Loading...
APRIL 2021 APPROVED MinutesMINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The New Hanover County Board ofAdjustment 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, April27,202l. Members Present Membe Absent Cameron Moore, Chairman Richard Kem Michael Keenan, Sr. Maverick Pate Luke Waddell Kristin Freeman, Vice-Chair Hank Adams Pete DeVita E\Officio Members Present Ken Vafier, Executive Secretary Sharon Huffman, County Attorney Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director Wendell Biddle, Zoning Compliance Official Denise Brown, Zoning Admin Technician The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Cameron Moore. Mr. Moore stated the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial board appointed by the Board of Commissioners ro consider ordinance variances fiom residents in New Hanover County where special conditions would create unnecessary hardships. The Board ofAdjustment also hears appeals ofthe County's interpretation in enforcement ofthe Unified Development Ordinance. The appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. Luke Waddell made a motion to adopt the minutes from the March 23,2021 meeting. Mr. Michael Keenan second the motion. Following a motion by Mr. Waddell and seconded by Mr. Keenan, the minutes from the March 23.2021 meeting were unanimously approved. chairman Moore informed Board members that the applicant from the fourth case on today,s agenda is presentto request a continuance ofthe case hearing. CASE 80A-96I Mr. Jonathan Guido, on behalf of the.oxford House Showman, appeared requesting case BoA-96r becontinued to the next scheduled meeting on May 25,2021. ur. c'oiao ,,u,"o,t.y ui" urting-io. u.ontinrun."for the homeowner to address Building Safety iermitting requirements at th. ,ubj..t ,it" oFli+ Silva TerraDrive. 1, Mr. Waddell made a motion for 80.4-961 to be heard at the next scheduled meeting on May 25,2021.Mr. Kem second the motion. All ayes. Chairman Moore informed residents who were in attendance for the 80A-961 meeting to appear for case hearing at the May 25,2021 meeting. The Chairman then swore in Countv staff Ken Vafier. CASE BOA.958 Mr. Vafier presented an overview of the case stating the petitioner, Sean McDonough, on behatf of Brett and Christy Tanner, property owners, is requesting a variance of 8.8' from the 15' minimum side yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.6.D ofthe New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned R-20S, Residential District and is located at 8020 Bald Eagle Lane. The owners are in the process of renovating the main residence to complete structural repairs and electrical and plumbing upgrades. During the renovation, it was discovered that the garage has sustained water damage resulting from inadequate surface water runoffon the no(hem portion ofthe lot. Mr. Vafier stated the applicant intends to construct a 12' x 22' addition to an existing 28' x 22' detached garage on the subject property. The applicant is proposing to construct the garage addition with a 2' tall misonry foundation wall in addition to other surface water mitigation measures to provide adequate stormwater controls on the lot. Mr. Vafier stated previously the subject site property was granted a hardship variance during the garage construction process for the previous owners in 1995. The applicant is proposing to construct the garage addition with a 2' tall masonry foundation wall in addition to other surface water mitigation measures to provide adequate stormwater controls on the lot. The 264-sfaddition to the existing garage would maintain a total area over 600 sf. The applicant contends storage is needed for parking as well additional room for the stormwater run-offwith measures to decrease water entering the garage. Mr. Waddell inquired as to when the previous variance was granted on the subject site. Mr. vafier stated the previous variance was granted in 1995 to allow the garage setback of6.2'. Chairman Moore inquired as to documentation from the previous variance granted. Mr. vafier stated the record was located for the previous variance granted for the subject site. The Chairman swore in Sean McDonough, Brett Tanner and Robert Foster. Mr. Brett Tanner presented as owner ofthe subject site and requested that Sean McDonough speak on behalfof the variance request. Mr. McDonough stated curently the subject site does not have a stormwater infiltration system on the road. Theresidence is water-front; however, the water intrusion is coming from stormwater run-off hom Bald Eagle Lane, and the garage built on the lot in 1995 receives water intrusion during heavy rains. 