Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
April 2023 BOA Agenda Packet
April 25, 2023, 5:30 PM I. Call Meeting to Order (Vice Chairman William Mitchell) II. Approval of March 28, 2023 Minutes (Attendees at March Meeting – Vice Chairman William Mitchell, Michael J. Keenan Sr., Luke Waddell, Michael Sanclimenti, Ed Trice) III. Old Items of Business IV. Regular Items of Business Case BOA-979 – James A. Wicker, applicant, on behalf of Khalid Saleh, property owner, is requesting a variance of 19’ from the 6’ maximum height requirement for a freestanding sign in the Special Highway Overlay District per section 3.5.3(D)(6) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned B-2, Regional Business District and is located at 7650 Market Street. Case BOA-980 – Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Ernest F. Faison, II, property owner, is requesting a variance of 15’ from the 30’ minimum interior side setback requirement per Table 3.1.3.C.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned R-15, Residential District and is located at 6505 Carolina Beach Road. V. Other Business VI. Adjourn MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Cameron Moore, Chair | William Mitchell, Vice Chair Michael Keenan, Sr. | Maverick Pate | Luke Waddell BOARD ALTERNATES Richard Kern | Michael Sanclimenti | Ed Trice Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use | Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, LUCIE HARRELL CONFERENCE ROOM WILMINGTON NC 28403 MINUTES 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 Government Center Complex, 230 Government Center Drive, in the Lucie Harrell Conference Room, Wilmington, NC, on Tuesday, March 28th, 2023. Members Present Members Absent William Mitchell, Vice-Chair Cameron Moore, Chairman Michael J. Keenan, Sr. Maverick Pate Luke Waddell Richard Kern Michael Sanclimenti Ed Trice Ex Officio Members Present Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney Karlene Ellis-Vitalis, Long Range Planner Jeiny Tisbert, Administrative Specialist The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by the Vice Chairman, Mr. William Mitchell. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Vice Chairman William Mitchell explained that the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial Board appointed by the Board of Commissioners to consider ordinance variances from residents in New Hanover County where special conditions would create unnecessary hardships. He said the Board 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. Mr. Mitchell called for a motion to adopt the December 6th minutes. Mr. Waddell motioned to approve the minutes, and Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. The Board unanimously adopted the minutes. Mr. Mitchell swore in Karlene Ellis-Vitalis, Long Range Planner and Ken Vafier, Planning Manager. CASE BOA-978 Ms. Ellis-Vitalis presented the case, stating that the applicant, Jeremy R. Blair, on behalf of Englebright and Long Holdings LLC, property owner, is requesting a variance from the maximum height requirement of 50 feet in the I-1, Light Industrial District in order to construct a 55 foot, 40,750 square foot studio and sound stage on the subject property. The proposed building site is located at 215 N Green Meadows Drive, which consists of 11. 51 acres within the Dutch Square Industrial Park. Current zoning for the subject parcel is I-1, Light Industrial, which is adjacent to property in the I-2 industrial district along the northern and eastern boundary of the subject parcel. Ms. Ellis-Vitalis provided an aerial image showing the access from North Green Meadows Drive, which is within the parcel boundary. The existing development on the parcel and the approximate location of the proposed studio and soundstage will be located on the undeveloped northeastern portion of the parcel. The site plan was presented by the applicant and shows in detail the footprint of the existing developments which are located on the subject parcel, such as parking, offices, warehouses, and loading bays. The proposed location of the studio and soundstage was shown as well as the proposed setbacks required for the structure. District standards for building height in the I-1 industrial district are a maximum of three stories or 50 feet maximum or 100 feet for government offices, buildings, hotels, motels, offices from private business, and professional activities, and research and development facilities structures. As per section 3.1.3C of the UDO additional standards applied when adjacent to residential structure residential properties. The subject parcel is not adjacent to any residential district nor eligible for an additional administrative additional height allowance for the proposed use. The proposed use is defined in the UDO as Broadcasting and Production Studio and is permitted by right. The applicant is seeking relief under section 3.4.10D3 since the maximum permissible building height is 50 feet. Ms. Ellis-Vitalis showed a zoning map including the access easement. Ms. Ellis- Vitalis showed a vicinity map depicting the approximate location of the proposed studio and soundstage. Ms. Ellis-Vitalis concluded her presentation by summarizing that the applicant is requesting the variance of 5 feet from the 50-foot maximum for a proposed development which is permitted by-right per the UDO. The applicant submits that these circumstances are not of the developers making but are industry standards which are required for the development. Therefore, such relief will enable a by-right development to be constructed accordingly. Secondly the applicant contends that the property north and east of the subject parcel in the I-2 district is not dissimilar to the subject property, however it is allowed a height allowance without restriction. Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any questions for staff. Mr. Waddell asked if I-2 is directly adjacent and if it had height restrictions. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Vafier confirmed. Mr. Keenan asked about the approximate height of the building behind the property. The applicant mentioned that he believed it was about 30-feet tall. Mr. Sanclimenti asked if the use could be considered Offices for Business and Professional Activities and could be 100 feet. Mr. Vafier answered stating that an eligible use would be able to utilize the additional height allowance up to 100 feet if they have increased setbacks or architectural step backs. That is a newer provision that is in the code. It was adopted several months ago to allow for those specific uses to go above the 50-foot height limit in the I-1 district. There is a definition for every single land use in our table of permitted uses and this one is defined as a Broadcasting and Production Studio due to the nature of what they are so since that's not a listed use eligible for the additional height allowance. It could be considered an office and professional activity, but there is a pretty clear definition of all the land uses in our new UDO to remove a lot of that subjectivity and it is clear that this is Broadcast and Productions Studio. Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Mitchell swore in the applicant, Jeremy Blair. Mr. Blair stated that the owner and their team have done a considerable amount of research and travel and met with various production studios, and they have a real sense for the need for interior height hence the request to get the additional 5 feet. The point was also made by staff that most of the surrounding area is the higher intensity zoning such that there would be no limitation in use. Mr. Blair continued by stating that taking this action through this Board was a less overwhelming move rather than trying to rezone the whole entire site. Mr. Blair felt that the presentation summarized the submitted findings of fact. Mr. Sanclimenti asked if the 5 feet would make that much of a difference with the lighting. Mr. Blair stated that based on other studios in other parts of the country that 5 feet makes a big difference for the full use of the property. Mr. Keenan asked if Screen Gems have a 50-foot sound stage. Mr. Blair stated that he was unaware if they did or did not. Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any other questions and if anyone wanted to testify in opposition. Mr. Mitchell moved to motion and close the public hearing and move into deliberation. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DELIBERATION Mr. Waddell moved to approve and accept the applicant's findings of fact. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. The Board agreed unanimously to close the public hearing. The Board's decision was based on the following conclusions and findings of fact: 1. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically the 50’ maximum building height requirement per section 3.4.10(D)(3) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • A building height of 55 feet is required to accommodate the film industry's desired standard for clear interior height. Strict application of the ordinance limiting the height to 50 feet would create an unnecessary hardship and limit the use of the studio/sound stage space for various productions. 2. 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: • The adjacent properties with I-2 zoning designations could support buildings with unlimited height and certain uses on the subject property and adjacent properties with similar I-1 zoning designations could be developed at a height of 100 feet. The location of the subject property is contained within an area designated for large industrial buildings; however, studio/sound stage is not a use provided for in the ordinance to be developed at a height of 100 feet. The ordinance cannot provide a comprehensive list of all uses which may or may not benefit from the additional height, so this variance would eliminate a hardship for the studio/sound stage use on this particular property. 3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • The limitation of building height to 50 feet for I-1 zoning nor the exclusion of studio/sound stage from a list of uses allowed to be developed at a height up to 100 feet were not a result of action taken by the applicant or the property owner. 