Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.22.25 Agenda Packet April 22, 2025, 5:30 PM I. Call Meeting to Order (Vice Chair Michael Keenan) II. Election of Officers for Remainder of 2025 III. Adoption of January 28, 2024 Minutes (Attendees at January Meeting –Vice Chair Michael Keenan, Will Daube, Caleb Rash, Michael Sanclimenti, Ed Trice, Greg Uhl IV. Old Items of Business V. Regular Items of Business Case BOA-998 – Samuel Franck and Madeline Williams, applicants, on behalf of Scott Reents, property owner, are 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 and is located at 7605 Scout Camp Hatila Road. VI. Other Business VII. Adjourn MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Michael Keenan, Sr. Vice-Chair Will Daube | Laura King | 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 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 January 28, 2025.   Members Present   Michael Keenan, Sr., Vice-Chair   Caleb Rash   Greg Uhl   Michael Sanclimenti Will Daube   Ed Trice  Members Absent William Mitchell, Chair  Jonathan Bridges Ex Officio Members Present Ken Vafler, Planning Operations Supervisor   Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Marshall Fugate, Administrative Specialist Bruce Gould, Administrative Specialist The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by Vice Chair Michael Keenan.  FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Vice Chair Keenan 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 noted that the Board also hears appeals of the County’s interpretation in enforcement of the Unifled Development Ordinance. He reminded attendees that appellants have thirty days to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. Vice Chair Keenan proposed to recuse himself from the meeting due to a confiict of interest, member Caleb Rash was voted to serve as Acting Chair for the hearing. Acting Chair Rash asked if there were any corrections to the last meeting’s minutes. Hearing none, Chair Rash called for a motion to accept January 7, 2025, meeting minutes as written. Mr. Uhl made the motion to approve the minutes to which Mr. Daube seconded. The board unanimously adopted the minutes. Chair Rash swore in Planning Operations Supervisor Ken Vafler and applicant Jonathan Weinbach. CASE BOA-996 Mr. Vafler presented an overview of a variance request for a residential property located at 206 Gazebo Court. The applicant seeks a variance of two feet from the regulatory fiood protection elevation to meet local compliance standards. The subject property is within a designated fiood zone in the Intracoastal Waterway vicinity and is zoned R-15, Residential. Mr. Vafler detailed that the county requires new residential structures in Special Flood Hazard Areas to be elevated 2’ above the base fiood elevation. The subject property falls into a Coastal A Zone, where construction must adhere to V Zone standards, including elevated piling construction. While the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requires an elevation of 13 feet, local regulations mandate an additional two-foot freeboard, setting the required elevation at 15 feet. However, the structure was constructed with its lowest horizontal member at 13 feet and did not meet the local standard. Mr. Vafler reviewed the timeline of events leading to the current variance request which included the following: • April 12, 2024: Permit application was submitted, including an elevation certiflcate showing compliance with the required 15-foot elevation. • June 4, 2024: Building permit approved, indicating compliance with fioodplain management regulations. • September 11, 2024: Residential building framing inspection issued partial pass. • October 3, 2024: Under-construction elevation certiflcate was submitted, revealing a discrepancy—the lowest horizontal member was at 13 feet instead of the required 15 feet. • November 8, 2024: A stop-work order was issued. The applicant, Jonathan Weinbach, provided a statement regarding the variance request. He explained that when he initially purchased the lot, his engineer had indicated that a crawl space with fiood vents would be permissible. However, upon applying for permits, he was informed that the fioodplain zone required a raised slab instead. This led to adjustments in the building plans, which were ultimately approved with a flrst-fioor elevation of 15 feet 10 inches. He noted that his misunderstanding of fiood zone regulations, speciflcally the freeboard requirement, was an oversight on his part. As a production builder primarily working with monolithic slabs, he acknowledged that he lacked experience with piling foundations. Mr. Weinbach stated that his piling contractor and surveyor were provided with all necessary documents, but there was never a discussion about potential elevation issues. He assumed that inspections would verify compliance during the construction process. When he eventually received an email regarding the under-construction elevation certiflcate, he promptly worked to resolve the issue. Upon discovering