January BOA Agenda Packet
January 23, 2024, 5:30 PM
I. Call Meeting to Order (Chair William Mitchell)
II. Approval of November 14, 2023 Minutes
(Attendees at November Meeting – Chair William Mitchell, Will Daube, Michael Sanclimenti, Ed Trice,
Greg Uhl)
IV. Old Items of Business
V. Regular Items of Business
Case BOA-986 – John Jarvis, applicant, on behalf of Larry & Mary Alderson, property owners, is
requesting a 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.
This property is zoned R-15, Residential District and is located at 5916 Nautical Isle Court.
VI. Other Business
VII. Adjourn
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
William Mitchell, Chair | Michael Keenan, Sr. Vice-Chair
Will Daube | Caleb Rash | Greg Uhl
BOARD ALTERNATES
Jonathan Bridges | 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, November 14th, 2023.
Members Present Members Absent
William Mitchell, Chairman
Caleb Rash
Will Daube
Greg Uhl
Michael Sanclimenti
Michael Keenan, Vice-Chair
Richard Kern
Ex Officio Members Present
Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney
Wendell Biddle, Development Review Planner
Love Ott, Development Review Planner
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by the Vice-Chair, Mr. William Mitchell.
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS
Vice-Chair Mr. Mitchell began the meeting with the election of the 2023-2024 officers. Mr. Cameron Moore
served as chair for 2023 and is no longer on the Board since his nomination to the New Hanover County
Planning Board. Mr. Mitchell served as the Vice-Chair for 2023 and 2022. Mr. Mitchell was nominated to serve
as Chair, with Mr. Keenan being nominated to serve as Vice-Chair. Votes from the members confirmed each of
these appointments.
Chair 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 asked if there were any corrections to the last meeting’s minutes to which a board member noted
that there were no corrections.
Mr. Mitchell asked for a motion to accept the August 28th minutes as written or with noted changes. Mr.
Sanclimenti made the motion to approve which was seconded.
The Board unanimously adopted the minutes.
Mr. Mitchell swore in Ken Vafier, Planning Manager, and Wendell Biddle, Development Review Planner.
CASE BOA-984
Mr. Biddle presented the case, stating that the request for the variance was for approximately 15’ from the
minimum 30’ interior side setback requirement established in Table 3.1.3.C.1 of the New Hanover County
Unified Development Ordinance. The parcel is in the northern portion of New Hanover County, specifically at
4224 Castle Hayne Road and is located between Crowatan and Hermitage Roads. The site is approximately
three quarters of a mile north of the I-140 interchange and the General Electric campus.
Referring to a zoning map, Mr. Biddle noted that the subject parcel was situated amongst a variety of zoning
districts consisting of residential, commercial, and both light and heavy industrial zones. The subject parcel was
detailed as being zoned R-20, Residential and directly south of two Office and Institutional parcels with Rural
Agricultural properties surrounding them. Mr. Biddle further detailed that four lots east of the subject lot are
zoned B-2, Regional Business district and that southwest of the subject site was an I-2, Heavy Industrial district.
Detailing the applicant’s concept plan, Mr. Biddle explained that an existing 5,000 square foot structure is on
the subject lot with a current setback of 15’ between it and the adjacent R-20 lot. Mr. Biddle explained that in
the event of a successful conditional rezoning from R-20 to B-2, the existing structure would be put to use as a
Contractor Office for the landowner to operate a landscape contracting business out of. Mr. Biddle illustrated on
the applicant’s concept plan that the existing structure would encroach into the required 30’ interior side
setback.
Mr. Biddle further explained that Table 4.2.1 of the (UDO) shows that the applicant’s proposed land use,
Contractor’s Office, encompasses the applicant’s proposed landscape contracting business and that though the
Contractor’s Office is not permitted within the current zone, it is permissible in the B-2, Regional Business
district. Mr. Biddle detailed that though the proposed variance request is for a variance of 15’ from the interior
side setback, the property owner’s end goal is to rezone the two acres closest to Castle Hayne Road of the 7.8-
acre lot from R-20 to (CZD) B-2 and that the remaining 5.8 acres will continue to be zoned as R-20.
