lines. She said
it appeared the only thing that was done was to properly secure the home on the foundation. Mr. Campbell said his lot slopes from west to east and when he put his doublewide on his property,
the eastern section of his house ended up being sixty-five inches off the ground because New Hanover code requirements states that you need a structural Engineer to lay out your footers
if they exceed five feet or sixty inches. He said one of those mobile home have to be five feet plus. He said he had to put down additional forty pillars and tie downs under his doublewide
and also bricked it. Ms. Hines said the homes are listed as a1985 model and a1993 model. She said, per the New Hanover County Building Codes, they are allowed to be relocated within
the County at that age, but it does require some extra installation measures depending on the standard that the homes are built to for hurricane resistance. She added that these homes
have not been passed for occupancy so they Board Deliberation Mr. Eckel asked it the mobile homes
could be turned horizontally. Mr. MacDonald said if the mobile homes were turned they would then run into some setback problems. He said the lot is one hundred-two feet wide and the
trailer is sixty-eight
feet wide. He said you would have to add twenty feet on both sides. Ms. Hines pointed out that the variance would run with the land and there is no guarantee that the same mobile home
would necessarily be there indefinitely. Mr. Fuller said that part of the rationale of granting a variance would be not only the two trailers located on the lot but also the families
were given information by the County that led them into this arrangement. He said given the purpose of the Airport Residential restrictions in regard to public safety, could the Board
limit the variance to this particular family so that once the hardship the County may have caused them is taken care of, we do not continue the non-conforming situation in a district
that has such important requirements. Mr. Holt said conditions can be placed on the variance but limiting it to these particular owners is a real concern. Ms. Hines said this is a serious
concern from an enforcement standpoint because her office has to enforce whatever the Board decides. She said mobile homes tend to depreciate with age and she would hope that the Board
takes into consideration that if you take an action, put a condition that would somehow encourage a 1985 or 1993 mobile home to stay on this property for at least a decade. Mr. Moore
agreed and said the Board may have to go with a structural or dimensional limit. Mr. Eckel asked if the appellant would agree with that condition. Mr. MacDonald said he has spoken with
his client and she has agreed, subject to the Board making an exception to allow them a 15 -foot side setback on one side and maybe 19 feet on the other side.
11 Mr. Eckel asked where the Stop Work Order came from if they already had permits from the County. Ms. Hines said someone from the neighborhood called the office when they saw the two
mobile homes on the site. Mr. Fuller asked if the Board does not grant the variance would the applicant have any recourse to recoup any of those expenses. Mr. Furman said if it is permissible
with the County that those two homes can be on the property, it is not up to the Board to make a decision about them not meeting the visible needs of the area. He asked if they would
need to submit a new variance request.
variances that this Board wanted to consider relating to the two mobile homes on the property. Mr. Lee asked if the Board would need to make this subject
to the non-conforming use limitations, that in the event that the use is interrupted for 180 days or more, the variance expires. Mr. Eckel said if they wanted to upgrade the mobile home,
they would basically have 179 days to upgrade the home if they took it off the property. Ms. Hines said there is another issue involving the spacing between two homes. She said the Ordinance
requires two side yards between homes in a multiple use on one lot, which amounts to forty feet. Ms. Hewlett said the Health Department gave them a permit to install one large septic
system for both homes. Ms. Hines asked if the homes could be placed so that they are at least forty feet apart if they are moved front and back. Mr. MacDonald said the lot size where
the mobile homes would be placed, is one hundred-fifty foot deep and should be enough for forty feet between homes. Board Decision 1. Ms. Emmy S. Hewlett and Mr. Michael Coston, 1619
Rossmore Road, are appealing a Stop Work Order and seeking a variance for the placement of a second mobile home on the property. The property is zoned AR. ZBA-749. 2. On a a motion by
Mr. Lee and seconded by Mr. Eckel, the Board voted to (Part A) GRANT the variance request of five feet on the side yard setbacks to be only fifteen feet on either side yard; (Part B)
GRANT a variance from the minimum square foot requirements to allow for a second mobile home to be placed on the subject property, with the longest portion of the mobile home parallel
to Rossmore Road, and if at such time the use of two mobile homes being on the property is interrupted for a period of 180 days, the variance, with respect to the reduction in square
footage of the property to allow for two mobile homes, shall expire. All ayes
12 The fifth case to be brought before the Board was as follows: Mr. Scott Sullivan, 1457 Edgewater Club Road, is requesting a variance from the side yard setback requirements of New
Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52-2 for a residential addition. The property is zoned R-20. ZBA-750. The Chairman called Ms. Wilson to give an overview of the case. Ms. Wilson
stated that Mr. Scott Sullivan is seeking a variance for a 4-foot addition on the south side of an existing residence at 1457 Edgewater Club Road with a ten-foot side setback. She said
