HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.26.26 Agenda Packet
May 26, 2026, 5:30 PM
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Adoption of April 28, 2026 Minutes
(Attendees at April Meeting – Chair Caleb Rash, Greg Uhl, Will Daube, Laura King,
Michael Sanclimenti, Kelly Roberts)
II. Old Items of Business
IV. Regular Items of Business
Case BOA-1005 – Joe Johnson, applicant and property owner, is requesting
variances from the minimum front, side, and rear yard setback requirements
per Section 3.2.6.(D) of the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance. The properties are zoned R-20S, Residential and are located at
2034 and 2038 Trinity Avenue.
V. Other Business
VI. Adjourn
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Caleb Rash Chair | Greg Uhl Vice-Chair
Will Daube | Laura King |Michael Sanclimenti
BOARD ALTERNATES
Jason Holland | Kelly Roberts | Jeff Turpin
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, 230
Government Center Drive, Conference Room 139, in Wilmington, NC on Tuesday
April 28, 2026.
Members Present
Caleb Rash, Chair
Greg Uhl, Vice Chair
Will Daube
Laura King
Michael Sanclimenti
Present, not serving
Kelly Roberts
Members Absent
Jeff Turpin
Jason Holland
Ex Officio Members Present
Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director
Ken Vafler, Planning Operations Supervisor
Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney
Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor
Ryan Beil, Development Review Planner
Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor
Shauna Bradley, Administrative Specialist
Chair Rash called the meeting to order at 5:32 P.M.
Chair Rash considered the March meeting minutes for approval.
With no discussion, Mr. Daube motioned to approve the meeting minutes. It was
seconded by Mr. Sanclimente. The motion to approve meeting minutes passed, 5-0.
The Rules of Procedure were presented by Mr. Ken Vafler for consideration and
adoption. It was noted that there were minimal substantive changes from the current
Rules of Procedure adopted in 2023, and that the update primarily involved
reorganization and reformatting to align with the format used by other appointed
and elected boards recently adopted by the Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Vafler explained that the revised version included provisions addressing remote
participation and provided additional detail regarding attendance, including
distinctions between excused and unexcused absences. Otherwise, the Rules of
Procedure remained largely consistent with what the Board had been operating
under. Mr. Vafler requested a motion and second for adoption.
With no questions or discussions from the Board, Ms. King motioned to approve the
updated Rules of Procedures, Mr. Daube seconded the motion. The motion passed,
5-0.
The Chair reviewed the quasi-judicial hearing procedures, stating that staff would
present each case flrst, followed by the applicant, and then any individuals wishing
to speak in support or opposition. All testimony was required to be given under oath,
and all individuals intending to speak were sworn in.
BOA 1003 & 1004
Mr. Vafler explained that two appellants had flled appeals regarding the conditional
approval of the preliminary subdivision plan for Hilton Bluffs, which had been
conditionally approved by the County’s Technical Review Committee on March 10 of
that year. He stated that both appellants requested a stay on any development
permits allowed under the Unifled Development Ordinance (UDO) associated with
the conditional approval of the preliminary subdivision plan. He noted that the UDO
permits a stay to be requested under Section 10-314(B)(1)(e), as outlined in the staff
report and presented on screen. Mr. Vafler indicated that there was no position or
recommendation on the request. He further explained that the UDO does not
provide speciflc guidance on how a stay should be decided and, therefore, the matter
was deferred to the Board for discussion and determination following the hearing.
Attorney Elizabeth Rasheed of Southern Environmental Law Center presented
testimony in support of the request for a stay, explaining that the appellants sought
to pause only the issuance of flnal decisions on development permits, not the review
of applications or the submission of additional materials by the developer. She noted
that there is no clearly deflned standard in the Unifled Development Ordinance for
granting a stay but stated that the Board’s decision should be supported by
competent evidence. Ms. Rasheed referenced the legal framework commonly used
by courts for preliminary injunctions, explaining that it considers the likelihood of
success on the merits and the potential for harm if the status quo is not maintained.
She stated that the appellants met this higher standard and emphasized that the
request was to temporarily preserve existing conditions while the appeal is heard.
