ZBA 6-10
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
Complex, 230 Government Center Drive, in the Lucie Harrell Conference Room, Wilmington, NC, on June 22, 2010. Members Present Members Absent Robert Cameron, Jr., Chairman Peter DeVita,
Alternate Eric Hickman Tim Fuller, Alternate Justin Lewis Michael McCulley, Alternate Noelle Winstead Peyton Williams Ex Officio Members Present Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney
J. Steven Still, Acting Executive Secretary Christine R. Bouffard, Zoning Code Official Hattie Moore, Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Robert Cameron, Jr. Mr.
Cameron explained 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
Mr. Cameron added that appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. It was properly moved by Mr. Williams
and seconded by Mr. Hickman to accept the minutes from the April 27, 2010 meeting. All ayes Mr. Cameron swore in County staff Mr. J. Steven Still. The Chairman then called Mr. Still
to give an overview of the case. THE FIRST AND ONLY CASE BEFORE THE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS: CASE #: ZBA-854 APPLICANT: Ryan Savage LOCATION: 104 Anthony Drive Zoning: R-20 Residential
District REQUESTED APPEAL: Ryan Savage, 104 Anthony Drive, is requesting a variance from the corner lot setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section 23: Definitions,
to construct a new residential garage on a corner lot.
2 STAFF COMMENTS: Ryan Savage is the owner of the home located at 104 Anthony Drive in the Castle Hayne area of New �
�of his residential lot. Since the proposed garage is located on
a corner lot the setback increases from -2
Dimensional �
�is located in Section 23: Definitions of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. Section 23: Definitions �
�lots in Residential Districts, the minimum width of a side yard along an intersecting
street shall be fifty (50) percent greater than the minimum side yard requirements of the district in which the lot is located, or one-
�
�
ordinance would create a hardship. REQUIRED STANDARDS: Section
51: R-20S Residential District 52-1: The R-20 Residential District is established as a district in which the principal use of land is for low density residential and recreational purposes.
The regulations of this district are intended to discourage any use which because of its character would substantially interfere with the development of residences and which would be
detrimental to the quiet residential nature of the areas included within this district. 52-2: Conventional Residential Regulations Dimensional Requirements: (1) Minimum lot area 20,000
sq. ft. Duplex 35,000 sq. ft. (2) Minimum lot width 90 feet (3) Minimum front yard 30 feet (4) Minimum side yard 15 feet (5) Minimum rear yard 25 feet (6) Maximum Height 35 feet Section
23: Definitions Lot Frontage -The front of a lot shall be construed to be that portion abutting on a street, including the side dimension of a corner lot. For the purpose of determining
yard requirements for corner lots in Residential Districts, the minimum width of a side yard along an intersecting street shall be fifty (50) percent greater than the minimum side yard
requirements of the district in which the lot is located, or one-half (1/2) of the minimum front yard setback along the side street, whichever is greater. Side yard requirements of corner
lots in Business, Office and Institutional, and Industrial Districts shall be the same as the front yard requirements of the district in which the lot is located. Through lots shall
be considered to have two (2) front yards. (1/4/93) (23-19) PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT: �
�
the following statements.
3 1. The Board must find that if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically, corner yard setback requirements he (can/cannot) secure a reasonable return
from, or make reasonable use of his property. A. : Placing my desired storage building in the left rear yard facing Tom Avenue
would result in a very functional storage building with very easy access from Tom Avenue since there is already a driveway in place over the ditch. The Tom Avenue property line is already
21 ft from the road, therefore a 7 ft setback from the Tom Avenue property line will still keep the front of the storage building 28 ft from the road, allowing for traffic to have great
visibility driving by. This would also allow for a reasonable amount of space between the building and the house allowing for valuable access around the house. B. Staff. 1. Staff finds
that if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance he can secure a reasonable return from or make reasonable use of his property. 2. The Board must find that the
hardship in which the applicant complains results from unique circumstances related to the applicants land. A. : The way my lot
is configured; I have a wide shallow front yard with a backyard divided by a rear deck and patio. Looking off the deck, the right rear yard in the corner opposite of the street would
not be able to contain a building due to the current location of the septic tank. Looking off the deck, the left rear yard is the prime location for a detached storage building with
the current driveway and the trees in the yard. Building a building that will be worthwhile and add value to the house is best set 7 ft from the Tom Avenue property line in order to
avoid destroying the previously existing deck and patio. B. Staff 1.
and size of the detached garage and not necessarily related to the applicants land. However staff does find that due to the location of the septic lines
in the southern portion of the rear yard a detached garage would need to be located in the eastern portion of the rear yard. Though, if the garage was reduced in size, it could meet
the required setbacks. 3. The Board must find that the hardship is not the result of the applicants own actions A. Applicant Asserts: I moved into 104 Anthony Drive last September and
have only focused on interior upgrades so far. The deck and patio location has been established by the previous owners of 32 years several years ago. All current trees seem to have been
there long before the house. House location, septic tank, and water well have all been established since the house was built. B. Staff 1. �
�e septic tank, trees and water well has remained in its current location for several years.
4 4. The Board must find that if granted, the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and will preserve its spirit. A. Applicant Asserts: If
granted, the storage building will fit perfectly on the lot and match the neighborhood with aesthetics and style. The exterior of the building will consist of Hardy Plank siding to match
the addition on my house that was added several years ago. The roof line and pitch will also match the current roof of my house. Windows and eaves will provide a welcoming environment.
