Loading...
7.25.17 ZBA Agenda Package NEW HANOVER COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, LUCIE HARRELL CONFERENCE ROOM #601 WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 Joe Miller, Chairman Henry “Hank” Adams, Vice-Chairman Raymond Bray, Board Member Andrew Barnhill, Board Member Chad McEwen, Board Member Brett Keeler, Alternate Kristin Freeman, Alternate Colin Tarrant, Alternate Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Land Use, Director – Sharon Huffman, County Attorney AGENDA July 25, 2017, 5:30 PM I. Call Meeting to Order (Chairman Joe Miller) II. Regular Items of Business 1. Case ZBA-918 – Michael Longfellow, applicant and property owner, is requesting a variance to the minimum lot area required in an R-15 zoning district per Section 51.6 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 1815 Castle Hayne Road. III. Other Business IV. Adjourn ZBA-918, 7/17 Page 1 of 3 VARIANCE REQUEST ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 25, 2017 CASE: ZBA-918, 7/17 PETITIONER: Michael Longfellow, applicant and property owner REQUEST: +/- 4,400 square ft. variance from the 15,000 minimum lot size required per Section 51.6 of the Zoning Ordinance LOCATION: 1815 Castle Hayne Road and 104 Victoria Drive PID: R04110-002-022-000 ZONING: R-15, Residential District PETITIONER’S REQUEST: Michael Longfellow, applicant and property owner, is requesting a +/- 4,400 square ft. variance from the 15,000 minimum lot size required for conventional lots in the R-15 zoning district per Section 51.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. According to the survey provided with the application, the parcel is 0.61 acres (+/- 26,500 sq. ft.) and hosts two single-family structures; the property owner is seeking to subdivide the parcel into two parcels, but one of the parcels is would not meet the 15,000 sq. ft. minimum size requirement. BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is located at the intersection of Castle Hayne Road and Victoria Drive, near the intersection of Castle Hayne Road and N. 23rd Street. It contains 0.61 acres and is a portion of a 2.645-acre parcel that was recorded in Map Book 2, Page 14 (date illegible). The first reference to the subject property found by Staff was on an exhibit to a deed recorded in 2005 (B4834 P944). On this exhibit, the parcel was said to include 0.645 acres. The parcel has been subject to a number of instruments since 1937, according to New Hanover County tax records: ZBA-918, 7/17 Page 2 of 3 The subject property contains two single family homes (1815 Castle Hayne Road and 104 Victoria Drive) that both have a year build date of 1940, according to New Hanover County tax records. The two homes on the 0.61-acre parcel is a legal nonconforming situation; under current zoning regulations, in order to have two homes on one property, the property must contain area at least equal to two times the minimum lot size for the zoning district. In R-15, the minimum lot size is 15,000 sq. ft. (0.344 acres) per Section 51.6-2(2) of the Zoning Ordinance: Section 51.6: R-15 Residential District 51.6-1: The R-15 Residential District is established as a district in which the principal use of land is for residential purposes and to insure that residential development not having access to public water and dependent upon septic tanks for sewage disposal will occur at sufficiently low densities to insure a healthful environment. 51.6-2: Conventional Residential Regulations Dimensional Requirements: (1) Minimum lot area 15,000 sq.ft. Duplex 25,000 sq.ft. (2) Minimum lot width 80 feet (3) Minimum front yard 25 feet (4) Minimum side yard 10 feet (5) Minimum rear yard 20 feet (6) Maximum height 35 feet Zoning was applied to the subject parcel on July 1, 1972, and it was at that time when the requirements of Section 51.6 became applicable to the subject parcel. Because the construction of the two homes occurred prior to zoning of the parcel, and the homes remain on the parcel, the two homes on the parcel that is less than the 30,000 sq. ft. requirement is a legal, nonconforming situation. The home at 104 Victoria Drive is also legal nonconforming in regards to the 10’ side yard requirement per Section 51.6-2(4) for the same reason: the nonconformity predates the application of zoning to the parcel. Mr. Longfellow, the current property owner, took ownership of the subject property in April 2016. He facilitated renovations to the two homes on the property, and is now seeking to subdivide the property so that each home is on its own parcel. Mr. Longfellow has consulted with a surveyor, Mr. Gary Keyes, who has surveyed the property and has drawn a draft plat showing the proposed subdivision line between the two homes. The proposed line is drawn in a manner that does not create any new nonconformities in regards the side yard requirements; however, the division would create a nonconformity in regards to the required lot size for “Lot A”. “Lot B” would be a total of +/- 15,900 sq. ft., meeting the 15,000 sq. ft. lot size requirement, but “Lot A” would be only +/- 10,600 sq. ft., which is +/- 4,400 sq. ft. below the 15,000 sq. ft. lot size requirement. Therefore, the variance of +/- 4,400 sq. ft. to the 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size is being sought by the property owner in order to pursue the subdivision of the subject property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT POWER AND DUTY: The Board of Adjustment has the authority to authorize variances from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance where, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the regulations would result in unnecessary hardship. In granting any variance, the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. A concurring vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the voting members of the Board shall be necessary to grant a variance. A variance shall not be granted by the Board unless and until the following findings are made: ZBA-918, 7/17 Page 3 of 3 1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. 