Ms. Rasheed described the Hilton Bluffs site as an approximately 4,000-acre area,
much of which consists of wetlands, with the currently approved 1,800-acre segment
representing a portion of the overall property. She argued that the Technical Review
Committee erred in its interpretation of the Unifled Development Ordinance by not
properly accounting for conservation areas, speciflcally areas of environmental
signiflcance, when calculating allowable development density. She further
emphasized the environmental importance of the site, noting that it includes a
Natural Heritage Area of exceptional quality, with rare ecosystems, old-growth trees,
and habitat for sensitive species. She stated that development activities such as tree
clearing and construction could result in permanent environmental impacts,
including loss of forest cover, reduced fiood storage capacity, and degradation of
habitat. Ms. Rasheed contrasted these potential environmental harms with the
impacts of delaying development, asserting that economic delays do not constitute
irreparable harm in the same way. She also identifled localized impacts, including
potential effects on nearby property owners, road safety concerns, and the
construction of a required access bridge that could alter the character of the
surrounding residential area.
In closing, she reiterated that the request was limited in duration and intended to
maintain the status quo until the Board could consider the full merits of the appeal,
emphasizing the signiflcance and sensitivity of the site.
Chair Rash opened the fioor for questions from the Board for Ms. Rasheed.
During the Board’s questioning, it was asked whether the appellant had a proposed
end date for the requested stay. Ms. Rasheed responded that the stay would remain
in place only until the Board issued a decision on the appeal, noting that a hearing
was being scheduled and was likely to occur in June, making the duration
approximately a couple of months.
The Board requested clariflcation regarding environmental conditions on the site,
speciflcally asking whether the 581 acres of uplands contained old-growth forest or
signiflcant tree stands, and whether endangered species were present in those areas
or limited to locations along the river.
In response, Ms. Rasheed referenced information from the tree removal permit
application, stating that a substantial number of signiflcant trees, including longleaf
pines, were located within the upland areas. She also explained that while the
Natural Heritage Area covered a broader portion of the site, there was some overlap
with upland areas that had not been fully delineated. Ms. Rasheed further stated that
construction activities on adjacent uplands could result in environmental impacts to
nearby wetlands, including sedimentation, noise, and light pollution, which were
relevant to the consideration of potential harm in evaluating the stay request.
Attorney Grady Richardson presented on behalf of the appellants. He explained that
the requested stay would only pause the issuance of permits, not the developer’s
ability to continue preparatory work, and would remain in place only until a full
evidentiary hearing, anticipated within approximately two months.
Mr. Richardson argued that the appellants were likely to succeed on the merits,
particularly regarding access issues through neighboring subdivisions. He stated that
the developer lacked legal authority to establish roadway connections through
privately owned lots in Marathon Colony and Wooden Shoe subdivisions, citing
recorded plat maps and restrictive covenants limiting those lots to single-family
residential use. He also raised concerns regarding discrepancies in the width of
Marathon Avenue, asserting that historical records support a 25-foot right-of-way
rather than the 60-foot width refiected in the approved plans.
He further contended that allowing development activities to proceed could result in
irreversible impacts, including tree removal, environmental degradation, and
disruption to established rural residential character. He contrasted these potential
harms with the limited impact of a short delay to the developer, noting that the
project had already been in progress for several years. Mr. Richardson also
highlighted inconsistencies between the proposed development and the County’s
rural agricultural zoning and land use policies, as well as the site’s environmental
designations, including conservation and natural heritage areas. He expressed
concern that conservation measures had not been fully deflned or secured prior to
approval.
In conclusion, he requested that the Board grant the stay to preserve existing
conditions until a full evidentiary hearing could be conducted, allowing for a
complete review of the legal, environmental, and land use issues raised in the appeal.
Chair Rash opened the fioor for questions from the Board for Mr. Richardson.
During the Board’s questioning, it was asked whether granting the stay would apply
to all permits. Mr. Richardson clarifled that the stay would apply only to permits
issued by the County, not to state or federal permits. He explained that the request
would pause only the issuance of County permits, while allowing the developer to
continue preparatory work leading up to permit applications. He further noted that
any permits outside the County’s authority, such as CAMA permits, would not be
stayed.
