ZBA 3-08
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, Human Resources Training Room B, Wilmington, NC, on March 25, 2008. Members Present Members Absent Michael S. Jones, Vice-Chairman Carmen Gintoli, Alternate
Dan Weldon Pete DeVita, Alternate Robert Cameron, Jr. Peyton Williams Tim Fuller 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. Michael S. Jones. Mr. Jones 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. It was properly moved by Mr. Cameron and seconded by Mr. Weldon to
accept the minutes of the �
� Mr. Jones said there is a request to postpone the two cases for Whistler-Watermark to the May 27, 2008 meeting date. Ms. Huffman said she spoke with the attorney for the appellant
and it was decided that there are some issues that need to be resolved and they are asking to postpone the cases to the May 27, 2008 date. Mr. Jones called for those in opposition to
the request to continue the cases to the May 27th meeting. There was no one present to oppose the request. Mr. Jones called for a motion. Board Decision: 1. Whistler-Whistler-Watermark,
LLC, 8400 and 8444 River Road, is appealing the Zoning Officdetermination of August 13, 2007, that the single-family home exemption under the Conservation Overlay District
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance is available only to parcels created prior to December 1, 1984, as stated in Ordinance Section 59.4. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-820.
2 2. Whistler-Watermark, LLC, 8400 and 8444 River Road, is seeking a variance from the Conservation Overlay District performance controls, in the event the preceding petition in Case
No. ZBA-820 is denied. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-821. 3. On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Cameron, the Board voted unanimously to continue the above 2 cases
to the May 27, 2008 meeting. THE THIRD CASE BEFORE THE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS: Jeffery C. Clark, 122 Cheyenne Trail, is requesting a variance from the setback requirements of New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52.5-2 to extend an existing detached garage behind his residence. Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-823. Mr. Jones swore in County staff Mr. J. Steven
Still. Mr. Jones called Mr. Still to give an overview of the case. Mr. Still stated the applicant is requesting to extend an existing detached garage behind his residence and currently
the garage meets the all setback requirements. Mr. Stiland approximately 522.9 square feet. He stated Zoning
Ordinance Section 62-1 allows a setback �
� He said the applicant intends to
the square footage of the garage to approximately 812 square feet. Mr. Still said Zoning Ordinance 52.5-�
�ccessory structure of this size and w�
� He said the applicant has submitted proposed findings of fact in support of the variance criteria and also
has several letters from the neighbors in support of the variance request. Mr. Still said he has not received any correspondences against granting this variance request. Mr. Jones asked
what the side setbacks would be once the project is completed. Mr. Still said the setbacks would be 10 ft on the sides and 20 ft on the rear. Mr. Jones called for those to speak to come
forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony. He swore in Mr. Jeffrey Craig Clark. Mr. Clark stated that it is a 3 inch setback. He said when his father passed away they needed to have
more room to store the extra furniture and move in with his mother. Mr. Jones asked if there were any future plans to turn this into a 2-story structure. Mr. Clark said no, this is only
for storage and entertainment for their large family. Mr. Fuller asked Mr. Still if there were limits on accessory buildings and their use. Mr. Still said there are exceptions when it
comes to living quarters. He said the applicant cannot place any hard wired cooking appliances there, plumbing, refrigerator, or HVAC because that would be considered a separate dwelling
unit and would not meet the minimum setback requirements.
3 Mr. Fuller asked if the variance is granted what would prevent him, in the future, from adding a hard-wired stove. Mr. Still explained that when the applicant receives a building permit
the Electrical Inspector and Building Inspector would check the dwelling to make sure it was not hard-wired for cooking facilities. Mr. Still also said the building permit is good for
2 years and there are no checks and balances in place that would prevent the applicant from turning the structure into living space after the 2 years. Mr. Fuller asked Mr. Clark if he
considered building the structure to the east side of the existing structure which would avoid any question about the side setback. Mr. Weldon said it would not change the setback issue
because he still has to meet the 10 ft setback in any direction. Mr. Jones called for those to speak in opposition to granting the variance request to come forward. There was no one
present to speak on denying the variance request. Discussion Closed. Board Deliberation: Mr. Cameron said it is a well reasoned addition and all the neighbors returned their letters
with no objection to the project. Mr. Jones said the 3 inches is very minimal and it is an existing structure. Mr. Fuller said if the property is sold or the property adjacent to it
has new neighbors there is a concern that the new owners could rent the structure. Mr. Fuller said that is something the Board needs to be mindful of. Board Decision 1. Jeffery C. Clark,
122 Cheyenne Trail, is requesting a variance from the setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52.5-2 to extend an existing detached garage behind his residence.
