Loading...
JULY 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 Govemment Center Complex, 230 Govemment Center Drive, in the Lucie Harrell Conference Room, Wilmington, NC, on Tuesday, Jlly 27,2021. Members Present Cameron Moore, Chairman Kristin Freeman, Vice-Chair Pete DeVita Maverick Pate Luke Waddell Members Absent Hank Adams Michael Keenan Richard Kem 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 from 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. Pete DeVita made a motion to adopt the minutes from the June 23,2021, meeting. Mr. Luke Waddell second the motion. Following a motion by Mr. DeVita and seconded by Mr. Waddell the minutes from the June 23,2021, minutes were unanimously approved. Ken Vafier introduced new Planning staff members to the board, Wendall Biddle, Andres Buenas, Zoning Officials and Amy Doss, Current Planner. Chairman Moore informed Board members that the applicant presents on today's agenda is a continuance from the first of which was granted at the April 27,2021, meeting. The applicant and his team will address the board's itemized checklist requested to the applicant at the May 27,2021, hearing. The Chairman swore in Ken Vafier, Andrew Jones, PLLC, Sean McDonough, Brett Tanner, Robert and Karen Foster. 1 Ex Officio Members Present Ken Vafier, Executive Secretary Sharon Huffman, County Attomey Wendell Biddle, Zoning Compliance Official Andrea Buenas, Zoning Compliance Official Amy Doss, Current Planner CONTINUANCE CASE BOA-958 Sean McDonough, appticant, 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 addition to an existing garage. The property is zoned R-20S, Residential District and is located at 8020 Bald Eagle Lane. PUBLIC HEARING At the previous hearing, the board requested information be provided by the applicant rcgarding current impervious coverage, allowance of water outfall to v)etlands, CAMA permitting requirements, the distance of outfull to the adjacent septic system and the distance of the pipe's discharge to the intracoastal waterwoy Andrew Jones, PLLC- Mr. Jones presented on behalf of the applicant with a revised site plan drafted by the applicant and engineer working on the proposed garage and improvements. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant revised the original site plan in consultation with Mr. Sedgwick and in consideration of adjacent neighbor concems. The impervious suriace ofthe site will be reduced from the initial 29.2 %o to 24.2 V,. The impervious will be increased however with improvement to the garage the overall total of impervious will be lessened per site plan revision. Mr. Jones stated the applicants team spoke 10 the NC DEQ CAMA representative regarding regulations as it pertains to outfall to the wetland area. Regulations require a minimum 30'distance from the outfall to the normal high-water line; this distance is also displayed on the revised site plan. Mr. Jones stated there is a CAMA application proposed to submit to NC DEQ for the proposed scope of work. 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 of the accessory structure. Mr. Jones stated in speaking with the Environmental Health Department it was relayed that the sanitary septic system shall be located 25' away from a drainage system. This distance is also indicated on the revised site plan. The Environmental Health Departrnent has documents indicating the location of the applicant's septic system and the adjacent property owner's system on file. Chairman Moore asked if the site plan displays the drainage system. Mr. Jones stated the drainage system is outlined on the revised site plan as three lines. Brad Sedgwick, JBS Engineer Consulting- Mr. Sedgwick stated a surveyor was consulted for the house, garage and driveway and listed information regarding the built upon area on the site plan. Mr. Sedgwick stated upon review there has been previous repair to the Mr. Foster's drainfield. These repairs were done after the system was installed. Documents are on file with Environmental Health. Mr. Sedgwick stated they propose to add a french drain to assist the water flow drain to directly to the intracoastal area. 2 Mr. Sedgwick stated due to CAMA regulations the applicant modified the site plan to include the BUA of 24.2%o. The drain lines are clear in the permit and on the ground and visible on the revised site plan. Mr. Sedgwick stated that Mr. Foster allowed access to his property to identify and locate his drainfield. Mr. Sedgwick stated with the revisions to the proposed variance requested, the changes will make the run-off better. The bulkhead was listed as the normal high-water mark. Mr. Sedgwick stated he spoke with representative on regulations regarding storm water runoff. Mr. Sedgwick stated the lot was plotted many years ago and the county does not regulate stormwater run-offto this site. Mr. Sedgwick stated perNC DCM, the area has a 30ft setback from the high-water line. Mr. Sedgwick stated NC DEQ does not regulate stormwater on an individual residential lot. Mr. Jones asked the board if they had additional questions as it relates to the revised site plan. Mr. Waddell stated the applicant