Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
May 2023 BOA Agenda Packet
May 23, 2023, 5:30 PM I. Call Meeting to Order (Vice Chair William Mitchell) II. Approval of April 25, 2023 Minutes (Attendees at April Meeting – Vice Chair William Mitchell, Michael J. Keenan Sr., Michael Sanclimenti, Ed Trice) III. Old 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. This item was continued from the April 25, 2023 meeting. IV. Regular Items of Business Case BOA-981 – William Murrell with Techwood Crowatan, LLC, applicant and property owner, is requesting a variance from the withholding of permits penalty per Section 5.3.2.B of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial District and is located in the 200 block of Crowatan Road. Case BOA-982 – Jason Akins, applicant, on behalf of Len and Kelly Lecci, property owners, is requesting a variance from the 75’ minimum conservation resource setback requirement per Section 5.7.4.B.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned R-15, Residential District and is located at 949 Radnor Road. V. Other Business VI. Adjourn MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Cameron Moore, Chair | William Mitchell, Vice Chair Michael Keenan, Sr. | Maverick Pate | 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, CONFERENCE ROOM 139 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 Conference Room 139, Wilmington, NC, on Tuesday, April 25th, 2023. Members Present Members Absent William Mitchell, Vice-Chair Cameron Moore, Chairman Michael J. Keenan, Sr. Maverick Pate Michael Sanclimenti Richard Kern Ed Trice Luke Waddell Ex Officio Members Present Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney Julian Griffee, Current Planner Jeiny Tisbert, Administrative Specialist The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by the Vice Chair, Mr. William Mitchell. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Vice Chair 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 motioned to adopt the March 28th minutes. Mr. Keenan motioned to approve the minutes, and Mr. Trice seconded the motion. The Board unanimously adopted the minutes. Mr. Mitchell swore in Julian Griffee, Current Planner, and Ken Vafier, Planning Manager. CASE BOA-979 Mr. Vafier stated that since there were not enough members of the board present to be a full board, the applicant would like to request a continuance. Mr. James Wicker from Wicker and Marsh formally requested an extension to the May 23, 2023 meeting. Mr. Keenan moved to approve the continuance. Mr. Sanclimenti seconded the motion. The Board unanimously moved to grant the continuance to the May 23, 2023 meeting. CASE BOA-980 Mr. Julian Griffee presented the case, stating that the applicant, Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, on behalf of the property owner, Ernest Faison, is requesting a variance of 15 feet from the 30-foot minimum interior side setback requirement per Table 3.1.3.C.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, in order to convert a single-family dwelling into commercial space. The subject site is located at 6505 Carolina Beach Road in the southern portion of the county, between the Halyburton Parkway and Myrtle Grove Road intersections. Currently, the site is zoned R-15, which is intended to accommodate low density residential development. The applicant is seeking a conditional rezoning of the parcel from R-15 to B-2 so that the parcel can be developed with a contractor’s office. The surrounding zoning of the parcel is R-15 to the south and east, and B-2 to the north and to the west across the Carolina Beach Road right of way. Mr. Griffee provided an aerial map depicting the subject site and the surrounding area. Single family residential exists to the south and east of the subject parcel, and commercial operations exist to the north and the west. Mr. Griffee proceeded in providing an overview of the proposed site plan. The existing single-family dwelling encroaches in the 30-foot setback required for commercial structures within B-2 zoning districts when adjacent to single family uses. There are additional dimensional standards for commercial structures on commercial and industrial zoned parcels that abut residential uses and platted lots. The standards for site (interior) and rear setbacks were described. If the rezoning were to be approved, the parcel would be subject to Section 3.1.3.C.1 of the UDO, which requires a 30-foot setback for commercial structures when adjacent to single-family use. As such, a non-conformity would be created as the existing single-family structure, which the applicant seeks to convert to a commercial structure, is located 15.9 feet from the side interior property line. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 3.1.3.C.1, requesting a 15 foot from the 30-foot side interior setback requirement. Mr. Griffee provided images depicting the current conditions of the site and abutting single family parcel to the south. One image showed a pink flag indicating the approximate location of the property line. Mr. Griffee concluded by stating that the applicant is requesting a variance of 15 foot to accommodate the rezoning of the parcel from R-15 to conditional B-2 district. 