Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.27.25 Agenda Packet May 27, 2025, 5:30 PM I. Call Meeting to Order (Chair Michael Keenan, Sr.) II. Adoption of April 22, 2024 Minutes (Attendees at April Meeting – Chair Michael Keenan, Vice-Chair Caleb Rash, Will Daube, Laura King, Michael Sanclimenti, Greg Uhl) III. Old Items of Business IV. Regular Items of Business Case BOA-999 – Susan Keelin, applicant, on behalf of John and Carol Ford, 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. This property is zoned R-15, Residential and is located at 1074 S Seabreeze Road. V. Other Business VI. Adjourn MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Michael Keenan, Sr. Chair | Caleb Rash Vice-Chair Will Daube | Laura King | 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 April 22, 2025.   Members Present Michael Keenan, Sr., Vice-Chair Caleb Rash Greg Uhl Will Daube Laura King Michael Sanclimenti (Alternate) Members Absent   Jonathan Bridges Ed Trice Ex Officio Members Present Ken Vafler, Planning Operations Supervisor Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor Bruce Gould, Administrative Specialist The meeting was called to order at 5:36 PM by Vice-Chair Michael Keenan. Planning Operations Supervisor, Ken Vafler explained that there is a need to elect new officers for the Board of Adjustment due to the resignation of previous Chair William Mitchell. After discussion Caleb Rash made a motion to elect Vice-Chair Michael Keenan as Chair. This motion was seconded by Will Daube and was approved unanimously. Additional discussion was had followed by a motion by Greg Uhl to elect Caleb Rash as Vice-Chair. This motion was seconded by Chair Keenan and was approved unanimously. SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Chair Keenan asked if there were any corrections to the last meeting’s minutes. Hearing none, Chair Keenan called for a motion to accept the January 28, 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. CASE BOA-998 Chair Keenan swore in Planning Operations Supervisor, Ken Vafler, and applicant representatives Samuel Franck, Jon Henry and Caroline Reents. After the swearing in, Deputy County Attorney Karen Richards brought to the board attention that prior to the meeting staff received an email correspondence from a property owner about the case. The sender of the email was not present at the meeting. At that time Samuel Franck, attorney representing the applicant before the board, objected to the submission of the email to the board due to the quasi-judicial nature of the hearing and the fact that the author of the email was not present to testify. After discussion, the Board agreed to not receive the email as evidence or into the record. Mr. Vafler presented an overview of a variance request for a residential property located at 7605 Scout Camp Hatila Road and stated that the applicant seeks a variance from the 75’ Conservation Resource setback requirement per Section 5.7.4.B (1), Additional Performance Controls, of the New Hanover County Unifled Development Ordinance to construct a swimming pool and decking in the rear yard setback. The subject property consists of about 4 acres and is zoned R-15, Residential. Mr. Vafler stated that the R-15 district is generally characterized by single family residential structures with lot sizes around 15,000 square feet with a density of 2.5 units per acre. The subject property is larger than this typical dimension. Mr. Vafler then presented aerial photography of the site showing the general land use pattern of single-family residential lots. He further indicated that the 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 veriflcation by county and NCDEQ staff on October 8, 2024 conflrmed the presence of only the Salt Marsh resource on the site. Mr. Vafler’s presentation then went into more detail regarding the variance request stating 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 as shown in flgure 2. Additionally, 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. He went on to state that although the water surface of the pool is considered pervious, pools are considered Structures as deflned by the UDO, as they are typically constructed within a flxed location on the ground and Section 5.7.4 of the UDO contains performance controls on conservation resources that govern development within or adjacent to them. Speciflcally, Subsection B.1 requires all structures and impervious surfaces to be set back a minimum of 75’ from a salt marsh. 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 single-family home and attached pool into the conservation resource setback area. Mr. Vafler stated that the applicant and property owner are present and are available to further expand upon their request. The board asked Mr. Vafler how the home got to be constructed within the 75’ conservation setback as shown on the submitted plans. Mr. Vafler explained that the home was permitted prior to the lot being recombined with the other tracts that make up the current 4-acre parcel. At the time of construction, the home was proposed on a pre-existing lot of record that was not subject to the regulations in which the variance is being requested. The original tract has since been recombined with the result being that the parcel no longer has standing as a lot of record so the regulations apply today. Samuel Franck then addressed the board as the property owner representative. Mr. Franck began his testimony by giving a timeline of the property. Mr. Franck presented into the record the content of Attachment A. He then proceeded to read Attachment A into the record. 