The Board asked for clariflcation regarding the width of Marathon Avenue. Mr.
Richardson stated that while some records reference portions of Marathon Avenue
as 60 feet wide, his position was that no portion had been lawfully established at that
width. He explained that certain areas, particularly what is referred to as Marathon
Avenue Extension, had been cited as 60 feet, but he maintained that the original 25-
foot width remained legally controlling unless all property owners agreed to a change
or the State formally condemned the land, neither of which he had identifled in the
record.
The Board also asked about the requested duration of the stay. Mr. Richardson
reiterated that the stay would remain in effect until the Board of Adjustment hearing,
anticipated within approximately two months, at which time the appellants would be
prepared to present full evidence. He added that if the Board ultimately ruled in favor
of the appellants, the stay would effectively continue as the matter returned to the
Technical Review Committee unless further appealed.
Additional questions addressed the conflguration of Marathon Avenue, including
whether it was dead-ended and the status of any proposed bridge. Mr. Richardson
conflrmed that the road effectively ended and stated that details regarding the
bridge remained conceptual. He reiterated his position that existing legal constraints
and uncertainties supported granting a temporary stay until a full evidentiary hearing
could be conducted.
Chair Rash opened the fioor to the attorney on behalf of the developer.
Attorney Sam Frank presented on behalf of the developer, arguing against the
request for a stay. He clarifled that the Unifled Development Ordinance (UDO) itself
was not being challenged, but rather the appellants’ claims related to staff
interpretation. Mr. Frank stated that the Board’s authority to grant a stay was limited
to flnal development approvals directly tied to the preliminary subdivision plan and
did not extend to permits or matters outside that scope. He also emphasized that
disputes regarding private property rights, particularly access through neighboring
subdivisions, were already before Superior Court and outside the Board’s
jurisdiction.
He outlined three criteria for consideration: likelihood of success on the merits, direct
harm to the appellants, and whether that harm is irreparable. He argued that none
of these criteria had been met. Speciflcally, he stated that the appellants did not own
or hold property interests in the subject site and therefore would not suffer direct or
irreparable harm from development activities. He further asserted that potential site
work could occur independently of the approved preliminary plan and that
conservation areas identifled in the plan were protected by conditions prohibiting
disturbance.
Regarding the merits, Mr. Frank contended that the appellants had not presented
sufficient evidence to demonstrate a likelihood of success, noting that their
arguments relied primarily on legal assertions rather than evidentiary support. He
defended staff’s interpretation of the UDO, particularly the application of
performance residential standards, stating that the approved plan was consistent
with the intent to cluster development and preserve open space, with a signiflcant
portion of the site designated for conservation.
He also argued that any risk associated with proceeding under permits during an
appeal would fall on the developer, as such actions would not establish vested rights
if approvals were later overturned. Additionally, he raised concern that no flrm
hearing date had been established, suggesting that an indeflnite stay would be
unreasonable.
In conclusion, Mr. Frank stated that the appellants had not demonstrated irreparable
harm, direct injury, or a likelihood of success on the merits, and he requested that
the Board deny the stay.
Chair Rash opened the fioor for questions from the Board to Mr. Frank.
During Board questioning, members asked about the width of Marathon Avenue and
how the developer would achieve a 60-foot right-of-way. Mr. Frank responded that
Marathon Avenue is a public road maintained by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), and any required improvements would be determined
through the traffic impact analysis process. He stated that no widening
improvements were currently identifled and that such decisions were outside the
developer’s control.
When asked about the potential harm to the developer if a stay was granted, Mr.
Frank stated that delays would result in increased time and cost, noting that permit
sequencing and project timelines could be disrupted, particularly if the stay extended
for an uncertain duration.
In response to questions about submitted materials, Mr. Frank explained that one
exhibit showed the locations of the appellants’ properties to demonstrate that they
did not own land within the subdivision area, while a separate map depicted the
subject property under the preliminary plat.
A Board member asked about the relevance of ongoing litigation regarding private
property rights. Mr. Frank stated that those issues were appropriately before the
courts and not relevant to the Board’s decision on the stay, emphasizing that the
Board should not base its decision on the likelihood of success in that separate legal
matter.
