ZBA 8-08
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 August 26, 2008. Members Present Members Absent Michael S. Jones, Chairman Eric Hickman Robert Cameron,
Jr. Tim Fuller, Alternate Peyton Williams Carmen Gintoli, Alternate Peter DeVita, Alternate Ex Officio Members Present Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Ann Hines, Executive
Secretary J. Steven Still, Acting Executive Secretary Hattie Moore, Clerk The meeting was called to order by the 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. Mr. Jones explained that the
first case, New Hanover County Schools would be heard by a four-member panel because Board member, Mr. Carmen Gintoli is representing that case. He said Mr. Ginoli will hear the remaining
two cases. It was properly moved by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Cameron to accept the minutes of the May 27, 2008 meeting. All ayes. THE FIRST CASE BEFORE THE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS:
New Hanover County Schools, 455 Halyburton Memorial Parkway, are requesting a variance from maximum square footage requirement of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 94-3 for
the construction of a freestanding marquee sign. Case No. ZBA-827. Mr. Jones swore in County staff Ms. Ann S. Hines and Mr. J. Steven Still. Mr. Jones called Mr. Still to give an overview
of the case. Mr. Still stated New Hanover County Schools, owner of the Veterans Park Schools complex, has authorized Carmen Gintoli, director of Facility Planning and Construction to
seek a variance for one non-illuminated, marquee type sign beside the entrance to Anderson Elementary School. He said the sign which is currently in-
Twithout permits. Mr. Still said after the violation was discovered the P.T.A. then applied for a
permit
2 but a discrepancy in sign area was noticed during the permitting process. Mr. Still read Section 94-3 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance: 94-3: Freestanding Signs in residential
areas -For permitted nonresidential uses, including churches and synagogues, one freestanding sign per frontage, not exceeding 35 square feet in sign area, and 1 marquee sign not to
exceed 25 feet in sign area. All permitted freestanding signs shall have a maximum height limit of 6 feet and shall have a minimum setback of 5 feet from any property line. For permitted
freestanding signs which are to be illuminated, such illumination must come from a light source which is external to the sign itself. Mr. Still continued by stating that since the elementary
school already has one existing freestanding sign which measures 32 square feet in sign area, they would only be allowed another marquee type sign which could not exceed 25 square feet
in sign area. He said the square footage of the sign in question is 32 square feet, which which is 7 square feet over the maximum limit. He said the existing sign which was approved
and permitted is essentially identical to the one currently in the permit review process. Mr. Still said Mr. Gintoli states that the sign is needed to announce events and happenings
at the school and the location of the sign will accommodate this need without being a nuisance or distraction to others. Mr. Still said the appellant submitted proposed findings of fact,
all interested parties have been notified, and no one has contacted the office in opposition to the sign. Mr. Williams asked if there were any other violations associated with the sign.
Mr. Still said the only issue is the maximum square footage. He said they will be over the 32 sq. ft maximum limit. Mr. DeVita asked if this was the first sign that the sign company
has installed. Mr. Still said no, not to his knowledge. Mr. DeVita said even if the P.T.A. th
e sign company that installed the sign knew they needed a permit. He said there should be some recourse. Mr. Williams said he also feels the sign company should be penalized because
they knew a permit was needed for the sign but the school should not be made to pull up the sign. Ms. Hines said there are some penalties in place to deal with this type of situation.
She said a fine could be placed so that the sign company would not be allowed to apply for another permit until that fine is paid. The Chairman called Mr. Gintoli for testimony. Mr.
Gintoli stated he first heard about the sign when he returned to the school after Christmas vacation and got a complaint about the sign. He said the P.T.A. contracted with the sign company,
paid approximately $5,000.00 and the sign was installed over the Christmas holidays. He said no one was aware that the P.T.A. had done this, not even the principal. Mr. Gintoli said
he contacted the owner of the sign company and the owner said the P.T.A. told them that they would get a permit for the sign. Mr. Gintoli said the sign company should have gotten the
permit and not the P.T.A. Mr. DeVita asked it the sign could opposed
to the sign but he is opposed to the way the sign got there.