2 Mr. McDonough stated that in order to control the continuous water intrusion, they propose to add a raised stem wall with a french drain to control the water. Mr. McDonough stated the home is large enough, however, the parking area is small with minimum storage area therefore an addition to the garage is necessary. Mr. McDonough stated currently they are renovating the single-family dwelling, and this would make sense to complete the garage upgrade at the same time ofthe home renovation. Mr. Keenan inquired as to which way the water infiltration mitigation would direct the incoming water. Mr. McDonough stated the water would be directed to the front of the house and controlled within the lot. Chairman Moore then swore in Robert Foster. Robert Foster- (8024 Bald Eagle Lane resident) Mr. Foster stated he was a resident when the previous owners were granted approval for the garage in 1995. However, Mr. Foster stated it was his understanding that no additional variance request would be granted for this same garage. Mr. Foster stated with heavy rainfalls and no infiltration system on the road he continues to receive runoff into his yard. Mr. Foster stated the applicant previously raised the elevation oftheir lot with fill dirt at the subject site during the home construction; with this adjacent lot being raised the water flom the site drains to his property as well. Mr. Foster stated heavy rain falls cause water to drain from the applicant's garage, this also impacts his aging septic system. Mr. Foster does not want to seal his backyard and replace his septic system, However, ifconsistent amounts ofwater continue to accumulate on his property to replace the system would be a huge financial impact for him. Mr. Foster stated as this property changes ownership, he is concemed about constant changes to the garage that will impact his lot with more water. He is concemed about property owners maintaining their koi pond to prevent overflow of water. Mr. Waddell asked how long the Fosters have resided at the residence. The Fosters have resided at their residence since 1986. chairman Moore asked Mr. vafier about a prior variance approval at g020 Bald Eagle Lane. Mr. Vafier stated the board order was approved however no conditions were applied. Mr. Pate asked how far the garage is from the adjacent resident property. Mr. vafier stated the proposed new structure is about 15-16 ft from the subject site residence using a GISmeasurement, however no specific measurement is available for the distance to ihe adjacent residence. Mr. vafier stated the board order granted approval in 1995 for a variance to construct a 25,x30, garage with a5ft. setback. Mr. McDonough (rebuttal) - Mr. McDonough stated they can divert more water away from the adjacentneighbors with implementing appropriate drainage, and a catch basin in the front ofthe proposed garage addition that should alleviate some ofthe water flow direction. Mr. McDonough stated previous construction to the garage elevation was poorly executed, however the Tanners plan to alleviate that with the new plan. Chairman Moore asked where the french drain would be placed on the subject site. Mr. McDonough stated the french drain would be placed at a fiont stem wall; the intent is to have the french drain catch the water coming from the road to a catch basin in the direction ofthe rear area ofthe subject lot. Mr. McDonough stated the current gutter system at the subject site can be diverted to the same catch system pipe to control the flow ofthe water. This method would also assist in water flowing from the subject site roof lines. Chairman Moore asked the applicant about the water volume calculation or size offrench drain. Mr. McDonough stated generally it is his business practice to not deviate water flow to adjacent properties however he has not spoken to an engineer on this project. Mr. McDonough stated they would probably utilize a 4-inch french drain with approximately a 6-inch piping in collecting water fall from the roof. Mr. Waddell inquiry has the applicant consulted with an engineer regarding landscaping water runoff. Mr. McDonough relayed he has not consulted an engineer consult but would be open to discuss with one on the mafter. Chairman Moore inquired if the area had a minimum standard for impervious calculation Mr. Vafier stated there may be CAMA impervious lot requirements. The subject site is not in a HOA. Mr. Keenan asked ifthe wall located at the subject near garage apart ofthe original variance granted in 1995. Mr. Vafier stated the garage constructed in 1995 was granted a variance due to the garage being enlarged without obtaining required permits. Mr. Foster (rebuttal)- Mr. Foster reiterated that the applicant's lot elevation is already higher than his. Mr. Foster stated the applicant has a pond on-site, all the water that accumulates from the subject site travels to the front of his driveway, home and into the side and rear of his property. Mr. Foster conclrd"d that with heavy rainfall this also impacts his land and septic system. Mr' Foster relayed he does not aglree that the measures the applicant proposes will assist with his lot notaccumulating more water. Mr. Tanner (8020 Bald Eagle Lane) Mr. Tanner stated he was not fully aware the neighbor had an issue withexcessive water runoff. However,.he is committed to doing what he can to resolve sorie of the issue wherebywater from his residence impacts adjacent lot. Mr' Tanner mentioned that his garage sustains enormous water intrusion, so he is aware rain run-off is an issue.Mr' Tanner stated he will mitigate the water issue and it seems adjacent n.igt uo., tu* no iomplaints to thegarage addition. Mr' McDonough stated with completion ofthe proposed construction they will be assessing the need ofconcreteand impervious surface. 