Mr. Biddle concluded his presentation by summarizing that the applicant’s request is for a variance of 15’ to
accommodate the adaptive reuse of the existing structure in the event of the parcel becoming rezoned from R-20
to (CZD) B-2. That the variance of 15’ would serve along the proposed (CZD) B-2 portion of the lot and not the
remaining 5.8-acre R-20 portion.
Mr. Mitchell asked the Board if there were any questions for staff.
Mr. Sanclimenti asked what was to be of the remaining 5.8-acres of the lot and if the property owner had plans
to develop it. Mr. Biddle explained that as of the hearing, the applicant had expressed that that area would
remain undeveloped and there were no plans to develop the area.
Mr. Uhl asked if the neighboring R-20 residential lots were occupied, to which Mr. Biddle replied that yes, they
were. Mr. Uhl followed then asked if the neighboring property northeast of the existing structure, 4228 Castle
Hayne Road, was owner occupied to which Mr. Biddle explained that he was not aware of who that resident or
owner was and then explained that the owner of the adjacent property southwest of the subject lot, 4222 Castle
Hayne Road, were the current owners of the lot in question.
Mr. Rash, noting the structures to the rear of 4228 Castle Hayne Road, asked what they were to which Mr.
Biddle explained that they were accessory structures that he believed were sheds.
Mr. Mitchell asked the Board if there were any other questions to which no one replied.
Mr. Mitchell then swore in the applicant, Cindee Wolf.
Ms. Wolf introduced herself and that she was presenting on behalf of Janet Weaver Nester and her husband who
are the owners of the property. Ms. Wolf reiterated that her team is attempting to rezone just the front two acres
of the parcel containing an existing building. Ms. Wolf explained that the hardship of rezoning requests is the
adaptive reuse of existing structures, and that strict application of the prescribed setback would cause the
requirement for the existing structure to be demolished and new construction to be developed to meet the larger
setback.
Ms. Wolf explained that she has been in contact multiple times with the next-door neighbors, located at 4228
Castle Hayne Road, and that they had attended the project information meeting required for the rezoning
process and that she had also met with them while out at the site. Ms. Wolf explained that 4228 Castle Hayne
Road is a family tract of land with the owners living in the structure in the front and the structure to the rear,
behind the subject existing structure has been flooded and is currently under renovation. Ms. Wolf reiterated
that it is an estimated 15’ between the subject structure and what is believed to be the current property line, but
that there is not a current survey. Ms. Wolf explained that the subject structure does not have any windows or
doors facing the property line.
Ms. Wolf reiterated that what was being proposed was a reduction in the interior side setback to accommodate
the existing structure and the installation of an enhanced buffer yard. Ms. Wolf clarified that a buffer yard is
required by normal standards which is usually three rows of evergreen trees and or shrubbery that is staggered
to create a 100% opaque buffer yard along the property line. Ms. Wolf stipulated that her client is proposing to
alternate a larger evergreen tree, such as an arborvitae tree, in addition to the three rows to provide 100%
opacity in that required buffer yard. Ms. Wolf reiterated that hardship results from the desire for an adaptive re-
use of the existing structure and that the Board’s approval of a variance would be conditioned upon the Board of
Commissioner’s approval of the proposed rezoning.
Ms. Wolf argued that the necessity to remove a good structure vs the adaptive reuse is a valid reason that she
believes justify the approval of this variance and that the existing structure would still meet all building code
regulations with a vegetative buffer along the interior side lot lines. Ms. Wolf argued that allowing specific
latitude regarding the variance would not adversely affect the spirit, purpose, or intent of the UDO to screen or
provide physical separation between different uses or any particular type of public safety issues.
Mr. Mitchell if there were any questions for Ms. Wolf.