Additional questions addressed the status of Marathon Avenue as a public road and
the extent of public interest. Mr. Frank reiterated that it is a publicly maintained
roadway under NCDOT jurisdiction.
When asked whether a more limited or time-bound stay would be acceptable, Mr.
Frank reiterated that he did not believe a stay was justifled but suggested that, if
granted, it should be narrowly tailored—limited in duration and scope, potentially
applying only to speciflc lots associated with the access dispute.
The Board also questioned tree impacts. Mr. Frank stated that a tree survey had been
conducted and that no specimen trees were located within the areas designated for
development, with such trees instead located within conservation areas. He
distinguished between “specimen” and “signiflcant” trees and indicated that the most
environmentally sensitive resources were outside the development footprint.
In response to concerns about tree removal prior to a flnal decision, Mr. Frank argued
that the property owner has the right to remove trees, that such actions could occur
independently of the preliminary plan under existing forestry allowances, and that
the appellants had not demonstrated that they would suffer direct harm from such
activity.
Chair Rash opened the fioor to rebuttals from the appellants.
Susan Keelin provided rebuttal testimony on behalf of the appellants. She identifled
the parties represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center and formally
incorporated both their prior arguments and those presented by Mr. Richardson into
the record.
Ms. Keelin emphasized that the Board’s decision was limited to whether to grant a
stay and clarifled that neither the Unifled Development Ordinance nor state statute
establishes a speciflc standard for doing so. She stated that the Board has discretion
to grant a stay of flnal permit decisions and argued that the additional legal
standards discussed were not required.
She responded to the developer’s argument regarding potential inactivity, stating
that if no development activity was expected in the interim, then issuing a stay would
simply formalize maintaining the status quo. She clarifled that the request was not
to prevent the developer from continuing preparatory work, but rather to pause the
County’s issuance of flnal permits.
Ms. Keelin also addressed timing, explaining that a hearing date had not yet been
flnalized due to the need to compile the full record, but that parties were working
toward dates in late June. She clarifled that the requested stay would remain in place
until a flnal decision on the appeal was issued, not just until the hearing date.
In closing, she reiterated that the request was narrowly focused on preserving
existing conditions and preventing irreversible actions while the Board considers the
merits of the appeal, characterizing the stay as a reasonable and common-sense
measure.
Mr. Richardson provided a rebuttal, arguing that the developer had not identifled any
speciflc or concrete prejudice that would result from a short-term stay, aside from
general claims of time and cost. He asserted that economic impacts do not outweigh
the potential for environmental harm, emphasizing that the removal of mature trees
and environmental resources would constitute irreversible damage.
Mr. Richardson stated that environmental harm is permanent in nature and cannot
simply be undone, contrasting this with the developer’s position that any work
performed during the appeal period would be at their own risk. He further
contended that the appellants do have legally protected interests, citing case law and
restrictive covenants to support the argument that property owners within the
affected subdivisions have rights tied to recorded plats and cannot have those rights
altered without consent or legal process.
He maintained that these property rights issues are substantial and likely to succeed
on the merits, noting his experience litigating similar matters. He also indicated that
parallel legal action in Superior Court could result in injunctive relief, reinforcing the
appropriateness of granting a stay.
In conclusion, Mr. Richardson again urged the Board to grant the stay, allowing time
for a full evidentiary hearing and potential court rulings, and preventing actions that
could result in irreversible environmental or property-related impacts.
Chair Rash opened the fioor to rebuttals from the developers.
Mr. Frank provided rebuttal, asserting that the burden rests on the appellants to
demonstrate irreparable harm, not on the developer to show prejudice. He argued
that no such harm had been substantiated and characterized the requested stay as
an unjustifled restriction on a private property owner’s lawful use of their land. Mr.
Frank stated that granting a stay would effectively “handcuff” the developer by
preventing otherwise permitted activities based solely on anticipated claims that had
not yet been proven. He emphasized that maintaining the status quo, in his view,
meant allowing the property owner to continue lawful use of the land rather than
imposing limitations in advance of a flnal decision. He reiterated concerns about the
lack of a conflrmed hearing date, noting that an open-ended stay would be
unreasonable. However, he stated that if the Board were inclined to grant a stay, it
should be narrowly tailored limited in duration to a speciflc date (such as late June),
restricted to flnal County permit decisions related to the preliminary plat, and
focused on the speciflc areas of dispute, particularly access connections affecting the
Marathon and Wooden Shoe communities.