4 Chairman Moore asked would he be open to have an engineer look at his plan regarding stormwater. Mr. Tanner stated he wanted to be a good neighbor and would seek additional engineer consult and bring findings back to the board for decision. Mr. Tanner requested the variance request be continued to the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Keenan motioned that the applicants request be continued to the next scheduled meeting. The Board voted unanimously to continue case BOA-958 to May 25, 2021 meeting. CASE BOA-959 Mr. Vafier presented an overview of the case stating the petitioner, Keith Witliams, applicant and property owner. is requesting a variance of l0' from the 20' minimum Performance Residential Development periphery setback requirement per Section 3.1.3.D(1)(a) ofthe New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned R- 15, Residential District and is located at 6900 Persimmon place. The subject site property consists of 0.58 acres and currently contains a single-family residence constructed in 1989. The subject site is a part of the Grove Point, Section l, which was recorded in 1987 as a performance subdivision. The UDO allows for two different type ofsubdivision designs, Performance and Conventional. This section ofthe UDO requires a 20' setback on the periphery ofthe subdivision. Mr. Vafier stated the applicant states the 2O'periphery setback would result in the garage encroaching in the septic drain line area and would result in the removal of two mature hickory and oak trees, which the applicant intends to retain. Mr. Vafier stated that in August 2020 the applicant was performing due diligence to the garage requirements andstaff did not relay to the applicant that a 20' periphery setback would apply to the garage construction, the applicant purchased with the assumption that a l0' setback could be utilized. Upon seeking a building permit for the purchased garage, the applicant was notified that the setbacks were to be met given the location of said property being in a Performance Residential district. The applicant is requesting setback relief of 10' to place the 1230 sf detached garage on the property which will be set back l0' from the periphery of Grove Point and not encroach septic systim on the lot. Mr. Vafier presented photos of the subject site from various angles. Chairman Moore summarized that after the applicant purchased the garage, it was later noted that setbacksprovided during staff review were not met per regulation. Mr. Waddetl asked if there was another area to place the garage. Mr. vafier stated with the site plan presented by the applicant there is not a reasonable location on the propertyto place the garage that would not affect the septic system or existing mature large trees. Chairman Moore then swore in Keith Williams. 5 Mr. Williams - (6900 Persimmon Place) - Mr. Williams stated that after researching the type and size of the garage he purchased the building and was later informed that the placement of the garage would not meet requirements to obtain a county building permit. Mr. Williams stated the comer he has chosen for the structure is the only reasonable area he can place the detached garage. With the presented site plan Mr. Williams stated he does not have the ability to place the detached garage elsewhere in the rear yard without encroaching some form of side or rear setback. Mr. Williams stated he has a fence behind his home, he stated it would be a financial burden to remove the trees and drain field. Chairman Moore asked how the applicant was notified the site plan would not suffice for a building permit. Mr. Williams stated he was contacted by New Hanover County permitting staffvia email. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DECISION: The Board stated that the applicant presented with a narrative that he purchased the detached garage size with the thought the l0'setback would meet regulation. The Board also agreed that the applicant lot is challenged in location to adequately place the detached garage and meet setback regulation. The Board discussed that the location ofthe mature large trees and the septic system already in place in the rear ofthe subject site would be a financial burden for the applicant to relocate on the lot. The Board agreed that the applicant has provided adequate information and operate in good faith in requesting a variance to obtain a building permit for the accessory structure. The Board discussed the property's sizi and location and that the current status ofthe property was not created by the owner. The Board agreed that granting the variance approval would be consistent and substantialjustice is achieved. On a motion by Mr. Michael Keenan and seconded by Mr. Richard Kem, the board voted 5-0 to grant the variance at 6900 Persimmon Place, Wilminglon, NC. The Board's decision was based on the following conclusions and findings offact: l. It is the Board's conclusion that' if the applicant compliqs with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically a variance of l0' from the 20' minimum Performance Residential Development periphery setback requirement per Section 3.1.3.D(l)(a) of the New Hanover County Unilied nevetofment Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. This conclusion is based on the followingFII\'DINGS OF FACT: . The proposed accessory structure cannot be located elsewhere without removal of the existing septic area and mature trees. o Should the 20 ft setback be adhered to, there would be significant hardship, both financially andenvironmentally. As you can see in Attachment B, if the 20-foot setbaik was adhered to, the building would have to be moved from location I to location 2. In location 2, (also displayed onAttachment B, we would have to move the septic drain lines to the repair field. Based on our research, this would cost over $10,000. In location 2, we would also have to cut down established trees (seen in pictures on Attachment C). These trees are over 50 years old and provide shade tothe Property, helping outhome to be energy efficient, as well as providing the neighborhood with overall appealing aesthetics. The cost we were quoted to have the trees iemoved wa s $4,277.56 6 (attachment D). With the many trees constantly being cut down in Wilmingon, we would like to do our part to save these established trees ifpossible. 