Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.23.18 ZBA Agenda PackageNEW 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 January 23, 2018, 5:30 PM I. Call Meeting to Order (Executive Secretary Ben Andrea)  Welcome New Board Members – Cameron Moore, Mark Nabell, and Richard Kern II. Election of Chair and Vice Chair III. Approval of Meeting Minutes from November 14, 2017 Meeting November Attendees: Raymond Bray, Brett Keeler, Andrew Barnhill, Kristen Freeman IV. Regular Items of Business 1. Case ZBA-923 – Healing Hands Chiro Prak Tik LLC, applicant and property owner, is requesting a variance from the 50’ parking area setback requirement per Section 55.4-3(4) of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 7649 Market Street. V. Other Business VI. Adjourn 1 MEETING MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 14, 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, November 14, 2017. Members Present Members Absent Raymond Bray Joe Miller, Chairman Andrew Barnhill Hank Adams, Vice-Chairman Kristen Freeman Chad McEwen Brett Keeler Colin Tarrant Denise Brown, Clerk Ex Officio Members Present Ben Andrea, Executive Secretary Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Mr. Andrea informed present board members that Chairman Miller and Vice-Chairman Adams were unable to attend today’s meeting and that parliamentary procedures dictate that in the absence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Executive Secretary should call the meeting to order and then conduct an election of a Chairman Pro-Tem to conduct the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by Executive Secretary to the Board, Mr. Ben Andrea. Mr. Andrea then opened the floor for nominations of the Chairman Pro-Tem. Mr. Brett Keeler nominated Mr. Raymond Bray as the Chairman Pro-Tem for the November 14, 2017 meeting. Mr. Andrew Barnhill seconded the motion and the motion passed 4-0. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 2017 MEETING MINUTES Chairman Pro-Tem Mr. Raymond Bray then took over the meeting and asked if there were any corrections to the October 24, 2017 minutes. Ms. Huffman stated although some board members were not present at last meeting, present board members in attendance can vote to approve the minutes from October 24, 2017. Following a motion by Mr. Brett Keeler and seconded by Ms. Kristen Freeman, the minutes of the October 24, 2017, were approved. Chairman Pro-Tem Raymond Bray then 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. 2 CASE ZBA-921 Chairman Pro-Tem Raymond Bray swore in County staff, Mr. Ben Andrea. Mr. Andrea explained that Splash N Dash Car Wash, LLC, applicant, on behalf of Payne Umstead Properties, LLC, property owners, is requesting a 14’ variance from the 6’ sign height restriction for signs along Carolina Beach Road per Section 94-4(C) of the New Hanover County Ordinance in order to build a sign 20’ in height on the subject property at 5318 Carolina Beach Road. The property is currently under development as a car wash and was previously vacant. Mr. Andrea stated the property is located at 5318 Carolina Beach Road north of the Monkey Junction intersection with zoning classification of B-2, Highway Business District, and that many properties are zoned B-2 in this corridor of the county. Mr. Andrea stated current owners obtained the property earlier this year and the site is currently under development as a car wash, and prior to that the site had been vacant for a number of years. Mr. Andrea stated the property size is about 2acres and located at the entrance to the service road that runs parallel to Carolina Beach Road. Mr. Andrea presented a portion of a 2005 survey of the subject site. Mr. Andrea stated currently the front property line is approximately 70’ further inward than the adjacent property to the north. Mr. Andrea stated the triangular shape portion of this site was acquired by the NC DOT in 1991 in preparations for improvements to the intersection. Mr. Andrea stated the site is irregular in shape as to compared to the surrounding properties. Mr. Andrea presented several maps including the zoning map to depict the 70’ difference in the frontage of the parcel compared to the adjacent properties. Mr. Andrea presented the site plan approved for the car wash that is under construction and noted that this image also shows the area of the proposed sign for the car wash. Mr. Andrea explained that in 2001, Article IX of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance was overhauled and included a revision that limited sign heights along Carolina Beach Road to 6’ in height and a maximum area of 150 square feet. Mr. Andrea stated the applicant contends the 6’ height maximum restriction poses a visibility hardship when in conjunction with the existing billboards and non-conforming free standing signs to the north of the subject site. Mr. Andrea stated the variance request is to allow a sign up to 20’ in height and that the applicant is not requesting an increase to the 150SF area allowance. Mr. Andrea noted that if the