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. 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. Mr. Mitchell swore in Cindee Wolf. Ms. Wolf stated that 6505 Carolina Beach Road is an existing house beside some businesses and surrounded by residential property. They are in the process of rezoning the property so the decision of the Board would be conditional upon the approval of the rezoning. Rural Plumbing is a small business in town that in the past has rented their space. They have an opportunity to buy a piece of property and locate their facility there. The intent is to adapt the existing house as their offices and build a new building in the back. Ms. Wolf continued by stating that the variance that is being asked is for a portion of that existing house is within the 30-foot B-2 side setback that Mr. Griffee described. What is being requested is a 15-foot variance from that side set back so that the existing building sitting in there can in fact remain part of the project. As Mr. Griffee pointed out, the property line runs between the building and a house adjacent to it. The house adjacent is to the rear. There will be a visual buffer for plants/plantings. Even though it is only set back 15 feet instead of 30 feet the visibility of that end of the building would not be crushed really in the adjacent property owner’s privacy or security. The requested variance of 15 feet is for the adaptive reuse of the existing structure. Ms. Wolf continued by stating that the hardships are that the only alternative is demolition of the existing structure and new construction so that it could meet prescribed setbacks. The hardship of the existing structure is peculiar to this site and the existing structure is conforming to the R-15 zoning district that it is in. The nonconformity is being created by the rezoning which is not the result of actions taken by the applicant. She stated that she believed that the adaptive reuse of the existing structure is a strategy of the comprehensive land use plan that facilitates redevelopment options that emphasize or enhance the area's character while the conditional district that this will be party to ensures compatibility and minimization of impacts on those adjacent residences. The existing side property setback meets all building code regulations even at 15 feet. The 30 foot is strictly an ordinance requirement for separation of uses and the visual screening and physical separation will be provided as part of the landscape regulations. Allowing some latitude in this specific requirement on this particular use and parcel would not adversely affect the spirit, purpose, or intent of the ordinance nor pose a public safety issue. Approval of the variance for a reduced setback would provide substantial justice for the property owner to pursue reasonable use of the existing structure. Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any questions. Mr. Keenan asked if vegetation will be added. Ms. Wolf confirmed that vegetation would be added and that there is a requirement for any commercial use regardless of the setback to provide buffering between it and any residential use. That will all be part of the Technical Review Committee process. If and when this is approved Monday May 1st, 2023, by the Commissioners, then the applicant will have to go through all of the detailed design and permitting which will include landscape buffering. Mr. Keenan asked if there is an option for a fence. Ms. Wolf confirmed that there is and stated that there is a fence back at the new building. Ms. Wolf stated that she had been in contact several times with Mr. Wilkerson who is the owner of the adjacent property. She stated that they spoke about his property, future use of his property and how this affects him. Mr. Trice asked what his response was or what feelings Ms. Wolf received when speaking to Mr. Wilkerson. Ms. Wolf stated that he seemed more interested in what it meant for his property in the future, but he also has property behind this (family property). She stated he was interested more in her role as a planner rather than particularities to this project. Mr. Sanclimenti asked exactly what will be going on in the front of the existing building that is for commercial use. Ms. Wolf stated there would be offices of Rural Plumbing. It's large enough and included in the list of potential uses as part of the conditional district rezoning of what they call studios and instructional services. If they split the building into two there would be Rural Plumbing offices and a gift shop or Rural Plumbing offices and a yoga studio. If Rural Plumbing at some future date got out altogether those same couple of potential uses of instructional studios and general retail. Based on the existing building it is limited to the types of uses it could have. Mr. Griffee stated that he is working with Ms. Wolf on the rezoning process. What has been put forth before the Planning Board and then ultimately going to the Board of Commissioners at least scheduled for Monday May 1st, is the requested use for contractors’ offices as well as business services, business and professional offices, instructional services and studios, and personal services. With the