the discrepancies, he engaged with the zoning office and sought clariflcation. He also noted that an engineering letter regarding a framing issue mentioned the elevation concern, but he had overlooked that section of the document at the time. Mr. Weinbach emphasized that, by the time he was formally notifled of the elevation issue, the house was nearly completed, making modiflcations to raise it structurally infeasible. He expressed frustration that his submission of the under-construction certiflcate in early October was not reviewed until a revision request was made for a glass enclosure in November. He acknowledged his responsibility as the builder but felt that earlier detection and intervention from permitting authorities might have allowed for a corrective action before the structure reached an advanced stage of completion. He concluded by stating that he has invested over $750,000 in the project and is seeking a fair resolution that considers both regulatory compliance and the practical realities of the construction process. Mr. Weinbach testifled regarding the construction process, acknowledging the oversight and explaining that raising the structure post-construction would be structurally infeasible. He emphasized the extensive flnancial investment already made and stated that insurance could still be obtained based on compliance with FEMA’s minimum elevation standards. The Board reviewed mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to ensure minimal impact on NFIP standing and fiood risk. These included additional structural reinforcements and a deed restriction acknowledging the structure's non-compliance. The Board considered the impact on the County’s CRS (Community Rating System) classiflcation, which affects fiood insurance premiums for local residents. The Board discussed precedents for similar variance requests and whether granting the variance would undermine regulatory enforcement. Staff noted that no such variance had been granted since 2008. Board member Sanclimenti made a MOTION to DENY the variance request, citing that the builder did not perform his due diligence on who he hired to ensure standards and protocols were being met. The motion did not pass. Board Member Uhl made a MOTION to APPROVE the variance, SECONDED by Caleb Rash. The motion to approve the variance passed 4-1, with the decision based on the following conclusions and flndings of fact: 1. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of other; • The space below the elevated building will comply with all other requirements in Article 9 of the UDO prior to occupancy. • The residence is 95% complete and landscaped. • There is no current danger of loose materials being swept away. 2. The danger to life and property due to fiooding or erosion damage; • The elevation of the structure does meet the minimum NFIP requirement, but not the locally adopted higher regulatory standard with 2’ of freeboard. The freeboard requirement is an additional 2’ of height added to the BFE to account for the many unknown factors that could contribute to fiood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size fiood and fioodway conditions. • The residence is built to FEMA elevation for the fiood zone it resides in. • The residence is not built to NHC elevation standards for the fiood zone it resides in without being built to the 2’ freeboard requirement. 3. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to fiood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; • The elevation of the structure does meet the minimum NFIP requirement, but not the locally adopted higher regulatory standard with 2’ of freeboard. The freeboard requirement is an additional 2’ of height added to the BFE to account for the many unknown factors that could contribute to fiood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size fiood and fioodway conditions. • The home is under contract and was scheduled to close on December 13, 2024. The applicant testifled that the potential buyer is aware that the home does not meet local freeboard standards and, as reported by the applicant, is prepared to obtain and pay for any additional fiood insurance amounts required 4. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; • As a private residence, the structure will not provide direct services to the community. 5. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location as deflned in the County’s Stormwater Management Ordinance, as a functionally dependent facility, where applicable; • As a private residence, the structure is not dependent upon a waterfront location and is not a functionally dependent facility. • The property is located over 930 feet from the water. 6. The availability of alternative locations, not subject to fiooding or erosion damage, for the proposed use; • The structure is located on a private lot and is constructed on the parcel. • The residence’s value is directly connected to the location in close proximity to the waterway. 7. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; • The structure is within an area with additional single family detached dwellings and is compatible with existing and anticipated development. Adjacent structures on Gazebo Court, built in 1991, 2006, and 2013, are elevated with reference levels in the range of 14’ to 21.4’. These structures are located on the west side of Gazebo Court where the current Base Flood Elevation is 12’ and appear to have met the required elevation at the time of their respective construction. The subject structure’s lowest horizontal structural member or reference level would be 13’ with the variance approval. • The building meets FEMA guidelines being in the Coastal A fiood zone. 8. The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and fioodplain management program for that area; • The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifles this area within the General Residential Place Type. Single-family detached dwelling units at a density not to exceed 8 units per acre are consistent with the plan. The property is currently zoned R-15, Residential District, which limits density to 2.5 units per acre. Provisions within the UDO limit density for certain developments within the VE fiood zone to 2.5 units per acre. • The structure is also consistent with the fioodplain management program for this area, outside of the additional freeboard requirement. • The property has two access points for emergency vehicles. 9. The safety of access to the property in times of fiood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; • The safety of access to the property in times of fiood for ordinary and emergency vehicles will not be impeded by the requested variance if granted. • The structure’s elevation does not affect access. 10. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the fioodwaters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; and; • The elevation of the structure does meet the minimum required NFIP base fiood elevation of 13’, but not the locally adopted 2’ freeboard requirement of 15’. The freeboard requirement is adopted in part to account for the many unknown factors that could contribute to fiood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size fiood and fioodway conditions. • The residence is constructed in a Coastal A fiood zone and meets the base fiood elevation of 13 feet as per the minimum NFIP requirement shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. 11. The costs of providing governmental services during and after fiood conditions including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems, and streets and bridges. • It is not anticipated that the cost of providing governmental services during and after fiood conditions would be altered if the requested variance were granted. • There would not be any additional cost other than routine maintenance of public infrastructure. Additional conditions for variances as stated in Section 9.7.5.I of the UDO: 1. Variances shall not be issued when the variance will make the structure in violation of other federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or ordinances. • The 2’ freeboard requirement is a locally adopted higher regulatory standard and if granted the structure would still comply with the minimum NFIP standard of 13’. 2. Variances shall not be issued within any designated fioodway or non-encroachment area if the variance would result in any increase in fiood levels during the base fiood discharge. • The property is not located within a designated fioodway or non-encroachment area. 3. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the fiood hazard, to afford relief. • The requested variance does represent the minimum necessary to afford relief. All other fioodplain management requirements will have been met for the structure. 4. Variances shall only be issued prior to fioodplain development permit approval. • The fioodplain development permit was issued for the structure on June 4, 2024. It was discovered that the reference level was not met after the issuance of that permit and during the time between the discovery and this variance request, building continued to almost completion. To comply with this provision, the FPDP could be revoked & a new one issued contingent on the issuance of a variance. While this was considered, it was deemed to not be prudent due to the stage of completion of the structure when this variance was requested 5. Variances shall only be issued upon: a. A showing of good and sufficient cause; 1. This Board determines that a showing of good and sufficient cause has been made. b. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship; and 2. This Board determines that a failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship. c. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased fiood heights, additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expense, create nuisance, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or confiict with existing local laws or ordinances. 