ZBA-7-06
1 MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meeting at 5:30 P.M. at the New Hanover Government Complex,
230 Market Place Drive, Suite 110, Wilmington, NC, on July 25, 2006. Members Present Mike Furman, Chairman Michael V. Lee, Vice-Chairman Brian Eckel Michael S. Jones Dan Weldon Ex Officio
Members Present Holt Moore III, Assistant County Attorney Ann S. Hines, Executive Secretary Shawn Ralston, Asst. Chief Zoning Enforcement Official The meeting was called to order by
the Chairman, Mr. Mike Furman. Mr. Furman 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 �
�f the Zoning Ordinance. He added that appellants have 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 June 27, 2000 meeting. One abstain (Lee) Mr. Furman swore in County staff, Ms. Shawn Ralston. Mr. Furman informed the Board that due to an emergency the
attorney for the Canady case and Ward case has requested a continuance to the August meeting. Board Decision: On a motion by Mr. Eckel and seconded by Mr. Lee the Board voted unanimously
to CONTINUE the following two cases to the August 22, 2006 meeting: 1. William F. Canady, 2039 Trinity Avenue, is requesting an extension of the variance granted to him on June 22, 2004
from the minimum side setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51-2. The 2004 variance granted a 10-foot side setback in lieu of 15-foot required setback;
additional requests in 2004 were denied. Property is zoned R-20S. Case No. ZBA-785
2 2. Violet P. ward and David Ward have appealed revisions made to Special Use Permit #13 for a commercial marina at 1512 Burnett Road. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-774 The first
case before the Board was as follows: Thomas P. Hughes, 286 Beach Road North, Figure Eight Island, is requesting a variance from the minimum side yard setback requirements of New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51-2 to allow an existing residence to remain unaltered in its present location. Property is zoned R-20S. Case No. ZBA-786. The Chairman called those
to speak in favor of granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed. He swore in Mr. G. Edward Coleman, attorney with the law firm of Hogue Hill Jones Nash & Lynch.
The Chairman called Ms. Ralston to give an overview of the case. Ms. Ralston stated Thomas Hughes of 286 Beach Road North, Figure Eight Island is requesting a variance from the minimum
side yard setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51-2 to allow allow an existing residence to remain unaltered in its present location. She said the property
is zoned R20-S and the minimum side yard setback is 15 feet. She said the northeast corner home encroaches into the side setback by 8 inches and that was recently discovered while the
owners were preparing to sell. Ms. Ralston said the closet neighbor is located approximately 45 feet from his home and there is existing vegetation between the two properties. Mr. Coleman
stated that this is a very minimal setback that was noticed when Mr. Hughes was preparing to sell the house. He said Hanover Design surveyed the property and discovered the 8 inch encroachment.
Mr. Coleman said registered letters were sent to the adjoining homeowners and the owner to the south received their certified letter but the homeowner to the north had not yet received
their certified letter, and neither has objected to the project. Mr. Coleman said it would be an undue hardship to try and remove the encroachment which has been in existence for a while
and there is mature vegetation between the residences Mr. Furman called for those to speak in opposition to the Board granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed.
There was no one present to speak in opposition to granting the variance request. Board Decision: 1. Thomas P. Hughes, 286 Beach Road North, Figure Eight Island, is requesting a variance
from the minimum side yard setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 51-2 to allow an existing residence to remain unaltered in its present location. Property
is zoned R-20S. Case No. ZBA-786. 2. On a motion by Mr. Lee and seconded by Mr. Eckel the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request based on the evidence presented.