Property is zoned R-15. Case No. ZBA-823. 2. On a motion by Mr. Cameron and seconded by Mr. Williams the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request based on the findings of
fact. THE THIRD AND LAST CASE BEFORE THE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS: Edward Bagley, 203 Patalanda Road, is seeking a variance from the R-15 zoning setbacks for additions to an existing mobile
home and an existing guest house; and further, is seeking a variance from requirements of the Floodplain Regulations to leave the two structures at their present elevations, as was allowed
prior to the adoption of revised flood maps in April 2006. Case No. ZBA-824. Mr. Jones called Mr. Still to give an overview of the case.
4 Mr. Still read the following letter to the Board from Ms. Ann Hines: Mr. Edward Bagley is seeking two variances from the Board of Adjustment and the matter has been presented as one
case since both requests relate to the same two buildings on his property at 203 Patalanda Road. One variance relates to building setbacks under the Zoning Ordinance, and the other relates
to construction standards under the Floodplain Regulations. This matter goes back several years with our department, and some board members may recall that Mr. Bagley appealed the issuance
of a civil citation in August 2006 relating to construction done without building permits that resulted in building setback violations. The matter has drawn out for a considerable period,
and has now come back to this Board in an attempt to salvage the existing building configuration and to procure building permits and certificates of occupancy. The construction in question
involved additions to a mobile home and the building of a second residential structure on this property. The second building was originally a second dwelling unit, but has been or will
be altered to remove cooking facilities, thereby allowing us to treat it as a guest house. The second dwelling unit was disallowed due to lack of sufficient lot area, and allowance of
a dwelling unit is not a part of this variance request. During the pendency of this matter, Mr. Bagley hired a structural engineer to evaluate both structures and lay out a course of
action to make them comply with the building codes. Some of that work has been done, even though building permits could not be issued because of the zoning non-compliance. He said also
during the pendency of this matter, another factor came into play: that is, the adoption of new Federal Flood Maps for the County which placed this property in a Special Flood Hazard
Area and prior to this map adoption in April 2006, the property was not part of a regulatory floodplain. Now, the lot lies partly in a VE flood zone and partly in Zone AE and both structures
are now within a floodplain, and cannot be afforded grandfather rights as nonconforming projects because no building permits were issued prior to the map change. Both buildings, in fact,
did exist at the time of the map adoption, and he was sure the Board will want to take this into account in its deliberations. The zoning variance sought for the mobile home is for deck
and porch additions, and the pertinent setback violations are the 25-foot front setback and 20-foot rear setback. The zoning variance sought for the guest house is from the 25-foot front
setback and 10-foot side setback. Extenuating circumstances related to these setbacks are an ambiguously-defined front property line, and differences in survey data that result in a
4.34-foot difference in the side property line location. Mr. Bagley has been unable to clear up this survey discrepancy because all the lots on the street are affected by it, and he
has not been able to orchestrate an agreement among all the property owners. I am advised there are equally goo
guest house would comply with the zoning setback, and fails to comply in the other instance.