2. It is the Board's conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results from unique circumstances related lo the subject property, such as location, size, or topography, This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT; The shape ofthe property is one that makes it diflicult to build anyhing in the back left side ofthe property. Having a l0-foot setback is hard to begin with because of the acute angle. If we had to adhere to the 20-foot setback on the back property line, it would result in so much unused space in the backyard (attachment E). This would also cause somewhat of an .'eyesore" to the neighborhood having to move it closer to the main house and not hidden by the established trees that would need to be removed. 3. It is the Board's conclusion that the hardship of did not result from aclions taken by the applicant or the property owner. This conclusion is based on the following FIIIDINGS OF FACT: Prior to initiating building design and permit, we did our due diligence and contacted the Planning and Land Use department asking what the particular setbacks were for our property, so we could adhere to the county's zoning regulations. The property address was given to the Zoning Compliance Official for Zoning and Setbacks to make sure we were obtaining the correct setbacks. Per the Zoning Compliance Officials, we were told the setback for our property address was l0 feet (see Attachment F). With this information, we mapped out the area in order to know what building dimensions could be put in the area. we contacted the building company, made our non- refundable deposit of$5,675 (Attachment G) to obtain a site plan, and submitted the information for a permit. Had we been told the setback was 20 feet on the back property line, we would not have moved forward with plans. But, since we did, we now have a $5,675 non-refundable deposit at stake. This loss would cause a significant hardship (as well as the above stated hardships) on our family, and we feel this hardship is based on the incorrect information we were given while we were being proactive, from the Zoning office. {It is the Board's conclusion that, ifgranted, 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 l0-foot setback on the side property lines are in accordance with the county zoning and setback regulations and having a l0foot setback instead of20 foot on the back periphery line wilt not affect the safety of any ofthe neighboring properties. Ifour property was one lot to the lefl, this would not be an issue as the "interior" lots in our neighborhood only have the l0-foot setback on all sides. 7 CASE 8()4-960 Mr. Vafier presented an overview ofthe case stating the petitioner Palm lnvestment, Inc., applicant and property owner, is requesting a variance of l0' from the 20' minimum Performance Residential Development periphery setback requirement per Section 3.1.3.D(l)(a) of theNew Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned R-15, Residential District and is located at 502 Pilots Ridge Road. Mr. Vafier stated the subject site is located on a 0.50-acre undeveloped lot on the far westem extent ofPilots Ridge. The individual aircraft hangars in Pilots Ridge would be considered as accessory structures. Mr. Vafier stated the subdivision was plotted in 2006 and provides residents with access to a private runway. Many ofthe residents in Pilots Ridge have personal aircraft which are stored in hangars on individual lots. Pilots Ridge is a Performance Subdivision whereby these lots are subject to the 20' periphery setback. Mr. Vafier stated the applicant contends a variance is needed to obtain appropriate size hangar on the western portion ofthe lot. In addition, the applicant states setbacks regulations are limited to meet due to the existing drainage easement on the westem side ofthe lot. The applicant would like to develop the lot utilizing a l0' periphery setback. Chairman Moore asked if there is a site plan for the site and if this were the only lot the setback would apply. Mr. Vafier stated all the runway parcels in the subdivisions are subject to setback requirements. Chairman asked if the county required unique provisions to accessory structures at this subdivision Mr. Vafier stated the aircraft are subject to aviation regulations. He stated no county restrictions to the subdivision are on file. Chairman Moore then swore in Matt Nichols, David Pierce, and Dan Wilcox. Mr. Nichols' PLLC, presented on behalfofPalm lnvestments owner David Pierce stating the applicant request a [ 0' setback to the lot to construct a single-family residence and an aircraft hangar on the