In closing, Mr. Frank maintained that the appellants had not demonstrated
irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits and requested that the
Board deny the stay or, alternatively, signiflcantly limit its scope.
The Chair closed the public hearing and opened deliberations, inviting any flnal
questions before proceeding.
The Board stated that, while they were not deciding on the merits of the appeal at
that time, it was difficult to conclude that no evidence had been presented. The Board
emphasized that the scale and importance of the project warranted careful
consideration and expressed support for granting a stay, at least on the speciflc items
in dispute. It was also noted that there is a need to establish a clear end date to avoid
an indeflnite delay and acknowledged that all parties would require time to prepare
for a comprehensive evidentiary hearing.
The Board discussed potential hearing dates, with June 23 and 24 identifled as
generally workable. Members expressed a preference to conflrm dates promptly
while also allowing some fiexibility in the event additional time was needed.
Attorney Karen Richards advised that the record on appeal was still in preparation
and had not yet been flnalized, noting that such processes can take time. Staff
indicated that they would work to meet a late June hearing date but acknowledged
that some fiexibility may be necessary.
The Board discussed incorporating a deflned duration for the stay, potentially
extending beyond the anticipated hearing date to allow for scheduling uncertainties.
Members generally expressed support for a stay with a clear timeframe, while
continuing to consider whether additional time beyond the proposed June dates
might be appropriate.
Chair Rash made a motion to approve the stay. Mr. Uhl seconded the motion. The
motion to stay all permits in connection with this approval until the earlier of a flnal
decision by the Board of Adjustment on the merits or July 31st, 2026, was approved,
5-0.
Ms. Richards informed the Board that a separate matter previously heard by the
Board of Adjustment, now remanded back following a decision by the Court of
Appeals, would require a new hearing with full presentations. Ms. Richards advised
that scheduling had been difficult and that Board direction was needed to establish
a hearing date, noting that the County would not be ready until at least September,
with January as an alternative.
Chair Rash conflrmed that the matter would require a full rehearing rather than a
procedural action. Board members discussed potential scheduling options, including
whether the matter could be delayed until January without prejudice. Ms. Richards
indicated no prejudice against the County but noted that other parties’ positions
would need to be considered.
Ms. Keelin stated that she represents the appellant in the remanded case and
requested a hearing date of October 27. Mr. Richardson clarifled that he had
previously represented a party in the case but was not authorized to speak on their
behalf at that time.
Ms. Richards noted that scheduling efforts had been ongoing since January and
recommended Board intervention to flnalize the date. It was also stated that the
County would be available on October 23 as an alternative.
Chari Rash motioned to set the hearing date for October 27. Mr. Uhl seconded the
motion. The motion passed, 5-0.
Mr. Uhl seconded the motion. The motion to approve the scheduling for the hearing
passed, 5-0.
Mr. Uhl moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Sanclimente. The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 PM.
1 | P a g e
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 26, 2026
CASE: BOA-1005
PETITIONER: Joe Johnson, applicant and property owner.
REQUEST: Variances of 3 feet from the front setback, 14.5 feet from the side
street setback, 7 feet from the side interior setback, and 3.4 feet from the rear setback
requirements in the R-20S district per Section 3.2.6 (D)(2-5) of the New Hanover County
Unified Development Ordinance.
LOCATION: 2034 and 2038 Trinity Avenue.
PID: R04518- 004-002-000 and R04518-004-001-000
ZONING: R-20S, Residential District
ACREAGE: 2038 Trinity Avenue, 8,712 square feet.
2034 Trinity Avenue, 7,405 square feet.
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant requests variances of 3 feet from the required front setback, 3.5 feet from the required rear setback,
14.5 feet from the required side street setback, and 7 feet from the side interior setback at 2034 Trinity Avenue, as
well as a variance of 7 feet from the required interior side setbacks for the property located at 2038 Trinity Avenue,
within the R-20S zoning district, pursuant to Section 3.2.6(D)(2-5) of the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO). The requested variances would allow the construction of two new residential structures on the existing
nonconforming lots.
