Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
October 2017 ZBA Agenda Packet
NEW HANOVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE Wayne Clark, AICP 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Director Wilmington, North Carolina Telephone (910) 798-7165 Ken Vafier, AICP FAX (910) 798-7053 Planning Manager planningdevelopment.nhcgov.com AGENDA Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting October 24, 2017, 5:30 PM I. Call Meeting to Order (Chairman Joe Miller) II. Approval of Meeting Minutes from June 27, 2017 Meeting June Attendees: Hank Adams, Raymond Bray, Andrew Barnhill, Brett Keeler, Colin Tarrant III. Approval of Meeting Minutes from July 25, 2017 Meeting July Attendees: Joe Miller, Andrew Barnhill, Raymond Bray, Kristin Freeman, Brett Keeler IV. Regular Items of Business 1. Case ZBA-919 – Gary Dale Sutton, applicant and property owner, is requesting a variance to the side yard requirement in an RA zoning district per Section 51.3-2 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 145 Brookgreen Road. 2. Case ZBA-920 – Suzanne King, applicant and property owner, is requesting variances to the front and rear yard requirements in an R-20 zoning district per Section 51.5-2 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 7411 Anaca Point Road. V. Other Business VI. Adjourn 1 MEETING MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 27, 2017 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 27, 2017. Members Present Members Absent Hank Adams, Vice-Chairman Joe Miller, Chairman Andrew Barnhill Kristen Freeman Raymond Bray Chad McEwen Brett Keeler Sharon Huffman, Deputy Attorney Colin Tarrant Ex Officio Members Present Ben Andrea, Executive Secretary Denise Brown, Clerk The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Hank Adams. Mr. 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. He said the Zoning Board also hears appeals of the County’s interpretation in enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. APPROVAL OF MARCH AND APRIL 2017 MEETING MINUTES Following a motion by Andrew Barnhill and seconded by Raymond Bray the minutes of the March 28, 2017 and April 25, 2017 meeting were unanimously approved. CASE ZBA-917 The Vice-Chairman then swore in County staff, Mr. Ben Andrea. Mr. Andrea explained that Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC, applicant, on behalf of Frederick and Susan Saint, property owners, is requesting a 10.5 variance to the 30’ front yard requirement per Section 51.4-2 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 27 Pipers Neck Road; Figure Eight Island. The property is zoned R-20S, Residential District. Mr. Andrea presented stating the subject property on 27 Pipers Neck Road located on the southern end of Figure Eight Island was recorded in 1972 as “Lot 27” of the subdivision plat for Section 11, Block B of the Figure Eight Island subdivision and this lot contains approximately 0.5 acres with a land classification of R-20S. Mr. Andrea stated the front line is irregularly shaped due to the location of the parcel located at the intersection of Pipers Neck Road and Sounds Point Road. The survey provided in the application packet shows the front corner of the home is currently at the 30’ front yard line and the existing porch encroaches into the front yard by approximately 0.3’. Mr. Andrea stated the property owners have future plans of remodeling and expansion of the two story front porch area. Mr. Andrea stated currently the county zoning ordinance does not have allowances for porches, staircases, handicap ramps, to encroach into the front yard area; all features must adhere to the county ordinance setback dimensions. 2 Mr. Andrea stated that setbacks for structures are dictated by yard requirements of the zoning district of the property, per the definitions of Setback Line and Yard requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Andrea explained that the property is zoned R-20S and therefore the yard requirements of Section 51.4-2 of the Zoning Ordinance apply, including a minimum front yard of 30’, minimum side yards of 15’, and minimum rear yard of 25’. Mr. Andrea explained that the property is also subject to CAMA regulations, including a 30’ buffer running adjacent to the normal high water line at the rear of the property. Mr. Andrea stated that a survey was performed in preparation for the variance application and it revealed that the current porch encroaches into the required 30’ front yard by approximately 1/3 of a foot. Mr. Andrea stated there is no record of a variance for this property. Mr. Andrea stated a variance would not be warrant if the property owners decided to enclose the porch in the future given all necessary building and zoning requirements were upheld. Mr. Andrea stated the board could choose to apply conditions to the variance of a non-climate control structure. Mr. Andrea noted the homeowner of 25 Sounds Point Road contacted the him for additional information on the case hearing but no objection was relayed towards the variance request. Mr. Andrea presented aerial views and pictures of the subject site along with the site plan of the proposed porch that was included with the application, and then concluded his presentation. The Vice-Chairman swore in Mrs. Andi Van Trigt. Mrs. Andi Van