lot. The property is located at the end ofthe subdivision with challenges due to the drainage easement to the lot. lr,,lr. Nichols stated the taxi runway area differs from the other lots in the subdivision. Mr. Nichols stated the runway runs east to west. There are vacant lots in the subdivision and some lots are constructed with the aircraft hangar. Mr. Nichols stated that the applicant is proposing to construct one structure of a single-family home with the hangar attached. Mr. Nichols stated the taxi runway has a 90-degree turn that also presents challenges in applying setback regulations to the construction. Mr. Nichols stated the lot was recorded in 1983 and allows an aircraft and hangar in the subdivision. Mr. Nichols stated the drainage easement is towards the south end ofthe applicant,s lot near the taxi runway area. Mr. Nichols stated Performance Residential Developments require a 20'periphery setback. However, the applicant is requesting a l0' setback for the proposed hangar home. This would assist with the appropriate size hangar door for the aircraft. Mr. Nichols said by relaxing the setback this would allow construction ofthe hangar home more functional. Mr. Nichols stated the applicant proposes a wire hangar door for safety and will provide additional storage space for items. I David Pierce - (property owner)- Mr. Pierce stated they propose a hangar house which is smaller than the typical full-size home. Mr. Pierce stated due to the lot being on the end the 90-degree angle, it presents a challenge in securing an aircraft at the site with a smaller hangar door. Mr. Pierce stated when he purchased the property, he was not aware ofthe performance setback regulations. Mr. Pierce was made aware ofthe required setbacks when applying for county permits. Mr. Pierce stated the aircraft requires a s0-foot door to ensure safe maneuvering ofthe aircraft in and out ofthe hangar without destroying the home structure. Chairman Moore asked which direction the hangar door swings. Mr. Pierce stated the door swings up right. Mr. Keenan asks how wide the plane is. Mr. Pierce stated the plane is about 36 ft wide. Mr. Pierce stated the house will be constructed on a cement slab. Mr. Vafier relayed the applicant did not present a site plan for proposed hangar home. Mr. Nichols presented landscape drawing plans and fencing for the proposed construction at the subject site. Mr. Keenan asked what the proposed height fence the applicant proposes. Mr. Vafier stated buffer requirements are not required at this location. Mr. Keenan asked how tall the plane is. Mr. Pierce stated the plane is approximately 6ft with a 1oft tail. Chairman Moore then swore in Eric Griffen. Mr. Eric Griffen - (650 Castine way)- Mr. Griffen stated he is present on behalf of the HoA to relay they are opposed to the applicant's request. Mr. Griffen stated due to the uniqueness ofthis lot and its location at thl endthey are concemed with the increased gasoline the aircraft will store at the hangar. Mr. Griffen stated they areconcerned with the applicant's proposal ofthe consolidated home and hangar disign. Mr. Griffen stated theperception of property value. Mr. Griffen stated there is a reason why county setbicks are in place and hequestions the applicants need for an actual variance. Mr. Waddell asked what HOA board Mr. Griffen was representing. Mr. Griffen stated he is a representative of the nearby HoA Board for the Kirkwood subdivision. Sharon Huffman - (Deputy County Attorney) - Ms. Huffman stated the Board can accept the testimony ifthey choose to, however without the appropriate proof as to the person speaking representing the KirkwoodHOA the testimony given is hearsay. 9 Ms. Huffrnan stated the Board can choose to consider the testimony as an adjacent property owner opposing the applicant's request. Mr. Kem asked if the Kirkwood subdivision was new. Mr. Criffen stated he does not have the documents of when the subdivision was implemented. Mr. Keenan asked about the fence requirements to the rear property that abuts the subject site and what were the requirements to buffer fencing as it relates to the site given. Mr. Griffen stated the Kirkwood Board discussed the presence ofthe fence. However, due to appearance and setbacks, they ask for the same consideration ofthe applicant's proposal. Mr. Griffen stated they oppose the applicant request; the lack space in between the homes. In addition, to safety concerns of stored gasoline being close to said property. Mr. Nichols (rebuttal) - Mr. Nichols stated he respectfully asks the Board to reject Mr. Griffen's comments on opposing the applicant's variance request. Mr. Nichols stated the subdivision allows aircrafts to be constructed. Mr' Dan Wilcox- (Aviation Representative)- Mr. Wilcox stated the applicant requested he review plans on the proposed construction ofthe hangar designs for safety concems. Mr. Wilcox stated the hangar construction would be steel and the fuel used for the aircraft is very similar to fuel used for vehicles. Mr. Pierce stated the aircraft would be stored only in the hangar. Unlike a vehicle, an aircraft would not be started in the hangar. Mr. Pierce stated he is a former fire fighter, has a family and safety is a sole concem in this project. Mr. Pierce stated he is approximately 40 ft away from adjacent residence to construct the steel structure. He will adhere to all safety and fire and county regulations. Mr. Pierce stated he will not sta( the aircraft until it is in a cleared, appropriate space. Mr. Nichols, PLLC (rebuttal) Mr. Nichols concluded on behalfofthe applicant, stating they believe they have presented enough testimony to meet the findings for a variance approval. The neighborhood of Kirkwood is Rl0, Performance Residential with smaller lo1 size. Mr. Nichols stated the applicant would still be able to meet a l0 ft setback with the approved variance. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr' Keenan stated the applicants present with a hardship in construction due to the drainage easement. The aircraft comes into the hangar at an angle that is challenging for the applicant. Mr. Waddell stated the strict application ofthe county requirements are difficult for the applicant to adhere to due narrow lot size. The Board agreed with the applicant's narrative and was impressed with the proposed landscape plan for the subject site. Chairman Moore made a motion to approve the variance and accept the applicant's narrative labeled as ExhibitA in the facts of findings. A condition was place on the variance of a 6 ft solid wood fence. ln addition, theapp.licant is to plant appropriate vegetation along the area Exhibit C2-l perimeter as present;J to the Board forrev iew. 10 Mr. waddell second the motion. The Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the variance at 502 pilots Ridge. The Board's decision was based on the following conclusions and findings offact: l. It is the Board's conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically a variance of l0' from the 20'minimum Performance Residential Development periphery setback requirement per section 3.1.3.D(1)(a) of the New Hanover county Unilied Development Ordinance, thal an unnecessary hardship would result, This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Due to unique location of lot, it is impacted differently by the larger periphery setback compared to other lots in Pilots Ridge. The lot is significantly impacted by large drainage easement and location of taxiway and runway access points. A larger side setback constrains the possible width of hangar door, which impacts safety and maneuvering of aircraft. The minimal variance requested will still result in a standard R-15 side setback of l0 feet. 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: o The unique nature of Pilots Ridge development is such that the lots contain aircraft hangar homes with access to a private runway.. The subject property is the only lot adjacent to residential uses on the periphery of the subdivision.o Standard R-15 lots have a l0-foot side setback.. The unusual shape and size of the lot and drainage easement creates an approximately 90 degree turn to access taxiway.. The adjacent development is more densely developed and zoned R-10. 2 3 It is the Board's conclusion that the hardship of did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: . The hardship did not result from actions taken by the ApplicanUproperty Owner.o The Applicant/Property Owner is not the developer or subdivider ofthe property.o Pilots Ridge Aero Plantation Section 2, including subject Lot 29 was approved by New Hanover County (Map Book Sl,Page275, NHC Registry). .1.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 FIN'DINGS OF FACT: . The variance will allow a wider hangar door which will improve safety of maneuvering aircraft into hangar. 11 The Board also adopted the following condition to the variance: . Pilots Ridge development was approved by New Hanover county and aircraft-residential uses are well-established for development. . The Applicanc?roperty Owner has already obtained approval ofpilots Ridge HOA and an Amendment to Declaration ofRestricted Covenants has been recorded.o The variance is still consistent with the lO-foot standard side setback in R-15 District.o The variance still provides a greater setback than the 5-foot standard side setback in adjacent R-10 District. A 6'wooden fence with appropriate plantings shall be provide on the westem property line subject to this variance request, as shown in Sheet C2.l of the Exhibit,l submitted by the applicant (attached). CASE 80A.962 Mr. Vafier presented an overview ofthe case stating the petitioner Jeffrey Serens, on behalfofTed Meehan, property owner, is requesting a variance of l0' from the 20' minimum Performance Residential Development periphery setback requirement per Section 3.1.3.D(l)(a) ofthe New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned R-15, Residential District and is located at I 140 Lt. Congleton Road. Mr. Vafier stated the applicants are requesting a variance of l0' flom the 20' Performance Subdivision periphery setback requirement to construct an addition of504 sfto the existing single-family dwelling on the subject site, located in the Tarin Woods subdivision. Mr. Vafier stated the applicant is constructing the addition to the home for an aging family member. The home was constructed in 2016 however, the periphery setback was not applied to this side yard at the time ofconstruction, and the structure currently lies approximately l4'from the eastem side property line. Research into the specific reason the periphery setback was not applied in this instance is inconclusive. Mr. Vafier stated the