conditional business district this entire parcel will be subject and limited to these specific uses outlined by them. Ms. Wolf confirmed and added that the specific site plan was to change, it would have to go back through the conditional zoning process to amend it formally. Mr. Sanclimenti asked where parking would be since it appears on the drawing that there's one handicapped space. Ms. Wolf stated that that is all that they need at this point. The reason for the other possible uses is more in the future if they ceased using it, they would want to make sure that there were other things you could utilize the building for. You do not want to limit yourself to say this can only be a contractor's office. In the future if they were to vacate certainly parking could be included behind that storage building. Mr. Sanclimenti asked for clarification on where the trucks and storage of their plumbing materials would go. Ms. Wolf stated that they would be stored in the new building. That area will all be fenced in. They have proposed that to be the screening fence for the buffering is a combination of fence and landscape. Mr. Keenan asked if it was partially for security purposes and Ms. Wolf confirmed it was. Mr. Keenan asked how many square feet the house is. Ms. Wolf responded by stating that it is 1,720 square feet. Mr. Sanclimenti asked if it is possible that a part of the building could be removed. Ms. Wolf responded that it is possible, and it is a part of the hardship. Mr. Vafier stated to the board that there had been a similar request that was heard at the December meeting which also was contingent upon a conditional use request to the B-2 district. With that request there were two accompanying conditions, and it may be worth discussing those and ensuring the applicant’s comfort with those. Mr. Vafier stated these two conditions would be approval of the accompanying conditional use request consisting of a rezoning of the property from R-15, residential district to a B-2, regional business district and this variance shall only apply to the existing structures on the property not to any expansion of the structures or any new structures. Mr. Mitchell asked if the Board members remembered the case Mr. Vafier was referring to, which they did. Mr. Mitchell asked Ms. Wolf if the conditions were something she would be amenable to. Ms. Wolf agreed. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was anyone that wished to testify in opposition or in general to the case. Mr. Mitchell moved to motion and close the public hearing and move into deliberation. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DELIBERATION Mr. Keenan moved to approve and accept the applicant’s findings of fact with two conditions. Mr. Trice 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 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 result. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • 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. 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 property is unique in that the applicant has a desire for adaptive re-use of an existing structure. The proposed use of the structure for commercial use would create a non-conforming situation. 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 hardship to the property owner would be the necessity to remove a perfectly good structure, rather than adapting it to a different use. 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: • 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. The variance was also granted with the following conditions: • Approval of the accompanying Conditional Use Request consisting of a rezoning of the property from an R-15 Residential District to a B-2, Regional Business District. • This variance shall only apply to the existing structures on the property not to any expansion of the structures or any new structures. 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 Vice Chair Date BOA-979 1 of 5 VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 23, 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. Case: BOA-979 a? a BER�E\G :' �j Vicinity Map Address: 7650 Market Street Request of variance of 19' from the 6' maximum height requirement for a freestanding sign in the Special Highway Overlay District per section 3.5.3(0)(6) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. Applicant: James A. Wicker New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment May 23, 2023 ........ Case: BOA-979 Zoning Map Address: 7650 Market Street Request of variance of 19' from the 6' maximum height requirement for a freestanding sign in the Special Highway Overlay District per section 3.5.3(0)(6) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. Applicant: James A. Wicker New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment May 23, 2023 Case: BOA-979 Aerial Map Address: 7650 Market Street Request of variance of 19' from the 6' maximum height requirement for a freestanding sign in the Special Highway Overlay District per section 3.5.3(0)(6) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. Applicant: James A. Wicker New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment May 23, 2023 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Cameron Moore, Chair | William Mitchell, Vice Chair Michael Keenan, Sr. | Maverick Pate | 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, CONFERENCE ROOM 139 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 May 23, 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 23rd day of May, 2023. ____________________________________ William Mitchell, Vice Chair 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 BOA-981 Page 1 of 4 VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 23, 2023 CASE: BOA-981 PETITIONER: William Murrell, applicant and property owner. REQUEST: Variance from withholding of permits per Section 5.3.2.B of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). LOCATION: 220 Crowatan Road PID: R01800-007-225-000 ZONING: I-1, Light Industrial District ACREAGE: 4.42 Acres BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant is requesting a variance from the 3-year period for withholding development approvals prescribed for failure to obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of all regulated or significant trees from a property by New Hanover County’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The subject property is located in Castle Hayne, south of Madeline Trask Drive and north of Hermitage Road. The adjacent parcels to the north and south are both densely wooded with similar tree species and size to each other. The property consists of 4.42 acres and is currently zoned I-1, Light Industrial. To the north, east, and south the adjacent parcels are also zoned I-1. To the west, the adjacent parcel is zoned R-20, Residential District. On February 27, 2023, New Hanover County Zoning staff received a citizen’s complaint concerning unpermitted clearing on Crowatan Road. An investigation on March 1 verified that the applicant had conducted unauthorized tree removal on the 4.42 acres without first obtaining the required tree removal permit or providing New Hanover County Planning staff with documentation exempting the applicant from the tree removal permit. Section 5.3.5 of the UDO describes the requirements for tree removal permits: 5.3.5 TREE REMOVAL PERMITS A. Unless a waiver, exemption, or exception applies in accordance with Section 5.3.1, Applicability or Section 10.3.9.B.2, Waivers, Exemptions, and Exceptions, no person, directly or indirectly, shall remove any regulated tree identified in Section 5.3.4, Tree Retention Standards, from public or private property without first obtaining a tree removal permit in accordance with Section 10.3.9, Tree Removal Permit. B. Unless a waiver, exemption, or exception applies in accordance with Section 10.3.9.B.2, Waivers, Exemptions, and Exceptions, a tree removal permit authorizing removal is required before any clearing, grading, or other authorizations may be issued, including building permits. BOA-981 Page 2 of 4 The portion of the tree removal permit approving the required mitigation plan shall not be required until after construction plan approval. During the investigation, staff observed that the lot was completely cleared of all trees, stumps, and root systems. However, on the lot were multiple piles of the removed trees. Staff verified that these trees were regulated species of conifer trees, Loblolly Pines, and that they measured between 10” and 26” Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). This measurement was taken with tree calipers and measured at what was approximately breast height. At least a portion of the trees removed were of a species and DBH to be classified as Regulated Trees and are subject to tree removal requirements prescribed by the UDO in Section 5.3.4, Tree Retention Standards. Table 5.3.4.A provides description of New Hanover County’s Regulated Trees: Figure 1: Table of Regulated Trees BOA-981 Page 3 of 4 Section 5.3 of the UDO describes actions to be taken in the event of unauthorized tree removal which results in the removal of all or substantially all documented trees where no permit or exemption was obtained: 5.3.2. FORESTRY AND PROPERTY CLEARING B. While exempted forestry activities are not subject to the tree retention requirements of this section, failure to obtain an exemption to a tree removal permit prior to any timber harvest or other property clearing activity will result in the denial of a building permit, site plan approval, or subdivision approval for a period of three years, regardless of any change in ownership, if the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all documented, significant, or specimen trees from the tract. The denial period shall be increased to five years in situations where removal of all or substantially all regulated trees was a willful violation of these County regulations. After discussions with the applicant detailing the circumstances associated with unpermitted land clearing, staff determined that the language regarding withholding of permits was applicable to this site, and a letter informing the applicant of this withholding was sent on April 17, 2023. This letter outlined the land use violation of unpermitted land clearing and stipulated that for a period no less than three years, this parcel will be denied all building permits, site plan