Trigt (Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC) – Mrs. Trigt stated she is presenting on behalf of her clients, Mr. and Mrs. Saint, the property owners of 27 Pipers Neck Road. Mrs. Trigt stated the applicants are requesting a variance in order to allow for them to build a new porch on the front of their home in order to take advantage of the ocean views available from the front of the home. Mrs. Van Trigt explained that the property owners would incur a hardship limiting the size and width of a front porch on the property which would impede the available views that could be seen a porch was allowed to be built consistent with the variance request. Mrs. Van Trigt explained that the hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the subject property, including the location of the existing home on the property which was built prior to the current owners purchasing the house. She explained that the unique shape of the parcel, the yard requirements of the R-20S zoning district, and the applicable CAMA regulations including a 30’ buffer in the rear of the property combine to limit the buildable footprint on the property. Mrs. Van Trigt explained that Mrs. Van Trigt explained that the hardship was not a result of action taken by the property owners, but rather it is a result of the location of the home on the parcel in combination with the applicable county zoning regulations and CAMA regulations and the unique shape of the parcel due to the curve of the road in front of the property resulting in a curved property line from which the front setback is measured. Mrs. Van Trigt stated that granting the variance will have no negative effect on the surrounding neighbors, nor will it cause an increase in threat to public safety or welfare. She stated granting the variance will allow the homeowners to obtain the most effective use of the property, and that similar variances have been granted in the past by this board due to the unique nature of a lot size and construction constraints, and granting the variance would result in equitable and substantial justice for the property owners. 3 Mrs. Van Trigt concluded that she believes the requirements have been met in requesting a variance and would implore the board to consider a variance approval for the applicants. There was no one present to speak in opposition to granting the variance request. The Vice-Chairman then closed the public hearing and the Board began discussion of the case. Mr. Bray inquired about existing porch being 27.7’ from the front property line, and whether this dimension was previously approved. Mr. Andrea stated that a survey was performed in preparation for the variance application and it revealed that the current porch encroaches into the required 30’ front yard by approximately 1/3 of a foot. Mr. Andrea stated there is no record of a variance for this property. Mr. Bray inquired of the proposed porch encroachment if any. Mr. Bray inquired of the two surrounding properties constructed also, Mr. Bray inquired of previous permits being pulled on subject in the past. Mr. Bray inquired when did the owners purchase the home; also, Mr. Bray stated initially the homeowners had to be aware of the scenic view obstruction. Mrs. Van Trigt stated the owners purchased the home in 1999. Mrs. Susan Saint’s mother was the original homeowner; later Mrs. Saint was her mother’s trustee and obtain the property after her sister conveyed her ownership to Mrs. Saint. Mr. Bray asked if the homeowners would be satisfied with a better view of the surrounding scenic; also Mr. Bray asked is the applicant planning to sell the property. Mrs. Van Trigt stated the homeowners would be satisfied with a better view of the surrounding area; there consulting with a builder located in the Georgia area where they reside. The homeowners are flexible with design layout and will adhere all zoning regulations. Mrs. Van Trigt stated the applicants has not conveyed a desire to sell the subject property. Mr. Bray inquired as to whether there would need to be any variance or approval from the Figure Eight Homeowners Association. Mrs. Van Trigt stated the homeowners must adhere finally to the Figure Eight Homeowners association and the Architectural Review Board before any structures are built to the subject site. Mrs. Van Trigt mentioned the HOA doesn’t have specific setbacks due to lots varying in sizes, and that proposed final construction plans have not been submitted by the applicant. Mrs. Van Trigt stated upon variance approval the applicant will submit final plans to the Figure Eight Homeowners Association review committee for construction consideration; all plans must be approved by the review committee prior to any additions. Mrs. Van Trigt stated the applicants have been in communication with the HOA on the variance pursuit and the HOA will honor the decision of the Board in regards to the variance request. Mr. Keeler inquired as to the distance of the petitioner’s current porch encroachment and the new proposed porch encroachment also, Mr. Keeler inquired if the variance was approved could the petitioner enclose the porch. Mr. Andrea stated that the existing board is 27.7’ from the front property line, an encroachment of 0.3’ that was discovered when a survey was performed in preparation for the variance application. Mr. Keeler stated property value on the subject site is $2.5 million and surrounding property across the street valued at $1.8 million and 29 Pipers Neck is valued at $2.3 million. Mr. Keeler stated the subject site in its current status is already matched in value as the surrounding properties. 