Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 2021 APPROVED MinutesMINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The New Hanover County Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meeting at 5:30 P.M. at the New Hanover County Covemment Center Complex, 230 Govemment Center Drive, in the Lucie Harrell Conference Room, Wilmington, NC, on Tuesday, May 25,2021. Members Present Cameron Moore. Chairman Kristin Freeman, Vice-Chair Pete Devita Michael Keenan, Sr Luke Waddell Ex Olficio Members Present Ken Vafier, Executive Secretary Sharon Huffman, County Aftomey Maverick Pate, Board Member Wendell Biddle, Zoning Compliance Offrcial Denise Brown, Zoning Admin Technician The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Cameron Moore. Mr. Moore stated the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial board appointed by the Board of Commissioners to consider variances flom residents in New Hanover County where special conditions would create unnecessary hardships. The Board of Adjustment also hears appeals of the County's interpretation in enforcement of the 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 April 27,2021 meeting. Mr. Michael Keenan second the motion. Following a motion by Mr. Waddell and seconded by Mr. Keenan the minutes from the April 27, 2021 minutes were unanimously approved. Chairman Moore informed Board members that the applicant from the first case on today's agenda is present to request a second continuance; the first of which was granted at the April 27,2021meeting. CASE 8()A-961 Mr. Jonathan Guido, on behalfofthe oxford House Showman, appeared requesting case 80,{-961 be continued to the next scheduled meeting on June 22,2021. Mr. Guido stated they are asking for a continuance for the homeowner to address building safety permitting requirements. Mr. Guido stated the homeowner requires additional time to complete repairs and obtain permits at the subject site of 314 Silva Terra Drive. 1 Members Absent Hank Adams Richard Kern Mr. DeVita made a motion for 80A-961 be heard at the next scheduled meeting on June 22,2021 . Mr. Waddell second the motion. All ayes. Chairman Moore informed residents in attendance for the 80A-961 meeting to appear for case hearing at the June 22,2021 meeting due to the applicant's request. The Chairman swore in Ken Vafier. CASE BOA-958 Mr. Vafier presented an overview ofthe case continued from the April27,2021 meeting. Sean McDonough, applicant, on behalf of Brett and Christy Tanner, property owners, is requesting a variance of 8.8' from the l5' minimum side yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.6.D of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance for an existing garage. The property is zoned R-20S, Residential District and is located at 8020 Bald Eagle Lane. The owners recently purchased the property and are in the process ofrenovating the main residence ofthe single-family dwelling that was constructed in the mid 1990's, which will consist of completion to structural repairs electrical and plumbing upgrades. During the renoyation, it was discovered that the garage has sustained water damage resulting from inadequate surface water runoffon the northem portion ofthe lot. Mr. Vafier stated the applicant intends to construct a 12'x22'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 masonry foundation wall in addition to other surface water mitigation measures to provide adequate stormwater controls on the lot. 2 The UDO notes accessory structures that exceed 600 sfare required to meet the principal yard setback ofthe assigned district ofthe site location. The applicant's proposal of 264-sf addition to the existing garage would maintain a total area over 600 sf. The subject site is required to meet the lS-yard side setback. Mr. Vafier stated previously the subject site property was $anted 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 applicant contends storage is needed for parking as well additional room for the stormwater run-offwith measures to decrease water entering the garage. Mr. Vafier stated at the April 23'd meeting, opposition to the proposed structure was raised by the adjacent neighbors due to the excessive water run-offthat currently flows from the subject site to the neighbor's residence. The applicant was receptive of the neighbors' concems and requested a continuance ofthe hearing to further seek engineering assistance on stormwater suggestions to mitigate excessive stormwater run-offto adjacent site. The applicant has submitted an engineered drawing ofproposed french drain, a swale, and gutters to the subject site. Andrew Jones, PLLC- Mr. Jones stated the proposed engineered stormwater mitigation will assist in the stormwater intrusion. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant proposes a plan to eliminate the water runoff. Mr. Jones stated that the existing stormwater issue was discovered when the applicant purchased the property, and the applicant is seeking to control the water to the proposed structure with the proposed addition ofthe accessory structure. Brad Sedgwick, JBS Engineer Consulting- Mr. Sedgwick stated upon review of the site, utilizing GIS and LIDAR iron information to determine the stormwater runoffis coming from the public right away roadway onto to the applicant's property to the north also, water is migrating north on the pad ofthe property. Mr. Sedgwick proposes a drainage plan to alleviate excessive water flow to the property. Mr. Sedgwick stated the plan includes installing a berm, a small swale to be cut llom the fiont fence to the yard and PVC gutters on all four sides ofthe proposed accessory