approvals, and subdivision approvals regardless of ownership. When notified of the land use violation, the applicant hired a tree surveyor and with his neighbor’s permission had the properties to the north and south of his surveyed to calculate an estimated amount of potential required mitigation had he submitted a tree removal permit before the land clearing. Mitigation requirements are detailed in Section 5.3.7 of the UDO: 5.3.7 MITIGATION A. When Significant Trees are authorized for removal by a tree removal permit or Specimen Trees are authorized for removal by a variance, they shall be replaced at a rate of 2.0 times the caliper inches at DBH removed, except as provided in subsections D and E below and Section 5.3.8, Optional Incentives for Retaining Trees. B. Each replacement tree shall be a minimum of 2-inch caliper size at time of planting. C. Replacement trees should reflect the type (e.g., hardwood, flowering, evergreen, deciduous, canopy, understory, etc.) of tree being removed to the maximum extent practicable based on the compatibility of the species with proposed buildings and infrastructure, existing environmental conditions, and diversity of tree species. D. If the Planning Director determines it is infeasible for a portion or all of the replacement tree(s) to be accommodated on the site, the Planning Director may direct that an in-lieu fee be paid to the County’s Tree Improvement Fund. The mitigation fee as set forth in the County’s fee schedule shall be charged for every inch at DBH of Significant Tree removed and two times every inch at DBH of Specimen Tree removed. According to the tree survey issued by Paul Bunyan’s Tree Service Inc., between the two neighboring sites there are a total of 11 Loblolly Pine trees that would be classified as Significant Trees (DBH greater than 24”). Mitigation for significant trees is assessed at $200 per inch of total number of significant tree DBH BOA-981 Page 4 of 4 when paying directly into the tree mitigation fund. The applicant contends that a misunderstanding of New Hanover County’s requirements for tree removal came about when consulting with a logging company. The applicant states that the logging company informed him that they are exempt from permitting for harvesting timber. The applicant understood this to mean that he too would be exempt from permitting for clearcutting. The variance the applicant is requesting is that the Board of Adjustment waive the 3-year period for withholding development permits for the subject parcel and allow the applicant to go through the tree removal permit process based off the tree survey conducted by Paul Bunyan’s Tree Service Inc. The applicant proposes to offer mitigation via a combination of replanting trees and making payment to the County’s Tree Improvement Fund as specified in Section 5.3.7 of the UDO. Staff would recommend that any alternative mitigation, if approved, would be determined by staff based on an approved tree inventory of the adjacent sites. 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. C h ip D r C h i p D r Cr o w atan R d M adeli ne Tras k DrG o f f s D r Pete r S p ri n g D r Cas tle Hay ne Rd David C t Her mi t a ge R d Ch es t e r fi e ld R d C r o w a t a n R d Castle Hayne Park Ch e s te rfiel d R d Hy-Speed Janitorial Cleaning Suppli G O F F D R I V E CA S TLE HAYNE R O A D CR O W A T A N R O A D M ADE L I NE T R A S K DRI V E HERMITAGE ROAD C HIP D R I V E CHES T E R F I E L D R O A D PETER S P R ING D R I V E Case: BOA-981 Address: 200 block of Crowatan Road Request of a variance from the withholding of permits penalty per Section 5.3.2.B of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. Applicant: William Murrell New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment Vicinity Map May 23, 2023 1,000 Feet Subject Site G O F F D R I V E HERMITAGE R O A D CAS T L E H A Y N E R O A D C R O WAT AN RO AD MA D EL I NE T R ASK DR I VE C H I P D R I V E PE TER S P R IN G DR IVE CHESTERF I ELDROAD B-1 O&I I-1 RA R-20 CZD CS Case: BOA-981 Address: 200 block of Crowatan Road Request of a variance from the withholding of permits penalty per Section 5.3.2.B of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. Applicant: William Murrell New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment Zoning Map May 23, 2023 1,000 Feet Subject Site CR O W A T A N R O A D M AD E L INE T R A S K D R IV E H ERMITAGE ROAD Case: BOA-981 Address: 200 block of Crowatan Road Request of a variance from the withholding of permits penalty per Section 5.3.2.B of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. Applicant: William Murrell New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment Aerial Map May 23, 2023 1,000 Feet Subject Site MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Cameron Moore, Chair | William Mitchell, Vice Chair Michael Keenan, Sr. | Maverick Pate | 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, CONFERENCE ROOM 139 WILMINGTON NC 28403 ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-981 The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on May 23, 2023 to consider application number BOA-981, submitted by William Murrell, applicant and property owner, is requesting a variance from