4 Mrs. Van Trigt stated with the addition of a larger porch the applicants feel the home value would increase in value with the surrounding properties. Mr. Barnhill inquired of the procedures the applicant must adhere to in requesting approval of additions to the subject site from Figure Eight HOA. Also, Mr. Barnhill stated the zoning board could approve a variance and the review committee or HOA could deny the applicant request of the porch addition. Mrs. Van Trigt stated she has been in communication with the HOA representative on the applicants pursuing a variance of a larger porch addition to the residence. Mr. Adams stated the residents have been made aware of today’s proceedings and no one has presented objection to the variance. Mr. Adams stated in viewing the presented photos of the proposed porch it doesn’t appear to conflict with the designs of the community residents and their current porch landscaping. Mr. Tarrant stated the architectural review committee typically want homes to similar the theme of the neighborhood; and it appears the applicant is attempting to build on the original footprint. BOARD DECISION: On a motion by Mr. Bray and seconded by Mr. Tarrant the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request with no conditions. The Board cited 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, specifically the 30’ front yard requirement within an R-20S zoning district per Section 51.4-2 of the Zoning Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: The property is located in the R-20S zoning district and is generally subject to all requirements of that district, including those in Section 51.4-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. A portion of the proposed porch will encroach into the 30’ minimum front yard as required by Section 51.4-2(3). The porch will only extend a maximum of approximately 10’ 1.5” into the required 30’ front yard, such that the narrowest part of the resulting front yard would be approximately 19’ 10.5” deep. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow for ancillary features such as decks, porches, or staircases to extend into any required yard; these features are treated the same as the primary residential structure. If the required 30’ front yard was strictly applied, the proposed porch could not be built nor can any other feasible or practical addition be made to the exterior of the house on its street-facing side that will allow the owners to take better advantage of the ocean views available from the street-front site of the house. 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. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: The lot on which the house is situated is irregularly shaped, which significantly limits its buildable area. The lot is bounded by the Intracoastal Waterway on one side, and the curve of Pipers Neck Road where it intersects with Sounds Point Road on the opposite side, with each of its two remaining side lot lines being shared with an adjacent lot on which large residential structures and appurtenances have been built closer to their respective Waterway-facing lot lines than the Saint’s house and at an angle, creating an alcove of sorts that has significantly obscured the water views from the sound side of the Saint’s house. 5 Section 51.4-2 requires a minimum front yard of 30’, minimum side yard of 15’, and minimum rear yard of 25’. CAMA regulations impose greater restrictions including a 30’ buffer adjacent to the normal high water line that is restricted from any development. The unique shape of the lot combined with the county and CAMA regulations contribute to the hardship for which the variance is sought. 3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: The current owners did not construct the home on the property and had no control over the reduction in buildable area of the property resulting from the application of the CAMA buffer, the movement of the high water line, or the construction of the structures on each adjacent lot. The owners did not bring the hardship upon themselves; the hardship arises from the unique features limiting buildable area of the property. 4. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if granted, the variance will be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Granting the variance will allow the owners to make the most beneficial use of their land without infringing on the rights or interests of any other property owner and without causing environmental or other harm to any person, property, or the community. All development activity on the property will remain at all times subject to all otherwise applicable rules, regulations, development standards, policies, covenants, and the like. There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved by Mr. Bray and seconded by Mr. Keeler to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. ______________________________________ _________________________________ Executive Secretary Chairman Date: _______________________ MEETING MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 25, 2017 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, July 25, 2017. Members Present Members Absent Joe Miller, Chairman Hank Adams, Vice-Chairman Raymond Bray Chad McEwen Andrew Barnhill Colin Tarrant Brett Keeler Kristin Freeman Ex Officio Members Present Ben Andrea, Executive Secretary Sharon Huffman, County Attorney Denise Brown, Clerk The meeting was called to order at 5:30P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Joe Miller. Mr. Miller explained that the Zoning Board is a quasi-judicial board appointed by the Board of Commissioners to consider zoning ordinance variances from residents in New Hanover County where special conditions would create unnecessary hardships. He said the Zoning Board also hears appeals of the County’s interpretation in enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. CASE ZBA-918 The Chairman then swore in County Staff, Mr. Ben Andrea. Mr. Andrea explained that Mr. 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 and 104 Victory Drive and is zoned R-15, Residential District. Mr. Andrea presented an overview of the case stating the property owner Mr. Michael Longfellow, is requesting a variance to deviate 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. Mr. Andrea explained that the subject property is located at 1815 Castle Hayne Road which is south of intersection of North 23rd Street and Castle Hayne Road. Mr. Andrea explained that the subject property contains 0.61 acres and is a portion of a 2.645-acre parcel that was recorded in Map Book 2, Page 14 of the New Hanover County registry, and that the date on that instrument is illegible. Mr. Andrea explained that the first reference to the subject property that he was able to find was on an exhibit to a deed recorded in 2005 at Book 4834 Page 944. He explained that on this exhibit, the parcel was said to include 0.645 acres. Mr. Andrea explained that the parcel has been subject to a number of instruments since 1937, according to New Hanover County tax records. Mr. Andrea explained that the subject property contains two single family homes, one at 1815 Castle Hayne Road and the other located at 104 Victoria Drive. He stated that both homes have a year build date of 1940, according to New Hanover County tax records. Mr. Andrea explained that the two homes on the 0.61-acre parcel is a legal nonconforming situation since the two homes were built on the single parcel prior to zoning being applied in that area of the county. Mr. Andrea explained that 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. Mr. Andrea stated that 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. He stated that 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. Mr. Andrea stated that 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. Andrea explained that Mr. Longfellow, the current property owner, took ownership of the subject property in April 2016, and that 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. Andrea stated that 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. Mr. Andrea stated the home at 1815 Castle Hayne Road does not require a variance with the way that the proposed subdivision line is drawn because it results in a conforming lot size; however, the parcel hosting the structure at 104 Victoria Drive is the smaller lot which is subject to the variance request. Mr. Andrea stated the subdivision line would run between the two homes. Mr. Andrea stated the applicant has conferred with county staff over a period of time in seeking a variance and staff suggested the applicant not draw a line to divide the lots in half but rather separate the properties in a manner to seek one variance. Mr. Andrea stated with the division line the applicant has presented it does not create any new non conformities. Mr. Andrea stated in dividing the lot line in half this would create the applicant requesting two variances. 104 Victory Drive is close to the property line however the location of the home is an existing legal non-conformity and there is no need to request a variance for this situation. Mr. Andrea stated there is a time frame gap to the original plot plan versus the current lot configuration which appears to have been conformed prior to 1970 zoning application. The Chairman swore in Mr. Michael Longfellow, Mr. Mike Rokoski and Mr. Gary Keyes. Mr. Michael Longfellow, applicant and property owner - Mr. Longfellow explained that he is the applicant and the property owner and relayed to the board his appreciation of the variance request hearing. Mr. Longfellow stated he has solicited subject expert assistance from his real-estate broker, Mr. Michael Rokoski and surveyor, Mr. Gary Keyes, as they will convey to the board on key facts as it relates in the variance request. Mr. Mike Rokoski - Real-Estate Broker – Mr. Rokoski stated he is working with the Longfellows in marketing the subject sites for home ownership. Mr. Rokoski stated he has had extensive experience in mortgage banking and with the current situation of the two homes being constructed on one lot, it is a hardship to anyone who pursues achieving the homes thru a mortgage loan due to the existing non-conforming use. Mr. Rokoski stated there is currently a home contract for one of