Loading...
03-26-24 BOA Minutes SignedMINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The New Hanover County Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meeting at 5:30 PM at the New Hanover County Government Center Complex, 230 Government Center Drive, in Conference Room 139, in Wilmington, NC on Tuesday March 26, 2024. Members Present William Mitchell, Chair Michael Keenan, Sr., Vice-Chair Will Daube Caleb Rash Greg Uhl Ed Trice Michael Sanclimenti Jonathan Bridges Members Absent Ex Officio Members Present Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Windell Biddle, Associate Planner Lisa Maes, Administrative Coordinator Damion Fulford, Administrative Specialist The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by Chair William Mitchell. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS 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. Chair Mitchell asked if there were any corrections to the last meeting’s minutes, to which Mr. Rash mentioned that he had voted against the motion for denial in case BOA-988. Chair Mitchell called for a motion to accept the February 17, 2024, meeting minutes as written or with noted changes. Mr. Uhl made the motion to approve the minutes as written to which Mr. Daube seconded. The board unanimously adopted the minutes. Chair Mitchell swore in Planning Operations Supervisor Ken Vafler, Associate Planner Windell Biddle, and applicant David Deschamps. Case BOA- 989 Mr. Biddle presented the staff report on the case. He noted that the applicant is requesting a variance of approximately 3.5’ from the minimum 20’ interior and side set back requirement per the New Hanover County Unifled Development Ordinance. This request is to allow for the applicant to build an approximately 2,000 square foot bi-level expansion onto their single- family residence. The parcel under review is a 2.54-acre lot in the northern portion of New Hanover County, located at 5009 Birds View Court. Mr. Biddle provided a zoning map that details that the parcel in question is within the RA, Rural Agricultural, zoning district and noted that the Castle Lakes community is a conventional subdivision in which all parcels are designed to fully adhere to that zoning district’s specific dimensional standards. This contrasts with performance subdivisions which only require a periphery setback. Mr. Biddle provided a mockup of the applicants proposed site plan that illustrates the current interior side setback of 20’, the proposed two-story addition which encroaches into the side setback by about 3.5’. The mockup showed the applicant’s request for a new setback of 16.5’ and that due to some landscape factors such as a pond in the rear of the lot and some floodplain restrictions that the variance is necessary so that homeowners can expand their residence. Mr. Biddle finished his presentation by summarizing the applicants’ request for a variance of 3.5’ to accommodate an approximate 2,000 square foot addition to their single-family dwelling, making the 20’ side setback a 16.5’ setback. Mr. Biddle then asked if the Board had any questions. Chair Mitchell asked members of the board if there were any questions for staff at this time. Chair Mitchell asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation at this time. Mr. Deschamps presented to the board by reviewing the Rural Agricultural district requirements and how the subdivision where the residence is located currently does not fall under the described requirements. The applicant mentioned to the board that the subdivision is made up of 39 lots with the look and feel of a R-15 or R-20 neighborhood in the county and that the restrictive covenants on the neighborhood require a 15’ side setback not 20’. Mr. Deschamps provided mockups of the applicants’ plans highlighting that if they were to move the structure back even 18” they would be in the flood zone, with would not be in the best interest of the applicant. He stated that the request does conform with the current neighborhood and wrapped up his presentation with asking the board if they had any questions. Mr. Rash asked if there has been any opposition from neighbors. Mr. Deschamps responded they have not received any and that the site supervisor has received favorable support from the neighbors to the left. Chair Mitchell asked the board if there were any further questions. Mr. Uhl asked if there were any other lots in the neighborhood in similar situations, encroaching into the setback. Mr. Deschamps stated he was not aware of any other lots with this situation. Mr. Rash asked if the proposed addition could be reduced to meet the county’s requirements. Mr. Deschamps informed the board that the applicant has worked with the builders to make the structure as tight as possible and still be functional and not be in the flood zone. Chair Mitchell asked the board if there were any further questions. Chair Mitchell asked if there was anyone in opposition. Chair Mitchell closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DELIBERATION Chair Mitchell asked if anyone has a motion they want to make. Mr. Keenan stated that it’s about 3.5’ they are asking for. Mr. Keenan made a motion to approve and accept the applicant’s findings as the board’s findings. Mr. Daube seconded the motion. The Board’s decision was unanimous approval with a vote of 5-0. The Board’s decision was based on the following conclusions and flndings of fact. 1. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically the 20’ interior side setback requirement per Section 3.2.4.D of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • Numerous topographical challenges restrict the buildable footprint of the subject property. • The proposed 16.5-foot left side setback conforms with the neighborhood Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Easements and Restrictions. 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 the location, size, or topography. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • The subject property is in a cul-de-sac and has numerous topographical challenges, most notably a freshwater pond in the middle of the site. Additionally, the subject site’s narrowness, shallowness, septic tank & fleld, fiood zone line, and pie shape are contributing topographical challenges beyond the property owner’s control. 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 is not a result of actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The location of the subject site as well as the previously noted topographical challenges are not considered to be a self-created hardship. 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 the public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • The Owner(s) of the subject property have designed a Garage and Second Floor Addition (Addition) to the left side of the subject improvements (see site plan). The proposed addition’s left side setback is 16.5 feet, which conforms to the setback distances (spirit, purpose and intent) outlined in the neighborhood Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Easements and Restrictions (C&R) (DB 1455/403, Article VII, Section 2, Setback Lines) of “Fifteen (15) feet to any side lot line.” • The proposed left side setback is currently not conforming to Section D, District Dimensional Standards (Unifled Development Ordinance, 3.2.5, Rural Agricultural (RA) District), which notes a side setback, interior of 20 feet, which is more restrictive than the immediate subdivisions C&R. Moreover, the more restrictive RA side setback of 20 feet is not considered to be compatible in scale and character of the immediate Castle Lakes neighborhood, but rather it is compatible in scale and character of the surrounding rural and low-density residential development, agricultural uses, and horse farms (See RA purpose and concept below). o The Rural Agricultural (RA) District’s purpose and concept is to: o Allow very low-density single family residential development that is compatible in scale and character to rural and agricultural settings. o Encourage rural farming activities and the preservation of open space; and o Preserve the rural areas and development patterns of New Hanover County through the continued review of the impact of proposed development. o The district is designed to promote exurban, low density residential development not requiring public infrastructure or services while maintaining prime farmland and a rural lifestyle. There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved by Mr. Keenan to adjourn. MEETING ADJOURNED Please note the minutes are not a verbatim recording of the proceeding. _____________________ Executive Secretary _____________________ Chair _____________________ Date 05-09-2024 _____________________ Chair _____________________ Date