March 22 2022 Agenda Packet
March 22, 2022, 5:30 PM
I. Call Meeting to Order (Chairman Cameron Moore)
III. Old Items of Business
IV. Regular Items of Business
Case BOA-965 –Jackalope Development, LLC, applicant and property owner, is requesting a
variance of 15’ from the 50’ minimum front yard setback requirement per Section 3.4.10.D of
the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned I-1, Light
Industrial District and is located at 6605 Amsterdam Way.
V. Other Business
VI. Adjourn
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 22, 2022
1
CASE: BOA-965
PETITIONER: Jackalope Development, LLC, applicant and property owner.
REQUEST: A variance request of 15’ from the 50-foot front setback requirement in
the I-1 District, per section 3.4.10.D New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO). This request is for the purposes of
constructing an addition to the existing office/warehouse facility.
LOCATION: 6605 Amsterdam Way, Wilmington – Parcel ID: R04315-003-006-000
ZONING: I-1 Light Industrial
ACREAGE: 1.028 Acres
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
Matthew A. Nichols, on behalf of Jackalope Development, is requesting a 15’ variance from the
50’ minimum front setback in the I-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. The request is to enable a
2,600 square foot expansion to their business, Screen Builders LLC. Platted in July of 2000, the
parcel is a 0.98-acre lot and a part of the Dutch Square Industrial Park.
Section 3.4.10 D of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) details the District Dimensional
Standards for the I-1 district, and that development within is subject to a front setback of 50’:
Figure 1: UDO 3.4.10 D
Section 2.1 of the UDO outlines the method for measuring the front setback and front yard as follows:
SETBACK, FRONT - The depth of a front setback shall be measured at right angles to a
straight line joining the foremost points of the side lot lines, and in such a manner that the
front yard established shall provide minimum depth parallel to the front lot line.
YARD, FRONT - A yard extending between side lot lines across the front of a lot adjoining a
public or private street. Through lots shall be considered to have two front yards.
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 22, 2022
2
Based on this standard, the front yard for the subject property would be parallel to the southern
boundary, which is the lot line closest to where the property adjoins Amsterdam Way, the nearest
public street. The southern property line is the location that determines where the 50’ front
setback should be measured from.
Figure 2: Inset of current plat for 6605 Amsterdam Way
Figure 3: Aerial map insert for 6605 Amsterdam Way
Existing Building
Front Yard as outlined by the
UDO
30’ Access and Utility Easement
50’ Front Setback as
outlined by UDO
30’ Utility and Access Easement
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 22, 2022
3
Figure 4: Inset of Zoning Map
The subject parcel is situated between I-1 zoned properties to the west, south, and southeast, and
it is also adjacent to a residential (R-10) community to the north-northeast. A 30’ public access
and utility easement running between Amsterdam Way and the subject property is the only
means of entry and exit. This easement, located directly south of the 6605 Amsterdam Way, runs
along the western property line of 6607 Amsterdam Way and ends at the southern property line
of the subject parcel.
Dutch Square
Industrial Park
6605 Amsterdam
Way
Weatherwood At Summerfield
6607 Amsterdam Way
N
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 22, 2022
4
Figure 5: Easements within parcel
Drainage and utility easements are located to the north and east of the existing structure. The
southwestern face of the building is made up of overhead doors, which precludes expansion from
that side. These constraints leave the applicant with one area to expand, the southern portion of
the lot wherein the expansion encroaches into the required 50’ setback.
Access Easement
Drainage Easement
Utility Easement
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 22, 2022
5
Figure 6: Applicant's proposed scope of work
The applicant contends that due to the restrictions of the parcel, the variance is necessary to
provide flexibility in the site design for growth of their business to expand and meet production
needs. The proposed extension would be a 2600 square foot structure (50’ x 52’). This expansion
would encroach 15’ into the 50’ setback.
In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance of 15’ from the 50’ front setback. This variance
would provide the applicant the ability to expand their existing building towards the south side of
the parcel as described above.
Proposed Addition: 50’x52’
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 22, 2022
6
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT POWER AND DUTY:
The Board of Adjustment has the authority to authorize variances from the terms of the Zoning
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 UDO. 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.
ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-965
The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on March 22, 2022, to
consider application number BOA-965, Submitted by Jackalope Development, LLC, applicant and property
owner; a request for a variance of 15’ from the 50’ front setback per Section 3.4.10. D Light Industrial (I-
1) District of the UDO. This variance would allow the property owners to install a 50’x 52’ extension to the
existing building that otherwise would encroach beyond the front setback in a manner which is not
permissible under the literal terms of the ordinance and having heard all the evidence and arguments
presented at the hearing, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT and draws the following
CONCLUSIONS:
1. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if the applicants comply with the literal terms of the ordinance,
specifically the 50’ front setback in the I-1 district per Section 3.4.10.D of the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would/would not result.
(It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use
can be made of the property.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
2. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results/does not
result from unique circumstances related to the subject 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.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did/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.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
4. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if granted, the variance will/will not 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:
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
THEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the application for a VARIANCE from
New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to allow a variance of 15’ from the 50’ front setback
in Section 3.4.10.D, Light Industrial (I-1) District of the UDO be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following
conditions, if any:
ORDERED this 22th day of March, 2022
____________________________________
Cameron Moore, Chairman
Attest:
________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board