Minutes July 2015MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTM ENT
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 Tuesday, July 28, 2015.
Members Present Members Absent
Justin Lewis, Chairman
Joe Miller, Vice-Chairman
Pete DeVita
Andrew Ba rnhill
Chad McEwen
Brian Prevatte
Ha nk Adams,
Colin Ta rra nt
Ex Officio Members Present
Ben And rea, Executive Secretary
Sharon Huffman, County Attorney
Denise Brown, Clerk
The meeting wos colled to order ot 5:30P.M. by the Choirmon, Mr. Justin Lewis
FIRST ORDER OF EUSINESS
1. Officiol Approvol of June 2j, 2075 minutes by. Vote wos unonimous.
The Chairman then swore in County Staff Mr. Ben Andrea.
FIRST CASE BEFORE THE BOARO WAs AS FOLLOWS:
Blue Ridge Engineering, PLLC, applicant on behalf of ACI Pine Ridge, LLC, property owner, is requesting a 0.2
space per unit variance from the 2 parking spaces required per residential unit under Zoning Ordinance Section
8L: Minimum Parking Requirements. The property is located at 183 Porters Neck Road and zoned B-1, Business
District. Case ZBA-895.
The opplicont in this t'irst case (ZBA-895) wos odvised prior to the start of the cose proceedings thot in order to
grant there vorionce oll four boord members present must ogree. The Zoning Boord of Adjustment seots five
members typicolly ot o meeting. All vorionce request opprovols must obtdin 4/5 of members to be gronted.
Todoy's proceedings there ore four members present to heor the cose. The dpplicont wos presented with the
option to proceed with their cose or deloy to next month's meeting for odditionol boord member ottendonce. Ms.
Huffmon odded should the vorionce request result in o deniol the opplicont hos j0 doys to oppeol to the superior
court to overrule the decision. ln oddition, M' Huffmon stoted to re-oppear to the Zoning Eoord of Adjustment
the initiol request must be o substontial different request. The opplicont decided to continue in todoy's cose
proceedings.
1
Mr. Lewis explained that the zoning 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 Zoning Board also hears appeals of the County's interpretation in
enforcement of the zoning Ordinance. The appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by
the Board to Superior Court.
STAFF OVERVIEW:
Mr. Andrea states applicant Mr. Neil Shepard; Blue Ridge Engineering on behalf of ACI Pine Ridge, LLC property
owner are requesting a 0.2 space per unit variance from the 2 parking spaces required per residential unit under
Zoning Ordinance Section 81: Minimum Parking Requirements. Mr. Andrea states the site is located in the
northeastern area of the county known as the Porters Neck community; nearby the l-140 Hwy and Market
Street intersection. Mr. Andrea states the CAMA Land Use Plan classifies the site as a Wetland Resource
Protection area.
Mr. Andrea states the request coincides with the design of a 261 unit multi-family development at 183 Porters
Neck Road known as the Ardmore Apartment Community. The petitioner is proposing 1.8 parking spaces per
unit instead of the required 2 parking spaces per unit, citing that the 2 space per unit requirement is in excess of
parking demands in other similar existing apartment communities owned and operated by the developer. Mr.
Andrea states the site is in close proximity of the Lowes Homes lmprovement Store located in Porters Neck. Mr.
Andrea states the zoning of the site in this case hearing is B1 which is adjacent to a conditional 82 district which
occupies the Lowes Home lmprovement site. Mr. Andrea made reference there is a neighboring R15 district.
Mr. Andrea states the subject site totals 28.9 acres, and contains 15.24 acres of wetlands that will remain
undisturbed and surround the uplands that will host the residential buildings, parking areas, and other
community attributes. Some low impact development techniques will be employed, including bio-retention
areas and permeable pavement.
Mr. Andrea states the draft design of the pro.ject, Ardmore Apartment Community, includes 261 residential
units, including 90 one bedroom units, 144 two bedroom units, and 27 three bedroom units, for a total of 459
bedrooms within the 261 units. Mr. Andrea states the proposed developed site was approved with a special use
permiU this approval also lncluded some commercial development. The Zoning Ordinance Section 81: Minimum
Parking Requirements; requires a minimum of 2 parking spaces per residential unit, equating to a requirement
of 522 parking spaces. Mr. Andrea states with the proposed 1.8 parking spaces per unit, a total of 465 parking
spaces are proposed for the development, 1.8 spaces per unit; a difference of 57 parking spaces. Mr. Andrea
states 2 parking spaces are the standard regulation for residential properties as well per the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Andrea states should there be a proposal of a master plan for a community complex then the site plan
would be examined for adequate parking and off street parking would be addressed. Mr. Andrea states zoning
would support additional parking being provided by the applicant at a neighboring property if offered. However,
Mr. Andrea states that is not being proposed and is not in today's request. Mr. Andrea stated off-site parking is
not a requirement for the applicant. Mr. Andrea states in order for the applicant to meet the zoning ordinance
requirements for the apartment complex parking; the wetlands on the site would be impacted.