3 The second case before the Board was as follows: Jane H. Hill, 2021 Teresa Drive is requesting a variance for the minimum side and rear setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning
Ordinance, Section 52-2 in order to continue construction of a 720 sq. ft. accessory structure. Property is zoned R-20. Case No. ZBA-787 The Chairman called those to speak in favor of
granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed. Mr. Furman swore in Ms. Jane H. Hill. The Chairman called Ms. Ralston to give an overview of the case. Ms. Ralston
stated Ms. Hill is requesting a variance for the minimum side and rear setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52-2 in order to continue construction of
a 720 sq. ft. accessory structure. She said the property is zoned R-20 which requires a minimum 15' side setback and 25' setback on the rear. She said the building is currently under
construction and they realized after they started construction that they needed a permit. Ms. Ralston said the building is 8 feet 3 inches from the side property line and 18 feet 2 inches
from the rear property line, which encroaches into the setbacks. Ms. Ralston said Ms. Hill stated she was not aware that she needed a permit because the county where she moved from did
not require a building permit for accessory structures. Ms. Hill said she did not know the rules of New Hanover County and did not know you needed a building permit for a storage building.
She said in Columbus County, where she used to lived, you did not need a building permit as long as there is no electricity or boarders. Ms. Hill also said she has letters from the adjoining
property owners stating they did not have a problem with the building Mr. Lee asked Ms. Hill if she hired a contractor to construct the building and how far along are they in construction
of the building. Ms. Hill said she and her son are constructing the building and it is just framed. Mr. Jones asked if it is a concrete slab and Ms. Hill answered yes. Mr. Furman called
for those to speak in opposition to the Board granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed. Ms. Ralston presented a copy of a letter to each Board member, which
was submitted by an adjacent owner expressing opposition to the building. Mr. Jones asked the use of the second pump shown on the drawings. Ms. Hill said it is for the well. Mr. Lee
asked Ms. Hill the amount that she has spent on the building so far. Ms. Hill said approximately $7,700 to $7,900.
4 Mr. Eckel said this is a difficult situation because the hardship was created. He asked Ms. Hill if she could discuss this with the adjacent owner that made the complaint and maybe
come to some agreement. Ms. Hill said she could try and talk to the neighbor. Mr. Furman asked Ms. Hill if she had thought of getting a survey of the property to know exactly where the
property lines are located. Ms. Hill said when they purchase the property there were stakes in the ditch and when they started to build someone removed the stakes. She said soon afterwards
she got a letter from the County stating that she was in violation. Ms. Hill informed the Board that she has to have brain surgery and she wants to have the building finished in order
to store contents from her house that burned in Columbus County. Mr. Lee asked Ms. Hill if it was possible to move the structure. Ms. Hill said she did not believe that would be possible.
Mr. Lee asked staff where the County establishes property lines. Ms. Ralston said they get that information from a survey, tax records and the GIS database. Mr. Furman asked Ms. Hill
if she could get a survey and come back to the Board. Ms. Hill said yes. Board Decision 1. Jane H. Hill, 2021 Teresa Drive is requesting a variance for the minimum side and rear setback
requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52-2 in order to continue construction of a 720 sq. ft. accessory structure. Property is zoned R-20. Case No. ZBA-787 2.