Please refer to the appeal documents for more precise statements as to the exact amount of intrusion and to view a copy of the map of survey. The requested floodplain variance relates
to a completely different set of regulations, under which the Board of Adjustment serves as the appeal and variance body. The standards for these regulations are a reflection of minimum
requirements for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, with some higher local standards with respect to applicable floor elevations. New Hanover County has a two-foot
freeboard requirement, calling for structures to be elevated an additional two feet above the �
�official flood maps, and vary according to the results of flood studies performed by contractors
of the State and Federal governments. The mapped boundaries of the respective flood zones reflect the
5 anticipated limits of flooding during the flood event with a 1% annual chance of occurrencewhat has traditionally been called the 100-year storm. Flood Zone AE-13, for example, would
be a flood hazard area outside an area of significant wave
the County, a compliant structure must have the top of the lowest floor and all machinery/equipment �
� Another type of flood hazard area, Zone VE (with V standing for Velocity), is marked as one where the horizontal force of wave action would be
a significant force on structures during the 1% flood event, so special construction standards are dictated for Zone VE. The lowest floor for Zone VE must be elevated so that the lowest
horizontal structural member (typically a joist or beam) is at or above the required elevation. For Zone VE-14, the lowest horizontal member would need to be at or above �
�-foot freeboard. Structures in VE zones must be supported on pilings that are sunk to a prescribed depth, and certified by an Architect or Engineer
to withstand the simultaneous forces of wind and water, and engineered breakaway walls are required where limited types of enclosed areas (parking, storage, building access) are allowed
below the flood elevation. In order for a structure to be grandfathered from the floodplain ordinance requirements, it must have either existed or in the case of ongoing construction,
must have been issued and have in force a valid building permit from before the map or ordinance adoption that places it under special flood restrictions. In this case, while the buildings
were there when the maps changed in April 2006, substantial amounts of the construction had been done without building permits and could not be grandfathered. The mobile home sits in
Flood Zone AE-13, and the guest house (identified as a dwelling on the survey map) sits in Zones AE-13 and VE-14. The more restrictive rules apply to this split zone situation. In order
to comply, the guest house would need to be raised, and either moved out of the VE zone (not practical due to conflict with an LP gas tank) or elevated and placed on substantial pilings
(represented as being cost-prohibitive). The mobile home would also need to be raised to bring it up to current elevation requirements. The applicant is asking to leave these structures
where they are now, subject to meeting the building code requirements mapped out for him by his engineer, prior to enactment of the flood regulations. While staff cannot go so far as
to give a resounding statement of support for this, we can say that, had the zoning setback issues been resolved prior to the map change, building permits would have been issued for
both structures and both would have been treated as lawful nonconformities under the Floodplain Regulations. In addition, both structures were present when the flood maps were created
and were taken into account in that mapping process, so that no increased flood heights would be anticipated as a result of their remaining in place. It should be noted that any future
damage or improvements exceeding 50% of the value of either of these buildings will trigger the need for them to be either brought up to current standards or demolished. It should also
be noted that the granting of a variance will not relieve the owner of higher flood insurance rates resulting from the lower building elevations. �
�each case. Mr. Jones called
for those to speak to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony Mr. Jones swore in Mr. Edward Bagley, Mr. James Eldridge and Mr. Sherwin C
ribb. 6 Mr. Eldridge stated that Mr. Bagley did not think the improvements he made to the existing mobile home and guest house required a permit, but once Code Enforcement got involved
he realized that he did need a permit. Mr. Eldridge said there were setback issues, something needed to be done to the septic tank, along with residential aspects connected to the guest
house and building code requirements. He said Mr. Bagley did everything that Code Enforcement required to bring the property into compliance; he applied for his building permits, did
whatever he had to do with the wastewater permit, relocated the septic tank and hired Mr. Cribb to do a survey of the property to determine the setback issues. Mr. Eldridge said a storage
unit built on the rear of the house was taken down, Mr. Bagley got mechanical, plumbing and electrical permits and inspections for the guest house; the wiring for the appliances was
taken out, a different heating unit was installed and a sink was removed. He said by the summer of of 2006 Mr. Bagley had completed everything that Code Enforcement required to get the