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: • Light Industrial (I-2) zoning allows certain uses to be developed with a building height up to 100 feet. While this list of uses cannot be considered comprehensive, these uses, including offices, hotels, and research and development facilities, could be considered lower intensity uses on industrial properties. A studio/sound stage could also be considered a lower intensity use on industrial property. • Also, the subject property is not located adjacent to residential properties but is bound by similarly zoned I-1 parcels as well as more intensive I-2 zoning. The requested variance would only increase the allowable building height by 5 feet, or 10%, and is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved and seconded by to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED. Please note the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings. Executive Secretary Chairman Date BOA-979 1 of 5 VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 25, 2023 CASE: BOA-979 PETITIONER: James A. Wicker, applicant, on behalf of Khalid Saleh, property owner. REQUEST: Variance of 19’ from the 6’ maximum height requirement for a freestanding sign in the Special Highway Overlay District per section 3.5.3(D)(6) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. LOCATION: 7650 Market Street PID: R03600-005-037-000 ZONING: B-2, Regional Business District ACREAGE: 1.44 Acres BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant is requesting a variance from the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD) signage requirements limiting freestanding signs to a height of 6’ to allow a permitted and constructed 25’ sign to remain on the property in its current location. The SHOD was adopted as an overlay district on certain road corridors beginning in 1986 with the intent to protect the natural beauty and scenic vistas that exist along interstate highways and other specially designated roadways that serve as major accessways and gateways into unincorporated New Hanover County. Currently, the SHOD is located along I-40/N College Road north of Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway, I-140, and Market Street from the Torchwood Boulevard/Bayshore Drive intersection north to the Pender County line. The SHOD contains requirements for setbacks, outside storage, parking and loading, lot coverage, and signage that are in addition to or supersede the requirements of the base zoning district applied to the property. Figure 1: Location of SHOD District Along Roadways in Northern New Hanover County BOA-979 2 of 5 The subject parcel is located along Market Street in the Bayshore area, approximately a third of a mile north of the intersection of Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard/Bayshore Drive. Construction of a Convenience Store with Fuel Sales, which is a use by-right in the B-2 district, is nearing completion on the site. Figure 2: General Vicinity of Subject Site with Zoning Districts and SHOD Boundary Section 3.5.3 D of the UDO details the SHOD district standards, which prescribe a limitation on height and area of freestanding sign: 3.5.3. SPECIAL HIGHWAY OVERLAY (SHOD) DISTRICT D. SHOD District Standards 6. Signs: Signs shall comply with Section 5.6, Signs, except that only one freestanding ground sign that does not exceed 6 feet in height and a maximum surface area of 150 square feet is allowed within the 100-foot setback. No outdoor advertising signs are permitted. A conceptual review for the project was presented to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) on May 13, 2020 and a formal application was submitted for the October 21, 2020 TRC agenda. Planning staff comments for both submittals indicated to the applicant that the development was subject to SHOD requirements, including the requirements that signage in the SHOD is limited to one freestanding ground sign that is less than 6 feet in height and 150 square feet in area. In a written response to the TRC comments provided at the October 21, 2020 TRC meeting, the applicant acknowledged that the sign was subject to the SHOD requirements, and noted that the submitted drawings were revised to include a note addressing the sign restrictions and that this was to be permitted by others. This footnote was subsequently included in revised drawing sets submitted to the county and dated December 15, 2020 and March 11, 2021. Site BOA-979 3 of 5 Figure 3: Portion of Submitted Site Drawings Dated December 15, 2020 of which Footnote 12 Acknowledges SHOD Signage Regulations. A building permit for construction of the convenience store and fuel canopy was applied for on March 9, 2022, and received zoning approval on March 18, 2022 and ultimately a building permit on May 5, 2022. The civil construction drawings submitted with this building permit application, dated February 14, 2022, also contain a footnote regarding the freestanding sign which acknowledges the height and area restrictions and refers permitting duties to be conducted by