On a motion by Mr. Lee and seconded by Mr. Eckel, the Board voted unanimously to CONTINUE this case to the August 22, 2006 meeting so the appellant can obtain a survey of her property
in order to determine where the structure actually sits. The third case before the Board was as follows: Robert G. Wright, 425 Beach Road North, is requesting a variance from the freeboard
elevation requirements of the County Floodplain Regulations for an existing home. Applicable Base Flood Elevation is Elevation 11' (NGVD) plus 2-foot freeboard. Current Flood Zone is
AE14. Case No. ZBA-788 The Chairman swore in Mr. John Whiting with Nick Garrett Development, Inc. Mr. Furman called Ms. Ralston for an overview of the case. Ms. Ralston stated Robert
G. Wright of 425 Beach Road North, Figure Eight Island is requesting a variance from the freeboard elevation requirements of the County Floodplain Regulations for an
5 existing home. She said when the home was built the applicable base flood elevation was 11 feet and with the 2 foot free board, the elevation would be 13 feet. She said the home was
built in 2000 and the surveyor who provided the elevation certificate, certified in June 2001 that the lowest heated space finished floor elevation was 13.1
Ordinance. Ms Ralston said procured permits to add conditioned living
space on the ground floor level. She said when a new elevation certificate was prepared during the course of construction, it did not agree with the original certificate and the actual
lowest elevation was 10.15 feet which is below the acceptable finished floor elevation. She said they are asking for a variance from the finished floor elevation in order for the house
to remain as is. Ms. Ralston said they have discussed the possibility of some remedies that could be done to make the house compliant with the floor elevations. Ms. Ralston then explained
that Community Rating System, if the Board grants several variances involving base flood elevation requirements, the County could lose their standing
which could mean an increase in flood insurance rates for the County. Mr. Eckel asked if there were three different surveyors and three different elevations. Ms. Ralston said the discrepancy
occurred when the flood maps changed and the vertical datum went from NGVD to NAVD. She said it is actually the same elevation with a different measurement. Mr. Whiting said they were
informed that they were too low when they went for their 21 day elevation shot. He said they then contacted another surveyor to verify the floor level and that surveyor also verified
that they were too low. Mr. Whiting said the elevation of 13.1 feet was not correct on the original survey and that is what they used to design the home. Mr. Furman asked Mr. Whiting
if he objects to the step up. Mr. Whiting said the owners object because they are going to have a lot of children using the pool access room and play room and they worry about the possibility
of them stripping and getting injured. He said the other issue is the bath room area that is presently placed underneath the stairs and if the floor level is raised, it would affect
the head height. Mr. Lee asked the footage being asked in the variance. Mr. Whiting said it is 9-3/8". Mr. Furman called for those to speak in opposition to the Board granting the variance
request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed. There was no one present to speak in opposition to the Board granting the variance. Board Deliberation Mr. Furman asked Ms. Ralston if
the Board grants this variaability to write insurance at the same rate that we are presently getting. Ms. Ralston
said if not this time it may after several variances were granted, put the County County at a different rating which would increase the flood insurance rate in New Hanover County.
6 Mr. Furman said this has come up before and Ms. Hines has said New Hanover County has a good rating. He said he spoke with Ms. Hines about this issue and she said it could either jeopardize
our rating or bring the focus on it for future variances of the same kind. Mr. Lee said he was not concerned because each case is separate and are decided separately. He ee said the
Board has to look at the criteria and if they meet the criteria, the Board should grant the variance. He said it appears that they meet all the criteria for granting the variance. �
�homeowners
accountable. Board Decision 1. Robert G. Wright, 425 Beach Road North, is requesting a variance from the freeboard elevation requirements of the County Floodplain Regulations for an
existing home. Applicable Base Flood Elevation is Elevation 11' (NGVD) plus 2-foot freeboard. Current Flood Zone is AE14. Case No. ZBA-788 2. On a motion by Mr. Eckel and seconded by
Mr. Lee the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request. The fourth case before the Board was as follows: Peter L. Wilson, 7612 Mason Landing Road is requesting a variance
from the setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 51-2 to construct a new single family residence. The property is zoned R-20S. Case No. ZBA-775 There was
no one present to represent this case. Board Decision On a motion by Mr. Lee and seconded by Mr. Eckel, the Board voted unanimously to CONTINUE this case to the August 22, 2006 meeting
The fifth case before the Board was as follows: Lance and Gale Smith, 7405 Anaca Point Road, are requesting a variance from the minimum lot size requirements for New Hanover County Zoning
Ordinance, Section 52-2 to create lots for two dwellings. Property is zoned R-20. Case No. ZBA-782 (Continued from the June 27, 2006 meeting) Mr. Furman swore in Mr. Joseph L. Smith.