3. This Board determines that granting the variance will not result in increased fiood heights, additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expense, create nuisance, cause fraud on or victimization of the public or confiict with existing local laws. While it may confiict with existing local ordinances, it is the Boards flnding that the hardship outweighs the confiict. 6. A variance may be issued for solid waste disposal facilities or sites, hazardous waste management facilities, salvage yards, and chemical storage facilities that are located in Special Flood Hazard Areas provided that all of the following conditions are met. a. The use serves a critical need in the community. i. Not applicable to this structure as it is not a solid waste disposal facility or site, hazardous waste management facility, salvage yard, or chemical storage facility. b. No feasible location exists for the use outside the Special Flood Hazard Area. i. Not applicable to this structure as it is not a solid waste disposal facility or site, hazardous waste management facility, salvage yard, or chemical storage facility. c. The reference level of any structure is elevated or fioodproofed to at least the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. i. Not applicable to this structure as it is not a solid waste disposal facility or site, hazardous waste management facility, salvage yard, or chemical storage facility. d. The use complies with all other applicable federal, state and local laws. i. Not applicable to this structure as it is not a solid waste disposal facility or site, hazardous waste management facility, salvage yard, or chemical storage facility. e. New Hanover County has notifled the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety of its intention to grant a variance at least 30 calendar days prior to granting the variance. i. Not applicable to this structure as it is not a solid waste disposal facility or site, hazardous waste management facility, salvage yard, or chemical storage facility. • To ensure every successive property owner is aware of the variance and lower elevation level, it is this Board’s flnding that a disclosure that the structure does not meet the locally adopted elevation requirement is necessary and an acknowledgement by the property owner and successors that any potential damages or insurance implications shall be borne exclusively by the property owner and successors. This shall be documented via deed restriction, which should occur in perpetuity. The applicant shall provide proof of accomplishing this condition by providing the County a copy of the recorded deed restrictions within a reasonable time but no later than thirty (30) days after the sale of the property. If this condition is not completed, this variance is null and void, and the property will remain out of compliance. • That, to maintain the County’s participation in certain programs beneflcial to every resident in the County, it is the Board’s intent that the granting of this request shall be contingent upon review and conflrmation by applicable partner agencies and their conflrmation that no adverse effect to the County’s standing in the NFIP will be incurred. If adverse effects to the County’s standing in the NFIP occur, this variance will need to be revisited by the parties in current owner of the property. The approval was subject to the following conditions: • Granting of this request shall be contingent upon review and conflrmation by applicable partner agencies that no adverse effect to the county’s standing in the NFIP will be incurred; • Disclosure that the structure does not meet the locally adopted elevation requirement and acknowledgement by property owner and successors that any potential damages or insurance implications shall be borne exclusively by the property owner and successors via deed restriction. Meeting Adjourned There being no further business before the Board, Acting Chair Rash made a MOTION to ADJOURN the meeting, SECONDED by Mr. Uhl. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:15pm Please note the minutes are not a verbatim recording of the proceeding.   _____________________  Executive Secretary   _____________________  Chair    _____________________   Date  BOA-998 Page 1 of 7 VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 22, 2025 CASE: BOA-998 PETITIONER: Samuel Franck and Madeline Williams, applicants, on behalf of Scott Reents, property owner. 