Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNov Draft Minutes 1 MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meeting at 5:30 P.M. at the New Hanover County Government Center Complex, 230 Government Center Drive, in the Lucie Harrell Conference Room, Wilmington, NC, on Tuesday, November 12, 2019. Members Present Members Absent Hank Adams, Vice-Chairman Ray Bray, Chairman Richard Kern Joe Miller Kristin Freeman Cameron Moore Brett Keeler Mark Nabell Ex Officio Members Present Ken Vafier, Executive Secretary Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Denise Brown, Clerk The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Hank Adams. Vice-Chairman 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. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Official approval of the minutes from the meeting held on October 22, 2019. Mr. Keeler noted an error on page eight to Mr. Kenney’s name. The vote was unanimous to approve the minutes with referenced correction. CASE ZBA-945 The Vice-Chairman then swore in County Staff Mr. Ken Vafier. Susan Keelin, variance applicant, on behalf of The Nancy G. Gregg Family, LLC, property owner, is requesting a 15’ side yard setback variance in the R-20S district per Section 51.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 332 Beach Road North on Figure Eight Island. Mr. Vafier stated the home was originally constructed in 1978. The record plat for the property, recorded in MB 18, PG 39 of the New Hanover County Registry in October 1977, contains a note indicating that the side yard setback at the time was 15 feet. At the time of construction, Figure Eight Island was zoned R-20, Residential District, and the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Zoning Ordinance was 15 feet. County records indicate that Figure Eight Island was rezoned to the R-20S District in 1982, and the minimum district requirements would have required a 15’ setback at this time. The applicant provided information stating the residence was renovated in 1984 which included the addition of a garage on the north side of the property and an expansion of the kitchen on the south side. Recently, the property owner has decided to place the property up for sale. As part of the process, a survey of the property was performed on August 27, 2019 which indicated that the structure is 5.6’ from the northern property line, which is an encroachment of 9.4’ into the 15’ required side yard setback. 2 Mr. Vafier stated the structure is 12.8’ from the southern property line, which is an encroachment of 2.2’ to the requirement setback. Mr. Vafier stated researched performed by county staff into the specific reason the 1984 expansion encroached into the side yard setbacks is inconclusive at this time, nor are there any permitting records that date back to the time when the expansion was completed. Mr. Vafier stated at the time, the Gregg family did own 334 Beach Road North, which still exists as a vacant lot on the northern side of the subject property. Mr. Vafier concluded the presentation, stating it is not known if an interpretation applied at the time of the expansion considered lots 332 and 334, which were both owned by the applicant, as being one lot, thus resulting in the consideration of the side yard to extend to the far northern property boundary of lot 334. The Gregg family subsequently sold lot 334 in 1991, and no records exist of any further subdivision or recombination involving either of the two lots. The current owners purchased the property is 1983 and are requesting a variance to the encroachments at the subject site to bring the structure into compliance. Mr. Vafier stated this area is not a performance district which allows flexibility in structure setbacks. There currently is no information to show that the structure is a legal non conformity. Mr. Vafier presented photos of the subject site structure from various angles. The Vice-Chairman then swore in Ms. Susan Keelin, PLLC. Ms. Susan Keelin, PLLC, (Attorney for Gregg Family, LLC (property owners) – Ms. Keelin stated that The Nancy G. Gregg Family, LLC is currently the property owner of the subject site and is seeking a variance to bring the structure into compliance prior to a pending sales offer of the subject site. Ms. Keelin stated the property has changed hands from the previous grantee. However, the property has remained within the Gregg family for 35 years. The most recent survey was performed as a result of the current intention to sell the property. Ms. Keelin stated that the property has been in the family for the past 35 years. The applicant is requesting a variance to bring the structure into compliance in hopes to proceed with the property being sold. Ms. Keelin stated a public records request was made for the property in which drawings from the architect were retrieved from the 1984 renovations. The two adjacent parcels lot 330 & lot 334 were conveyed after 1984 to third party owners. The boundary lines of the lots has remained the same. Ms. Keelin concluded that the applicant meets all four findings as listed for variance approval. This case is peculiar as the current property owner cannot resell the property as is without a variance approval. All building permits must be presented for existing and proposed alteration, there is no evidence to support how the setback alteration came about. The property is now in ownership of the second generation Gregg family who did not create the setback hardship. Ms. Keelin presented a drawing of the subject site that displayed the setback encroachment. Currently the applicant states the kitchen was added on the south side in 1984. Mr. Vafier stated per the New Hanover County Tax record displays a legal sketch of the garage as a separate component. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 3 BOARD DISCUSSION The Board inquired as to the initial owners of the subject property and adjacent lots. In addition, the Board asked when the garage was added to the subject site. The Board stated additions done after 2010 and transferred by deed were done by the LLC, and the new owners should not be held responsible for previous owner’s activity despite the family connections. The Board stated there is no information to show when the additional renovation done on the south side was actually completed. The Board stated there has been no complaints about the setback error. PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED Ms. Keelin stated the current property owners have relayed that they have not altered the current footprint. The current owners stated they were aware expansions were done in 1984 but not by them. Ms. Keelin stated she can only state that the current owner has not altered the property in anyway in pursuit of the variance approval. There have been no objections by the community in pursuing the variance. Mr. Vafier stated the Google Earth aerial displays the second garage is visible at the subject site in 2002. Ms. Huffman, Deputy County Attorney - Ms. Huffman relayed to the board to refer to the facts of findings in their decision making. The board is tasked in deciding the current owners did not create the hardship to the subject site. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DECISION On a motion by Mr. Keeler and seconded by Mr. Kern the board voted unanimously to approve the variance request of 2.2’ on the south side and 9.4’ on the north side of subject site based on the following conclusions: 1) It is the Board’s conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically the side yard setback requirement in Section 51.4-2(4) of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:  A considerable reconstruction of the structure on both the north and south sides would have to occur in order to bring the structure into compliance. 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 owner’s possession of 334 Beach Road North may have been a contributing factor in the side yard setback requirement being overlooked when the renovations were done. 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 changed ownership in 2010, and the renovations to the structure on the north and south sides were done prior to the current owner purchasing 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: 4  There have been no zoning complaints in the years since the construction took place, including prior to the variance hearing. MEETING ADJOURNED. Please note the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings. _________________________________ _________________________________ Executive Secretary Chairman Date: _____________