2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the 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. 3. 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. 4. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. ACTION NEEDED (Choose one): 1. Motion to approve the variance request based on the findings of fact (with or without conditions) 2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or documentation (Specify). 3. Motion to deny the variance request based on specific negative findings in any of the 4 categories above. 131 112 110 129 111 114 123 106 104 119 104 109 105 116 121 113 106 117 105 103 109 119 127 121 115 110 111 106 114 107 120 105 131118 115 124 117 123127 102 19301930 1724 2824 2817 2824 1930 1908 2824 1930 1930 2817 2824 2824 1901 2824 1808 1900 1909 1715 1824 1800 2800 1735 1801 1727 1809 1815 1723 1820 17361731 1816 1728 1718 2824 2715 2824 1716 2824 1915 2824 1805 1804 2729 1720 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunityE200Feet Vicinity Map New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment 1815 Castle Hayne RoadVariance Request: Minimum Lot Area per Section 51.6Applicant: Michael LongfellowOwner: Michael Longfellow July 25, 2017 Case ZBA-918 VICTORIA CASTLE HAYNE E 100 Feet Aerial Map New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment 1815 Castle Hayne RoadVariance Request: Minimum Lot Area per Section 51.6Applicant: Michael LongfellowOwner: Michael Longfellow July 25, 2017 Case ZBA-918 110 106 104 109 105 113 103 111 105 2817 1808 1824 1800 1735 1801 1809 1815 1820 1816 1805 1804 R-15 R-15 B-1 B-2 CZD B-1E200Feet Zoning Map New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment 1815 Castle Hayne RoadVariance Request: Minimum Lot Area per Section 51.6Applicant: Michael LongfellowOwner: Michael Longfellow July 25, 2017 Case ZBA-918 NEW HANOVER COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, LUCIE HARRELL CONFERENCE ROOM #601 WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 Joe Miller, Chairman Henry “Hank” Adams, Vice-Chairman Raymond Bray, Board Member Andrew Barnhill, Board Member Chad McEwen, Board Member Brett Keeler, Alternate Kristin Freeman, Alternate Colin Tarrant, Alternate Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Land Use, Director – Sharon Huffman, County Attorney ORDER TO GRANT/DENY A VARIANCE – Case ZBA-918 The Zoning Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on July 25, 2017 to consider application number ZBA-918, submitted by Michael Longfellow, applicant and property owner, a request for a variance to use the property located at 1815 Castle Hayne Road and 104 Victoria Drive in a manner not permissible under the literal terms of the ordinance 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, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically the 15,000 minimum lot area requirement for conventional lots in an R-15 zoning district per Section 51.6-2 of the Zoning Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result/would not result. (It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:  __________________________________________________________________________.  __________________________________________________________________________.  __________________________________________________________________________.  __________________________________________________________________________. 2. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results/does not result 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:  __________________________________________________________________________.  __________________________________________________________________________.  __________________________________________________________________________.  __________________________________________________________________________. 3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did/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:  __________________________________________________________________________.  __________________________________________________________________________.  __________________________________________________________________________.  __________________________________________________________________________. 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:  __________________________________________________________________________.  __________________________________________________________________________.  __________________________________________________________________________.  __________________________________________________________________________. THEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the application for a VARIANCE from New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance from Section 51.6-2 to allow a +/- 4,400 sq. ft. variance from the 15,000 minimum lot area requirement be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any: ORDERED this 25th day of July, 2017. ____________________________________ Joe Miller, Chairman Attest: ____________________________________ Benjamin Andrea, Executive Secretary to the Board