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: 7605 Scout Camp Hatila Road PID: R08500-004-010-007 ZONING: R-15, Residential District ACREAGE: 3.98 Acres BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant is requesting a variance 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. The subject property consists of approximately 3.98 acres off of Scout Camp Hatila Road. The property is located in the southeastern part of the county off North Seabreeze Road, north of Snows Cut Bridge to Carolina Beach. The subject property lies on the south side of a small tidal creek that branches off from the Intracoastal Waterway. Conservation resource maps in this area indicated the presence of Salt Marsh and Brackish Marsh, 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. Field verification by County and NCDEQ staff on October 8, 2024, has confirmed the presence of only the Salt Marsh resource on the site. Intracoastal Waterway Site General Area of Salt Marsh General Area of Salt Marsh Figure 1: Site Location map. Refer to Figure 2 for Applicant Site Plan with Field Verified Conservation Resource Setback Contours. BOA-998 Page 2 of 7 The applicant is proposing the construction of a swimming pool in the rear yard facing the Intracoastal Waterway. The 24’ x 38’ pool is proposed to encroach into the conservation resource setback by approximately 30’ on the north side, and 20’ on the south side (see Figure 2). In total, approximately 87 square feet of concrete sitting area, 57 square feet of concrete pavers, and 29 square feet of outdoor shower with steps are proposed to encroach into the conservation resource setback area. Approximately 829 square feet of the pool’s surface and 184 square feet of the pavers surrounding the pool would be in the setback area. Figure 2: Site Plan with Staff Mark Ups Area not in Conservation Resource Setback (~ 36 SF) Approximate Contour of Resource Setback BOA-998 Page 3 of 7 Pools are considered Structures as defined by the UDO, as they are typically constructed within a fixed location on the ground, but the surface of the water is considered pervious: 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. Subsection B.1 requires all structures and impervious surfaces to be set back a minimum of 75’ from a salt marsh or brackish marsh: 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 resources 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-998 Page 4 of 7 Figure 3: Table 5.7.4 The site was originally plated in Map Book 17, Page 17 (Figure 4) on April 9, 1976. Lots of record that are in existence prior to December 1, 1984 are exempt from the additional performance controls. However, the subject parcels were subdivided in Map Book 39, Page 313 (Figure 5) on April 6, 2000, which caused the site to be subject to conservation resource additional performance controls. The parcels created during the subdivision process were then combined into the current parcel, as described in Map Book 68, Page 294 (Figure 6). These actions created lots of record that are currently subject to the additional performance controls. Figure 4: Map Book 17, Page 17 BOA-998 Page 5 of 7 Figure 5: Map Book 39 Page 313 Figure 6: Map Book 68 Page 294 BOA-998 Page 6 of 7 Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit 20-14 was issued on March 11, 2020, which permitted a single-family residence, in-ground pool, hot tub, decking, and associated landscaping in compliance with CAMA regulations. However, the permit expired on December 31, 2023, necessitating the application for a new CAMA Permit. The issuance of a CAMA permit only gives approval that a project meets the requirements of the CAMA Act. A general condition on all CAMA permits is “All construction must conform to the N.C. Building Code requirements and all other local, State and Federal regulations, applicable local ordinances and FEMA Flood Regulations. Under GS 113A-120, a CAMA permit cannot be issued unless local regulations are met. During review of the CAMA permit application, it was noted by review staff that the proposed project would not meet the 75’ conservation resource setback. The applicant has detailed the basis for their request within the submitted application materials. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance of approximately 30’ 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 and other associated impervious surface into the conservation resource setback area. BOA-998 Page 7 of 7 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. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Michael Keenan, Sr. Vice-Chair Will Daube | Laura King | 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-998 The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on April 22, 2025, to consider application number BOA-998, submitted by Samuel Franck and Madeline Williams, applicants, on behalf of Scott Reents, property owner, a request for 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 7605 Scout Camp Hatila 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 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 22nd day of April, 2025 ____________________________________ Chair Attest: ________________________________ Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board Page 1 of 5 Variance Application – Updated 05-2021 NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 Telephone (910) 798-7165 FAX (910) 798-7053 planningdevelopment.nhcgov.com ZONING & SUBDIVISION VARIANCE APPLICATION This application form must be completed as part of a request for a zoning and/or subdivision variance. The application submitted through the county’s online COAST portal. The main procedural steps in the submittal and review of applications for a variance are outlined in the flowchart