Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPROVED DEC MINUTES 2018MEETING MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 11, 2018 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, December 11,2018. Members Present Members Absent Raymond Bray- Chairman Hank Adams- Vice-Chairman Cameron Moore Mark Nabell .Joe Miller Kristin Freeman-Alternate Brett Keeler - Alternate Richard Fern- Alternate Ex Officio Members Present Ben Andrea - Executive Secretary Linda Painter- Zoning Official Kemp Burpeau - Deputy County Attorney Denise Brown - Clerk The meeting was called to order at 5:32 P.M. by Chairman, Mr. Raymond Bray. Chairman Bray explained that the Zoning Board is a quasi-.iudicia I board appointed by the Boa rd of Com missioners to consider zoning ordinance variances from residents in New Hanover County where specialconditions would create unnecessary hardships. He said the Board also hears appeals of the County's interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Ordina nce. The appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: 2019 Zoning Board of Adjustment Calendar adoption. Mr. Moore motioned to approve the 2019 calendar. Mr. Adams second the motion. The 2019 calendar was approved and adopted by the board members. Chairman Bray stated the minutes from the November meeting are in draft status and will be submitted at the next schedule meeting in January for approval. ETECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE.CHAIRMAN FOR 2019 M r. Bray opened the floor to receive nominations for Cha irma n of the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the 2019 calendar year. Mr. Hank Adams nominated Mr, Raymond Bray as Chairman ofthe Board of Adjustment. With there being no further nominations, Deputy Attorney Kemp Burpeau advised that nominations be closed and proceed to vote. 1 Mr. Mark Nabell second the motion The board voted unanimously to elect Mr. Raymond Bray as the Chairman of the Board. Chairman Bray opened the floor to receive nominations for Vice-Chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the 2019 year. Mr. Raymond Bray nominated Mr. Hank Adams as Vice-Chairman ofthe Board ofAdiustment. Mr. Adams responded the board has several other members that can fulfilthe role of Vice-Chairman Mr. Mark Nabell re-nominated Mr. Hank Adams as Vice-Chairman. With there being no further nominees the board nominations were closed. Mr. Joe Miller second the motion. The board voted unanimously to elect Mr. Hank Adams as Vice-Chairman of the Board. CASE ZBA.929 CONTINUANCE Chairman Bray explained that Case ZBA-929 is a continuance from the November 15, 2018 meeting. Chairman Bray explained that witnesses sworn in at the previous meeting remain under oath and do not require to be sworn in today for testimony. Ms. Painter stated the applicant, Bohler Engineering, NC PLLC, applicant on behalf of O'Reilly Automotive Stores lnc., property owner, is requesting variances at a property located at 2608 Castle Hayne Road, Wilmington, NC. Ms. Painter stated the su bject parcel has land classification of BL with surrounding AR zoning district. Ms. Painter stated the B1 subject parcel has adjacent structures that have residential uses. Ms. Painter stated the applicant is seeking a variance from the setbacks and the buffers. Ms. Painter stated the setback for this case is determined by the height of the proposed structure. Ms. Painter stated county ordinance setback table calculations for the B1 table displays a 2.75ft multiply to determine the setback based on building height. Ms. Painter stated the buffer requirements would be half of the setback determination, in this case lt is 26 ft Ms. Painter reiterated that the county requirements for buffer regulations are 3 rows of plantings, 2 rows of plantings and a fence; or the applicant can include a berm at the site. Ms. Painter presented a visual of the original and the revised site plans submitted by the applicant for today's case. 2 Ms. Painter stated the applicant is proposing a 19ft high structure which would require setback of 52.25ft. Ms. Painter stated the initial site plan has been revised by the applicant due to last month's public comments. Ms. Painter stated the revised site plan for the side yard variance the applicant currently requests includes the proposed building to be 18.2ft from the property line instead of the initial request of the 52.2sft at the Novem ber meeting. Ms. Painter stated the revised plan included a reduced buffer width of 6.2ft as opposed to the initial request of 26.12ft at the November meeting. Ms. Painter stated she spoke with New Hanover County Fire Services and a 12ft distance between the building and the fence were sufficient for fire safety purposes after review of revised site plan. Ms. Painter stated the revised site plan displays the rear setback dimensions; the applicant is requesting a buffer adjustment to the dumpster placement. Ms. Painter stated the rear 20 ft. dumpster setback is sufficient. However, the rear delivery pickup encroaches into the 20ft buffer area. Ms. Painter stated the applicant is meeting the required vegetation and fencing requirements. Ms. Painter stated the applicant is required to enclose the dumpster with an 8ft wall or fencing. Ms. Painter presented aerial photos of the surrounding parcels. Chairman Bray reminded everyone was still under oath from the initial swearing at last month's meeting. Mr. Wyatt Bone; Civil Engineer, -(Bohler Engineering, 4130 Park Lake Ave; Raleigh, NC) Mr. Bone has been consulting with the O'Reillys representatives in constructing the proposed store. Mr. Bone stated after conveying with county plan reviewer in Building Safety they were in agreement to the 12ft spacing being sufficient for Fire Services. Mr. Bone stated the additional fencing would allow access to the roof ofthe building if required in the future. Mr. Bone stated they initially offered a 10 ft. spacing. However, Building Safety required the 12ft spacing for ladder placing of potentialfire services. Mr. Bone presented the landscape plan of rear buffering which includes the 3 rows of necessary plantings in the 20ft setback, which allows space to implement a retention pond. Mr. Bone stated they will implement 2 rows of plants which should complement the proposed fencing. Mr. Bone stated the area that does not require a variance, and they will place 3 rows of plantings to provide required buffering. Mr. Bone stated that by placing the proposed store to the front, the street trees that are required