the withholding of permits penalty per Section 5.3.2.B of the New Hanover County Unified Development 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 applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically the withholding of permits penalty per Section 5.3.2.B 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 withholding of permits penalty per Section 5.3.2.B of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any: ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2023. ____________________________________ William Mitchell, Vice Chair Attest: ________________________________ Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board April 17, 2023 Attn: Mr. William Murrell SR&R Environmental, Inc CERTIFIED MAIL 4920 U.S. 421, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Wilmington, NC 28401 RE: Unpermitted land clearing at 220 Crowatan Road, Wilmington, NC Dear Mr. Murrell, Following a citizen’s complaint an investigation was launched on February 27th verifying that 220 Crowatan Rd, parcel R01800-007-225-000, was subject to property clearing without first obtaining a New Hanover County tree removal permit and or a letter of exemption issued by the Planning Director. The investigation documented multiple piles of pine trees regulated by the County’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as Significant Trees, see figure 1. Figure 1 The removal of New Hanover County regulated trees without first obtaining the necessary permits, exemption letter, or waiver is in violation of the UDO’s Section 5.3.5 A. Unless a waiver, exemption, or exception applies in accordance with Section 5.3.1, Applicability or Section 10.3.9.B.2, Waivers, Exemptions, and Exceptions, no person, directly or indirectly, shall remove any regulated tree identified in Section 5.3.4, Tree Retention Standards, from public or private property without first obtaining a tree removal permit in accordance with Section 10.3.9, Tree Removal Permit. B. Unless a waiver, exemption, or exception applies in accordance with Section 10.3.9.B.2, Waivers, Exemptions, and Exceptions, a tree removal permit authorizing removal is required before any clearing, grading, or other authorizations may be issued, including building permits. The portion of the tree removal permit approving the required mitigation plan shall not be required until after construction plan approval. As a result of the unpermitted land clearing, an order to withhold permits such as building permits, site plan approval, or subdivision approval has been enacted for a period of three (3) years from the start of this investigation. Development may recur starting February 18, 2026. This order is in accordance with the UDO Section 5.3.2 (B) While exempted forestry activities are not subject to the tree retention requirements of this section, failure to obtain an exemption to a tree removal permit prior to any timber harvest or other property clearing activity will result in the denial of a building permit, site plan approval, or subdivision approval for a period of three years, regardless of any change in ownership, if the harvest results in the removal o fall or substantially all documented, significant, or specimen trees from the tract. The denial period shall be increased to five years in situations where removal of all or substantially all regulated trees was a willful violation of these County regulations. To appeal this administrative decision, appellant shall file a Notice of Appeal stating the grounds for the appeal with the County Clerk within 30 days of receipt of written notice. Enclosed is an application for filing an appeal. Sincerely, Wendell Biddle Zoning Compliance Official New Hanover County - Planning & Land Use - Planning & Zoning (910) 798-7068 p | (910) 798-7053 f wbiddle@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com BOA-982 Page 1 of 5 VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 23, 2023 CASE: BOA-982 PETITIONER: Jason Akins, applicant, on behalf of Len and Kelly Lecci, property owners. REQUEST: Variance from the 75’ Conservation Resource setback requirement per Section 5.7.4.B (1), Additional Performance Controls, of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). LOCATION: 949 Radnor Road PID: R08507-004-003-000 ZONING: R-15, Residential District ACREAGE: 0.41 Acres BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant is requesting a variance of approximately 26.5’ from the 75’ conservation resource setback in order to construct a single-family residence and swimming pool on the subject property which is proposed to encroach slightly into the conservation resource setback for a Salt Marsh. The subject property consists of 0.41 acres at the eastern end of Inlet Watch Estates subdivision. The subdivision is located in the southern part of the county off Carolina Beach Road, approximately 1.5 miles north of the Snows Cut bridge. The subject property lines near a cul-de-sac adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway, with three additional developed lots. A salt marsh is one of the designated conservation resources for which the UDO contains additional performance controls related to setbacks of impervious surfaces and retention of