below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the application, are set out in Section 10.3.11 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Public Hearing Procedures (Optional) Pre-Application Conference (Optional) Community Information Meeting 1 Application Submittal & Acceptance 2 Planning Director Review & Staff Report 3 Public Hearing Scheduling & Notification  Advisory Body Review & Action 4 Board of Adjustment Hearing & Decision 5 Post-Decision Limitations and Actions 1. Applicant and Property Owner Information Applicant/Agent Name Owner Name (if different from Applicant/Agent) Company Company/Owner Name 2 Address Address City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Phone Phone Email Email Madeline L.Williams and Samuel B.Franck Scott Reents Ward and Smith,P.A. 127 Racine Drive 7605 Scout Camp Hatila Road Wilmington,NC 28405 Wilmington,NC 28409 910-794-4819 or 910-794-4835 502-551-6203 mlwilliams@wardandsmith.com and sbf@wardandsmith.com jon@coastalpoolscapesnc.com Docusign Envelope ID: 9879FA6F-80DD-4C46-BE6C-65331BBFC9C7 Page 2 of 5 Variance Application – Updated 05-2021 2. Subject Property Information Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s) Total Parcel(s) Acreage Existing Zoning and Use(s) 3. Proposed Variance Narrative Subject Zoning Regulation, Chapter and Section In the space below, please provide a narrative of the application (attach additional pages if necessary). See Attachment A 7605 Scout Camp Hatila Road,Wilmington,NC 28409 R08500-004-010-007 3.98 R-15 Residential Docusign Envelope ID: 9879FA6F-80DD-4C46-BE6C-65331BBFC9C7 Page 3 of 5 Variance Application – Updated 05-2021 CRITERIA REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance if it finds that strict application of the ordinance results in an unnecessary hardship for the applicant, and if the variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance. The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed use meets these required findings (attach additional pages if necessary). 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. 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. See Attachment A See Attachment A Docusign Envelope ID: 9879FA6F-80DD-4C46-BE6C-65331BBFC9C7 Page 4 of 5 Variance Application – Updated 05-2021 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. See Attachment A See Attachment A Docusign Envelope ID: 9879FA6F-80DD-4C46-BE6C-65331BBFC9C7 Page 5 of 5 Variance Application – Updated 05-2021 Staff will use the following checklist to determine the completeness of your application. Please verify all of the listed items are included and confirm by initialing under “Applicant Initial”. Applications determined to be incomplete must be corrected in order to be processed for further review. Application Checklist Applicant Initial 󠄀 This application form, completed and signed 󠄀 Application fee: $400 per application 󠄀 Site plan or sketch illustrating the requested variance 󠄀 One (1) hard copy of ALL documents 󠄀 One (1) PDF copy of ALL documents Acknowledgement and Signatures By my signature below, I understand and accept all of the conditions, limitations, and obligations of the variance application for which I am applying. I understand that I have the burden of proving why this application meets the required findings necessary for granting a variance. I certify that this application is complete and that all information presented in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. If applicable, I also appoint the applicant/agent as listed on this application to represent me and make decisions on my behalf regarding this application during the review process. The applicant/agent is hereby authorized on my behalf to: 1. Submit an application including all required supplemental information and materials; 2. Appear at public hearings to give representation and comments; 3. Act on my behalf without limitations with regard to any and all things directly or indirectly connected with or arising out of this application; and 4. Provide written consent to any and all conditions of approval. Signature of Property Owner(s) Print Name(s) Signature of Applicant/Agent Print Name Note: This form must be signed by the owner(s) of record. If there are multiple property owners, a signature is required for each owner of record. • The land owner or their attorney must be present for the case at the public hearing Scott Reents Madeline L.Williams Docusign Envelope ID: 9879FA6F-80DD-4C46-BE6C-65331BBFC9C7 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 ___________________ , 20__________. _______________________________________ __________________________________________ Owner 1 Signature Owner 2 Signature NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING & /$1'86( 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 mlwilliams@wardandsmith.com Madeline L. Williams & Samuel B. Franck Scott Reents 7605 Scout Camp Hatila Road Ward and Smith, P.A.Wilmington, NC 28409 127 Racine Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 R08500-004-010-007 