This request previously included 1910 Sneeden Drive, PID: R04517-003-001-001, which measures 20,952 square
feet. However, this parcel has been removed from the application at the property owner’s request.
The subject properties consist of two residential lots; 2038 Trinity Avenue, PID: R04518-004-001-000, an 8,712-
square-foot lot developed with a single-family residence; and 2034 Trinity Avenue, PID: R04518-004-002-000, a
7,405-square-foot undeveloped lot.
These lots were platted in 1955, prior to the application of county zoning in the unincorporated areas of the county in
1969 and the establishment of the R-20S Residential Zoning District. As a result, the lots are considered legal
nonconforming lots. Sections 11.1 and 11.1.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) describe how such
developments are to be addressed, as follows:
Section 11.1. General Applicability
11.1.1. In this Ordinance there exist uses of land, structures, lots of record, signs, and site features that were
lawfully established before this Ordinance was adopted or amended, that do not conform to its terms and
requirements. It is the intent of this ordinance to allow such uses, structures, lots of record, signs, and site
features to continue to exist until they are removed but not to encourage their continual use as allowed by
state law. [10-06-2025]
11.1.2. Nonconforming uses of land, structures, lots of record, signs, and site features may be continued provided
they conform to the provisions of this ordinance.
2 | P a g e
An existing single-family residential unit is located at 2038 Trinity Avenue. This structure is proposed to be
demolished, and a new structure is proposed to be built on this parcel.
Existing Development at 2038
Trinity Avenue
3 | P a g e
Aerial View of the subject parcels and surrounding development.
Vacant Property
2034 Trinity Avenue
4 | P a g e
Figure 5: Applicant’s Proposed Site Plan for Subject Properties
The following variances are requested for each lot:
2034 Trinity Avenue
1. 7 feet from the side interior setback;
2. 14.5 feet from the side street setback;
3. 3 feet from the front setback;
4. 3.5 feet from the rear setback.
2038 Trinity Avenue
1. 7 feet from the side interior setback.
The variances on the side interior setbacks are required for the new 3-floor single-family residential building which
2038
2034
5 | P a g e
will be constructed at 2038 Trinity Avenue, after the existing residential building is demolished.
As indicated, the applicant is requesting variances to the specified required setbacks for each lot. The purpose of this
request is to allow the construction of two (2) residential structures on two existing nonconforming lots. The applicant
cites the following to support the request for the variances:
1. The subject properties consist of two existing platted lots currently zoned R-20S. These lots were legally
created prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance and are therefore considered nonconforming
but buildable parcels.
2. Due to the limited width and overall size of each lot, strict application of the current side setback
requirements creates practical difficulty that restricts the ability to construct a reasonably sized single-
family residence on each parcel. As currently required, the side setbacks significantly reduce the buildable
envelope, making development impractical and inconsistent with typical residential construction in the
surrounding area.
3. The request seeks a variance to reduce the required side setbacks on all three lots to allow for reasonable
residential development. The proposed adjustment will enable the construction of single-family homes that
are consistent in scale and character with nearby properties, while still maintaining appropriate spacing
between structures.
4. The hardship is not self-created but is a result of the pre-existing lot configuration and current zoning
standards. Granting this variance will not adversely affect public interest, will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood, and will allow for reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent
with the intent of the zoning ordinance.
In summary, the applicant is requesting variances of 3 feet from the required front setback, 3.5 feet from the
required rear setback, 14.5 feet from the required side street setback, and 7 feet from the side interior
setback at 2034 Trinity Avenue, as well as a variance of 7 feet from the required interior side setbacks for the
property located at 2038 Trinity Avenue
, within the R-20S zoning district, pursuant to Section 3.2.6(D)(2-5) of the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO). The requested variances would allow for the construction of two new
residential structures on the existing legal nonconforming lots.
