ZBA-4-05
1 MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April, 2005 The New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment held a duly advertised call meeting at 7:30 A.M. at the New Hanover County Administration
Annex Building, 230 Market Place Drive, Suite 110, Wilmington, NC, on May 2, 2005. Members Present Michael V. Lee, Vice-Chairman Brian Eckel Horace Malpass Michael S. Jones Tim Fuller
Ex Officio Members Present Holt Moore III, Assistant County Attorney Debra D. Wilson, Acting Executive Secretary Hattie Moore, Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman,
Mr. Michael V. Lee. Mr. Lee explained to all present that the Board is a quasi-judicial board appointed by the Board of Commissioners to consider zoning ordinance variances from residents
in New Hanover County where special conditions would create unnecessary hardships. The Board also hears appeals of the
thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior
Court. It was properly moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the April 2005 Board meeting. Mr. Lee swore in County staff Ms. Debra D. Wilson. The first and only case to be brought
before the Board was as follows: Reddlands, Inc., 6435 Carolina Beach Road is requesting a variance from the rear and side setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance,
Section 69-11 and the buffer requirements of Section 67-4(2) to construct a building. The property is zoned B-2. ZBA-746. Mr. Lee called Ms. Wilson to give an overview of the case. Ms.
Wilson stated that Reddlands, Inc. and Worsley Companies, 6435 Carolina Beach Road, are requesting a variance from the side and rear building setbacks as well as the buffer requirements
of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 69.11 for setbacks, and 67 for the buffer. She said the property is zoned B-2 Highway Business and they are seeking a variance to reduce
the side and rear setbacks for a new CVS store on commercial property that abuts residential. Ms. Wilson said they are asking for a rear reduction from 99.47 feet to 76 feet, on the
side from 73.33 feet to 39 feet, rear buffer strip from 49.73 feet to 33 feet, and the south side buffer strip reduction from 33.67
2 feet to 21feet. She said all parties have been notified and the applicant has submitted proposed finding of fact. Mr. Lee called all those to speak to come forward to be sworn or affirmed
for testimony. He swore in Ms. Marlane Klintworth, Ms. Teresa Elmore and Ms. Margaret Piner. Ms. Klintworth stated that they have worked with New Hanover County to add additional plantings
for the buffer area. She said part of the reduction in the buffer is from the parapets on top of the building, which had to be included when figuring the building height. She said the
main reason for the parapets is to shield the caliper units on the roof making them more aesthetically pleasing. The Vice-Chairman called for those to speak in opposition to the Board
granting the variance request to come forward. Ms. Elmore stated that her mother, Mrs. Margaret Piner, is a property owner at 119 Crawford Court, which is behind the proposed CVS site
and her mother and the neighbors object to any variance for this site. She said they realize the property is zoned B-2 for commercial use, but allowing a larger building there by reducing
the buffer requirements, would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. She said there would be high commercial use in the rear of the property such as 18-w
on them trying to place an
11,000 sq. ft building on property that is better suited for smaller commercial use. Ms. Elmore said other CVS stores constructed in the Wilmington area are on large corner lots and
major intersections and this lot is surrounded by nine homes and a gas station on the other side. Ms. Elmore said allowing this variance would not be in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the deny this variance request.
Ms. Elmore then presented a petition to the Board signed by the neighbors and an aerial map of the CVS store on south 17th Street extension and Highway 132. Ms. Klintworth said there
would only be one truck delivering each day. She said the site is 1.68 acres, which is the average size for the stores, and the corner stores are usually 14, 000 sq. ft. She said the
problem is the buffer requirement takes up to 30% of this site. Board Decision: Mr. Eckel asked if there was some type of commitment that would create 100% opacity within 6 to 12 months.