others. The application for the freestanding sign was submitted on January 13, 2023 and subsequently received zoning approval on January 26, 2023, with the permit being issued on January 30, 2023. However, the site drawings included with this application did not adhere to the SHOD district requirements set forth in the UDO nor referred to during previous TRC or staff reviews. The sign was inadvertently given permit approval for a 25’ tall sign and was constructed at this height, out of compliance with the SHOD regulations. Proposed Sign Location with Footnote Reference from Submitted Drawings Text Accompanying Footnote 12 BOA-979 4 of 5 Figure 4: Sign Drawing Submitted with Permit Application in January 2023 Staff was made aware of this error upon preparing to conduct a final inspection on the sign, which was called in to be performed on March 7, 2023. After consultation with legal staff, it was determined that the sign would have to be brought into compliance with the SHOD regulations, despite being given permit approval in error. Options to bring the sign into compliance include reducing the sign height to the required 6’ dimension, moving it outside of the 100’ setback line, appealing the decision that the sign is out of compliance, or requesting a variance to allow the sign to remain as constructed. The applicant has elected to pursue the option of requesting a variance from the SHOD signage regulations in order to achieve compliance. The applicant contends that a variance is necessary due to hardship created through the development review process as detailed within their submitted application. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance of 19’ from the 6’ height limitation on freestanding signs in the SHOD in order to allow the permitted and constructed 25’ sign to remain on the property in its current location. BOA-979 5 of 5 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. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Cameron Moore, Chair | William Mitchell, Vice Chair Michael Keenan, Sr. | Maverick Pate | Luke Waddell BOARD ALTERNATES Richard Kern | Michael Sanclimenti | Ed Trice Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use | Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, LUCIE HARRELL CONFERENCE ROOM WILMINGTON NC 28403 ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-979 The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on April 25, 2023 to consider application number BOA-979, submitted by James A. Wicker, applicant, on behalf of Khalid Saleh, property owner, a request for a variance of 19’ from the 6’ maximum height requirement for a freestanding sign in the Special Highway Overlay District per section 3.5.3(D)(6) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance and to use the property located at 7650 Market Street in a manner not permissible under the literal terms of the UDO 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 applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically the 6’ maximum height requirement for a freestanding sign in the Special Highway Overlay District per section 3.5.3(D)(6) 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 the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to allow an increase of 5’ from the 50’ maximum building height requirement per section 3.4.10(D)(3) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any: ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2023. ____________________________________ Cameron Moore, Chairman Attest: ________________________________ Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board PO Box 1546 / 1078 S. Main St. / Mt. Airy, NC 27030 / O: 336-789-4074 / © 2021 by K&D Signs LLC Customer Signature:Date: Current Image Sam's Mart - 7650 Market Street, Wilmington, NC 28411 P.01 Designer: Dustin Bledsoe Project: 21-1852 Rev#: Date: 12/15/2021 18’ ENLARGED VIEW OF SIGN AREA Proposed Layout PO Box 1546 / 1078 S. Main St. / Mt. Airy, NC 27030 / O: 336-789-4074 / © 2021 by K&D Signs LLC Customer Signature:Date: Sam's Mart - 7650 Market Street, Wilmington, NC 28411 P.04 Designer: Dustin Bledsoe Project: 21-1852 Rev#: Date: 12/15/2021 ID Sign PO Box 1546 / 1078 S. Main St. / Mt. Airy, NC 27030 / O: 336-789-4074 / © 2021 by K&D Signs LLC Customer Signature:Date: Sam's Mart - 7650 Market Street, Wilmington, NC 28411 P.11 Designer: Dustin Bledsoe Project: 21-1852 Rev#: Date: 12/15/2021 6.56 6.56 3.94 3.94 1.95 1.95 1.95 133.10 Sq Ft 25’ OAH VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 25, 2023 BOA-980 Page 1 of 4 CASE: BOA-980 PETITIONER: Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Ernest Faison, property owner. REQUEST: Variance from the 30’ side setback per Table 3.1.3.C.