ZBA 12-08
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 County Government Center,
230 Government Center Drive, in the Lucie Harrell Meeting Room, Wilmington, NC, on December 16, 2008. Members Present Members Absent Robert Cameron, Jr., Vice-Chairman Michael S. Jones,
Chairman Eric Hickman Tim Fuller, Alternate Peyton Williams Noelle Winstead Peter DeVita, Alternate Ex Officio Members Present Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney J. Steven Still,
Acting Executive Secretary Hattie Moore, Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Robert Cameron, Jr. Mr. Cameron 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. He said the Board also hears appeals of the
days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. First order of business was the swearing in of
new Zoning Board Adjustment members, Ms. Noelle M. Winstead and Mr. Michael McCulley It was properly moved by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Hickman to accept the minutes from the
October 28, 2008. All ayes. THE FIRST CASE BEFORE THE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS: Mike Wilson, 4201 Blue Clay Road, is requesting a variance from the setback requirement of New Hanover County
Zoning Ordinance, Section 96-1 to construct an outdoor advertising sign. Property is zoned I-1. Case No. ZBA-835 Mr. Cameron swore in County staff Mr. J. Steven Still. Mr. Cameron called
Mr. Still to give an overview of the case. Mr. Still stated Mike Wilson, owner and operator of AAAA Bail Bonding Inc., is requesting to build an off premise/outdoor advertising sign
on a parcel owned by Mr. Robert Goff. Mr. Still said since Mr. Wilsons office is not located on the parcel, the signage would be considered an off premise/outdoor advertising as opposed
to a primary freestanding sign. He said New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 96-1 states: Outdoor advertising signs and structures that comply with the provisions of this ordinance
shall be permitted in I-1, I-2 and A-1 zoning districts provided the specific outdoor advertising sign location is 400 feet or more form any residential zoning district, place of
2 worship, pubic park, or school. Mr. Still stated this parcel has the correct zoning for the signage however the sign would be within 400 feet of a residential zoning district and approximately100
feet away from the adjacent residential zoning district. He said New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 96-4: Area and Height Requirements for Outdoor Advertising Signs, would
allow Mr. Wilson to build a 30 foot tall sign with a square footage of 75 feet if he was able to comply with the distance from the residential setback. He said i
intends to relocate, New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 94, Table 1, would allow
a free standing sign 20 feet tall with 110 square feet of sign area. Mr. Still said the proposed plans show a two faced sign with an overall height of 9 feet by 10 feet wide and approximately
60 square feet, which is under the allowable area for both regulations. He said Mr. Wilson has received a signed letter from the adjacent residential property owner in support of the
variance request and from Mr. Robert Goff, the property owner of the parcel at 4201 Blue Clay Road where he intends to place the sign, giving him authorization to represent him and his
property. He said Mr. Wilson states that since the location of the proposed sign is zoned I-1 and located in approximation to the New Hanover County Jail Facilities and other related
bail bonding services with similar signage, the variance request would be within the spirit and harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Still stated the applicant
has submitted proposed Findings of Fact and all interested parties have been notified. Mr. Still also stated that he has not received any opposition to the variance request. Mr. Cameron
called for those to speak in favor of granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony. The Chairman swore in Mr. Michael Sebastian Wilson. Mr. Wilson
stated that the only hindrance in his request is the setbacks. Mr. Wilson said he proposed a 2-sided sign so that the adjacent property owner across the street will only see a 6 x 6
post. Mr. Wilson said he contacted that owner and showed him the plans, which he is in agreement. He said every other property in the area is zoned residential and there are other bail
bonding companies in that area. Mr. Cameron asked Mr. Wilson if he would be under the 75 ft requirement. Mr. Wilson said he would be 15 ft under the allowable square footage. Mr. Cameron
asked if he was leasing the property and how far is it from residential. Mr. Wilson said yes, he is leasing the property. Mr. Wilson said he plans to place the sign first and eventually
an office. He said the property is back approximately 200 ft but the actual house is setback several feet. Mr. DeVita asked how long before he could apply for a building permit to place
a building on the property and would he place another sign there after the building is placed on the site. Mr. Wilson said he hopes within 6-8 months and he would not need to place another
sign. Mr. DeVita said the Board is supposed to grant variances where the applicant did not create their own hardship. He asked Ms. Huffman where the Board stands legally.