sign height restriction of Section 94-4(C) did not apply, the applicant would be able to build a sign up to 20’. Mr. Andrea presented pictures and stated that it is difficult to see proposed sign location due to the existing freestanding billboard sign and freestanding signs to the north of the subject site. Mr. Andrea stated currently there are signs across the street from the subject site that are non-conforming to the sign height restriction of 6’. Mr. Andrea stated there are a number of legal non-conforming signs in terms of height and area in the vicinity of the subject site and the signs were in place prior to the 2001 amendment of sign regulations. Mr. Andrea stated there is one service road access on Carolina Beach Road south of the Monkey Junction area near the Go Gas station. Mr. Andrea stated all properties along the service road have Carolina Beach Road addresses and therefore the restrictions of Section 94-4 apply to those parcels. Mr. Andrea stated that in attendance were the applicant, property owner and sign consultant representatives to present their request to the board, then Mr. Andrea concluded his presentation. Mr. Keeler inquired why was the sign height restrictions revised by the county officials in 2001. Mr. Andrea stated that around the year 2000, county staff looked into changing the regulations for signs along Carolina Beach Road due to public concern of the amount, size, and height of signs located on and around the Carolina Beach Road area. Mr. Andrea stated that after public engagement and work sessions with the Planning Board, the county adopted changes to the sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance for signs along Carolina Beach Road. As part of the amendment, 3 county staff suggested an amortization clause to bring non-conforming signs into compliance; however, that particular proposal was not added to the amendment of the sign regulations. Mr. Keeler inquired of how many variances that have been granted in the sixteen years of the sign amendment date. Mr. Andrea stated he’s not familiar with the tally of sign variances in the past sixteen years however, Mr. Andrea stated in his three-year tenure with the Zoning Board he recalls presenting sign variance request at the 5500 block of Carolina Beach Road to the board on April 25, 2017. Mr. Andrea also stated the sign variance previously presented to increase a sign height at the Bay Shore Shopping Center located in the northern area of the county as well as a variance to allow a taller sign for the Porters Neck medical facility. The Chairman Pro-Tem swore in Mr. Ed Umstead and Mr. Mike Payne; Representatives of Payne & Umstead Properties. Mr. Ed Umstead (property owner/applicant-Payne & Umstead Properties) – Mr. Umstead stated the car wash business is a new location in addition to the existing location on Market Street (Splash & Dash), which is a great success. Mr. Umstead stated they were fortunate to acquire the subject site about a year ago and are in the process of constructing the car wash at the site. Mr. Umstead stated upon purchasing the property they were made aware of the county’s sign provisions for the subject site. Mr. Umstead stated they would like to ensure their business is visible and approachable for oncoming motorist as much as possible in all directions. Mr. Umstead stated they particularly want to attract flowing traffic from all directions, South College Road, Carolina Beach Road and the Monkey Junction area. Mr. Umstead stated in researching the visuals that depicted various angles of the proposed car wash sign, he realized they are at a disadvantage and hardship for patrons to visibly locate the business from traffic without constructing a visible sign for the business. Mr. Umstead stated after walking along the section and obtaining photos of various angles of the traffic it’s very difficult to see the proposed car wash site. Mr. Umstead stated the large poles and existing signs in close proximity of the subject site create visual impediments for a sign that would be limited to 6’ in height. Mr. Umstead stated that based on this concern, they began process to seek a sign height variance. Mr. Umstead stated a 20’ tall sign would be readily visible from all directions of traffic. Mr. Barnhill inquired of the adjacent business signs and billboard height. Mr. Umstead presented photos of the subject site and surrounding business and billboards for the board to review. Mr. Umstead stated there are various billboards that appear to range anywhere from approximately 8’-50’ in height near the subject site. Chairman Pro-Tem Bray inquired of a proposed sign height photo or drawing. Mr. Umstead then presented a proposed sign design to the board for review. Mr. Umstead stated the proposed sign is not a LED sign nor is it similar to the Market Street Car Wash location. Mr. Umstead stated the sign on Market Street is not as big as they prefer. Mr. Umstead stated the proposed sign for the new car wash would be no more than 20’ in height to the top of the sign. Mr. Barnhill inquired what is the