Mr. Furman called Ms. Ralston to give an overview of the case. Ms. Ralston said this case is continued from the June 27, 2006 meeting. She said Lance and Gale Smith are requesting a
variance from the minimum lot size requirements of Section 52-2 to have two dwellings on one lot. She said the Board required Mr. Smith to get a survey and come back. Mr. Smith said
they had one surveyed at 20,000 feet and they need a variance on the other one that came up short. He also said they do not have any objections from the adjacent property owners.
7 Mr. Furman called for those to speak in opposition to the Board granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed. There was no one present to speak in opposition
to the Board granting the variance request. Board Decision 1. Lance and Gale Smith, 7405 Anaca Point Road, are requesting a variance from the minimum lot size requirements for New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52-2 to create lots for two dwellings. Property is zoned R-20. Case No. ZBA-782 (Continued from the June 27, 2006 meeting) 2. On a motion by Mr. Jones
and 2nd by Mr. Eckel, the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request. The sixth and last case before the Board was as follows: Donald Register, 5901Watermill Way is requesting
a variance from the setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52.5-2 for an existing garage. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-770 The Chairman called those
to speak in favor of granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed. affirmed. Mr. Furman swore in Mr. Donald Register. Mr. Furman called Ms. Ralston to give an
overview of the case. Ms. Ralston stated Mr. Register is seeking a variance from the minimum R-15 rear building setback of 20 feet and side building setback of 10 feet. She said Mr.
Register states that the garage was present when he purchased the property and that he was unaware that the garage violated setback requirements or that the garage was constructed without
a building permit as required under Section 62 of the Ordinance. Mr. Register also states that the garage adds value to the property, and if demolished, the property value would substantially
decrease. Mr. Register stated that the house, property and garage were all purchased at the same time. He said he had no knowledge of the garage not meeting the required setbacks. Mr.
Register said the garage adds value to the property and if he had to demolish it, he would lose a substantial amount of property value. He said all his other neighbors have no objection
to the garage. Mr. Furman called for those to speak in opposition to the Board granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed. He swore in Mr. Thomas Sutton Mr.
Sutton stated that he lives next door and the building is in violation of Article 62 because of its size. Mr. Sutton said the Ordinance said accessory structures cannot exceed 600 sq.
ft. He said the structure was never permitted, and does not meet the building code. He also father lives across the street and helped him build
he garage.
8 Mr. Lee said the Board would be ruling on the setbacks and not whether the building meets code. Board Deliberation Mr. Lee asked Mr. Register if he knew of the setback issue when he
purchased the building. Mr. Register said no, he was not aware and if he had known he would have consulted with his attorney. He said at that time he and Mr. Sutton were friends and
had a business arrangement because he is a painter. Mr. Lee asked Mr. Register if his father lives across the street and also if his father helped him construct the building. Mr. Register
said his father does live across the street but he did not help construct the garage. He said his father is 73 years old and has asthma. He said Mr. Baggett constructed the garage, another
neighbor put the garage together using a crane, and Mr. Sutton placed the siding on the building last year and now he wants the building torn down. Mr. Register said Mr. Sutton has more
of a vendetta rather that a business issue and he neeide. He said the garage is worth about $35,000 to $40,000. He said
the problem started when Mr. Sutton took him to court and lost and after that Mr. Sutton told him the building was too close to his property and he wanted it torn down. He mentioned
that Mr. Sutton does not live there but comes over periodically. Mr. Eckel asked if they grant the variance and the appellant wants to make changes in the future, is there a mechanism
in place that would have him to come back to the Board before he does that. Mr. Moore said the appellant would have to come to the Board because any changes to the building would impact
the variance. Ms. Ralston said only if the building needs some work done in order to comply with the building code. Board Decision 1. Donald Register, 5901Watermill Way is requesting
a variance from the setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52.5-2 for an existing garage. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-770 2. On a motion by Mr.
Jones and seconded by Mr. Lee the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request. There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved and seconded to adjourn
the meeting. All ayes. Executive Secretary Vice-Chairman