May BOA Agenda Packet
May 28, 2024, 5:30 PM
I. Call Meeting to Order (Chair William Mitchell)
II. Old Items of Business
III. Regular Items of Business
Case BOA-990 – Tyler Fritz, applicant and property owner, is requesting a variance of 15’ from
the 20’ rear yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.10.D of the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance. This property is zoned R-10, Residential and is located at 1110
Grathwol Drive.
IV. Other Business
V. 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
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 28, 2024
CASE: BOA-990
PETITIONER: Tyler Fritz, applicant and property owner.
REQUEST: Variance of 15’ from the 20’ minimum R-10 Residential District rear yard setback
requirement per Section 3.2.10.D of the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO).
LOCATION: 1110 Grathwol Drive
PID: R04215-001-009-000
ZONING: R-10, Residential District
ACREAGE: 0.28 Acres
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the 20’ minimum interior side setback requirement established
for the R-10, Residential zoning district. This request is to construct a 27’ x 34’ (918 sf total) accessory
building in the rear yard of the lot, which is proposed to be 5’ from the rear property line. The 0.28-acre
lot is located within the Churchill Estates subdivision, a community in north-central New Hanover County, just
east of Wilmington International Airport.
Figure 1: Subject Site with Surrounding Land Use Pattern within Churchill Estates
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 28, 2024
Accessory structures are defined by the UDO as follows:
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - A structure subordinate to a principal structure and use, the use of which is
customarily found in association with and is clearly incidental to the use of the principal structure of the
land and which is not attached by any part of a common wall or roof to the principal structure. (When
a specific structure is identified in this Ordinance as accessory to another use or structure, the structure
need not be customarily incidental to, or ordinarily found in association with, the principal use to qualify
as an accessory structure.)
The UDO allows for two different types of subdivision design: Performance Residential Developments and
Conventional Residential Developments. In a performance development, individual lots are not subject to
the specific yard requirements of a zoning district provided that the density for the zoning district is not
exceeded. In a conventional development, the UDO requires that the dimensional standards for each
zoning district be met. As a conventional subdivision, parcels within Churchill Estates are subject to the
minimum lot size, minimum lot width, and front, side, and rear setback requirements in the zoning district
with which they are located.
Section 4.4.4 of the UDO requires that accessory structures in excess of 600 sf meet the minimum required
setbacks for a principal structure in their respective zoning district:
4.4.4 STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
B. Accessory Structure
Accessory structures shall comply with the following standards:
1. No accessory structure shall be erected in any required yard nor within five feet of any other
building, except that accessory buildings not exceeding 600 square feet may be permitted in
the required side and rear yards provided such accessory buildings are at least five feet from
the property line and do not encroach into any required easements.
Specifically, this variance is a request for the rear yard setback, which is further described in the UDO:
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.
As such, construction of the proposed accessory structure in the R-10 zoning district is subject to the
specific rear setback dimensional standard in Section 3.2.10 of the UDO:
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 28, 2024
Figure 2: R-10 Dimensional Standards, UDO Section 3.2.10.D
The applicant is proposing to locate the accessory building in the southeastern corner of the lot and is
requesting to utilize a 5’ rear yard setback, which is the minimum required setback for an accessory
building of less than 600 square feet. The proposed structure will be located 5’ from the southern side
property line, in compliance with the district requirements for an accessory structure of this size.
Figure 3: Applicant’s Submitted Site Plan with Staff Mark-Ups
Proposed 27’ x 34’
(918 sf) Accessory
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 28, 2024
The applicant contends that the variance is necessary to provide ample storage and their request is
further detailed within the submitted application. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance of
15’ from the 20’ rear yard setback requirement in order to construct a 918 square foot accessory
building on the subject property.
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 the 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
four (4) categories above.
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
ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-990
The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on May 28, 2024, to
consider application number BOA-990, submitted by Tyler Fritz, applicant and property owner, is
requesting a variance of 15’ from the 20’ minimum required rear yard setback per Section 3.2.10.D of the
New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to use the property located at 1110
Grathwol Drive 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 20’ rear yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.10.D, 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 15’ variance from the 20’ rear yard
setback required per Section 3.2.10.D 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 28th day of May, 2024
____________________________________
Chair
Attest:
________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board