Loading...
BOA-957 Staff SummaryBOA-957 Page 1 of 3 VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 23, 2021 CASE: BOA-957 PETITIONER: Martha Estela Vicente Andrade, applicant and property owner. REQUEST: Variance of 1.2’ from the 20’ minimum side yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.5.D of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. LOCATION: 1514 Roane Drive PID: R04211-003-003-000 ZONING: AR, Airport Residential District ACREAGE: 0.34 Acres BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Martha Estela Vicente Andrade, applicant and property owner, is requesting a variance from the minimum side yard setback requirement of 20’ in order to place a 1,792 sf mobile home on the subject property. The applicant is proposing to relocate the 64’ x 28’ mobile home on the parcel, which consists of 0.34 acres and has width of 101.62’. The placement of the home would result in both side yards having an 18.8’ setback. Figure 1: Proposed Site Plan with Staff Markups Roane Drive Front Yard 1510 Roane Proposed Side Yard Dimensions Rear Yard 1518 Roane BOA-957 Page 2 of 3 The UDO allows for two different types of subdivision design: Performance Residential Developments and Conventional Residential Developments. In a performance development, individual lots are not subject to the specific yard requirements of a zoning district provided that the density for the zoning district is not exceeded. In a conventional development, the UDO requires that the dimensional standards for each zoning district be met. The subject parcel is a part of the Glynwood Subdivision, which was recorded in 1974 as a conventional development. The required side yard setbacks in the AR district are 20’ as specified in the dimensional standards in Section 3.2.5 of the UDO: A previous home existed on the lot with an approximate 14’ side yard setback on the southern property line, and would have been considered a legal non-conforming situation as the AR district requirements were adopted in 1976. As the previous home was removed in 2019, continued utilization of this non-conforming side yard dimension is not permitted by Section 11.6 of the UDO, which states that if a non-conforming use or situation is discontinued for a period of 180 days, it can only thereafter be used in conformity with the current ordinance provisions: BOA-957 Page 3 of 3 Section 11.6. Abandonment and Discontinuance of Nonconforming Situations 11.6.1. When a nonconforming use is discontinued for a consecutive period of 180 days, only a conforming use may be located on the property. The applicant contends that the variance is necessary in order to place the mobile home on the lot with the accommodation of the required septic system location, and that it is a replacement of a previous home with similar side yard dimensions. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance of 1.2’ from the 20’ minimum side yard setback requirement in order to place the proposed mobile home on the subject property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT POWER AND DUTY: The Board of Adjustment has the authority to authorize variances from the terms of the Unified Development 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 Unified Development 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.