proposed construction is on the southeastern corner and would lie I0' from the existing property line extending 4' further into the periphery setback than the existing structure. The preliminary plot plan provided by a surveyor when the home was submitted for permitting labeled the side yard setbacks as l0'and the property owners were not informed ofthe required 20'periphery setback. The proposed conshuction is on the side of lot however away fiom the drainage easement presently located. Due to the findings of the dimensions presented staffdetermined this lot to be a legal non-conforming. Mr. Vafier presented aerial photos ofthe lot and adjacent subdivision location. Mr. Keenan asked how far the fiont comer ofthe building from the side ofthe lot is. Mr. Vafier stated the building fiont comer is l4 ft. With the proposed addition it would encroach l0' from the side yard requirements. t2 Mr. Kern asked if this were an accessory building and what the setback would be. Mr. Vafier stated an accessory building setback is 5 ft from the property line. However, the applicant is proposing an addition. Chairman Moore asked can the Board address the legal conformity ofthe residence. Mr. Keenan asked about the rear subdivision setback. Mr. Vafier stated nearby Congleton Farms are subject to the periphery setback regulations. Chairman Moore then swore in Ted Meehan. Ted Meehan-(property owner) - Mr. Meehan stated due to his mother's aging health he is proposing to construct a 504-sf addition to accommodate the mother living on the site. Mr. Meehan stated with the surrounding trees around the lot, the addition will not be visible. Mr. Keenan asked ifthe applicant intended with purchasing the property to construct an addition. Mr. Meehan stated it has been a goal to have his mother reside with him and his famity. The intent when he purchased the home was to add on to have the mother reside near his family. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DISCUSSION: The Board discussed that the applicant upon purchasing the home intended to construct an addition for a family member referencing presented exhibits A-C by the applicant. The members stated the home was constructed within the setback creating a legal nonconforming use. They discussed the design and approval ofthe home presents a hardship to construct an addition on the lot within required setbacks. Mr. Keenan made a motion to approve the variance as requested. Mr. Kem second the motion. The Board voted 5-0 GRANT the variance at I140 Lt. Congleton Road. It is the Board's conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically a variance of l0' from the 20' minimum Performance Residential Developmentperiphery setback requirement per section 3.1.3.D(l)(a) of the New Hanover county unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: The Meehan's purchased the home with the intent of adding on this space for Mr. Meehan,s aging and now ailing mother. The Meehan's are more concerned with moving their mother to a safe and more private living space with the presence of COVID-I9. with a stamped survey and the fence constructed on the survey property line, it was reasonable to trust they could build to those same specifications. Exhibits A, B, and C submitted by the applicant support the applicant,s stated hardship. I 2 It is the Board's conclusion that the hardship ofwhich the applicant complains results from unique circumstances related to the subject property, such as location, size, or topography. This eonclusion is based on the following FIIIDINGS OF FACT: o As initially permitted, the house does encroach into the setback and is a legal non-conformity.o The design and approval ofthe house does provide a hardship related to where the house is currently located which limits the ability for a proposed addition.o The variance is partially mitigated by the periphery boundary ofthe adjacent subdivision. 3 It is the Board's conclusion that the hardship of did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: o As initially permitted, the house does encroach into the setback and is a legal non-conformity.o The design and approval ofthe house does provide a hardship related to where the house is currently located which limits the ability for a proposed addition.. The hardship is not the result ofthe property owners' actions.o The Meehan's purchased the property u,ith the intent to pursue the addition for their mother.o The home was built without the proper setbacks on the east side. The stamped survey by ECLS dated l-26-16 shows a l0' setback, it also states the l0' setback in the survey text. The homeowners would have no reason to challenge the stamped document. 4 It is the Board's conclusion that, ifgranted, 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: o The safety ofeach community and their residents is achieved with the existing west side and rear setback. The east side has a natural creek buffer and the new subdivision homes being all 20' rear setbacks. The safety, drainage, and privacy will be well maintained. There being no further business before the board, it was properly moved by Mr, Luke Waddell and seconded by Mr. Richard Kem to adjoum the meeting. All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED. Please note the minutes are not a verbatim record ofthe proceedings. Executive Secretarv Dale:5 a a( 1,4 Chairman