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. 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. 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. Board Member Uhl made a MOTION to APPROVE the variance and to make the flndings presented by the applicant and included in Attachment A as the board’s own, SECONDED by Caleb Rash. The motion to recommend approval of the variance passed 5-0 with the decision 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 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 result.  This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:   • 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. • Without the variance, the Applicant would be deprived of a signiflcant property use that was reasonably expected at the time of purchase. • The recombination 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. 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 hardship stems from unique circumstances affecting this speciflc parcel. Speciflcally, 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 fiagged 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. 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 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. 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:   • 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. Meeting Adjourned There being no further business before the Board, Chair Keenan 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-999 Page 1 of 4 VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 27, 2025 CASE: BOA-999 PETITIONER: Susan Keelin, applicant, on behalf of John and Carol Ford, 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: 1074 S Seabreeze Road R08518-005-001-001 ZONING: R-15, Residential District ACREAGE: 0.44 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 0.44 acres off of S Seabreeze Road, which is located in the southern part of the county off Carolina Beach Road, just north of the Snows Cut Bridge. The subject property lies immediately west of the Intracoastal Waterway. Conservation resource maps and field verification in this area indicate the presence of a Salt Marsh, which is a designated conservation resource 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. The applicant is proposing the construction of a swimming pool in the rear yard. The pool is proposed to encroach into the conservation resource setback by approximately 16.7’ on the east side with approximately 276 square feet in area of the pool within the conservation resource setback. There is a Intracoastal Waterway General Area of Conservation Resource S Seabreeze Roaad Site BOA-999 Page 2 of 4 proposed 682 square foot pervious apron around the pool, but not all of this area is within the resource setback due to the irregular nature of the setback contour. On February 5, 2025, New Hanover County and the NC Division of Coastal Management staff conducted a field visit and flagged a portion of the landward extent of the conservation resource line, which is where the 75’ setback is measured from. As depicted in Figure 2, the conservation resource extends significantly further west south of the subject property, placing a majority of the eastern side of the subject property into the conservation resource and subject to the setback controls for structures and impervious surfaces. Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan with staff markups. Although the water surface of the pool is considered pervious, pools are 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 a salt marsh: 75’ Conservation Resource Setback Landward Extent of Conservation Resource Intracoastal Waterway Proposed Pool/Deck Area BOA-999 Page 3 of 4 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. The applicant has detailed the basis for their request within the submitted application materials. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance 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. BOA-999 Page 4 of 4 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. Chair | Caleb Rash Vice-Chair Will Daube | Laura King | 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-999 The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on May 27, 2025, to consider application number BOA-999, submitted by Susan Keelin, applicant, on behalf of John and Carol Ford, property owners, 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 1074 S Seabreeze 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 27th day of May, 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 Susan Keelin Law Office of Susan M. Keelin, PLLC 1213 Culbreth Drive Wilmington, NC 29405 910-509-1702 skeelinlaw@gmail.com John M. Ford and Carol S. Ford 1074 Seabreeze Rd. S. Wilmington, NC 28409 910-352-2923 paythehands@gmail.com Docusign Envelope ID: BA3E1CFF-86F6-4278-8700-DBBBF0BA117B 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). 