exact location of the sign placement at or near the new car wash. Mr. Umstead stated the location of the car wash signs would be located near adjacent signs. Chairman Pro-tem Bray inquired of the distance of the proposed sign to other signs presently located in the area. 4 Mr. Umstead stated the sign distance from adjacent signs in the area are approximately less than 100’. Mr. Keeler inquired of the applicant’s request of 20’ sign height. Mr. Umstead stated the top of the sign is approximately 20’; however, the actual portion of the sign containing the business name would be about 8-12’ in height. Mr. Umstead stated a lower size sign would be blocked by other adjacent signs currently located in the area. Chairman Pro-Tem Bray inquired of landscaping plans to the proposed sign and also inquired of the 20’ sign height proposal. Mr. Umstead stated they are required by the Zoning Ordinance to provide landscaping adjacent to the new sign. Mr. Umstead stated they feel the 20’ tall sign would be attractive to the traveling public and in harmony with other signs in the area while providing a clear sight of the new business. Ms. Freeman asked the applicant to show exactly where the proposed sign is going to be located using the photos presented to the board. The Chairman Pro-Tem swore in Mr. Edward Livingston Mr. Edward Livingston (Coastal Car Wash Business Owner-Carolina Beach Road) – Mr. Livingston gave testimony he has been the owner of a business along Carolina Beach Road for many years and his business most recently updated their business sign to mimic the county’s regulation. Mr. Livingston stated the many signs in the area has flooded the landscape and is causing obstruction for other businesses to fully advertise their businesses. Mr. Livingston stated the county’s 6’ sign height limitation has been an aggravation for many residents and business owners who have been in the area for long time. Mr. Livingston stated that they lowered their business signs to become complaint with county regulations. Mr. Livingston stated the county amended the sign ordinance to prevent larger signs being installed around Carolina Beach Road. Mr. Livingston stated new business should adhere to county regulations as his business has adopted. Mr. Keeler inquired what type of business does Mr. Livingston operate. Mr. Livingston stated he owns Coastal Car Wash and they adhere to the county sign regulations of the 6’ height restriction. Ms. Freeman inquired of Mr. Livingston business location. Mr. Livingston stated that his business was across Carolina Beach Road from the subject site. Mr. Livingston stated he supports new business; however he states new business coming to the area should adhere to county regulations as his business has adapted to meet the current sign regulations. Mr. Livingston stated as it relates to safety there are very large crepe myrtles that limbs have fallen on cars in the past across the way of the proposed car wash. Mr. Livingston stated he suggest something be done about the tree in the future. Chairman Pro-Tem Bray stated the Zoning Board of Adjustment does not have jurisdiction to the enforce the crepe myrtle maintenance. Ms. Freeman inquired on the size of the sign for the Coastal Car wash business. 5 Mr. Livingston stated he took the original sign for the business down and replaced with a 4’ x 8’ size sign that reaches 15’ to the top in height. Mr. Livingston stated the area is busy and to his knowledge he has not noticed a significant loss in activity to the business due to the sign variation in his twenty years of business on Carolina Beach Road. Mr. Livingston inquired what was the change in 2001 that prompted the revision of the sign height requirements seemed to work well for the businesses. The Chairman Pro-Tem swore in Mr. Richard Cenatiempo, Sign Designer for Payne & Umstead Properties, to offer rebuttal to Mr. Livingston’s testimony. Mr. Cenatiempo stated he’s been in business designing signs for twenty years in the surrounding areas. Mr. Cenatiempo stated the sign at Carolina Car Wash seems to be about 30’ in height with a message under the sign. Mr. Cenatiempo stated Carolina Car Wash is located on the main drag of Carolina Beach Road whereas the subject site car wash is nearby the service road entry tucked away from the main drive to the Carolina Beach Road corridor. Mr. Keeler inquired to the size of the proposed sign. Mr. Cenatiempo stated the 20’ height proposed sign will not look as large to far away traffic. Mr. Cenatiempo stated in research they took into consideration the nearby sign of Carolina Car Wash’s sign. Mr. Cenatiempo stated the original sign for the car wash was designed to stay in harmony with the area. Mr. Andrea stated for the record the county did not to force business owners to come into compliance in regards to the signs that were installed prior to the sign regulation revision in 2001. Mr. Andrea stated all signs that were in place prior to revisions can stay operational without further penalty from the county. Mr. Andrea stated the owner of Coastal Car Wash