Mr. Sanclimenti asked if the existing structure was just going to be for administrative uses to which Ms. Wolf
responded by saying that it was not, that there currently is a very small portion of a residence within it, but the
majority of it is a utility building and that is what would be used for with a place to stage equipment and
vehicles.
Mr. Mitchell asked if a utility shed was the original use of the existing structure to which Ms. Wolf confirmed
as correct and then added that the Nesters then converted a small portion of it into a dwelling.
Mr. Sanclimenti asked if the applicant would be doing any maintenance on site to which Ms. Wolf replied that
other than maintenance on lawn equipment, there would not be any maintenance on the actual vehicles on site.
Mr. Uhl asked if all commercial activities occur on a normal workday, to which Ms. Wolf confirmed that they
would.
Mr. Daube asked if Ms. Wolf had a sense for how the neighbors felt concerning this request. Ms. Wolf
explained that the enhanced buffer yard and smoothing out the gravel on the parcel was explained and that
neighbor’s concern was largely ensuring that no new surfaces caused undue stormwater drainage onto their lot
and that the neighbor was over all satisfied with what has been proposed by Ms. Wolf and the applicant.
Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any further questions and before closing the public hearing, Mr. Mitchell asked
to make sure there were not any people from the public who wanted to speak in opposition to the case to which
no one replied.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
BOARD DELIBERATION
Mr. Daube mentioned that he had a question concerning item number three, that hardship did not result from
actions taken by the applicant or the property owner; does going through a rezoning process to take you out of
compliance with a setback not a self-created hardship, to which Mr. Mitchell stipulated as no and then asked
staff to address this more directly. Mr. Vafier explained that a phrase in the staff’s presentation was not accurate
in terms of the rezoning process making the existing structure non-conforming. However, that was not in
essence of what is being done here. If the parcel were to be rezoned without going through the variance process
the structure could not be used as is and therefore the applicant is not creating a hardship. As of the hearing, if
the parcel were to be rezoned then the issue of non-compliance would generate and therefore the applicant is
requesting this variance to prevent said non-compliance. If the variance process was not being sought, the
applicant would have to alter the existing structure or find some way to achieve compliance with the new zone’s
setback standards.
Mr. Vafier added that on similar requests there have been conditions that would tie the board’s granting of the
variance to the success of the applicant’s rezoning hearing stipulating that the variance approval is contingent
upon the approval of the applicant’s rezoning request. Mr. Vafier also mentioned that the board could consider a
condition that the variance request is applicable only to the existing structure on the property and not necessary
to any expansion or addition to the existing structure or any new structures.
Mr. Mitchell clarified that the wording of the conditions would be contingent upon “the approval of the
accompanying conditional use request consisting of rezoning of the front 2-acres of the property from an R-20,
Residential district to a (CZD) B-2, Regional Business district and that the variance shall only apply to the
existing structure on the property not to any expansion of the structure or any new structure on the property.”
Mr. Uhl asked if there would be anything that would prevent the applicant from expanding the structure in
compliance and or any expansion would have to meet the required side setback to which Mr. Vafier confirmed.
Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any further questions or, is there anyone that would like to make a motion to
Mr. Daube made a motion to approve the requested variance with the two conditions and Mr. Uhl member made
a second.
All ayes voted to approve the motion.
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 setback per Section 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:
• Without the variance, the existing structure would not be able to be repurposed upon a successful
rezoning from a Residential, R-20 district to a conditional Regional Business, (CZD) B-2 district.
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 location of the existing structure does not meet the minimum setbacks necessary for a
commercial rezoning.
• Upon rezoning approval by the Board of Commissioners, the existing structure’s ability to be
repurposed will be limited by the structure’s existing setback.
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:
• That the existing structure’s interior side setback will be increased upon the successful rezoning
of the parcel.
4. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if granted, the variance will be consistent with the spirit, purpose,
and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.
This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
• The variance is in line with the County’s Land Use Plan.
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 setback per Table 3.1.3.C.
Of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance be GRANTED, subject to the following
conditions: The variance was approved subject to the following conditions:
• Approval of the accompanying Conditional Use Request consisting of a rezoning of the 2.0-acre
portion of the property from an R-20, Residential District, to a B-2, conditional Regional
Business district.