Ms. Wilson said that is a part of the buffer requirement ordinance that when a buffer is planted it is to create 100% opacity. She added that the appellant now have more plantings than
what is required for the size buffer that they have there. Mr. Eckel asked if the front setback is as small as it could be. Ms. Wilson said yes and with the driveway confi
other direction. Mr. Eckel asked the height without the parapets. Mr. Fuller said according to the elevations, it is
23 feet 4 inches to the lower roofline on the right side elevation. He said the parapet is 30 feet and you would reduce the height of the building by 7
3 feet. He asked instead of using the parapets around the building to screen the roof top AC units, if they built a screen right around the units would that count against the building
height. Ms. Wilson said that would still come into play with the overall height of the building and it would not offset anything much. Mr. Lee asked if the screen is required by the
ordinance. Ms. Wilson said the screen is not a requirement by the ordinance, but it helps with the noise factor. Mr. Fuller asked if it was an option to eliminate the double drive-through
windows, which could
rear. Ms. Klintworth said they would still need to have the trucks making deliveries and the second drive-through is part of that process. Ms. Klintworth said
she would place a call to the Engineer and get additional information. After the telephone call, Ms. Klintworth reported that the Engineer said if the outside drive-through was eliminated,
a canopy is there that protrudes out and is held up by brick columns, and is still a part of the drive-through. She said that drive-through is only for prescription pickup and the other
drive through is for prescription drop-offs. She said the other option is to put up a 6-foot fence along with the plantings. Mr. Lee said this is a straight B-2 zoning and part of the
analysis on the finding of fact is in part based on testimony of others who are in opposition. He said straight B-2 zoning has a lot of uses
-making process. Mr. Lee said the appellant is offering some mitigating factors
to put in the location and those factors can sometimes alleviate concerns. He also noted that a different type of use could come in there that is much more offensive and would not be
required to do half the things that this appellant is willing to do. Ms. Elmore said their petition states that if the Board does approve the variance, they would ask that the Board
consider for additional buffer of fencing material between the vegetative buffer and the building site to protect the residential neighborhood from the noise, lights, threats to privacy,
and aesthetic impacts. Mr. Eckel asked Ms. Klintworth if their decision could be delayed for 30 days in order to work out the issues with the neighbors. Mr. Charlie Rivenbark asked to
address the Board and Mr. Lee swore him in. Mr. Rivenbark said he listed this property 2 years ago when the Springer-Eubank Sprunt family owned it. He said they put both properties under
contract and the 1.63 acres on the left and 1.6 acres on the right were both B-2 uses. He said while under contract, the Sprunt family sold their business to the Worsley Company. He
said the property has gone through a rather extensive examination period and they they have utilized all of their extensions. Mr. Rivenbark said the examination period expired on Friday
(April 29, 2005) and they have been out 270 days, now and they do not have 30 more days.
4 Mr. Lee said the Board is having an issue with #5 of the findings of fact as to whether it will secure public safety and welfare and (will/will not) do substantial justice. Mr. Rivenbark
said the Sprunt family and Springer-Eubank went to considerable expense to purchase this property and further created an easement across their property so that both properties would
be able to utilize the stoplight that they also paid for. Mr. Eckle said it would be beneficial if they could work out the concerns with the neighbors. Ms. Elmore said she just wanted
to make sure that they will be protected and they want a substantial fence. She said they would accept it if the Board added that stipulation. Mr. Malpass asked Ms. Elmore if she and
the neighbors have discussed this and if all the neighbors are acceptable to the fence. Ms. Elmore said yes because noise and traffic are the biggest concern of all the neighbors. All
parties entered into discussion about the type of fence to be used. Following discussion, the Board made the following decision: 1. Reddlands, Inc., 6435 Carolina Beach Road is requesting
a variance from the rear and side setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 69-11 and the buffer requirements of Section 67-4(2) to construct a building. The
property is zoned B-2. ZBA-746. 2. Mr. Jones entered a motion to GRANT the variance request based on the findings of fact and other evidence presented with the stipulation that an 8-foot
substantial fence is erected to surround the entire rear and side property lines in between the natural wooded areas and the proposed buffer. Mr. Malpass seconded the motion. All ayes.
There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. Acting Executive Secretary Vice-Chairman