can relay to the board why they decided to revise/lower their sign during the sign revision. Mr. Andrea stated the owner of the Coastal Car wash was not required to replace there sign due to revisions unless they choice to do so. Chairman Pro-Tem Bray stated the owner of Coastal Car wash relayed they choose to lower the size of the sign on their own accord. Ms. Freeman inquired on grandfather status of business that previously had or have signs larger than the ordinance requires. Mr. Andrea stated business are allowed to maintain and replace their retail signs; however, businesses/residents are not allowed to increase the size or raise the height of nonconforming signs. Mr. Andrea stated should a nonconforming sign be removed for six months or longer, the nonconforming sign could not be reinstalled but would need to be replaced with a new sign that adheres to today’s standards and regulations. The Chairman Pro-Tem closed the public hearing. Mr. Keeler inquired to staff on how the 20’ sign height would be allowed under certain circumstances. Mr. Andrea stated that if the specific provision of Section 94-4 that limited signs along Carolina Beach Road to 6’ in height and 150SF in area, a sign up to 20’ in height would be permissible on the property. Mr. Barnhill stated the applicant is at a hardship based on the large surrounding signs and the inability to see the business from various traffic directions. Mr. Keeler stated the proposed car wash will be off the main corridor and subject to a lack of visibility, sustaining an unnecessary hardship. 6 Chairman Pro-Tem Bray concurred with Mr. Keeler in the hardship of the proposed car wash being non-visible without adequate signage on the main corridor. Mr. Keeler stated this case is similar to the case heard in April 2017 of a sign height variance. Mr. Keeler stated if a business is not visible for motorist it could potentially cause more danger for incoming traffic trying to locate the business. Mr. Barnhill stated the hardship for the applicant is the presence of a business on a service road creating distance off the main road. Mr. Barnhill stated this hardship is not an act of the property owner. Mr. Barnhill stated the variance is with intent of harmony and spirit of the law. Mr. Keeler stated the business is at a disadvantage with visibility and possibly endangering traffic that is trying to locate the business. On a motion by Mr. Barnhill and seconded by Mr. Keeler, the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance request to approve the 14’ variance from the 6’ sign height restriction to allow for a sign of up to 20’ in height. 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 6’ sign height restriction for signs along Carolina Beach Road per Section 94-4(C) of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:  Strict application of the ordinance would result in a hardship of customers and potential customers being able to easily see the sign for the business and therefore they would not be able to easily locate the business or know that it exists. 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:  Although the property has a Carolina Beach Road address, it is located approximately 66’ back from the adjacent property, and along the service road for southbound Carolina Beach Road.  There are several signs in the vicinity of the subject site that are legally nonconforming to the height and area allowances of Section 94-4.  These signs are considered legal nonconforming signs (or “grandfathered”), as they were in place prior to the Zoning Ordinance rule change in 2001.  These nonconforming signs, in conjunction with the unusual lot shape that would force the sign further back into the lot, would impede visibility of a sign on the subject property if it was limited to 6 ft. in height. 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 property shape has remained unchanged since purchased by the current property owners, including the irregular front portion that is nearly 70’ back from the adjacent properties due to acquisition for right- of-way for intersection and roadway improvements in the early 1990s.  The nonconforming signs on the adjacent parcel that would obstruct the line of sight to a 6’ tall sign were in place prior to the purchase of the property. 7 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:  The proposed sign is harmonious with other signs in the area.  The Zoning Ordinance allows for signs 20’ in height in other areas of the county, including nearby areas that are not along Carolina Beach Road.  