August 2023 BOA Agenda Packet
August 22, 2023, 5:30 PM
I. Call Meeting to Order (Vice Chair William Mitchell)
II. Approval of June 27, 2023 Minutes
(Attendees at June Meeting – Chair Cameron Moore, Vice Chair William Mitchell, Michael J. Keenan
Sr., Michael Sanclimenti, and Ed Trice)
III. Old Items of Business
IV. Regular Items of Business
Case BOA-983 – Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of SAVEDOG Project,
Inc., property owner, is requesting a variance from the side interior and rear setbacks per
Section 3.1.3.C.1, and a variance from the front yard setback per Section 3.4.11.D of the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial
District and is located at 4503 N College Road.
V. Other Business
VI. Adjourn
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Vacant, Chair | William Mitchell, Vice Chair
Michael Keenan, Sr. | Caleb Rash | Greg Uhl
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
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 1 of 8
CASE: BOA-983
PETITIONER: Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of SAVEDOG Project Inc,
property owner.
REQUEST: Variance to reduce three of the four property setbacks: the front yard setback from
50’ to 20’ per Section 3.4.11.D, the rear yard setback from 45’ to 25’ per Table
3.1.3.C.1, and a variance to reduce the setback along the parcel’s southeastern side
yard from 20’ to 10’ per Table 3.1.3.C.1 of the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO).
LOCATION: 4503 N. College Road
PID: R01800-006-002-002
ZONING: I-2, Heavy Industrial District
ACREAGE: 0.61 Acres
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce three of the four property setbacks: the I-2 front setback,
the southeast interior side setback adjacent to an R-15 non-residential parcel, and the rear setback
adjacent to an R-15 residential property. This request to reduce the three setbacks is to accommodate a
proposed animal shelter. This specific shelter will provide a 1–2-night temporary stay for displaced and
or abandoned animals. The property owner will use this proposed facility as an interim safe haven for the
animals while they are in transit to a more permanent location. Animal shelters are permitted by right within
the I-2, Heavy Industrial District and are defined by the UDO as:
A non-residential facility that is used to house or contain animals, and is owned, operated, and
maintained for the purpose of providing temporary kenneling and care for the animals and finding
permanent adoptive homes for them.
Figure 1: Table 4.2.1 of the UDO
The UDO defines Setbacks as:
The minimum distance a building or structure must be separated from the lot lines. Setbacks are specified
as front, side, and rear; are located within the corresponding front, side, and rear yards; and establish
the minimum required front, side, and rear yards.
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 2 of 8
SETBACK, FRONT
The depth of a front setback shall be measured at right angles to a straight line joining the
foremost points of the side lot lines, and in such a manner that the front yard established shall
provide minimum depth parallel to the front lot line.
SETBACK, SIDE
The width of a side setback shall be measured in such a manner that the side yard established
is a strip of the minimum width required by the district regulations with its inner edge parallel
with the side lot line.
SETBACK, REAR
The depth of a rear setback shall be measured in such a manner that the rear yard established
is a strip of the minimum width required by district regulations with its inner edge parallel with
the rear lot line.
The I-2 parcel consists of 0.61 acres and is located in Castle Hayne along the North College Road corridor.
It is approximately three quarters of a mile west of Interstate 40 and one mile north of the Interstate 140
bypass. The northwest adjacent lot, also zoned I-2, is developed with a convenience store. The southeast
adjacent lot, zoned R-15, Residential, is used for religious assembly which is a nonresidential land use. The
remaining adjacent lots both west and south, along with the parcels directly across College Road are also
zoned R-15. However, these parcels are used as single-family residential dwellings which require greater
setback distances between them and the subject parcel.
Figure 2: Zoning Map
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 3 of 8
Section 3.4.11.A of the UDO stipulates that within the I-2 district, regulations are established to protect
development situated outside the district and that environmental impacts caused by the uses within the
district are to be minimized. Per Section 3.4.11.D of the UDO, the I-2 district is prescribed a 50-foot Front
setback.
Figure 3: Section 3.4.11.D of the UDO
Figure 4 details an aerial photograph and the application of the 50’ Front setback along with a line illustrating
the applicant’s proposed 20’ setback.
Figure 4: Required & Proposed Front Setback
I-2 50’ Front Setback
Proposed 20’
Front Setback
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 4 of 8
The applicant’s variance request is to also reduce the rear and side setback requirements established in
UDO Table 3.1.3.C: Interior Side and Rear Setbacks from Residential Properties. Adjacent to the subject
parcel’s rear and southeast lot lines are residentially zoned R-15 parcels. Table 3.1.3.C.1 specifies the
required setbacks for the I-2 district based on the lot’s adjacent land use:
Table 3.1.3.C.1: Interior Side and Rear Setbacks from Residential Properties, establishes the
setback requirements for structures in the B-1, CB, B02, O&I, AC, I-1, and I-2 districts from lot
lines shared with abutting single-family or duplex residential uses and/or platted lots located within
a general residential zoning district (RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or R-5). The setbacks
in Table 3.1.3.C.1 may be reduced in the AC, I-1, and I-2 Districts in accordance with Section
5.4.3, Transitional Buffer Standards, but may not be reduced below the absolute minimum setback
specified in Table 3.1.3.C.1 (by use of the language “in no case less than”).