the homes which is subject to approval to a variance approval. Mr. Rokoski stated the homes can easily be sold to residents as separate parcels. Mr. Rokoski stated both homes have separate addresses and no visible changes will be made to the subject homes. Mr. Rokoski stated the owner, Mr. Longfellow, has spent approximately $150,000 for the two foreclosed properties which are now habitable and ready for home ownership. Mr. Rokoski stated that if the variance was approved there will be more value to the county as the properties will be taxed individually. Mr. Gary Keyes- Surveyor - Mr. Keyes stated he surveyed two parcel at 1815 Castle Hayne Road and 104 Victora Drive at the applicant’s request. Mr. Keyes stated he’s researched history of the parcels per tax records dates of 1916 for the parcels however the subject site has changed ownership over the years particularly in 1919. Mr. Keyes stated the parcel line drawn in current survey data occurred in 1937. Mr. Keyes stated the front porch is around a tenth of a foot off the property line for subject site “A” and subject site “B” is about a foot from the property line. Mr. Keyes stated there are no structures between the two subject sites. Mr. Keyes stated the structure and construction of both homes were not in his scope. Mr. Keyes stated the home on Lot “A” is not parallel to the property line. Mr. Keyes stated some of aerial photos presented today are not current to today’s landscaping; such as the air conditioning unit is no longer located in the photo presented in today’s proceedings. Mr. Keyes stated the final sketch presented is the 15,000 sf lot with no issues of non- conforming and adhering to the county required setbacks as it portrays to dividing the property line. The Chairman then closed the public hearing and the Board began discussion of the case. Mr. Miller inquired how long has the property’s existed in this manner. Mr. Miller stated it is reasonable to request one variance rather than pursue two given the circumstance of how the properties are situated. Mr. Miller asked the surveyor in his opinion does this separation of the subject site create additional illegal non- conformities. Mr. Keyes stated they want to adhere to county regulation and drawing a line as presented to request one variance is feasible rather than split the lot in half and apply for two variances. Mr. Miller inquired was the owner aware the properties were non-conforming. Mr. Rokoski stated he does believe the homeowner was aware of the properties non-conforming status upon purchase; however, he stated he does not believe the owner was aware of the legal hardship of the homes to be sold in the future. Mr. Miller inquired when was the HVAC unit relocated. Mr. Keyes stated the HVAC unit was relocated on July 7, 2017. Mr. Miller made reference that the case presented is for one variance to subdivide two structures on one parcel. Mr. Miller stated all non-conforming issues should be addressed to the zoning staff prior to the board’s involvement. Mr. Miller inquired of building permits and Certificate of Occupancy for the sites. Mr. Longfellow stated all permits and inspections have been completed per county regulations and certificates of occupancy have been issued. Mr. Bray made reference that the property lot dimension per photos has noticeably changed over the years. Mr. Bray inquired of historical data or records regarding the subject site’s gap in dimensional changes and what year were the changes made. Mr. Keyes stated according to his research the subject site dimensions came into effect in 1937. Mr. Bray inquired about the setbacks on both structures on the lot. Mr. Bray inquired of adjacent structures or utility lines that may obstruct the two parcels. Mr. Bray inquired does the owner reside in one of the structures Mr. Longfellow stated he does not reside at the subject site. Mr. Bray inquired are there buyers awaiting to purchase the structures. Mr. Rokoski stated there in strong interest in the larger home as well for purchase however, both homes are listed on the same deed document. Mr. Bray stated it’s his opinion the subject site should adhere to stormwater conditions. Mr. Bray inquired of the impervious and pervious requirements at the site. Mr. Andrea stated there is not a lot coverage restriction to the lot. The lots are not subject to CAMA requirements or storm water requirements to his knowledge. Mr. Andrea stated he is not aware of any lot restriction per subject site. Mr. Andrea reference if the home was damaged and had to be reconstructed the county review process would make reference of stormwater requirements if required. Mr. Barnhill inquired what year were both homes constructed. Mr. Keyes stated both homes were constructed in 1940 per his research. Mr. Keeler inquired were the homes initially condemned prior to restoration also, Mr. Keeler inquired to the construction and status of the homes prior to restoration. Mr. Longfellow stated prior to his purchase of the homes, the electricity and water were not in use; the homes were not habitable. Mr. Longfellow stated upon purchase and renovation all utilities for both structures have been property reinstated for home use. Mr. Longfellow stated all utilities for both structures are separately metered. Mr. Keeler inquired to the new location