The proposed sign may actually increase public safety by providing a clear beacon for the business so that it can be found easily. Mr. Andrea presented the 2018 Zoning Board of Adjustment calendar of application deadlines and meeting dates. Mr. Andrea made reference the potential conflict of the November 13, 2018 meeting, due to the County Commissioners have a meeting scheduled for the same day. Mr. Andrea will follow-up on this topic at next meeting. Mr. Andrea stated that due to limited applications received to fill upcoming vacancies on the board, the application period was extended and the vacancies will be appointed at the next scheduled County Commissioners meeting. Mr. Andrea will follow up to this topic at next meeting. Mr. Andrea stated he does not anticipate a meeting in December however if an application comes in it may not be possible to hold a meeting to hear the case due to the lack of a quorum. Mr. Keeler inquired of why the extension of additional time period for applicants rather than appoint within the body to fill the vacancies. Mr. Andrea stated that decision was made by the Deputy Clerk to the Commissioners, particularly to present the applications to the board one time for consideration of additional pool of applicants. There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved by Mr. Keeler and seconded by Ms. Freeman to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. ______________________________________ _________________________________ Executive Secretary Chairman Date: _______________________ ZBA-923, 1/18 Page 1 of 3 VARIANCE REQUEST ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT January 23, 2018 CASE: ZBA-923, 1/18 PETITIONER: Healing Hands Chiro Prak Tik LLC, applicant and property owner REQUEST: Variance from the 50’ parking area setback requirement per Section 55.4-3(4) of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance LOCATION: 7649 Market Street PID: R03600-003-004-000 ZONING: O&I, Office and Institutional District PETITIONER’S REQUEST: Greg Demetrious of Healing Hands Chiro Prak Tik LLC, applicant and property owner, is requesting a variance from the 50’ parking area setback requirement per Section 55.4-3(4) of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance in order to locate a parking lot closer to the right-of-way than the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD) regulations allow. The property is located at 7649 Market Street and is pending application for development as a new office building for his chiropractic business in addition to an upstairs area for Pilates and yoga classes. BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: The SHOD language was added to the county’s zoning ordinance in 1986, and subsequent zoning actions were approved to apply the SHOD to certain significant highway corridors in the county, including the Market Street corridor from the Pender County line to Bayshore Drive, North College Road and I-40, and the I-140 corridor. Section 55.4-1 of the Zoning Ordinance describes the purpose of the Special Highway Overlay District: Purpose - The purpose of the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD) is to protect the natural beauty and scenic vista that exists along Interstate Highways and other specially designated roadways that serve as major access ways and gateways into New Hanover County. Protection of these roadways is important and necessary to maintain and preserve the County's undisturbed roadsides that are characterized by their natural woodlands and open spaces. The continued protection of these scenic highways is also a valuable asset to the County's tourism economy and enhances the attractiveness of the area for trade and investment. If a property is wholly or partially within the SHOD, the additional regulations of Section 55.4 apply to the parcel, including screening and enclosure requirements, lot coverage maximums, requirements for smaller signs, and more stringent building and parking area setbacks. Section 55.4-3(1) dictates the setback requirements for buildings for parcels within the SHOD: 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. At a minimum, these plantings shall consist of one deciduous or evergreen tree at least 2.5"-3" caliper for every 40 feet of road frontage. ZBA-923, 1/18 Page 2 of 3 These streetscape trees must be selected and planted in accordance with Section 62 of the Ordinance. Plantings must be located in the first ten feet of land adjacent to and parallel to the right-of-way except that plantings may be moved outside this area if it is determined that overhead power lines would interfere with the trees' natural growth. (3/9/95) Section 55.4-3(4)(B) describes the requirements for setbacks for vehicular parking areas: No vehicular or equipment parking except automobile parking shall be permitted in the yard area adjacent to the designated highway. All automobile parking shall be set back at least one hundred (100) feet from the right-of-way of the designated highway if such highway is an interstate or thoroughfare with controlled access. Other US and NC numbered highways shall require a fifty (50) feet setback for automobile parking. Construction is expected to begin in 2019 for State Transportation Improvement Project U-4702, which will include improvements to Market Street adjacent to the subject site. The NC Department of Transportation is currently acquiring right-of-way to accommodate U-4702, including acquisition during the driveway permit review for new construction along Market Street. After site design for the new office