HomeMy WebLinkAbout7605 Scout Camp Hatila Rd Variance Supplemental DocumentsAttachment A to Variance Application
Variance Narrative:
The Applicant is requesting a variance from the application of the 75' setback
described in Section 5.7.4.B.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for the
installation of an in-ground pool as depicted on the plans attached herein on
Attachment B. Section 5.7.4.B.1 of the UDO states the following: “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."
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.
Strict enforcement of the Conservation Overlay District (COD) regulations
would result in an unnecessary hardship for the property owner by
preventing the installation of a pool, a reasonable and anticipated use of the
property. The property was purchased in June of 2023 with the
understanding that a pool could be constructed, as evidenced by the then
valid CAMA permit and assurances from the seller. The CAMA permit,
issued to the prior property owner on March 23, 2020, authorized the
construction of a single-family residence on existing foundation, an in-ground
pool, hot tub, decking and associated landscaping. The previous property
owner did not construct the in-ground pool and hot tub before the property
was sold to the Applicant in June of 2023. The Applicant was however, made
aware of the existing CAMA permit allowing for construction of the in-ground
pool and relied on this approval. This CAMA permit expired on December 31,
2023, before the applicant commenced construction of that in-ground pool.
The Applicant entered into a contract with Coastal Poolscapes in June of
2024 to design and construct the in-ground pool. The design prepared by
Poolscapes placed the pool in the same location as the original design
submitted under the approved CAMA permit, but this new design reduced
the impervious surface area compared to the original design.
When the new application was submitted to the County, the Applicant and
Poolscapes received a response stating that "a portion of the proposed pool
falls within New Hanover County's COD (Conservation Overlay District)"
and that a variance would be needed. A map showing the location of the COD
was not provided by the County. Without the variance, the Applicant would
be deprived of a significant property use that was reasonably expected at the
time of purchase.
2
It is our understanding that the act of combining the two lots pursuant to
Map Book 68, at Page 294, enclosed as Attachment C herein, constituted a
subdivision, which resulted in application of the above referenced regulation.
Please note that this combination did not create any additional lots, but
rather converted two lots to one, and otherwise left the boundary of the
subject property unchanged.
Additionally, the new proposed pool design shows the pool in the same
location as the previously approved pool, however this new design reduces the
impervious surface area compared to the originally permitted plan, thereby
minimizing environmental impact.
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 hardship stems from unique circumstances affecting this specific parcel.
Specifically, the hardship arises from the strict interpretations that: (i) the
combination of two lots to one lot constituted a subdivision, and (ii) that this
combination resulted in application of a requirement that was not previously
applicable.
The property’s prior CAMA permit approved the installation of an in-ground
pool, and the design had been in place for years. The approved CAMA permit
did not denote any issues with the COD setback. This situation is unique to
this property and is not a hardship shared by the general public or
neighboring properties that did not undergo similar transactions. Regardless
of the sale of the property in 2023, the COD setback boundaries remain the
same as prior to the sale in 2020 when the CAMA permit for the pool was
issued. This hardship apparently results solely from the interpretation of the
combination of two lots into one as a subdivision, and the imposition of the
COD setback based on that subdivision, which leads to an unfair denial of the
permit for the same structure that was just recently approved.
Additionally, the property’s location within the COD creates a peculiar
condition that was not foreseeable to the owner at the time of purchase as the
COD setback was not triggered or flagged under the 2020 approved CAMA
permit. The variance is necessary to allow the Applicant to use the lot as
originally intended, particularly given that the proposed pool design, and the
lot combination in late 2020, further reduces environmental impact compared
to the previously approved design and subdivision.
3
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 was not self-created. The current owner reasonably relied on
the valid CAMA permit and seller representations regarding the ability to
construct an in-ground pool.
Furthermore, the Applicant did not combine the two lots into one in late
2020.
The owner did not take any action to create or exacerbate this hardship.
Rather, they made good-faith efforts to comply with all regulations, including
seeking guidance from New Hanover County before proceeding with the
updated pool design.
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.
Granting the variance aligns with the intent of the ordinance by allowing a
reasonable use of the property while minimizing environmental impact. The
proposed pool design decreases impervious surface coverage compared to the
original plan, supporting the County’s conservation objectives. Furthermore,
the variance does not create any public safety concerns, nor does it grant
special privileges inconsistent with surrounding properties. A portion of the
pool is located within the COD setback.
Denying the variance would impose an undue burden on the owner without
serving the broader public interest.
Given these factors, the Applicant respectfully requests approval of this
variance to allow the installation of the pool as originally intended. The
hardship arises from circumstances beyond the owner's control, and the
variance would uphold the spirit of the ordinance while allowing for a
reasonable and environmentally responsible use of the property.
Attachment B to Variance Application
Pool Plans
5
6
Attachment C to Variance Application
Plat Book 68 Page 294
7