building permits issued but Mr. Bagley was not aware that the flood maps had been revised in April 2006. He said because Mr. Bagley lives in Goldsboro, visits here intermittently and
does not subscribe to the Wilmington newspaper, he never knew the flood maps were being revised along with the Floodplain Ordinance, and it was September when Mr. Bagley found out about
those changes. He said Mr. Bagley is above the BFE for both the mobile home and guesthouse although a small corner on the guest house structure is in the VE flood zone. Mr. Eldridge
referred to a map that he said was done after the removal of the storage area. He said the problem is the northwest corner of the deck on the left-hand side and the northeast corner
of the deck on the rear side. He said at the 20 ft setback the encroachment is less than 2 ft on the left side and there is an 8-foot tall wooden fence to the rear. Mr. Eldridge said
the frontage of the property is drawn based on existing pins but on the south about 20 ft on the left, the reference to the lot line is actually the recorded line in the Register of
Deeds. He said if the 20 ft was added to the recorded line, Mr. Bagley would be beyond the setback and in compliance, but if based on the line drawn on the existing pins then he would
have a setback problem. He said Mr. Cribb searched the Register of Deeds and could not find any recorded instruments that would show that the frontage would have been reduced. Mr. Eldridge
said the road is state maintained and there is no recorded instrument providing notice that the recorded line has moved in 20 ft. to match up with those existing pins and therefore you
cannot say conclusively which of these line line. Mr. Eldridge submitted the following Exhibits: #1 Original survey map from 1935 #2 -surv
ey map #3 -Photographs of 203 Patalanda Road #4 Elevation Certificate for 203 Patalanda Road dated 1/2/07 (modified mobile home) #5 -Elevation Certificate for 203 Patalanda Road dated
2/5/07 (accessory building) #6 -Affidavit of Sherwin D. Cribb #7 Google map of 203 Patalanda Road #8 Zoning letter to Mr. Bagley from Ms. Ann Hines dated September 21, 2006 On
map Exhibit #2, Mr. Eldridge pointed out 2 sets of pins on the north and south corners of the eastern property line which he said are 4.34 ft apart. He said the neighbor to the east
is Lisa Whitaker and a wooden fence is on the exterior line of the 4.34 ft rectangle and using the western edge of that 4.34 rectangle there is a setback problem but the exterior line
does not have a setback problem. He said Mr. Cribb, a surveyor, cannot say which one of the lines is the exact
line on the ground. He added that Mr. Bagely hired Atty. Robert Caulder to try and work out a series of consented to quick claim deeds that would clear up that issue and the neighbors
next to Lisa
7 Mr. Weldon asked why it matters what the neighbors beyond the Whitaker property has to say about the issue. Mr. Eldridge said because this 4.34 ft. difference causes a chain reaction
down the line. Mr. Cribb said in surveying, the corner is the corner and there are two sets of corners located here; one set is from the road and another set is back towards the east.
He said his guess is, on the recorded map a width is not shown for Middle Sound Loop Road so there was no way to determine with certainty where the center of Myrtle Grove Road is located.
He said therefore, a surveyor would have to assume without any evidence, the center of the pavement and use that to make whatever adjustments they can document. Mr. Cribb said, in his
opinion, each of the lines have equal validity. Mr. Still said Ms. Hines did not foresee the side setback as being a problem. He said she is more focused on the front and rear setback.
Mr. Cribb said the right-of-way width on the record map of 1935 for Patalanda Road is 20 ft wide. He said the Department of Transportation has accepted that road for maintenance purposes
and has no position as to the width of the road. He said DOT told him that they will claim whatever they maintain. He said he has no opinion as to which line is the correct one. Mr.
Weldon asked why the line 20 ft back was drawn. Mr. Cribb said because pipes around there. Mr. Fuller asked Mr. Cribb when
he started working on the survey for Mr. Bagley. Mr. Cribb said in 2006. Mr. Eldridge asked Mr. Cribb regarding the Elevation Certificate for the modified mobile home submitted as Exhibit
#4. He asked Mr. Cribb if it was correct that the mobile home was located in flood zone AE and the base flood elevation is 13 ft. Mr. Cribb answered yes. Mr. Eldridge asked Mr. Cribb
if it was correct that for flood plain requirements the elevations measurements would be taken from the top of the next higher floor. Mr. Cribb answered yes. Mr. Eldridge asked Mr. Cribb
if that measurement was 14.87 ft. which is 1.87 ft. higher than the base flood elevation and 1-1/2 inch shorter than the 2 ft. freeboard requirements. Mr. Cribb answered yes. Mr. Eldridge
referred to Exhibit #5, the accessory building. He asked Mr. Cribb if most of it is in the AE flood zone with a base flood of 13 ft and for the portion in the VE flood zone the base
flood is 14 ft. Mr. Eldridge also asked Mr. Cribb if it was correct that when a small portion of a lot is in the VE flood zone you have to treat the entire lot as VE and the base would
be taken from the bottom of the horizontal structure which comes to 14.36 ft. and is 1.4 ft higher than the bfe for the AE flood zone and .4 higher than the bfe for the VE; which places
it above the base flood but short on the freeboard.