item # 3 of
the findings of fact submitted by Mr. White and read the hardship of which the applicant complains (results/does
not result) from unique circumstances
3 �
�Wilson wrote), The owner did not set the zoning which prohibits the use. Ms. Huffman said she has
Mr. DeVita said he does not want to set a precedent and suggested that some type of restriction should be placed if he is going
to have a temporary office, and give him a year to apply for a permit. Mr. Wilson said he does plan to put a temporary office there and he also has a lawn maintenance business that he
plans to have at that location. Mr. DeVita asked if he could have a temporary mobile home office even though he does not own the property. Ms. Huffman said he is allowed to have an office
at the location. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Wilson the present location of his office. Mr. Wilson said he has a home office and all transactions are done at the jail. Mr. Williams asked
Mr. Wilson if utilities are already set up on the lot and Mr. Wilson answered no. Mr. Cameron called for those to speak in opposition to granting the variance request to come forward.
There was no on present to speak against granting the variance. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Board Discussion Mr. Williams said he would not like to see a sign go up without having an office
there because it is against the ordinance. Mr. Cameron said this is a unique property being that there is Industrial, Industrial and Residential zoning and the layout made it susceptible
to the residential property across the street but the neighbors are not nearly as susceptible to it. Mr. DeVita asked if the Board could put restrictions on the sign that says if the
office is not built or located there in a certain period of time the sign would have to come down. Ms. Huffman said she does not see a problem with adding that stipulation. She asked
Mr. Still what happens if after the sign is up for a year but the sign has not generated the level of business that would justify placing a building on that lot; would the County then
tell him to remove the sign and if he does not remove it, would he then be cited. Mr. Still said Zoning drafts conditions to attach to the building permit and they have one year to secure
a building permit. He said the civil penalty could be used as a mechanism per the special use permit, and since it is a temporary sign there is language already set up for civil citations
that says if the sign is not removed within a certain timeframe, certain penalties will occur. Mr. Cameron said item # 3 of the findings of fact should be amended to include something
about being contiguous to residential area. Ms. Winstead asked the duration of a building permit from the time you receive it to when it expires.
4 Mr. Still said a building permit it is valid for 6 months. He said you have to schedule inspections and some work done in order to renew for another year Board Decision: 1. Mike Wilson,
4201 Blue Clay Road, is requesting a variance from the setback requirement of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 96-1 to construct an outdoor advertising sign. Property is
zoned I-1. Case No. ZBA-835. 2. On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. DeVita the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request based on the revised findings of fact
with the stipulation that a building must be on the lot within 1 year or the sign would have to be removed. THE SECOND AND LAST CASE BEFORE THE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS: Sea Coast/Blue Water
Motels, LLC, 5318 Carolina Beach Road, is requesting a revision of ZBA-826 variance which was extended on May 27, 2008 from the building setback and buffer requirements of New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 69-11 and 67-4(2) to construct a hotel building with parking. Property is zoned B-2. Case No. ZBA-836. Mr. Cameron called for those to speak in favor
of granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony. The Chairman swore in Ms. Cindee Wolf, Atty. Joseph Clement Hearne II, Mr. James Ray Cox, Jr.,
and Mr. Steven Arp. Mr. Cameron called Mr. Still to give an overview of the case. Mr. Still stated Sea Coast/Blue Water Motels, LLC, owns a three-acre tract in the Monkey Junction area
of the County, and proposes to build a Holiday Inn Express hotel on the site. Mr. Still said residentially zoned property on the sides and rear dictate a minimum building setback and
planted buffer width based on the building height. He said the applicant received an initial variance on January 24, 2006 and an extension on May 27, 2008 from the minimum building setback
and from the minimum buffer width. Mr. Still said the applicant states that through the application and permitting process several issues arose with public utility extension, access
easements and storm water retention. He said the applicant needed to rearrange the parking area in order to meet requirements with other regulations however, the reconfiguration of the
parking lot pushes the area of buffer yard up against the southern and western property line. Mr. Still said one of the stipulations of the previous approval was that a 10-foot offset
from the back of the curb with 2 rows of exterior plantings and 1 row of interior plantings on the southern and western property lines along with an 8-foot privacy fence. He said the
applicant states that the new configuration will provide for a 8-foot high, wood shadowbox
center and 2 staggered rows of 4 to 6-foot high evergreen shrubs at max 8-foot on center. Mr. Still said the applicant has submitted proposed Findings of Fact and all interested parties
have been notified. Mr. Hearne stated he is representing Sea Coast/Blue Water Motels, LLC. He said they have revised their plans which Cindee Wolf will explain and Ray Cox, the engineer
can provide technical information. Mr. Hearne then turned the floor over to Ms. Wolf.