has addressed all previous concerns and altered the piping to be used to increase better waterflow from the proposed garage addition. Mr. DeVita asked if there is a preliminary drawing ready of the proposed garage. Mr. McDonough stated currently no drawing is available. However, the garage is an extension of the roof and existing second floor building. Chairman Moore asked if the adjacent neighbors were informed ofthe proposed drainage plans. Karen Foster- (8024 Bald Eagle Lane) Ms. Foster asked if NC DEQ CAMA was satisfied with discharge of water flow being distributed to the bulkhead area. Ms. Foster asked if she could get copies ofhandouts pertaining to today's hearing. Chairman Moore stated the applicant has presented satisfactory modifications to address concems regarding stormwater flow. Chairman Moore stated NC DEQ CAMA will address concems as the applicants pursue a CAMA permit. Chairman Moore stated NCDEQ CAMA would require approval on the applicant's drainage proposal for permitting. The proposal will require a CAMA permit and impervious calculations must be provided to obtain a CAMA permit. Chairman Moore stated some ofthe narrative may have been altered as the site plan has been revised. Chairman Moore stated the applicant has provided enhancements to replace the garage and addressed the neighbors' concems of water run-offwith no adverse effects the neighbors. 3 Chairman Moore stated the applicant will need a CAMA minor permit for activity to the site. Mr. DeVita stated the applicant has proposed a reversed piping that should assist with water flow to the bulkhead. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Chairman Moore stated the applicant has provided a narrative for the variance request proposal. Chairman Moore stated that the board is tasked with adhering to the zoning element ofthe requested variance. The Board discussed that the applicant addressed all concems and is working with the neighbors' concems of stormwater run-off, impervious area, and CAMA regulations, Mr. Waddell stated the applicant has complied with all the board's request on additional information. Mr. DeVita stated he commends the applicant on working with the neighbors on a mitigation plan to address their concerns. Mr. DeVita made a motion to approve the variance as requested by the applicant. Mr. Waddell second the motion. A condition was place on the variance the applicant will be required to obtain a CAMA Minor Permit for the requested scope ofwork, and that development shall be consistent with the site plan submitted as the Applicant's "Exhibit B". The variance request was GRANTED for 8020 BALD EAGLE LANE. The Board's decision was based on the following conclusions and findings of fact The applicant proposes to extend the existing garage by 12' and construct a 24" tall masonry foundation wall to help divert and control surface water coming from adjacent planter area and runoff from Bald Eagle Lane. Failure to control runoff in this area could lead to further damage to the structure. The existing garage was built 5'-6' back as depicted in current survey. In order to serve the needs of Mr. And Mrs. Tanner and their family, the extension of the existing garage at the current setback of 5'-6' would: 1. Mitigate water intrusion 2. Maintain the integrity of existing home's architectural lines 3. Enhance and/or maintain the value of their home consistent with neighboring properties 4. Increase on-site protected parking 5. Increase storage for homeowners. a 4 1. It is the Board's conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically a yariance of 8,8' from the 15' minimum side yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.6.D ofthe New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: 2. lt 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 conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: As it relates to "hardship" and the rights ofa property owner to enhance said property, the request for this variance is consistent with the existing structure setbacks, the continuity ofthe adjacent properties, and would have no adverse effects of adjacent property owners. Failure to grant the variance would deny the homeowners the right to both protect and enhance their property. 3. It is the Board's conclusion that the hardship ofdid not result from actions taken by the applicant or the properfy owner. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: o The home was purchased with the understanding that the home would need improvements, repairs, and enhancements, which could include additions that are consistent with existing structure setbacks. 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: The proposed addition is consistent with both the spirit and ofthe rights ofany property owner to preserve the value and integrity of their investment. There being no further business before the board, it was properly moved by Mr. DeVita and seconded by Mr. Waddell to adjoum the meeting. All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED. Please note the minutes are not a verbatim record ofthe proceedings. Executive Secretary Chairman e 5 Date:a a ?t