Trees and a fence will be added to run beside the building providing more privacy that will increase the value of the addition B. Staff 1. Staff finds that although the applicant plans
to make the detached garage aesthetically pleasing the variance would not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. 5. The Board must find that if granted,
the variance will secure the public safety and welfare and will do substantial justice. A. Applicant Asserts: This variance will only apply to this building and stay with the lot into
the future. With this variance I can remain a safe distance from the road and not cause any distraction with the low volume of traffic coming down Tom Avenue. B. Staff 1. Staff finds
that the purpose and intent of the corner lot setbacks is to secure public safety by maintaining visibility at intersections and to keep larger structures a safe distance from residential
streets. Mr. Still ran a PowerPoint presentation in support of his summary which consisted of aerial maps, map showing the existing garage, 2009 survey, 1978 septic permit, and photographs
of the property. Mr. Cameron disclosed that he has known Mr. Tony Dombrowski, who is appearing in opposition to the variance request, for several years. Mr. Burpeau asked Mr. Cameron
if he feels he could not be objective due to his relationship with Mr. Dombrowski and Mr. Cameron answered he would have no problem being objective but just wanted to inform the Board.
Mr. Cameron called for those to speak in favor of granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed for testimony. Mr. Cameron swore in Mr. Ryan Savage. Mr. Savage
began his testimony by running a PowerPoint presentation which consisted of views of the property, line dimension, setbacks, proposed fence, and aerial photographs. Mr. Savage stated
the 2-nough space to work on his vehicles. Mr. Savage
also said he has letters from neighbors stating they have no objection to the project.
5 Mr. Still said the well head and the separation that Environmental Health Department requires is 25 ft for any structure whether it is supported with pressure treated lumber or concrete
slab from the well head. He said the permit shows the well to be 25 ft. Mr. Cameron asked Mr. Savage if a smaller garage would work for him. Mr. Savage said he needs enough space for
two cars, a work table, tool box and storage. Mr. Savage said he would like to keep it that size . Mr. Cameron asked if the property line is 20 ft from the center
line or from the side. Mr. Savage said it is actually 21 ft from the side and the garage would be 7 ft from that point. Mr. Cameron asked Mr. Savage the size of the lot and if there
was anywhere else on the lot that he could place the garage. Mr. Savage said the lot is just under ½ acre and there is nowhere else on the lot to place the garage. Mr. Williams asked
Mr. Savage if he plan to do work for profit out of the garage. He also asked the type of materials to to be used in building the garage. Mr. Savage said no; he would only work on his
vehicles. He said plans to use wood siding to match the house addition. Mr. Hickman asked if he would pave leading to the garage doors. Mr. Savage said no, not initially but maybe in
the future. Mr. Cameron asked if he considered the garage placement when he purchased the house. Mr. Savage said yes, he thought it could be placed in the septic area in the back but
discovered it could not work because of the septic tank. The Chairman called for those to speak in opposition to granting the variance request to come forward to be sworn or affirmed
for testimony. He swore in Mr. Tony Dombrowski and Mr. Michael Dombrowski. Mr. Tony Dombrowski said he owns the house located at 204 Tom Avenue which is in the rear of Mr. Shouse.
Mr. Dombrowski said his house is 50 ft from the road and if this garage is built it would stick out approximately 43 ft in front of his house. He said this would create an eyesore and
if a car would park in the side entry driveway it would sit 2-3 ft to the edge. He said Mr. Savage stated in a letter that he did not want to disturb his deck and patio, but if he moved
his deck and patio back he would be in compliance with all the setbacks. Mr. Dombrowski said it is not a good idea to set a precedence by changing the side yard setback and a 22-½ ft
setback on a corner lot is necessary. Mr. Cameron called Mr. Savage for a rebuttal. Mr. Savage said �
�an issue because he presently parks on the side. He said there will be a fence and trees for privacy so it
6 would not be an eyesore. Mr. Savage said tearing the patio and deck down would take from the value of the house. Mr. Cameron asked Mr. Savage if he looked into the cost to move the
patio and deck and Mr. Savage said no. Ms. Winstead asked how far the proposed garage would be from the back property line. Mr. Savage said it is 25 ft which meets the R-20 setback.
Mr. Dombrowski said this also violates the subdivision restrictions because the fence is not allowed to go any closer to the side road than the back corner of the house. Mr. Savage said
he was not aware of the subdivision restrictions because the neighbors told him those restrictions were in place but has since expired. �
�s brother and he has lived in that subdivision for 36 years. He said there are many corner lots in the subdivision, including his lot and if Mr.
Savage wants the garage he has to conform to the regulations, like everyone else. Mr. Dombrowski said the structure that he wants to build cannot be used as commercial and he wants assurance
that this would not become a motorcycle/vehicle business. The Chairman called Mr. Savage for a rebuttal. Mr. Savage said he talked to the neighbors and they do not have any objections
to his project. PUBLIC SESSION CLOSED-Board Discussion Mr. Williams said he has a problem with the size because of concerns about commercial use. He said �
� Mr. Cameron said the argument relies on the fact that there is a large area between the road and the property line that is an additional buffer
but is currently not developed. He said they may be taking it for granted that it would never be part of the road and otherwise you are looking at 7 ft difference. Ms. Winstead said
the 7 ft has to be considered and it is not a big setback. She said there is an existing garage on the property and she does not see a hardship because he can move the deck. Mr. Lewis
and Mr. Hickman agreed. Board Decision 1. Ryan Savage, 104 Anthony Drive, is requesting a variance from the corner lot setback requirements of New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance Section
23: Definitions, to construct a new residential garage on a corner lot. 2. On a motion by Ms. Winstead and seconded by Mr. Williams the Board voted unanimously to DENY the variance request.
7 There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved by Mr. Williams and seconded by Ms. Winstead to adjourn the meeting. All ayes Acting Executive Secretary Chairman