of the Air Conditioner unit. Mr. Keeler inquired the applicant could’ve created his own hardship without properly obtaining the necessary permits for the structures in restoration. Mr. Keeler inquired if the property owner raises the new construction in the future would they have to adhere to the square footage in addition, Mr. Keeler inquired to the square footage for the subject site. Mr. Andrea stated any new additions to the existing structures could not create any new nonconformities. He explained that if the either of the structures were demolished intentionally or as a result of a fire or other disaster, the homes could be built in the same footprint provided there is effort to obtain permits within 6 months of demolition of the existing structure. Otherwise, new development would have to adhere to the setback regulations in place at the time of permit application. Mr. Rokoski stated the renovations to the structures are completed, and that he is not aware of any additional changes are planned for the future that would warrant additional variance requests. BOARD DECISION: On a motion by Mr. Barnhill and seconded by Mr. Bray the board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance with no conditions. The Board cited 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, 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. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Two homes occupy a single 0.61-acre parcel; the homes were built in 1940 and the current lot size and configuration dates back to 1937. Zoning was applied to the property in 1972 and the property has been zoned R-15 since that time. For a conventional residential lot, if two homes are located on one property then the lot must be at least double the minimum lot size for the zoning district. Minimum lot size for a parcel in R-15 zoning is 15,000 sq. ft. as per Section 51.6-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The current owner is interested in selling the homes individually but because each home is not on its own parcel, they can’t be sold independently and therefore creates a hardship for the current property owner. 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. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: The existing lot size and configuration dates back to 1937. The homes on the subject parcel were constructed in 1940. No additional vacant land is adjacent that could be recombined into the subject property to make it conforming in regards to lot size. 3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: When zoning was applied to the property in 1972, the situation became legal-nonconforming in regards to lot size as the 0.61-acre parcel is smaller than the 30,000 required for two homes on a single parcel in R-15 zoning. The current property owner purchased the property in 2016 in its existing size and with the two homes on the property. 4. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if granted, the variance will be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Granting the variance would not change any existing circumstance except for that the parcel could be subdivided to create one conforming sized parcel and one nonconforming sized parcel. Other parcels existing elsewhere in the county in R-15 and other residential zoning districts that do not meet the minimum lot size prescribed for conventional lots. The county allows in all residential districts for lots to be created with no minimum lot size requirement through the performance residential subdivision process. Granting the variance would not cause any harm to any surrounding property owner nor would it result in an increased threat to public health or safety. There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved by Mr. Bray and seconded by Mr. Keeler to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. ______________________________________ _________________________________ Executive Secretary Chairman Date: _______________________ ZBA-919, 10/17 Page 1 of 2 VARIANCE REQUEST ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 24, 2017 CASE: ZBA-919, 10/17 PETITIONER: Gary Dale Sutton, applicant and property owner REQUEST: 10’ variance from the 20’ side yard requirement for structures per Section 51.3-2 of the Zoning Ordinance LOCATION: 145 Brookgreen Road PID: R01700-003-004-014 ZONING: RA, Rural Agricultural District PETITIONER’S REQUEST: Gary Dale Sutton, applicant, on behalf of himself and wife Sherry Spencer Sutton, property owners, is requesting a 10’ variance to the 20’ side yard requirement per Section 51.3-2 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to build a detached 1,000 to 1,050 sq. ft. accessory building up to 10’ from the side property line. The property hosts several large oak trees that would have to be removed in order to meet the 20’ side yard requirement. BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is located at 145 Brookgreen Road, off of Castle Hayne Road in Castle Hayne, and it is approximately 0.92 acres. Mr. and Mrs. Sutton, the current property owners, purchased the property in 1984 and built their home in 1985. Mr. Sutton would now like to build a detached garage/workshop approximately 1,000 sq. ft. in size. Setback requirements for detached accessory structures such as garages are