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. LOCATION: 6505 Carolina Beach Road PID: R08200-002-001-000 ZONING: R-15, Residential District ACREAGE: 0.92 Acres BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant is requesting a variance related to the interior side setback to transition the existing residential structure into a plumbing contractor office, or “Contractor Office” defined by the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as: An establishment primarily engaged in the day-to-day administrative and clerical services for businesses providing contracted services, such as building contractors, heating and air conditioning (HVAC) repair, landscaping and janitorial services, etc., that require outside and/or fleet storage. The use may include some on-site repair and material preparation work. This transition to the proposed use is contingent upon the successful rezoning of the property from an R-15, Residential District to a (CZD) B-2, Conditional Regional Business District. Per the UDO’s Principal Use Table, the proposed use would be permitted in B-2 if rezoned. Figure 1: Table 4.2.1 of UDO Upon successfully rezoning the subject property, the existing structure will be remodeled with the intent to serve as a plumbing contractor’s office. However, at 15.9 feet from the neighboring northern lot line, the existing structure would not meet the required interior side setback of 30 feet from the adjacent parcel to the south, zoned as R-15. VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 25, 2023 BOA-980 Page 2 of 4 The applicant is proposing a variance to Table 3.1.3.C.1 of the UDO which would apply to the site should it be zoned B-2. Figure 3: Table 3.1.3.C.1 With a rezoning of the property to B-2, the setback between the existing structure and the residentially zoned adjacent parcel to the south will be required to be no less than 30 feet. Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance of 15’ from the required side yard setback on the southern property line. 15’ Setback Existing Single-family Dwelling Figure 2: Applicant's Site Plan with Staff Markups VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 25, 2023 BOA-980 Page 3 of 4 The applicant contends that if the lot is commercially rezoned, the existing structure that is in good condition would have to be demolished so as not to create a non-conformity. There is a wish for the adaptive re-use of the existing structure, and a strict application of the ordinance would result in the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a new building to meet the larger setback. The subject property consists of 0.92 acres located on the eastern side of Carolina Beach Road and is currently zoned R-15 Residential District. To the north, the adjacent parcel is zoned B-2. To the south, the parcel is zoned R-15. West, across Carolina Beach Rd., the parcels are B-2 and to the east, the parcels are zoned R-15. Figure 4: Zoning Map In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance of 15’ to accommodate the rezoning of the parcel from R-15 to (CZD) B-2. The applicant contends that the variance is necessary due to factors including limited buildable area to develop the site with a commercial use and the presence of an existing structure that does not meet the necessary 30-foot side (interior) setback required of the B-2 zoning district when adjacent to a residential platted lot. VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 25, 2023 BOA-980 Page 4 of 4 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 Zoning 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. Case: BOA-980 Vicinity Map Address: 6505 Carolina Beach Road Request of variance from the 15' from the 30' minimum interior side setback requirement per Table 3.1.3.C.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. Applicant: Cindee Wolf New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment April 25, 2023 Case: BOA-980 Zoning Map Address: 6505 Carolina Beach Road Request of variance from the 15' from the 30' minimum interior side setback requirement per Table 3.1.3.C.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. Applicant: Cindee Wolf New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment April 25, 2023 Case: BOA-980 Aerial Map Address: 6505 Carolina Beach Road Request of variance from the 15' from the 30' minimum interior side setback requirement per Table 3.1.3.C.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. Applicant: Cindee Wolf New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment April 25, 2023 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Cameron Moore, Chair | William Mitchell, Vice Chair Michael Keenan, Sr. | Maverick Pate | Luke Waddell BOARD ALTERNATES Richard Kern | Michael Sanclimenti | Ed Trice Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use | Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, LUCIE HARRELL CONFERENCE ROOM WILMINGTON NC 28403 ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-980 The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on April 25, 2023 to consider application number BOA-980, submitted by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, on behalf of Ernest Faison, property owner, a request for a variance from the 30’ interior side yard setback requirement per Table 3.1.3.C.1, of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and to use the property located at 6505 Carolina Beach Road in a manner not permissible under the literal terms of the UDO 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 applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically the 30’ interior side yard setback requirement per Table 3.1.3.C.1, 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 the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to allow a 15’ variance from the 30’ interior side yard setback required per Table 3.1.3.C.