5 Ms. Cindee Wolf stated the permitting process has encountered an amazing amount of delays having to do with the sewer extensions moratorium, the change from working with County sewer/City
water and now the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. She said they intended to have infiltration basins as stormwater management but the soils did not justify that. Ms. Wolf said she
is responsible for meeting the criteria of the Ordinance and the intent of buffer strips are to protect adjacent residential land users from dust, heat, noise, lights and protect the
privacy from the more intense land use. Ms. Wolf said they are dealing with the trailer park to the south with a fence along the common property but when the property was surveyed it
revealed the fence is actually on their property. She said the decision was made to remove the fence in order to do the needed construction and they contacted the owners of the Grove
Park trailer park to let them know of their plans to not only provide 3 buffer rows of Evergreen shrubs but also to long
their property boundary. She pointed out on the landscape plan the buffer yards on the south and left, the 3 rows of Evergreen shrubbery and the trees that will add visual impact to
the adjacent properties. Ms. Wolf said they feel that they are meeting the intent of the Ordinance. Mr. Cameron asked how much shrinkage of the buffer with this new plan. Ms. Wolf said
the setbacks and buffers are based on the building height and their setback is 103 ft and the buffer yard width is 51.5 ft. She said there was also a 15 ft access easement and the Cape
Fear Public Utility Authority wanted a utility easement there also, which resulted in them having 51.5 ft of buffer yard that they could not plant in at all. Ms. Wolf said they negotiated
with the owner to the rear to relocate his access through the parking lot and also had the 15 ft. utility easement moved out so that they could plant in that area. Ms. Winstead inquired
about the parking spaces. Ms. Wolf said they eliminated the meeting room in order to meet the minimum parking requirement. Mr. Cameron called for those to speak in opposition to granting
the variance request to come forward. There was no on present to speak in opposition to the variance request. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Board Discussion Mr. DeVita said he likes the revised
plan. He said his concern was the access easement and the location of the public utilities that created the hardship. Ms. Winsrtead said the buffer requirement by the stormwater pond
is being met because the pond is allowed in the buffer and the only place not being met is where the old access easement was previously located. Mr. Cameron asked Ms. Wolf if that side
is the wider part of the parking area. Ms. Wolf said there are 3 rows of parking to the south and the 2 rows. She said the pond was the solution to the engineering problem. Mr. Huffman
said she is in agreement with this plan and she agrees with Mr. DeVita that the hardship is the requirements of the utilities.
6 Board Decision 1. Sea Coast/Blue Water Motels, LLC, 5318 Carolina Beach Road, is requesting a revision of ZBA-826 variance which was extended on May 27, 2008 from the building setback
and buffer requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 69-11 and 67-4(2) to construct a hotel building with parking. Property is zoned B-2. Case No. ZBA-836. 2. On
a motion by Mr. DeVita to GRANT the variance request based on the findings of fact and the hardship created by the location of the public utilities and the plan meets the spirit of the
Ordinance seconded by Mr. Williams the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request. Board Business It was properly moved by Mr. Hickman and seconded by Mr. Williams to accept
the Zoning Board of Adjustment 2009 Schedule without corrections or changes. All ayes There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved by Mr. DeVita and seconded
by Mr. Williams to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. Acting Executive Secretary Vice-Chairman