1074 Seabreeze Rd. S.R08518005001001 R-15, SFR.44 acres UDO Section 5.7.4 B(1) See attached narrative. Docusign Envelope ID: BA3E1CFF-86F6-4278-8700-DBBBF0BA117B 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 attached criteria response. See attached criteria response. Docusign Envelope ID: BA3E1CFF-86F6-4278-8700-DBBBF0BA117B 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 attached criteria response. See attached criteria response. Docusign Envelope ID: BA3E1CFF-86F6-4278-8700-DBBBF0BA117B 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 Carol S. Ford Susan Keelin Docusign Envelope ID: BA3E1CFF-86F6-4278-8700-DBBBF0BA117B ZONING & SUBDIVISION VARIANCE APPLICATION 1074 SEABREEZE RD. S. 3. Proposed Variance Narra1ve On behalf of the Owner, the Applicant seeks a variance from the 75’ COD setback requirement set forth in New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance SecTon 5.7.4 B(1) for construcTon of an in-ground swimming pool on the property. The property is described as “Lot 1, Block A of RecombinaTon of Seabreeze Holdings Property” as shown on a plat recorded January 14, 2013 in Plat Book 57 at Page 272 of the New Hanover County Registry. This 2013 plat shows a Normal High Water Line approved by Local Government Official, a Coastal Wetland Line, a 404 Wetland Line, and a 75’ COD setback line. The plat was signed by New Hanover County Review Officer Sam Burgess and by Planning Director Chris O’Keefe. In 2015, New Hanover County issued a building permit for construcTon of a single family residence on the property. On April 2, 2015, Registered Land Surveyor Bob Jones prepared a map of survey that shows the 75’ COD setback line on the property in the same locaTon as shown on the 2013 plat. The 2015 survey shows an exisTng piling foundaTon for the residence then under construcTon. The foundaTon is located wholly outside of the 75’ COD setback. In late 2024, the Owner submiced a building permit applicaTon for an in-ground swimming pool. Ader various on-site meeTngs with the surveyor and New Hanover County Planning Department staff extending into early 2025, it was ulTmately determined that the conservaTon resource line, and hence the 75’ COD setback line, had moved drasTcally from its 2013 and 2015 locaTon, and that a variance would be required before a building permit could be issued for the proposed swimming pool. If the pool that is proposed today had been built in 2015 when the house was constructed, it would have been outside the 75’ COD setback, and a variance would not have been required. This request is for a variance from UDO SecTon 5.7.4 B(1) sufficient to allow construcTon of a swimming pool in the locaTon shown on the survey by Bob Jones dated March 25, 2025. Acachments: Plat recorded in Plat Book 57 at Page 272, N.H. Co. Registry dated January 14, 2013 Survey of property by Bob Jones dated April 2, 2015 Survey of property by Bob Jones dated March 25, 2025 Criteria 1. Unnecessary hardship would result from strict applica1on of the ordinance. If the Owner complies with the literal terms of SecTon 5.7.4 B(1) of the UDO, an unnecessary hardship would result because only a narrow strip of property within the lot is outside the 75’ COD setback. Under a strict applicaTon, buildable area is severely restricted to the point that virtually not even a residence could be built on the lot today, much less a swimming pool. Criteria 2. The hardship results from condi1ons that are peculiar to the property, such as loca1on, size or topography. The newly established resource conservaTon line, and thus the 75’ COD setback line, bifurcates the property in a nearly west to east direcTon near the northern property line. As a result, nearly the enTre lot - including the exisTng single family residence - is now located inside the setback. This condiTon and hardship are peculiar to the Owner’s property. Criteria 3. The hardship did to result from ac1ons taken by the applicant or the property owner. The hardship did not result from the acTons taken by the property owner. The developer of the neighborhood created the lot configuraTon and size. When the lot was placed in 2013 in Plat Book 57 at Page 272 of the New Hanover County Registry, the conservaTon resource line was significantly water ward of its current locaTon as flagged by New Hanover County personnel on February 25, 2025. The proposed locaTon of the pool would have fit on the owner’s property in 2013 without a variance. It is only because of the change in locaTon of the conservaTon resource line since the lot was placed that a variance is needed. Criteria 4. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substan1al jus1ce is achieved. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance. The New Hanover County UDO, SecTon 5.7 - ConservaTon Resources - states the purpose is to protect important environmental resources in the County. No porTon of the proposed pool is located inside any conservaTon resource area or inside any CAMA area of environmental concern. As such, this variance is consistent with the purpose of protecTng important environmental resources, does not negaTvely impact public safety, and achieves substanTal jusTce.