8 Mr. Cribb answered yes to all the questions. He said the flood lines were taken from the FIRM rate map and scanned in, and they are as accurate as they can get them. Mr. Cribb said
as far as the demarcation line is concerned, it is not quite as accurate but by law, it has to be relied upon as if it is perfect. He pointed out on page 2 of the elevation certificate
(Exhibit # 4) a note that he read-The building was existing prior to the new flood maps (effective date 4-3-06). The data shown reflects the new FIRM. The previous FIRM (37016800102E
Sept 3, 1992) places the tract in zone C. He explained that zone C is not a hundred year flood level. Mr. Cribb said the elevation certificate forms expired in 2005 and the survey was
done in 2007. He said they were using these forms for existing structures until January 1, 2007. Mr. Cameron asked if there are other construction standards for building in the VE zone.
He asked if the building was on pilings. Mr. Still said in the VE flood zone the structure has to be on pilings and the enclosed area, such as a garage, has to be constructed of breakaway
material. Mr. Eldridge referred to Exhibit # 7, a testimony would
be that he has never observed any evidence of any high water coming towards the property on Patalanda. He said in the case of the guest house, it would require that the house be lifted
up off its pilings and placed on the property where the building would be in compliance with setbacks from the storage tanks, the septic system and any other structures on the lot. Mr.
Eldridge said even if it was possible to move the strget
this variance the structure would have to be torn down. Mr. Cameron said it seems the back is the problem area due to the deck extending into it and the sides are the same with the decks
over the line. Mr. Eldridge said if a portion of the decks were removed to be in compliance, the results would be an extremely narrow deck for entry in the front door. He said it would
be unreasonably restricting the use of the property. Mr. Bagley said they already took 8 ft off the decks. Mr. Jones called for those to speak in opposition to granting the variance
request to come forward There was no one present to speak in opposition to the variance request. Board Deliberation Mr. Jones said a lot has been said about where the property lines
are presently located but the Board has to rule on what is on presently on the map before them. Mr. Weldon said the setback issue is fairly clear but he has a problem with the VE on
that corner. Mr. Fuller asked Mr. Still what the consequences would be if the Board denies the variance on the flood problem. He asked if the structure would have to be demolished. Mr.
Still said the structure would need to be demolished or brought into compliance. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Mr. Bagley the present value of the property.
9 Mr. Bagley said the tax value shows $56,000.00. He said it would cost more to try and move the mobile home than it is worth. He said the lot itself would be about $100,000.00 Mr. Williams
said it is not cheap to raise a building and could easily cost about $50,000 -$60, 000. He said the Board should take in consideration the hardship it would create. Mr. Jones said it
is an existing structure but it is not up to the County, State or Federal level to make it known when rules change. He said that is up to the landowner to research the information. Mr.
Williams said he agrees but on the other hand Mr. Bagley is up in age and this would be a hardship for him. Mr. Cameron said efforts were made to bring it into compliance and it would
be a different case if it were a total lack of effort. Mr. Fuller said he disagrees because if Mr. Bagley had followed the rules in the beginning, there would not be any challenges for
him now. He said what is happening now is that he wants to have some relief from the rules he has already broken. Mr. Fuller said one of the findings of fact that the Board has to rule
on is--the problem was not the creation of the property owner. Mr. Fuller said in this case the problems were created by the owner. He said if Mr. Bagley could ignore the VE and AE lines
and the only impact was to him, he would not have a problem with it. He said the flood insurance rates are based on the collective experience of the agency and that is the reason the
County chose to have a 2 ft freeboard above and beyond what the State requires. He said if the Board allows Mr. Bagley to do what he wants to do and his property is flooded resulting
in those building being destroyed and he gets compensated for it, the citizens of New Hanover County are the ones that would pay for it in their insurance premium. Mr. Jones said the
Board has to consider the impact to the neighbors if this property is sold. He asked staff if the LP tank needed to be elevated also. Mr. Still said it has to be anchored to resist
floatation. Mr. Jones re-opened the hearings to swear in Ms. Ruby Rennie. Ms. Rennie said she lives on Patalanda and if it floods the waters would go to Masonboro Sound. She �
�en any flooding since she lived there. Mr. Eldridge said it is a unique factor to consider and although you do not have to be told about a law to break the law, but if Mr.