regulated in Section 63.2 of the Zoning Ordinance: Section 63.2: Accessory Building / Use 63.2-1: No accessory building shall be erected in any required yard nor within five (5) feet of any other building except that accessory buildings not exceeding 600 sq. ft. (9/4/84) may be permitted in the required side and rear yards provided such accessory buildings are at least five (5) feet from any property line and do not encroach into any required easements. Accessory buildings not exceeding 50 square feet and use exclusively to house well and pump equipment may be permitted in the required front, side and rear yards, provided such accessory buildings are at least five (5) feet from any property line and do not encroach into any required easements or sight angles. (1/4/88) An accessory building or use may be located on another contiguous or noncontiguous lot from the principal use with which it is associated, only to the extent that the principal use itself would also be permitted on such lot. (9/12/83) Because the size of the proposed garage is over 600 sq. ft., the yard requirements for the RA zoning district in Section 51.3-2 apply and dictate the setback of the structure from the property lines: ZBA-919, 10/17 Page 2 of 2 51.3-2: Dimensional Requirements: (1) Minimum lot area: 30,000 sq. ft. (2) Minimum lot width: 115 feet (3) Minimum side yard: 20 feet (4) Minimum front yard: 40 feet (5) Minimum rear yard: 30 feet (6) Maximum height: 35 feet Mr. Sutton provided two drawings with the application, both showing the location of the house, driveway, the large oak trees on the property, and two possible building footprints for the garage – 32’ x 32’ and 28’ x 36’. One version shows the building footprints with the required 20’ setback, and the proximity of the footprints to the oak trees. The other version of the drawing shows the building footprints 10’ off the side property line with the requested 10’ variance. The building placement with the 10’ variance provides more distance between the proposed building and the oak trees. Although the side yard setback in RA zoning is 20’, the home on the property neighboring Mr. Sutton’s property to the south at 137 Brookgreen Drive is about 5’ from the property line. Staff concludes this is likely a result of the home being built in 1984 (according to New Hanover County Property Records) and zoning becoming effective in Castle Hayne on July 1, 1985. The applicant has included findings of facts for the four required conclusion as part of his application materials. 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: 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. 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 UserCommunityE1,000 Feet Vicinity Map New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment 145 Brookgreen RoadVariance Request: Side Yard Requirement in RAApplicant: Gary Dale SuttonOwner: Gary Dale Sutton and Sherry Spencer Sutton October 24, 2017 Case ZBA-919 BROOKGREEN E 100 Feet Aerial Map New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment 145 Brookgreen RoadVariance Request: Side Yard Requirement in RAApplicant: Gary Dale SuttonOwner: Gary Dale Sutton and Sherry Spencer Sutton October 24, 2017 Case ZBA-919 RA R-20 E 1,000 Feet Zoning Map New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment 145 Brookgreen RoadVariance Request: Side Yard Requirement in RAApplicant: Gary Dale SuttonOwner: Gary Dale Sutton and Sherry Spencer Sutton October 24, 2017 Case ZBA-919 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 Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use, Director – Sharon Huffman, County Attorney ORDER TO GRANT/DENY A VARIANCE – Case ZBA-919 The Zoning Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on October 24, 2017 to consider application number ZBA-919, submitted by Gary Dale Sutton, applicant and property owner, a request for a variance to use the property located at 145 Brookgreen Road 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 20’ side yard requirement for an accessory building over 600 sq. ft. in a RA zoning district, 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 51.3-2 to allow a 10’ variance from the 20’ side yard requirement be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any: ORDERED this 24th day of October, 2017. ____________________________________ Joe Miller, Chairman Attest: ____________________________________ Benjamin Andrea, Executive Secretary to the Board ZBA-920, 10/17 Page 1 of 2 VARIANCE REQUEST ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 24, 2017 CASE: ZBA-920, 10/17 PETITIONER: Suzanne King, applicant and property owner REQUEST: 20’ variance from the 30’ front yard requirement and 15’ variance from the rear yard requirement for structures per Section 51.5-2 of the Zoning Ordinance LOCATION: 7411 Anaca Point Road PID: R04408-002-002-001 ZONING: R-20, Residential District PETITIONER’S REQUEST: Suzanne King, applicant and property owner, is requesting 20’ variance from the 30’ front yard requirement and 15’ variance from the rear yard requirement for structures per Section 51.5-2 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to build a second residential structure 20’ away from an existing residential structure on the subject property located at 7411 Anaca Point Road. Ms. King