910-794-4819 / 910-794.4835 sbf@wardandsmith.com 14th March 25 Print Form scott.reents@abbvie.com Docusign Envelope ID: 9879FA6F-80DD-4C46-BE6C-65331BBFC9C7 Attachment 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 SCOUT CAMP HATILA RDSCOUT CAMP HATILA RD INSET #1 Bateman Civil Survey Company Engineers Surveyors Planners Drawn By: Checked By: CFC Drawn By: JRM S-1 Field By: JK/CJF Project Number: 24W405 Scale: 1" = 50' AS-BUILT SURVEY & PROPOSED POOL EXCLUSIVELY FOR: COASTAL POOLSCAPES, LLC  SCOUT CA0P +ATILA ROAD SITE NO R T H CARO LI N A C L A R ITO F. C O R P U S JR. L A N D SUR V E YOR PR O F E SSIO N A L 75.0' REVISIO1 DESCRIPTIO11ODATE 75.0 ' UP 3.5' 5.5' ST E P S SL O P E SUN SHELF 9" WATER DEPTH SPA 42" DEEP PLANTING BED PLANTING BED BA R C O U N T E R T O P ( F L U S H W/ P O O L C O P I N G ) STEPUP STEPUP TOP OF COPING/WALL +1.33 BOTTOM OF WALL -5.0 TOP OF DECK 0.0 TOP OF COPING +1.33 (2) 8" RISER (3) 8" RISER IPE DECKING CHANGING ROOM STORAGE ROOM OUTDOOR SHOWER TOP STEP FLUSH W/ POOL COPING EXISTING CONCRETE PADS CONCRETE STEPPERS MARMIRO 'AFYON CLOUD' POOL COPING - POOL WALL 5' HT ABOVE FINISH GRADE PERGOLA - SEE DETAIL BLACK ALUMINUM POOL FENCE - 2 RAIL, 48" HT BLACK ALUMINUM POOL GATE - SELF LOCKING, 2 RAIL, 48" HT BLACK ALUMINUM POOL GATE - SELF LOCKING, 2 RAIL, 48" HT BLACK ALUMINUM POOL FENCE - 2 RAIL, 48" HT EXISTING COLUMNS (TYP) LAWN PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 30' A C C E S S & U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 30'-0" CAMA SETB A C K 30 ' - 0 " C A M A S E T B A C K L I N E NH W L L I N E 30 ' C A M A S E T B A C K 30'-0" C A M A S E T B A C K L I N E NHW L L I N E Z O N E V E ( 1 3 ) Z O N E A E ( 1 3 ) 6'-0"24'-0" 7'-10"12'-8" 3'-6" 1'-0" 3'-0" 7'-2"16'-10" 36 ' - 0 " 9' - 5 " 17 ' - 6 " 9' - 1 " 9' - 4 " 19 ' - 1 " 7'- 7 " SW I M U P B A R BA R S E A T I N G A R E A (C O N C R E T E P A D ) 6'-0" SUBMERGED LANDS EXISTING PIER 'POOL HOUSE' ADDITION - UNDER EXISTING HOUSE AT GROUND LEVEL IPE DECKING DR A W N B Y GC D IS S U E 9/ 0 6 / 2 4 AD D R E S S PR O J E C T RE E N T S R E S I D E N C E PR O P O S E D P O O L & O U T D O O R L I V I N G A R E A DE S C R I P T I O N SI T E P L A N S 01 NORTH 0 SCALE: 1"=10' 10 3020 76 0 5 S C O U T C A M P H A T I L A R D WI L M I N T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 UP 3.5'5.5' STEPS SLOPE SUN SHELF 9" WATER DEPTH SPA 42" DEEP PLANTING BED PLANTING BED BAR COUNTERTOP (FLUSH W/ POOL COPING) STEP UP STEP UP TOP OF COPING/WALL +1.33 BOTTOM OF WALL -5.0 TOP OF DECK 0.0 TOP OF COPING +1.33 (2) 8" RISER (3) 8" RISER CHANGING ROOM STORAGE ROOM OUTDOOR SHOWER TOP STEP FLUSH W/ POOL COPING LAWN EXISTING CONCRETE PADS CONCRETE STEPPERS CONCRETE BAR SEATING AREA MARMIRO 'AFYON CLOUD' POOL COPING - POOL WALL 5' HT ABOVE FINISH GRADE PERGOLA - SEE DETAIL BLACK ALUMINUM POOL FENCE - 2 RAIL, 48" HT BLACK ALUMINUM POOL GATE - SELF LOCKING, 2 RAIL, 48" HT BLACK ALUMINUM POOL FENCE - 2 RAIL, 48" HT A B CB IPE DECKING BLACK ALUMINUM POOL GATE - SELF LOCKING, 2 RAIL, 48" HT EXISTING COLUMNS (TYP) 'POOL HOUSE' ADDITION - UNDER EXISTING HOUSE AT GROUND LEVEL SWIM UP BAR EXISTING GARAGE IPE DECKING LAP PINE SIDING - TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE CORNER BOARDS - TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE OUTDOOR SHOWER - 1x6 IPE SLATS DOOR TO CHANGING ROOM 6x6 POST WOOD DECKING - REFER TO ENGINEER'S PLANS OUTDOOR SHOWER DOOR - IPE FRAMING W/ 1x6 IPE SLATS 5'-6" 6'- 8 " FRAME AROUND EXISTING COLUMNS (TYP) EXISTING HOUSE ABOVE LAP PINE SIDING - TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE CORNER BOARDS - TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE DOOR TO CHANGING ROOM WOOD DECKING - REFER TO ENGINEER'S PLANS FRAME AROUND EXISTING COLUMNS (TYP) EXISTING HOUSE ABOVE STEPS UP TO POOL POOL COPING / BOND BEAM SLEEVE FOR GAZEBO POST & STEEL BASE PLATE - TO BE INSTALLED WITH GAZEBO AND SEALED WITH EPOXY CONCRETE FOOTING COMPACTED SUBGRADE EXPANSION JOINT ADJACENT POOL COPING & BOND BEAM FINISH GRADE / LAWN 6x6 POST 2x12 HEADER 2x10 RAFTERS, NOTCHED TO ACCEPT HEADER BEAMS 2x2 LATTICE 9'- 0 " 10'-7" (±TO BE FIELD VERIFIED) 1'-4" O.C. (TYP) 6x6 POST 2x12 HEADER BEAMS 2x10 RAFTERS, NOTCHED TO ACCEPT HEADER BEAMS 2x2 LATTICE FINISH GRADE / LAWN 6'-0" 9'- 0 " 8.25" O.C.(TYP)5" DR A W N B Y GC D IS S U E 9/ 0 6 / 2 4 AD D R E S S PR O J E C T RE E N T S R E S I D E N C E PR O P O S E D P O O L & O U T D O O R L I V I N G A R E A DE S C R I P T I O N PO O L & O U T D O O R LI V I N G P L A N / D E T A I L S S 02 76 0 5 S C O U T C A M P H A T I L A R D WI L M I N T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 'POOL HOUSE' - ELEVATION VIEW 'A' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 'POOL HOUSE' - ELEVATION VIEW 'B' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 'PERGOLA' - ELEVATION VIEW 'C' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 'PERGOLA' - ELEVATION VIEW 'D' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" POOL & OUTDOOR LIVING PLAN SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"