structure. Mr. Sedgwick stated the drainage plan will allow water to flow to the intracoastal waterway for water deposit. Mr. Sedgwick stated his proposal will improve the applicants water intrusion. Mr. Waddell asked where the berm would be placed. Mr. Sedgwick suggest piping be installed near the public right away. He stated vehicles can drive over the piping. Mr. McDonough stated the water would be directed to the front of the house and controlled within the lot. Mr. Jones stated that a variance was granted previously for the garage and they are requesting to extend the variance to implement repairs to the garage whereby mitigation measures can be implemented to address the water that intrudes the garage area. The drainage plan will assist with water intrusion and improve the stormwater control ofthe space. Currently, there are no stormwater measures in place at the site. Mr. Jones stated without granting the variance to make improvements to the garage, the water will continue to present a stormwater problem. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant is attempting to implement measures to the water intrusion to the garage for his family benefit as well as nearby homeowners. Mr. Jones stated from the unique topography there is a slope on Bald Eagle lane that draws water downward from the public right-of-way toward the location ofthe garage site. In addition, Mr. Jones stated that the conditions of the garage are in dismay due to the water intrusion to the building. Mr. Jones stated the garage condition and the lack of stormwater prevention at the site presents a hardship for the applicant. The applicant inherited the property condition upon purchasing the lot, he moved onsite October 2020. Mr. Jones stated the improvements to the lot will protect the applicant's investment of the purchase. Mr. Jones concluded that his client presents with a hardship not created by the applicant. Mr. Keenan inquired as to what type of pipe will be used forthe drain. Mr. Waddell asked if the 1995 variance was located. Mr. DeVita asked if the driveway is concrete in nature. Mr. Vafier stated that the driveway is impervious. The Chairman then swore in Andy Jones, Brad Sedgwick, Sean McDonough, and Brett Tanner. Chairman Moore asked was the adjacent neighbors informed ofproposed drainage plans. Chairman Moore swore in Robert and Karen Foster. Robert Foster- (8024 Bald Eagle Lane) Mr. Foster stated with healy rainfalls and no infiltration system on the road he continues to receive heavy stormwater run-offthat impacts his septic system. At the May meeting he expressed concems on this matter as well as concems that additional repairs to the applicants proposed garage would further increase water flowing to his septic system. Mr. Foster stated that in his opinion, the drainage system the applicant proposes will not address the issue of water flowing to his property will not assist. Mr. Foster stated there is vegetation near the garage and with the proposed addition, an oak tree and shrubs will need to be removed. Ifso, this will also impact water flowing as vegetation currently assists in absorbing some ofthe excess water at the subject site. Karen Foster- (8024 Bald Eagle Lane)- Ms. Foster stated they have resided at their property for 26 years; she is familiar with the previous owners obtaining a variance for the garage addition. Ms. Foster stated they were informed that the garage variance would not be able to be altered. Ms. Foster stated during the May meeting the applicant request involves altering the garage landscape. Ms. Foster stated she is concemed that the design ofthe addition will further drain to their property and effect the septic system. Ms. Foster re-stated the koi pond installed by the previous owners flows directly onto their property during excessive rainfall. ln addition, should the applicant remove the holly trees, that will bring about more water flowing to their lot as the additional vegetation assists in water absorption. Ms. Foster stated it was stated by the applicant at the May meeting the applicant would work with them in a resolution oftheir concems on the stormwater mafter as it relates to the garage addition, no contact has been made by the applicant. Ms. Foster stated when they moved to the area in 1995 their lot and the lots on both sides ofthem had even topography. However, over the years previous owners have raised the elevation of their land and as such, excessive water flows on their property due to the lower ground level oftheir lot. Ms. Foster stated she is concerned that the heavy water flow to their lot will continue to damage their 3O-year- old septic system and to replace the system would be a financial impact to bear. Also, the Fosters are concemed about maintenance ofproposed these measures to decrease impact to their land. Mr. Keenan asked the Fosters ifthey think the applicant's drainage proposal would the water flow issue. Mr. Foster stated the drainage pipe proposed in his opinion does not assist with the excessive water flow to his lot. Andrew Jones (rebuttal)- Mr. Jones addressed the Foster's concem ofthe addition to the roofpitch. The water intrusion has been substantial to the garage and the applicant proposes to expand the roofto avoid water damage in the future to the garage. The space ofthe lot is limited to this location in adding a 3-car garage. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant has taken the neighbors' concerns seriously as he solicited a contractor andengineer to review and propose the best measures regarding excessive stormwater run-off. Mr. Jones stated that 4 the engineers review and proposal was directed at the discussion ofthe neighbors' concems at the May meeting regarding the rainwater to their lot. However, if the proposal is not sufficient the applicant remains open for a solution. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant can work with the neighbors to propose an adequate solution. Mr. Jones stated the applicant wants to work with the neighbors, it is the applicant's intent to maintain his property, his investment and keep harmony. Mr. Jones concluded that any conditions the board pose on the variance the applicant would uphold. Mr. DeVita asked the engineer what type ofpipe would be used for the gutter system Mr. Sedgwick, JBS Engineer Consulting (rebuttal)- Mr. Sedgwick stated he typically uses the corrugated piping for water drainage however solid PVC piping could be utilized to direct the water to the intracoastal. Chairman Moore asked if the applicant would need a permit for the gutter piping. Vice-Chair Freeman asked what the distance ofthe proposed piping to the marsh is. Mr. Sedgwick stated he did not measure the distance; however, the pipe could be extended. Chairman Moore stated that the board is tasked with adhering to the zoning element ofthe requested variance. Chairman Moore asked staffif they are aware permits are required for the applicant's drainage proposal. Mr. Vafier stated some form ofverification from NCDEQ on the applicant's drainage proposal would suffice. Mr. Keenan asked ifa permit is required for paving the road up to the koi pond. Mr. Vafier stated a CAMA permit would be required. Mr. DeVita asked what the limit to the impervious dimension to the applicant's lot is. Mr. Sedgwick stated he did not measure the total lot area of impervious. Mr. Vafier stated there is a limit per CAMA of 25% impervious per lot area, roughly 6200 sf to work with. Also, a CAMA permit would be required for any excavation and french drainpipe to the area. Mr. Devita stated he does not have enough information to decide. Vice-Chair Freeman asked where the additional concrete would be added. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant is not creating more impervious surface. Mr. Tanner is posing a stormwater solution and he will comply with obtaining the required permit regulations. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the septic systems were accounted for in the proposal of adding piping for stormwater m itigation. Mr. Sedgwick stated he did not measure the area ofpipe proposal distance to the septic systems. However, theproposal to include additional stormwater concerns raised by the board can be provided. 5 Mr. DeVita reiterated the neighbors concem of the rain runoff from the garage roof going into the proposed implemented drainpipe which will continue to flow onto their drain field. Mr. Keenan asked if calculations would be required for a CAIty[{ permit. Mr. Vafier stated CAMA applications require impervious calculations be provided to obtain a CAMA permit Mr. DeVita asked if the board could apply conditions to the variance as it relates to CAMA requirements. Ms. Huffman stated the board can condition the variance as it deems relevant to the request. The engineer's proposed plan does not provide answers to the board questions. Mr. DeVita stated he would request the engineer's proposal include the distance ofpipe requirements, volume of water and proposed materials for the project. Mr. Vafier suggest the board provide an itemized checklist of additional information for the applicant if the hearing is continued. Vice-Chair Freeman stated that the Environmental Health department be involved to review the proposal as it relates to the adjacent septic systems. The board discussed a list of information be submitted by the applicant including: current imperyious coyerage, allowance of water outfull to wetlands, CAMA permitling requirements, the distance of outfall to the adjacent septic system and the distance ofthe pipe's discharge to lhe intracoasldl waterw^y.. Mr. DeVita asked if the Fosters were opposed to the garage addition. The Fosters are opposed to garage addition due to the distance the garage will be constructed to the property line. Mr. Keenan stated the applicant is going above required measures to propose mitigation to the garage water runoff. if it is not addressed the issue will remain unresolved. Vice-Chair Freeman stated excessive water to a failing septic system is a major concem for the adjacent neighbors. The board discussed that they did not want to burden the hppticant with requirements or conditions that they may not be able to comply with. Ms. Huffrnan stated the applicant may not be able to comply with any conditions the board apply. Chairman Moore stated a field survey performed by Environmental Health be submitted by the applicant. Mr. DeVita stated that he would be in favor of a motion to continue to give the applicant additional time to bring back additional information to address concems discussed today. Ms. Huffman stated it is the applicant's choice to continue the case or withdraw the application. Mr. Waddell motioned that the applicants request of variance be continued to the next scheduled meeting toobtain additional requested information to the board for decision making. Mr. DeVita second the motion. 5 The board voted unanimously to continue case BOA-958 to June 22, 2021 meeting. There being no further business before the board, it was properly moved by Mr. Pete Devita and seconded by Mr. Michael Keenan to adjoum the meeting. All ayes. MEETING ADJOT]R}IED. Please oote the minutes are not a verbatim record ofthe proceedings. Executive Secretarv Chairman Date: 6 "2 a/ar 7