• This variance shall only apply to the existing structure 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 by Mr. Uhl and seconded by Mr.
Sanclimenti to adjourn. All ayes.
MEETING ADJOURNED.
Please note the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings.
Executive Secretary
Vice Chair Date
BOA-986 Page 1 of 5
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
January 23, 2024
CASE: BOA-986
PETITIONER: John Jarvis, applicant, on behalf of Larry and Mary Alderson, 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: 5916 Nautical Isle Court
PID: R07600-003-167-000
ZONING: R-15, Residential District
ACREAGE: 0.58 Acres
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant is requesting a variance of approximately 14’ from the 75’ conservation resource setback in
order to construct a swimming pool on the subject property proposed to encroach into the conservation
resource setback for a Salt Marsh and Maritime Shrub Thicket.
The subject property consists of 0.58 acres at the eastern end of Helms Port subdivision. The subdivision is
located in the southern part of the county off Masonboro Loop Road, just north of the Piner Road junction.
The subject property lies to the east of the subdivision’s marina basin and just west of the Intracoastal
Waterway. Conservation resource maps in this area indicated the presence of both Salt Marsh and Maritime
Shrub Thickets, both of which are designated conservation resources for which the UDO contains additional
performance controls related to setbacks of impervious surfaces and retention of runoff.
Figure 1: Site Location map. Refer to Figure 2 for field-verified locations.
Intracoastal
Waterway
General Area of
Conservation
Resource
Site
BOA-986 Page 2 of 5
The applicant is nearing completion of a 3-story residence on the parcel, and is proposing construction of
a swimming pool in the rear yard. The 15’ x 35’ pool is proposed to encroach into the conservation resource
setback by approximately 14’ on the north side, and 11’ on the south side (see Figure 2). In total,
approximately 500 square feet of the pool is proposed to encroach into the conservation resource setback.
Although the water surface of the pool is considered pervious, pools have historically been interpreted as
being considered Structures as defined by the UDO, as they are typically constructed within a fixed location
on the ground:
STRUCTURE
Anything constructed or erected within a fixed location on the ground, or attached to something having
a fixed location on the ground. The term structure shall be construed to include buildings, porches,
decks, carports, garages, sheds, roof extensions, overhangs extending more than two inches, and any
other projections directly attached to the structure. For purposes of Section 5.10, Airport Height
Restriction, a structure is any object, including a mobile object, constructed or installed by man,
including, but without limitation, buildings, towers, cranes, smokestacks, earth formation, and overhead
transmission lines. This definition does not apply to the provisions of Article 9: Flood Damage
Prevention; for that meaning, see Section 9.5: Definitions.
Section 5.7.4 of the UDO contains performance controls on conservation resources that govern development
within or adjacent to them. Specifically, Subsection B.1 requires all structures and impervious surfaces to
be set back a minimum of 75’ from both a salt marsh and maritime shrub thicket:
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-986 Page 3 of 5
BOA-986 Page 4 of 5
Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan with staff markups.
75’ Conservation
Resource Setback
Landward Extent of Conservation
Resource
Proposed
Residence
Approximate 11’
Encroachment Approximate 14’
Encroachment
To
Intracoastal
Waterway
BOA-986 Page 5 of 5
The applicant contends that the variance is necessary as the presence of the conservation resources, coastal
wetland line, location of the lot on a curved cul-de-sac, setbacks, and drainage easements further limit the
buildable area.
In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance of approximately 14’ 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 pool into the conservation resource setback area.
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.
500
11'.11 ,___ ________ __.Feet
Case: BOA-986 Zoning Map
Address: 5916 Nautical Isle Court
Request for variance from the 75' conservation resource setback per 5.7.4.8(1) of the
New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance.
Applicant: John Jarvis
New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment January 23, 2024
11'.11
Case: BOA-986 Aerial Map
Address: 5916 Nautical Isle Court
Request for variance from the 75' conservation resource setback per 5.7.4.8(1) of the
New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance.
