Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Minutes 10-28-2025BOARD 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 October 28,2025. Members Present Caleb Rash, Vice-Chair Greg Uhl Will Daube Laura King Michael Sanclimenti (Alternate) Ed Trice (Alternate) lonathan Bridges (Alternate) Present. not serving Members Absent Michael Keenan, Sr., Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Ryan Beil, Development Review Planner Karlene Ellis Vitalis, Long Range Associate Planner Bruce Gould, Zoning Compliance Official Shau na Bradley, Administrative Specialist The meeting was called to order by 5:31 PM There were no formal minutes available from the previous meeting. Ex Officio Members Present Mr. Vafier presented the consideration of excusing absences. Mr. Keenan and Mr. Trice provided explanations for their absences. He also reiterated that there were to be no more than three unexcused absences allowed. Mr. Uhl made a motion to excuse both Mr. Trice and Mr. Keenan's absences. Mr. Daube seconded that motion. The motion to excuse absences was unanimously approved, 5-0. Resu la r ustness Mr. Beil began the second staff led board training with an overview of the objectives and goals. The presentation covered the structure and responsibilities of the Board of Adjustment, ethical considerations, procedural guidelines for meetings, and the standards governing decision-ma king. He noted that three case studies would be presented to demonstrate the practical application of these principles. Mr. Beil then provided an explanation of the Board's purpose, the composition and number of its members, the types of hearings it is authorized to conduct, and the voting requirements for variance decisions. He further clarified that land use decisions are categorized into three distinct rypes: legislative, quasi-judicial, and administrative. Mr. Gould began with an overview of the Board of Adjustment's legal authority, which was established through the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and the County Code. He emphasized the importance of applying the appropriate legal standard for each type of request, referencing specific UDO sections for variances, appeals, and reasonable accommodations. He also noted that certain areas, such as floodplain and airport zoning, were governed by separate standards outside the UDO framework. He highlighted that all Board decisions must be based on competent, material, and substantial evidence. This meant factual, relevant, and persuasive information rather than personal opinions. Courts have previously ruled on how to interpret these evidentiary standards. Mr. Gould also reviewed ethical obligations, including adherence to procedural rules, disclosure of confllcts of interest, and avoidance of ex-parte communications. He reminded members of their responsibility to attend meetings regularly, come prepared, and base decisions solely on the evidentiary record. Lastly, Mr. Gould outlined the decision-making process, including the need for expert testimony in technical matters and the shifting burden of proof once an applicant meets initial requirements. He reviewed the four statutory criteria required to grant a variance and clarified that use variances were not permitted. Additional attention was given to floodplain variances due to federal implications, and he concluded with a discussion on reasonable accommodation requests, which must meet federalfair housing standards and balance zoning enforcement with accessibility. Ms. Ellis Vitalis discussed the concept of standing in the context of appeals. lt was clarified that individuals who may appeal a decision lnclude property owners, those holding a legal interest in the property (such as through a purchase contract), applicants, individuals who would suffer direct harm, renters, associations with at least one qualifying member, and local government entities. An example was provided involving a friend of a property owner who attempted to speak on their behalf; it was emphasized that such individuals, without a direct legal interest or impact, would not have standing to appeal. All appeals from the Board's decisions were to be directed to Superior Court via a writ of certiorari. The court would review quasi-judicial decisions for constitutional violations, statutory overreach, procedural errors, or lack of competent, material, and substantial evidence. The discussion touched on broader zoning implications, such as how naturalchanges to geographic features can affect legal property descriptions and square footage. Members were reminded that older properties often rely on natural landmarks in their legal descriptions, which can complicate matters when those features shift. The session concluded with a brief mention of reasonable accommodation cases and how repeated, burdensome requests had prompted procedural improvements. Attendees were invited to review additional resources and were encouraged to reach out with further questions or requests for clarification. ln conclusion, the Members were encouraged to review the Board of Adjustments Handbook, UNC SOG materiais, and the UDO. The training adjourned at 6:55 p.m. .-.€ Execu tive Secreta ry% Chair z/ tt ltrI Date