3 Mr. Gintoli said he would imagine they could take the sign apart and alter it. Mr. Williams asked if the sign has to be that particular size. Mr. Gintoli said the school has a standard
of 3x 6 for signs but the P.T.A. ordered a 4x 8 sign. He said the school does not want to order the P.T.A. to have the sign taken down and altered because they did this out of
the goodness of their heart and spent approximately $5,000.00. He said they did not know about the sign standards or that they needed a permit. Mr. Gintoli said he tried to get the sign
company to replace the sign with the proper size and they refused. He also said the sign is the same as the other signs but just larger. Mr. DeVita asked Ms. Hines if there was something
staff could do to hold the sign company accountable. Ms. Hines said if the Board would give staff direction as to what they would like them to say to the sign company, staff would be
happy to write a letter. She said they are a licensed company and should not be working without without getting permits. 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. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED -Board Deliberation Mr. Cameron said the sign is not out
of character for the area and is not visible from any direction that would offend anyone. Mr. DeVita said he does not have a problem with the sign at all; he is not pleased with the
way it got there. Mr. Williams said he has sympathy for the P.T.A. and would not want to see them waste their money but he would like something done about the sign company. Board Decision
1. New Hanover County Schools, 455 Halyburton Memorial Parkway, are requesting a variance from maximum square footage requirement of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 94-3
for the construction of a freestanding marquee sign. Case No. ZBA-827. 2. On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Cameron the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request.
THE SECOND CASE BEFORE THE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS: William Lane Wood, 6602 Gordon Road, nonconforming
business use of the property (refrigeration/heating and air business) to add a different nonconforming use (boat trailer sales, repair, storage and inspection). The property is zoned
R-15 (Residential). Case No. ZBA-829 Mr. Jones called Ms. Hines to give an overview of the case.
4 Ms. Hines said the Ordinance states that a nonconforming use may be changed to another nonconforming use only in accordance with approval issued by the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Hines
stated Mr. Wood operated his refrigeration and heating and air business at 6602 Gordon Road since before the time of zoning of this area of the County. She said his mother and father
started the business well before 1970 and when the area was zoned R-15 (Residential) the business use became nonconforming, or grandfathered. Ms. Hines said there are several buildings
on the lot; some are residential and others are commercial type buildings. She said the building in question is located towards the rear and is a three bay garage building facing Gordon
Road with a building tacked on the back and used as a shop. Ms. Hines said a new tenant wants to have boat trailer sales, repair and in future months conduct safety inspection for trailers.
She said the heating and air business is still on the property but has been scaled back. She said the new business would significantly reduce the noise level compared to the amount of
noise generated by a metal fabrication business. Ms Hines said a neighbor, Carole Robinson contacted her with some concerns of refrigerators being stored in the rear but Mrs. Robinson
and Mr. Wood discussed those concerns and reached an agreement. She said Mr. Wood has agreed to remove the items and also install a fence. Ms Hines added that the County has no objection
to this variance request. Mr. Jones called for those to speak to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony He swore in Mr. William Lane Wood. Mr. Wood stated that he has lived
at that location all his life and have been continuously operating the refrigerating and heating business. He said he had a sheet metal shop but has scaled that business down. Mr. Wood
said he was informed that in October boat trailers are going to have to be inspected. He also said the heating and air conditioning business has become overwhelming and he would like
to get into a less strenuous type of business. He said he would like to have the trailer inspection business right behind the large shop where he has trees on both sides and a ditch
in the back. He said he will place a privacy fence to shield off that area and remove the air conditioners that he had stored in that location. Mr. Wood said there would not be any paving
and the noise level would be greatly reduced. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Wood what size fence he plans to install. Mr. Wood said the fence would be 8 ft. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Wood about the
three bays. Mr. Wood said there are two buildings joined together; a 30 x 40 building and a 32 x 52 building. Mr. Wood said he would be in the front building that has the three
bays and a portion of the back building would be for the boat storage and trailer business. He said there would not be any motor repair on the boat trailers at this location. Mr. Jones
asked Ms. Hines if the building was currently invading any setbacks. Ms. Hines said not in the R-15 zone. She She said this is a nonconforming situation and industrial property has greater
setbacks from residential lines. Mr. Jones asked if they would have to have a permit to expand the building. Ms. Hines said she is not sure that they would legally be allowed to expand
because the Ordinance says you do not enlarge a nonconforming use.
5 Mr. Jones asked how people would get back to that area. Mr. Wood said there is an existing paved road that goes all the way back to the property line and then loops back around to
the front. Mr. Gintoli asked Mr. Wood if he said that people would store their boats and trailers there because they would not be able to store them at apartments or residences. Mr.