Applicant: John Jarvis
New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment January 23, 2024
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, CONFERENCE ROOM 139 WILMINGTON NC 28403
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
William Mitchell, Chair | Michael Keenan, Sr. Vice-Chair
Will Daube | Caleb Rash | Greg Uhl
BOARD ALTERNATES
Jonathan Bridges | Michael Sanclimenti | Ed Trice
Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use | Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney
ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-986
The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on January 23, 2024, to
consider application number BOA-986, submitted John Jarvis, applicant, on behalf of Larry & Mary
Alderson, 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 (UDO) to
use the property located at 5916 Nautical Isle Court 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 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 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. Approval is subject to applicant within 7 days signing a
document acknowledging applicant’s consent to all of the following conditions, if any:
If the applicant does not sign a document acknowledging consent to all listed conditions, then this
approval is null and void.
ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2024.
____________________________________
Chair
Attest:
________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board
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.
The 75’ setback from the Coastal Wetland Line restricts the usable property. The home is
well outside of the 75’ setback and the pool would only partially be in the 75’ setback.
Application of the 75’ setback only allows for a narrow buildable area behind the home
which is of consistent size and placement of other homes in the neighborhood.
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.
The Coastal Wetland Line crosses the property at an angle and reduces the parcels build-
able area. The lot is situated on a curved road and cul-de-sac which also creates angled
frontage. The setbacks and easements located on the property only allowed for a small
percentage of the property to be built upon and the property owner applied for a CAMA
major permit to install a tiered bulkhead as well as a CAMA minor permit for the
residence, driveway, and landscaping. CAMA approved both permit requests.
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.
The hardship is not a result of actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The
developer of the neighborhood created the lot configuration and size.
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.
The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance.
The New Hanover County UDO, Section 5.7 – Conservation Resources states the
purpose is to protect important environmental resources in the county. This variance
request protects the environmental resources as demonstrated by the approved CAMA
permits. In addition, public safety and substantial justice are achieved.
09/14
Please note that for quasi-judicial proceedings, either the land owner or an attorney must be present for
the case at the public hearing.
The undersigned owner does hereby appoint an authorized the agent described herein as their exclusive agent
for the purpose of petitioning New Hanover County for a variance, special use permit, rezoning request, and/or
an appeal of Staff decisions applicable to the property described in the attached petition. The Agent is hereby
authorized to, on behalf of the property owner:
1. Submit a proper petition and the required supplemental information and materials
2. Appeal at public meetings to give representation and commitments on behalf of the property owner
3. Act on the property owner’s behalf without limitations with regard to any and all things directly or
indirectly connected with or arising out of any petition applicable to the New Hanover County Zoning
Ordinance.
Agent Information Property Owner(s) Subject Property
Name Owner Name Address
Company Owner Name 2 City, State, Zip
Address Address Parcel ID
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
Phone Phone
Email Email
Application Tracking Information (Staff Only)
Case Number Reference: Date/Time received: Received by:
This document was willfully executed on the __________ day of November, 2023.
_______________________________________ __________________________________________
Owner 1 Signature Owner 2 Signature
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING & LAND USE
AUTHORITY FOR
APPOINTMENT OF AGENT
230 Government Center Drive
Suite 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
910-798-7165 phone
910-798-7053 fax
www.nhcgov.com
Print Form
Amy C. Schaefer
Lee Kaess, PLLC
5916 Nautical IsleLarry Alderson
Mary Alderson Wilmington, NC 28409
P.O. Box 4548
Wilmington, NC 28406
5333 Leisure Circle R07600-003-167-000
Wilmington, NC 28409
910.399.3447 910.512.6886
amy@leekaess.com larry@bwwnc.com
DocuSign Envelope ID: C85CD1B1-CD90-47BA-B454-3414A9068F97DocuSign Envelope ID: 000EECAF-C8FF-464E-BF1B-9D1E389FDE80