currently lives in the existing residential structure on the property and is seeking to build a new home and then demolish the existing home. BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is located on Anaca Point Road off of Middle Sound Loop Road and contains 1.3 acres. The property has one home that was built in 1976, in which Ms. King resides. She intends to build a new home on the property for her new residence, and once the new home construction is complete and she has moved in, she intends to have the existing home demolished. The area proposed for the new home is behind the existing home and on the highest point on the property, situating the new home up to 20’ from the existing home. The Zoning Ordinance allows multiple structures to be built on a single property, as long as each structure conforms to the dimensional requirements of the zoning district in which it is located: Section 63.7: Erection of More Than one Principal Structure on a Lot In any district, the Zoning Administrator may grant permission for more than one structure housing a permitted or permissible principal use to be erected on a single lot, provided that yards and other requirements of this Ordinance shall be met for each structure as though it were on an individual lot. However, any parcel of land upon which are placed at least three (3) or more mobile homes shall be considered a mobile home park and regulated by the New Hanover County Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Park Ordinance. (3/7/83) The property is zoned R-20, Residential District, so the yard requirements in Section 51.5-2 are applicable: 51.5-2: Conventional Residential Regulations Dimensional Requirements: ZBA-920, 10/17 Page 2 of 2 (1) Minimum lot area 20,000 sq.ft. Duplex 35,000 sq.ft. (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 In order for the new home to meet the yard requirements of Section 51.5-2 as if it were on its own individual lot, the new home would have to be 55’ away from the existing home in order to account for the 25’ rear yard requirement behind the existing home and the 25’ front yard requirement for the new home. If the new home was built 55’ behind the existing home, it would be in a low area on the lot that would potentially make the new home vulnerable to stormwater runoff from the higher areas of the lot and adjacent land. The intention of the provision in Section 63.7 of requiring each structure to meet the dimensional requirements of the zoning district is to prevent a situation where multiple structures are built on a single parcel and then a future subdivision of the parcel would create nonconforming situations. Because the existing home is to be demolished after completion of the new home development, this situation will be a non-issue. The property is served by public sewer, therefore the proposed location of the new home will not be impeded by a septic tank, drain field, and repair area The applicant has included findings of fact to support the four required conclusions as part of her application materials. 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: 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. 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 UserCommunityE1,000 Feet Vicinity Map New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment 7411 Anaca Point RoadVariance Request: Front and Rear Yard Requirements in R-20Applicant: Suzanne KingOwner: Suzanne King October 24, 2017 Case ZBA-920 ANACA POINT E 200 Feet Aerial Map New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment 7411 Anaca Point RoadVariance Request: Front and Rear Yard Requirements in R-20Applicant: Suzanne KingOwner: Suzanne King October 24, 2017 Case ZBA-920 154 213 150 161 146 7311 7417 7233 7229 7225 7419 7426 7407 7405 1202 12067407 1207 7410 1202 7403 7327 7319 73057323 7508 7416 7507 7401 7404 7505 7320 7520 1109 7217 7400 7411 7310 7335 7501 7309 75007514 7331 74277423 1211 7410 7315 74147415 7411 1207 1210 1206 1210 1203 R-20 R-15 E 500 Feet Zoning Map New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment 7411 Anaca Point RoadVariance Request: Front and Rear Yard Requirements in R-20Applicant: Suzanne KingOwner: Suzanne King October 24, 2017 Case ZBA-920 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 Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use, Director – Sharon Huffman, County Attorney ORDER TO GRANT/DENY A VARIANCE – Case ZBA-920 The Zoning Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on October 24, 2017 to consider application number ZBA-920, submitted by Suzanne King, applicant and property owner, a request for a variance to use the property located at 7411 Anaca Point Road 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 30’ front yard and 25’ rear yard requirements in an R-20 zoning district per Section 51.5-2 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 51.5-2 to allow a 20’ variance from the 30’ front yard requirement and 15’ variance from the rear yard requirement for structures per Section 51.5-2 of the Zoning Ordinance be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any: ORDERED this 24th day of October, 2017. ____________________________________ Joe Miller, Chairman Attest: ____________________________________ Benjamin Andrea, Executive Secretary to the Board