HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2-10
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 Meeting Room, Wilmington, NC, on February 23, 2010. Members Present Members Absent Robert Cameron, Jr., Chairman Peter DeVita,
Alternate Eric Hickman Tim Fuller, Alternate Justin M. Lewis Michael McCulley, Alternate Peyton Williams Noelle Winstead Ex Officio Members Present Sharon J. Huffman, Assistant County
Attorney Jane Daughtridge, Planning and Zoning Manager J. Steven Still, Acting Executive Secretary Hattie Moore, Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Robert Cameron,
Jr. Mr. Cameron 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. He said the Board also hears appeals of the �
�Mr. Cameron added that appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. It was properly
moved by Mr. Williams and seconded by Ms. Winstead to accept the minutes from the January 26, 2010 meeting. All ayes THE FIRST AND ONLY CASE BEFORE THE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS: Randy L.
Blanton, 34 Saltmeadow Road is requesting a variance from the side setback requirements of
s zoned R-20S. Case No. ZBA-849
Mr. Cameron swore in County staff Mr. J. Steven Still. He asked Mr. Still to give an overview of the case. Mr. Still stated Mr. Blanton is the owner of the home located at 34 Saltmeadow
Road, Figure Eight Island. He said a recent as-built survey revealed that a chimney on the northern side of the house encroaches into the side-yard setback. Mr. Still said New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51-2:4 states that the minimum side-yard setback for R20-S zoning is 15 feet and the existing chimney intrudes 2 ft 6 inches into the required setback.
He said the setback violation was discovered when the adjacent neighbor to the north surveyed their property. Mr. Still said the applicant states that the setback violation has existed
for approximately 19 years, and in order for him to comply with the literal terms of the ordinance he would have to perform substantial reconstruction of the chimney
2 which in turn would create a hardship. Mr. Still said the applicant submitted preliminary findings of fact and staff, in their review of the case has provided the following: REQUIRED
STANDARDS: Section 51: R-20S Residential District The R-20S Residential District is established as a district in which the principal use of land is for low density single-family residential
purposes. The regulations of this district are to permit development compatible with the preservation of its rural character and providing limited growth. It is designed to accommodate
residential opportunities for those who desire exurban, low-density lifestyle and are willing to assume the costs of providing many of their own services and amenities while maximizing
the protection of resources and the conservation of open space. Mobile homes, duplexes, residential clusters, attached residential and high density attached residential uses shall not
be permitted. 51-2: Dimensional Requirements: 1. Minimum Lot area 20,000 Square Feet 2. Minimum Lot width 90 feet 3. Minimum Front Yard 30 feet 4. Minimum Side Yard 15 feet 5. Minimum
Rear Yard 25 feet 6. Maximum Height 35 feet PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT: The applicant has asserted
Staff, in its review of the ndings 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 15 foot side setback
he (can/cannot) secure a reasonable return from, or make reasonable use of his property. A. : None Offered. B. Staff. 1. Staff
finds that if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance he can secure a reasonable return from or make reasonable use of his property. 2. The Board must find that
the hardship in which the applicant complains results from unique circumstances related to the applicants land. A. : House has
been in place for nineteen (19) years with configuration of the property and setback. B. Staff 1. Staff disagrees that the pre-existence of the encroachment is unique to the �
�
3 3. The Board must find that the hardship is not the result of the applicants own actions A. Applicant Asserts: None offered. B. Staff 1. Co
existed since the house was constructed in 1990. 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: 1. A large vegetated buffer exists between the two lots. 2. �
� 3. Minor encroachment less than 20% of B. Staff 1. Staff concurs that a large vegetated buffer exists between the subject property and
adjacent property. 2. Staff concurs that the encroachment of the chimney is not visible 3. Staff does not concur with the assertion that an encroachment of nearly 20% is a minor encroachment.
However staff does concur that the encroachment is less than 20% of the 1 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: By not requiring the owner to perform substantial reconstruction of the house after nineteen
(19) years. B. Staff 1. Staff finds that if granted variance will secure the public safety and welfare and will do substantial justice. ACTION NEEDED: (Choose one) 1. Motion to approve
the variance 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 based on specific negative findings in any of the 5 categories above. Mr. Still then ran a PowerPoint presentation showing surveys of the property, aerial photographs,
photographs of the house and the chimney; and the substantial buffer. Mr. Cameron called for those to speak in favor of granting the variance request to come come forward to be sworn
or affirmed for testimony. Mr. Cameron swore in Mr. Randy Lane Blanton.
4 Mrs. Blanton stated the encroachment was discovered when pilings were being placed. He said the chimney has been there over 19 years and it would be a hardship if he had to move it.
Mr. Blanton presented letters from his neighbors in support of his variance request. Mr. Cameron asked Mr. Blanton if he is the original owner. He also asked if the chimney was functional
and being used. Mr. Blanton answered yes to both questions. Mr. Williams asked why the issue came up now. Mr. Blanton said after the encroachment was discovered he wanted things to be
right. Mr. Cameron asked Mr. Blanton if he knew how much it would cost to remove the chimney and Mr. Blanton said no but it would be substantial. Mr. Cameron asked the width of the lot
and Mr. Blanton said the lot is 98 ft. wide The Chairman called for those to speak in opposition to granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony.
There was no one present to speak in opposition to the variance request. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Board Discussion Mr. Cameron commented that the vegetation is substantial. Mr. Lewis
said it would create more harm to have the applicant tear down the chimney. He also said no one is contesting the variance request. Ms. Huffman said information needs to be provided
for numbers 1 and 3 on the findings of fact. After a brief discussion, the Chairman agreed to provide the information for the findings of fact and email it to Mr. Still. Board Decision
1. Randy L. Blanton, 34 Saltmeadow Road is requesting a variance from the side setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 51, for an existing chimney that intrudes
2' 6" into the 15' required setback. Property is zoned R-20S. Case No. ZBA-849 2. On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Lewis the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance
request with the changes to the findings of fact.
5 There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved by Mr. Hickman and seconded by Ms. Winstead to adjourn the meeting. All ayes Acting Executive Secretary Chairman