building, approximately 13’ of lot depth from the subject site was conveyed to NC DOT. Because the new right-of-way line is now closer to the front proposed parking area, the site design does not meet the 50’ parking area setback required per Section 55.4-3(4)(B), as the point of the parking area closest to the new right-of-way line is approximately 22’. As such, two options were available: redesign the site to comply with the SHOD setback requirement, or seek a variance. Considering the first option to redesign the site, the petitioner concluded that the loss of 13 parking spaces would be detrimental to his business as the reduced parking would not be able to accommodate the staff and clients using the building. The petitioner contends that the proposed 39 parking spaces, while in excess of the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, are necessary due to the higher client frequency than a typical medical office. Additionally, a 36” oak tree on the site cannot be removed per the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate more parking than the minimum amount of spaces that are required. Based on these circumstances, the petitioner is seeking a variance to the parking area setback requirement. Although the reduction in setback for the parking area would be nearly half of the required 50’, the location of the parking area does appear harmonious with the parking areas on the developed parcels abutting the subject site on both sides, as shown on the diagram below that depicts the proposed site plan overlaid on 2016 aerial imagery of the subject site: ZBA-923, 1/18 Page 3 of 3 In summary, the petitioner is requesting a variance to allow a portion of a parking area to be as close as 22’ from the right-of-way, a difference of about 28’ from the 50’ setback required per Section 55.4-3(4)(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. In his application, the petitioner has included draft findings of fact to support the four conclusions required to approve the variance. 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. 120 313 312 220 102 208 125 129201 302 301 204213 304 321 221 204 309 205 325 209 205 214 114 110204 217 202210 114 200 206 122 118 100 118 212 300220 217 208 305301 217 317 225 224 201 200 216212 200 106103 221 209 109 107 213 175 115 155 165 125 116 124 112 7735 77497747 7760 7633 7731 7764 7775 7543 7619 7640 7768 7589 7768 7662 7755 7649 7605 7778 7616 7750 7590 7706 7664 7658 7643 7656 7600 7746 7721 7780 7627 7520 7624 7719 77347733 7524 7539 75167512 7504 7501 7700 7604 7764 7716760576017722 7782 7525 7537 7500 7528 7607 7532 7719 7799 7703 77297725 7701 7509 7609 7627 7753 7708 7753 7602 7625 75217517 7718 7621 7753 7705 7603 7781 77127704 7715 76067600 7713 7753 7777 7718 7753 7505 7754 77587753 7752 7617 7612 7718 7644 7746 7710 7741 7500 7613 7726 7654 7517 7770 7650 7725 77227715 7655 7743 7759 7680 7758 7491 7501 7740 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 7649 Market StreetVariance Request: Variance to 50' SHOD Parking Area SetbackApplicant and Owner: Healing Hands Chiro Prak Tik LLC January 23, 2018 Case ZBA-923 MARKET MARSHALL ALEXANDER E 100 Feet Aerial Map New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment 7649 Market StreetVariance Request: Variance to 50' SHOD Parking Area SetbackApplicant and Owner: Healing Hands Chiro Prak Tik LLC January 23, 2018 Case ZBA-923 R-15 B-2 R-15 R-15 O&I R-15R-15 CUD B-1 CZD B-2 CUD B-2 CUD O&I CUD R-10 R-15 E 500 Feet Zoning Map New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment 7649 Market StreetVariance Request: Variance to 50' SHOD Parking Area SetbackApplicant and Owner: Healing Hands Chiro Prak Tik LLC January 23, 2018 Case ZBA-923 NEW HANOVER COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, LUCIE HARRELL CONFERENCE ROOM #601 WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 Joe Miller, Board Member Henry “Hank” Adams, Board Member Raymond Bray, Board Member Cameron Moore, Board Member Mark Nabell, Board Member Kristin Freeman, Alternate Brett Keeler, Alternate Richard Kern, Alternate Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use, Director – Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney ORDER TO GRANT/DENY A VARIANCE – Case ZBA-923 The Zoning Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on January 23, 2018 to consider application number ZBA-923, submitted by Healing Hands Chiro Prak Tik LLC, applicant and property owner, a request for a variance to use the property located at 7649 Market Street 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 50’ parking area setback requirement per Section 55.4-3(4) of the New Hanover County 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 to allow a ____’ variance from the 50’ parking area setback requirement per Section 55.4-3(4) of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any: ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2018. ____________________________________ Chairman Attest: ____________________________________ Benjamin Andrea, Executive Secretary to the Board