the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52-2 requires a minimum building setback of 15 feet from the side property line. She said the existing dwelling was built in 1986 and
was granted a variance in 1993 for a 10-foot side yard setback on the south side, and the existing dwelling is located approximately 14.8 feet from the south property line. She said
apparently, no additions were proposed findings of fact,
submitted in support of the variance criteria as contained in ordinance 122-1 and all parties were notified. The Chairman called those to speak in favor of granting the variance request
to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony. Mr. Furman swore in: Mr. Scott Robert Sullivan Mr. Sullivan stated that they purchased a house on Edgewood Club Road and the property
is slightly less than fifty feet in width. He said the existing house is 21-1/2 feet wide and 1,860 square feet. He said he is a residential designer and has come up with the best plan
to allow a kitchen expansion and half-bath on the first level, and the footprint of the kitchen would be replicated onto the second floor. Mr. Sullivan said the house does not have adequate
bathrooms and closets to meet �
�the septic tanks and future plans to add an attached garage building on the other side of the septic tanks. He said there is also a storage building that he
wants to remain in place. He said there is a thirty feet backyard area for the garage building, septic tanks, and house, and the additions that he did on the front of the house to the
north side conforms to the fifty-foot side setback He said he plans to add 500 sq. ft. to the house. Mr. Eckel asked about the earlier variance from 1993. Ms. Wilson said they were given
a variance for a 10-foot side yard setback in 1993 on the south side but it was never acted upon in regards to the easement. She said the variance expired in two years. The Chairman
called for those to speak in opposition to the Board granting the variance request to come forward. There was no one present to speak in opposition to the variance request
13 Board Decision 1. Mr. Scott Sullivan, 1457 Edgewater Club Road, is requesting a variance from the side yard setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52-2
for a residential addition. The property is zoned R-20. ZBA-750. 2. On a motion by Mr. Lee and seconded by Mr. Malpass the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request based
on the findings of fact and other evidence presented. The sixth case to be brought before the Board was as follows: Mr. Herbert W. Aiken, 6422 Ashton Court, is requesting a variance
from the periphery lot setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51.5-2 for an existing residence, deck addition and a shed. The property is zoned R-15. ZBA-751
The Chairman called Ms. Wilson to give an overview of the case. Ms. Wilson stated that Mr. Herbert Aiken is seeking a variance for an existing dwelling and a deck addition to his residence
at 6422 Ashton Court. Ms. Wilson said the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51.5-2 requires a periphery setback of twenty feet from the property line. She said the existing
dwelling was built in 1999 and is located 14 feet from the property line and at that time, the Zoning Official ruled that the perimeter of the subdivision lay at the far side of a 30-foot
drainage and utility easement. She said the easement was originally a part of this development but was conveyed to the County along with the Veterans Park tract, thereby creating nonconformity
s home. Ms. Wilson said the proposed deck addition at the closest point would be ten feet from the property line and an open space
lies between the Aiken property and Halyburton Drive on the County Park land. She said accessory structures with a footprint of less than 600 square feet would be allowed in the periphery
setback as long as it is five feet from the �
�findings of fact, submitted in support of the variance criteria as contained in ordinance 122-1 and all parties were notified. The Chairman 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. Herbert Walter Aiken. Mr. Aiken stated that following
a survey by the County, his rear property line was changed from 27 feet to 14 feet, and he asked if the line could be re-established to the original footage. Mr. Furman asked Mr. Aiken
when he had his property line surveyed, did Mr. Aiken said yes it did, because
they were using the same plot plan. Mr. Furman asked if the house was up and the County then made a change.
14 as built the original subdivision extended out to the far side
of this 30-foot drainage utility easement, which meant that his property line might have been to the drainage easement. She said with the development of Veterans Park, some things were
reconfigured, the subdivision dedicated the drainage and utility easement back to the County, and she does not know exactly where his actual property line was located. Mr. Furman asked
Mr. Aiken if he had an easement when he obtained the property. Mr. Aiken said he had a 15-foot easement on the right side and a 30-foot easement behind the property. Mr. Lee asked the
non-conforming aspect of the house. Ms. Wilson said being that he has a twenty-foot periphery setback for that property line, his house is now 14.8 ft. and he is already non-�
�explained that at the time the house was built, it was conforming, but when the drainage easement
was changed and given back to the County, that created his non-conforming. Board Decision 1. Mr. Herbert W. Aiken, 6422 Ashton Court, is requesting a variance from the periphery lot
setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51.5-2 for an existing residence, deck addition and a shed. The property is zoned R-15. ZBA-751 2. On a motion by
Mr. Malpass and seconded by Mr. Eckle, The Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request based on the findings of fact and other evidence presented. There being no further business
before the Board, it was properly moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. Acting Executive Secretary Chairman