Wood said the only time a boat would be stored there is if a storm comes and the boat would be there until the storm ends. Mr. Gintoli said he wanted to make sure that there would not
be repair of outboard motors. Mr. DeVita said when he read the submitted overview it appeared that the trailers were going to be stored there and worked on there also, but now it appears
it will be a business similar to Martin Storage except it will be a storage facility for trailers. Mr. Wood said in the back he plans to have a boat trailer storage area and the fenced
in area would be for the new tenant to store any trailers that he is working on. Mr. DeVita asked Mr. Wood the number of boats and/or trailers that could fit on the property. Mr. Wood
said approximately 60. 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. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED -Board Deliberation Mr. Cameron asked if the use became more intensive would the only protection for the neighbors be the nuisance law. Ms. Hines said
the County has a noise ordinance that has a higher standard which needs to be met during the night hours. She said whatever this Board approves to be in there, they can do and if there
is something different on the property then it becomes a zoning issue. Mr. DeVita asked if there would be some type of lighting such as security, or high lights that might disturb the
neighbors. Mr. Wood said the property behind him is vacant and the property next to him is an apartment complex. He said presently he has 3 area lights around the shop and any other
lighting that he may
so his name can be seen. Mr. Jones asked if there was anything in place to address limitations on the lighting on the back. Ms. Hines said there is directional
lighting available through the power company and they have several choices. Mr. Jones asked Ms. Hines if that should be included in the motion.
6 Ms. Hines said it is not uncommon to see that in special use permits. She said it is part of the standards for commercial and industrial developments that a light not shine into a
buffer area or residential property next to them. Board Decision 1. William Lane Wood, 6602 Gordon Road, convert
one nonconforming business use of the property (refrigeration/heating and air business) to add a different nonconforming use (boat trailer sales, repair, storage and inspection). The
property is zoned R-15 (Residential). Case No. ZBA-829 2. Mr. DeVita entered a motion to GRANT the variance request to change the use based on the findings of fact presented with the
stipulation that only directional lighting is installed on the property so that it would not infringe onto the buffer area or neighboring property and an 8 ft stockade fence be installed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Cameron. All ayes. THE THIRD AND LAST CASE BEFORE THE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Serrano, 624 Shoals Drive, are requesting a variance from
the sideyard setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52.5-2(4) for an existing residence. Case No. ZBA-828. The Chairman called those to speak to come forward
to be sworn or affirmed for testimony. He swore in Mr. Patrick Bristow, Mr. Matthew Nichols, Mrs. Pamela Serrano, and Mr. Joseph Serrano Mr. Jones called Mr. Still to give an overview
of the case. Mr. Still stated Mr. and Mrs. Serrano are the owners of the home located at 624 Shoals Drive, in the area of Bayshore Estates. He said in October 2005, when the Serranos
purchased the home, they were supplied with a survey which indicated that the home complied with the 10-foot side setback requirement. He said, however, a more recent survey of the property
indicates that the home is located 9.8 feet from the northeast side property line. Mr. Still said New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52.5-2(4) states that the minimum side-yard
setback to be 10 feet, thus creating a 0.2 foot side setback discrepancy. He said the applicants state that the setback violation has existed for a number of years and to comply with
the literal terms of the ordinance would create a financial hardship. Mr. Still also said the applicants have submitted proposed findings of fact in support of the variance criteria
and all interested parties have been notified as per the list of neighboring property owners provided by the Appellant. Mr. Matthew Nichols stated he is the attorney representing the
applicants. He said the Serranos came to him when they had an issue with the 15 setback requirement in the Bayshore covenants. Mr. Nichols said he had Mr. Bristow to do a survey which
revealed a less than 10 ft setback. He said they have included the original survey done by D.B. Floyd (exhibit A-1) which shows 10 ft on the northeast
second survey tied to the building foundation showed 9.8 ft. Mr. Nichols said Section 12
of the Bayshore covenants has been amended and recorded. He mentioned they only asked for 9 ft in the amendment to the covenants. He called Mrs. Serrano to speak.
7 Mrs. Serrano stated they have invested a lot financially and their neighbors have been very supportive; they just want to finally put this to rest. Mr. Patrick Bristow stated he is
a North Carolina licensed surveyor and his first survey was shot to the corner boards of the house and got 9.6 ft and on the second survey he measured from the sideline and got 9.8 ft.
He said he feels the 9.8 ft. is correct. Mr. Bristow said he used the same criteria both times to locate himself on the ground and the difference is with the first survey he read the
offset to the trim of the house, which overhangs the foundation a little and the second time he read to the foundation. 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 granting the variance request. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED -Board Deliberation Mr. DeVita said they
did not create the hardship; it was there when they purchased the house. Board Decision 1. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Serrano, 624 Shoals Drive, are requesting a variance from the sideyard
setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, Section 52.5-2(4) for an existing residence. Case No. ZBA-828. 2. On a motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Cameron,
the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request. There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved by Mr. DeVita and seconded by Mr. Cameron to adjourn
the meeting. All ayes. Acting Executive Secretary Chairman