runoff. Figure 1: Approximate location of Salt Marsh in vicinity of subject property. Refer to Figure 2 for field-verified locations. Intracoastal Waterway Approximate Salt Marsh Area Radnor Road BOA-982 Page 2 of 5 The proposed structure is a three-story dwelling with an 18’ x 32’ ground level pool in the rear yard which lies on the eastern portion of the lot, adjacent to the salt marsh. As proposed, the northern edge of the pool would encroach approximately 26.5’ into the conservation resource setback, with an approximate 22’ encroachment on the southern edge (see Figure 2). In total, approximately 715 square feet of impervious area comprised of a screened in porch and the pool is proposed to encroach into the conservation resource setback. The UDO contains performance controls on conservation resources which require all structures and impervious surfaces to be set back a minimum of 75’ from a salt marsh: 5.7.4. ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE CONTROLS In addition to the general performance controls specified in Section 5.7.3, Conservation Space General Performance Controls, additional controls shall be required to protect certain conservation resources in certain zoning districts. Table 5.7.4: Additional Performance Controls, lists for each conservation resource and type of district (residential or non-residential and mixed use), the reference number of the group of additional controls that shall be required. Requirements for each group are set forth in subsections A through D, following the table. If the parcel being developed is associated with two or more conservation re-sources with conflicting performance controls, then the most restrictive controls shall apply. However, improvements as specified in Section 5.7.3.D, Improvements, may be permitted within the conservation space setbacks. Additionally, decks may be allowed to encroach into the conservation space setback up to six feet provided they are uncovered and constructed so that the floorboards are spaced to allow water to flow through directly to the ground. The ground below the deck shall be either left undisturbed or planted with ground cover or other vegetation. B. Group 2 Performance Controls 1. Conservation Space Setbacks All structures and impervious surfaces shall be setback from the conservation space, if any, whether the space is located on the parcel or on an adjacent parcel, a distance of at least 75 feet. BOA-982 Page 3 of 5 Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan with staff markups. In addition to the presence of the salt marsh conservation resource, the property has a 30’ drainage easement along the southern property line, limiting the ability to utilize this area of the lot for development. The property lies within a VE flood zone, and Article 9: Flood Damage Prevention of the UDO requires that any structure be elevated to the County’s design elevation of 2’ above base flood elevation. A Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Minor Permit is not required, as the Normal High Water line lies further than 75’ feet from the proposed structure. 75’ Conservation Resource Setback Landward Extent of Conservation Resource Proposed Structure Footprint 75’ Approximate 26.5’ Encroachment Approximate 22’ Encroachment BOA-982 Page 4 of 5 The applicant contends that the variance is necessary as the presence of the salt marsh, drainage easement, irregular shape of the rear bulkhead, and narrow configuration of the front of the lot contribute to a limited buildable area. The applicant states that the owners have modified the proposed home from its original design in order to reduce the total amount of impervious area that is proposed to encroach into the conservation resource setback. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance of approximately 26.5’ from the 75’ setback for structures and impervious surface as required in Section 5.7.4 Additional Performance Controls to allow encroachment of the proposed single-family home and attached pool into the conservation resource setback area. BOA-982 Page 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 | 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, CONFERENCE ROOM 139 WILMINGTON NC 28403 ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-982 The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on May 23, 2023 to consider application number BOA-982, submitted by Jason Akins, applicant, on behalf of Len and Kelly Lecci, property owners, a request for a variance from the 75’ minimum conservation resource setback requirement per Section 5.7.4.B.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance and to use the property located at 949 Radnor 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 75’ minimum conservation resource setback requirement per Section 5.7.4.B.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 75’ minimum conservation resource setback requirement per Section 5.7.4.B.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any: ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2023. ____________________________________ William Mitchell, Vice Chair Attest: ________________________________ Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board