6 | P a g e
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
Caleb Rash Chair | Greg Uhl Vice-Chair
Will Daube | Laura King | Michael Sanclimenti
BOARD ALTERNATES
Jason Holland | Kelly Roberts | Jeff Turpin
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-1005
The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on May 26, 2026, to
consider application number BOA-1005, submitted by Joe Johnson, applicant and property owner, is
requesting variances from the front, side, and rear setbacks per Section 3.2.6.D of the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance.
The properties are zoned R-20S, Residential, and are located at 2034 and 2038 Trinity Avenue, 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 front, rear, side interior, and side street setbacks per Section 3.2.6.D of the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would 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 from
unique circumstances related to the subject property, such as location, size, or topography. This
conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
• _____________________________________________________________________.
• _____________________________________________________________________.
• _____________________________________________________________________.
• _____________________________________________________________________.
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:
• _____________________________________________________________________.
• _____________________________________________________________________.
• ______________________________________________________________________.
• _____________________________________________________________________.
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:
• _____________________________________________________________________.
• _____________________________________________________________________.
• ______________________________________________________________________.
• _____________________________________________________________________.
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 variances of 3 feet from the required front
setback, 3.5 feet from the required rear setback, 14.5 feet from the required side street setback, and 7
feet from the side interior setback at 2034 Trinity Avenue, as well as a variance of 7 feet from the required
interior side setbacks for the property located at 2038 Trinity Avenue per Section 3.2.6.D of the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance be GRANTED/DENIED. Approval is subject to applicant
within 7 days signing a document acknowledging applicant’s consent to all of the following conditions, if
any.
If the applicant does not sign a document acknowledging consent to all listed conditions, then this
approval is null and void.
ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2026
____________________________________
Chair
Attest:
________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board
001
SHEET NO.
DATE
SHEET TITLE
PROJECT AREA
1'':20'-0"
SITE PLAN
LOCATION: 1910 SNEEDEN DR & 2038 TRINITY AVE, WILMINGTON, NC 28411, USA
PARCEL ID: R04518-004-002-000 , R04518-004-001-000 & R04517-003-001-001 / ZONING CODE: R-20S ( RESIDENTIAL 20S)
LEGAL DESCR.,: ALL LT 6 PT 7/8/9/10/ SEC 1, 5 SEC 1 OCEAN VIEW & 4 SEC 1 OCEAN VIEW
04-03-2026
SITE PLAN
VICINITY MAP
SCALE:
ARCHITECT
DRAWN Onshore Ventures
Onshore Ventures
CHECKED BY Onshore Ventures
LOT OWNER:
JOE JOHNSON
0.516 Ac
=
22,480 SF
-SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY UNDER REVIEW
SHOWING THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT.
SCOPE OF WORK
BRAD CONLEY - UNLIMITED GENERAL CONTRACTOR
ONSHORE VENTURES
brad@onshore-ventures.com
20'0 20'40'
20'
1
5
3
.
0
0
'
1
1
1
.
6
8
'
1
3
2
.
3
4
'
60.0
0
'
60.0
0
'
63
.
4
6
'
63
.
4
6
'
120
.
0
0
'
5
5
.
0
0
'
5
5
.
0
0
'
S
N
E
E
D
E
N
D
R
I
V
E
TR
I
N
I
T
Y
A
V
E
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
(
1
7
8
8
S
F
)
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
RES
I
D
E
N
C
E
(25
2
2
S
F
)
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
(
2
3
8
5
S
F
)
DRIV
E
W
A
Y
(45
0
S
F
)
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
(
6
5
4
S
F
)
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
(
6
5
4
S
F
)
8'
8'
15'
15'
30'
1
5
'
8'
10'
8'
15'
8
'
8'
L
A
N
A
I
2
5
'
37'-
4
"
2
5
'
57'-
4
"
9'
-
6
"
36'-
1
"
24'
15'-
6
"
6
6
'
-
4
"
24'
5
8
'
15'12'-
6
"
10'-
6
"
6
6
'
-
4
"
24'
2
1
'
-
6
"
15'-
6
"
15'
3
7
'
11'
1
0
'
-
7
"
1
0
'
NOT FOR REAL ESTATE
SALES OR CONVEYANCE
PRELIMINARY