Figure 5: Table 3.1.3.C.1: Interior Side and Rear Setbacks from Residential Properties
As the subject parcel is zoned I-2 and adjacent to residentially zoned properties, Table 3.1.3.C.1 requires
the rear setback to be 45’ and the interior side setback of the southeastern lot line to be 20 feet. The
applicant requests these setbacks be reduced to 25’and 10’ respectively.
20 Ft.
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 5 of 8
Figure 6: Required & Proposed Rear Setback
Figure 7: Required & Proposed Interior Side Setback
I-2 20’ Interior Side Setback from
Residential Properties
Proposed 10’ Interior
Side Setback
I-2 45’ Rear Setback from
Residential Properties
Proposed 25’ Rear
Setback
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 6 of 8
The applicant anticipates that a need for a public utility easement will be required during the construction of the
proposed 40’ x 60’ animal shelter. This is evidenced by the existing drainage ditch along the northwestern
property boundary that conveys off-site public drainage. This easement will further restrict the limited buildup
area accessible to the applicant. As this property line is the only boundary that is adjacent to another I-2 Heavy
Industrial District, the one property line not requiring a setback will in effect be unavailable to the applicant.
Figure 8a: Concept Plan
Adjacent I-2
District
Adjacent R-15, Residential Use,
Single Family Dwelling N
Proposed
20 ft. Front
Setback
Proposed 25 ft. Rear Setback
Adjacent to Residential
Properties
Proposed 10 ft.
Interior Side
Setback
8 ft. Privacy
Fence
Adjacent R-15, Non-Residential
Use, Religious Assembly
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 7 of 8
Figure 8b: Concept Plan
The applicant contends that if the prescribed setbacks found in the Superseding Dimensional Standards and the
front setback established in the I-2 district, the subject parcel becomes extremely limited in development area
resulting in a 24.2% usable building envelope for the parcel. At 0.61 acres, the parcel is extremely small for non-
residential use. The applicant is requesting the variance to reduce these setbacks so that the parcel may be used
as it is currently zoned. The applicant states that allowing the reduction to these three setbacks would enable
the retention of the zone which is a strategy of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance to three of the four property line setbacks to accommodate a
proposed animal shelter. The requested facility would provide a temporary, 1–2-night safe haven for animals in
transit to non-kill shelters. The setbacks requested to be reduced are the front setback from 50’ to 20’ (Section
3.4.11.D), the rear setback from 45’ to 25’ (Table 3.1.3.C.1), and the southeastern lot line from 20’ to
10’ (Table 3.1.3.C.1).
Proposed 40 x 60 ft.
Animal Shelter
Proposed 45 x 60 ft.
Garage
Adjacent I-2
District
Adjacent R-15, Residential Use,
Single Family Dwelling N
Adjacent R-15, Non-Residential
Use, Religious Assembly
12.5 x 60 ft.
Walk/Relief Area
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 8 of 8
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.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Vacant, Chair | William Mitchell, Vice Chair
Michael Keenan, Sr. | Caleb Rash | Greg Uhl
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-983
The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on August 22, 2023 to
consider application number BOA-983, submitted by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on
behalf of SAVEDOG Project, Inc., property owner, is requesting a variance from the side interior and rear
setbacks per Section 3.1.3.C.1, and a variance from the front yard setback per Section 3.4.11.D of the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance and to use the property located at 4503 N College 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 side interior and rear setbacks per Section 3.1.3.C.1, and the front yard setback
per Section 3.4.11.D of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an
unnecessary hardship would/would not result. (It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that,
in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.) This conclusion
is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
2. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results/does not
result from unique circumstances related to the subject property, such as location, size, or
topography. (Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting
from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the
basis for granting a variance.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did/did not result from actions taken by the
applicant or the property owner. (The act of purchasing property with knowledge that
circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-
created hardship.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
4. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if granted, the variance will/will not be consistent with the
spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial
justice is achieved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
THEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the application for a VARIANCE from the
New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to allow the side interior and rear setbacks per
Section 3.1.3.C.1, and a variance from the front yard setback per Section 3.4.11.D of the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any:
ORDERED this 22th day of August, 2023.
____________________________________
William Mitchell, Vice-Chair
Attest:
________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board