Bagley had known about the law sooner he would have started to correct matters more quickly than he did. Ms. Huffman said there are 2 distinct variance requests within the same case
and the Board has provided 2 distinct findings of facts. She said the Board does have the ability to deny one and allow the other. Mr. Eldridge said if Mr. Bagley gets the building permits
that he applied for on May 15, 2005, there should not be any reason to not grant the setback requirements. He also said there should not be a problem with the flood plain because it
is grandfatherred.
10 Mr. Jones said tthe
original variance request the building permits would have been issued before the flood maps were changed. Mr. Jones said that is not anything the Board could do about that issue. Mr.
Eldridge asked Ms. Huffman if it was possible to have a limited variance that had a condition on it which states it would lapse after a certain amount of time. Ms. Huffman said she has
never heard of that before. Mr. Jones said another thing to consider is insurance claims. He said decisions like these can have precedence and they do not want to impact the entire County
insurance rate by making a mistake. Mr. Weldon said the variance that the Board grants runs with the land. He asked if the property owner sought to replace the modified mobile home or
modified guest house would they have to come into compliance with the FIRMS. Mr. Jones said yes, if it was substantial improvements or a new structure. Mr. Weldon asked if the Board
grants the variance on the other dwelling and modified the modified mobile home would the property be viewed as a whole or structure to structure. Mr. Still said in the past they have
dealt with structure by structure individually. Mr. Weldon asked if it was possible to remove the mobile home and replace it with a new one and still enjoy the benefits of the variance.
Mr. Eldridge said that would be a condition of the variance on that particular structure. He suggested that if the structure would be replaced, the requirements of the Flood Plain would
still need to be met along with requirements for a building permit. He said to avoid the problem of replacement structures taking advantage of the variance the Board could condition
the variance. The Board entered into discussion. Mr. Fuller asked if the findings could be amended. He said there is information in the present findings that needs amending, such athe
applicantresidential use of the property is consistent with the plan for and its floodplain management of that area. He said the Board
needs to see more statements of fact involving their request for a variance. Ms. Huffman said yes findings could be amended and she would provide a draft based on what the Board wants
to see in the findings. Mr. Jones said everyone is comfortable with the front and side setbacks and the main structure, but they would like to restrict the secondary structure so that
any modifications made to that structure would have to be bought up to code. He also said the only time that is ever going to take place is when a building permit is needed. �
�. He said Ms. Hines has language
in that letter which could be helpful because the letter talks about needing a , also about improvements
exceeding 50% of the value and she imputes the value as $12,035.00 for the mobile home. Mr. Fuller said he would suggest that the Board approves the variance on the setbacks and freeboard
based on the findings of fact submitted but
11 delete the last 2 sentences in Paragraph A where it says there has never been an occasion of flooding at the property. He also said Paragraph H should be deleted in its entirety and
insert language to the effect that the variance is granted based on the information and direction of Ms. Hines letter of September 21 as part of the findings of fact. Mr. Fuller said
to delete part of Paragraph I where it in that there has never been an occasion that he is aware of where any flood waters even approached the vicinity of the Property and
delete Paragraph J and that there would not be any expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise or sediment transport of floodwaters or wave action
expected at those elevations. Board Decision 1. Edward Bagley, 203 Patalanda Road, is seeking a variance from the R-15 zoning setbacks for additions to an existing mobile home and an
existing guest house; and further, is seeking a variance from requirements of the Floodplain Regulations to leave the two structures at their present elevations, as was allowed prior
to the adoption of revised flood maps in April 2006. Case No. ZBA-824. 2. On a motion by Mr. Fuller to GRANT the variance on the setbacks based on their findings of fact and GRANT the
variance on the New Hanover freeboard requirements based on the findings of fact to be amended by the County Attorney as directed by this Board and incorporate the letter to Mr. Bagley
from Ms. Hines dated September 21, 2006 into the findings. The motion was seconded by Mr. Williams. All ayes. Board Business Mr. Jones informed the Board that due to Mr. Michael Lee
resigning his seat on the Board they now need to elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. They voted as follows: 1. On a motion by Mr. Weldon and seconded by Mr. Williams the Board voted
unanimously to elect Mr. Michael S. Jones as Chairman. 2. On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Fuller the Board voted unanimously to elect Mr. Robert Cameron, Jr as Vice-Chairman.
There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. Acting Executive Secretary Chairman