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any: ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2023. ____________________________________ Cameron Moore, Chairman Attest: ________________________________ Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board Page 1 of 5 Variance Application – Updated 05-2021 NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 Telephone (910) 798-7165 FAX (910) 798-7053 planningdevelopment.nhcgov.com ZONING & SUBDIVISION VARIANCE APPLICATION This application form must be completed as part of a request for a zoning and/or subdivision variance. The application submitted through the county’s online COAST portal. The main procedural steps in the submittal and review of applications for a variance are outlined in the flowchart below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the application, are set out in Section 10.3.11 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Public Hearing Procedures (Optional) Pre-Application Conference (Optional) Community Information Meeting 1 Application Submittal & Acceptance 2 Planning Director Review & Staff Report 3 Public Hearing Scheduling & Notification : Advisory Body Review & Action 4 Board of Adjustment Hearing & Decision 5 Post-Decision Limitations and Actions 1. Applicant and Property Owner Information Applicant/Agent Name Owner Name (if different from Applicant/Agent) Company Company/Owner Name 2 Address Address City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Phone Phone Email Email cwolf@lobodemar.biz Cindee Wolf Design Solutions P.O. Box 7221 Wilmington, NC 28406 910-620-2374 Ernest F. Faison, II 6505 Carolina Beach Road Wilmington, NC 28412 pokermike59@gmail.com 910-232-0303 (Contact: Mike Pederson) (Contract Purchaser) Page 2 of 5 Variance Application – Updated 05-2021 2. Subject Property Information Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s) Total Parcel(s) Acreage Existing Zoning and Use(s) 3. Proposed Variance Narrative Subject Zoning Regulation, Chapter and Section In the space below, please provide a narrative of the application (attach additional pages if necessary). 6505 Carolina Beach Road 313206.39.4885 / R08200-002-001-000 0.92 ac. R-15 (Proposed (CZD) B-2 Variance request from Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Article 3.1.3.C.1. - Interior Side and Rear Setbacks fro Residential Properties. The prescribed setback is thirty feet (30'), but the existing structure is located only fifteen and nine tenths feet (15.9') from the side boundary line. A variance for a fifteen-foot (15') reduction of the side setback is requested to allow for adaptive re-use of the existing structure. Page 3 of 5 Variance Application – Updated 05-2021 CRITERIA REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance if it finds that strict application of the ordinance results in an unnecessary hardship for the applicant, and if the variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance. The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed use meets these required findings (attach additional pages if necessary). 1. Unnecessary hardship would result from 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. Hardship resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that area common to the neighborhood or general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance. A hardship would result from strict application of the prescribed setback because it would require demolition of the existing structure, and new construction to meet the larger setback. The hardship results from the desire for adaptive re-use of an existing structure. The property is currently zoned for residential use, and the structure is conforming to that zoning district's setback. However, the proposed rezoning to use the structure for commercial use would create a non-conforming situation. Page 4 of 5 Variance Application – Updated 05-2021 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. Again, the hardship to the property owner would be the necessity to remove a perfectly good structure, rather than adapting it for a different use. Approval of the requested variance would allow the adaptive re-use of an existing structure. The existing side property setback meets all building code regulations, and that yard will include a vegetated buffer for the visual screening and physical separation from the adjacent residential use. Allowing some latitude to this specific requirement, on this particular parcel, would not adversely affect the spirit, purpose or intent of the Ordinance, nor pose a public safety issue. Approval of a variance for a reduced setback would provide substantial justice for the property owner to pursue reasonable use of the existing structure.