for the site take up a great deal of room whereby make it impossible to push the building closer to the front area. Mr. Bone stated the north side of the property is not sub.iect to the same buffering Mr. Bone stated the adjacent property owner had no objections to the plans after review 3 Mr. Bone stated the landscape would be implemented as the code regulation allows. Mr. Bone stated that Mr. Davis, an adjacent property owner is present today. Chairman Bray inquired as to Mr. lnman being contacted about applicant's proposal. Mr. Bone stated he has not currently spoke to Mr. lnman since the initial meeting in November The Chairman then closed the public hearing. BOARD DETIBERATION. Chairman Bray stated he's prepared to make a motion to approve the variance. Mr. Moore stated he's prepared to second the Chairman's motion to approve variance or make a motion Chairman Bray inquired as to Vice-Chairman Adams. Mr. Adams stated he's in favorto move forward to approve the variance. Chairman Bray revisited the motion to approve the variance. Vice-Chairman Adams second the motion to approve the variance. All ayes to approve the variance. Deputy County Attorney, Kemp Burpeau inquired if the board's approvalofthe variance is incorporated with the finding of facts requirements. Chairman Bray stated the variance approved is based on the four findings of fact The Board cited the following conclusions and findings of fact: 1. lt is the Board's conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically setbacks required per Section 60.3 and the buffers required per Section 62.1-4 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result/would not result. (lt shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made ofthe property.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: The adjacent properties, while zoned 8-1, are occupied with residential uses. This mandates larBer setbacks and buffers then normally required in a B-1 zoning district. Setbacks required for a building heitht of 19 feet would take up approximately 75% of the lot area. This would leave insufficient area to construct the smallest building prototype for an O'Reilly Automotive. 2. lt is the Board's conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results/d not result from unique circumstances related to the subiect property, such as location, size, or topotraphy. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that 4 Mr. Moore stated the applicant revised the site plan based upon board comments at the November meeting re8arding safety and access to the site. Ms. Painter stated planted buffers must meet this requirement of opacity within 1 year of planting Ms. Painter stated buffers are required to be at least half the distance of the setback; with the minimum buffer at the subject site being 20 ft. Ms. Painter stated based on the building height of 19 ft. and the setback of 70 ft.; that these proposed totals would be 43ft. Ms. Painter mentioned dumpsters are not allowed in buffers; however, storm water ponds are allowed in the buffer as long as it has sufficient area to meet the opacity requirement. Ms. Painter stated the ordinance includes severalways buffers can be installed; such as naturalvegetation, supplemented to allow the 100 % opacity, as well as providing 3 rows of planted vegetation that are 6ft tall at the time of planting. Ms. Painter also stated solid fences 5-10ft. in height with two rows of 3ft in height plants are allowed in the buffer areas. lvls. Painter stated berms are allowed in the buffer area of a required 6ft tall height Ms. Painter presented visual aerials of the subject site plan displaying the ordinance requirements and the applicant's variance dimensional request with buffer request. Ms. Painter stated the applicant is proposing for additional parking spaces at the site above what the ordinance requires for a retail site of approximately 7000 sf. Ms. Painter stated the requirement of spaces is 18, however, the applicant is providing for 25 spaces. Ms. Painter presented additional visual photos ofthe adjacent Family Dollar, structures to the south with additional viewofthe rearAR; Airport Residential zoning aerial. ln addition, residence and adjacent out parcels at the site are visually displayed. Attorney Huffman requested additional presentation regarding the aerial overlay descriptive of the subject site. Ms. Painter reiterated the blue dotted line on the subject site as viewed in the application packet are the required setbackfor the sub.iect site based on the height of the building. Ms. Painter stated the green solid line presented in the visual is the setback that the applicant is requesting to be allowed. Ms. Painter stated the dotted green line as presented in the visual is the proposed buffer which would require the variance setback. 3 Ms. Painter stated for the side setback of 52 ft., would require the buffer would be 25 ft. M r. M iller inquired if wou ld the pro.iected totals presented be requ ired for the entire subject site buffer. Ms. Painter stated buffer requirements are only required when it abuts a residential zoning district or a piece of parcel that has a residential structure on it for use. Ms. Painter stated the property to the north of the subject site does not require buffering due to its business use. Ms. Painter presented visual of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance description of buffer requirements in Section: 60.i: Setbocks. are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.) This conclusion is based on the followin8 FINDINGS OF FACT: The lot is L-shaped, creating two additional property lines which would be subiect to setback and buffer requirements. 3. lt 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 grantint of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship.) This conclusion is based on the followint FINDINGS oF FACT: Residential uses on adracent properties in an existint B-1 zoning district were not the result of actions taken by O'Reilly Automotive. 4. lt 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 iustice is achieved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: . Reduced setbacks will not adversely affect health and public safety,o Area zoned B-l were intended to have business uses which would not require large setback and buffers. Chairman Bray inquired of additional business to address or motion to adjourn. Mr. Nabell motion to adjourn. Mr. Adams second the motion to adiourn. Meeting adjourned. Executive Secretary Chairman o"t",2'2b'11 5