Mr. Andrea states the applicant has proposed no impact to the wetlands. Mr. Andrea states due to the
constraints of the wetlands, the staff is in the support of the lesser amount of parking spaces the applicant has
presented in which will not affect the disturbance of the wetlands on the property. Mr. Andrea states the level
of detail in special use permitting does not include engineering of parking spaces. Mr. Andrea states the
compliance for zoning is involved once the special use permit is approved in which that is how zoning was able
to identify the parking concerns in this particular case.
ln conclusion, Mr. Andrea states the 2006 Wilmington-New Hanover County CAMA Land Use Plan classifies the
site as Wetland Resource Protection Area, which dictates a primary management strategy of encouraging
preservation of wetlands and wetland functions. By reducing the provided parking from 2 spaces per unit to 1.8
spaces per unit, impervious area will be reduced as well as impacts to wetlands, both direct and indirect, in
harmony with the Land Use Plan strategy for the Wetland Resource Protection Area Land Use Classification.
2
REQUIRED STANDARDS
Section 81: Minimum Parking Requirements
81-1:The following off-street parking space shall be required and maintained
Uses Required Off-Street Parking
Any residential use consisting of one (1) or more
dwelling units
Two (2) parking spaces on the same lot for each
dwelling units
PRELIMARY FINDINGS OF FACT:
The applicant has asserted the following preliminary "findings of fact." Staff, in their review of the case, has
commented on the assertions of fact. The Boards findings may agree or disagree with the following
statements.
1. The Board must find that an unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the
ordinance. lt shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no
reasonable use can be made of the property.
A. Application of the required 2 parking spaces per residential unit would require additional
impervious surface area to accommodate an additional 57 parking spaces over the proposed
465 parking spaces, resulting in direct and indirect impacts to the adjacent wetlands.
2. The Board must find that the hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such
as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships
resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the
basis for granting a variance.
A. The sub.iect site is 28.9 acres and contains 15.24 acres of wetlands that envelope the
development area but are proposed to remain undisturbed. Requiring 2 parking spaces per unit
would result in impacts to the wetland areas and potentially diminish their function, conflicting
with the management strategy for the Wetland Resource Protection Area land us classification.
3. The Board must find the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property
owner, The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may.iustify the
grantin8 of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship.
A. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or property owner. The
preliminary site design utilizes the uplands only for the project and does not contain sufficient
area for the additional required parking with wetlands disturbance.
4. The Board must find that the requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of
the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantialjustice is achieved,
A. Granting the variance would result in a total of 465 parking spaces to support 459 bedrooms in
261 residential units. Assuming every person residing in a bedroom drove a vehicle, sufficient
parking would be available based on 1.8 parking spaces per unit, consistent with the intent of
Zoning Ordinance Section 81: Minimum Parking Requirements.
B. Granting the variance would not diminish public safety and would result in substantial and
equitable justice for the property owners.
3
Mn Neil Shephord states he is the engineer for the apartment complex project. Mr. Shephard states currently,
the property owner of the apartment complex is ACI Pine Ridge, LLC, an entity owned by other multiple entities.
Mr. Shephard states the affiliated company Ardmore Porters Neck, LLC would be the future property owner
should the variance be granted they solely develop apartment complex homes. Mr. Shephard states the current
perspective developer ACI Pine Ridge, LLC is currently pursuing the variance approval with the assumption of the
variance approval, Ardmore Porters Neck, LLC would assume ownership. Mr. Shephard states the project
manager was unable to attend todays' proceedin8s. Mr. Shephard suggested he can initiate contact via
telephone to present one of the property owners to attest they are in approval of the variance request
proceedings however, Mr. Shephard states the technical development of the parking issues would be referred
back to him as to he is the engineer of the project. Mr. Shephard states the Porters Neck mixed-use
development was approved by the county commissioners as a commercial and residential zoning district. Mr.
Shepard states the mixed-use district consists of almost 39 acres and most of the residential portion of the land
for the apartment complex referenced today has been developed. Mr. Shephard states he is confident the board
will follow the spirit of the law and he has provided an agent approval form in his application packet for the
variance request. Mr. Shephard states he has served formerly as a member of the North Wilkesboro Zoning
Board of Adjustment whereby he appreciates the board's time and effort in today's proceedings.
Mr. Lewis states the reason for the lesser parking spaces is to not impact the wetlands on the property. Mr.
Lewis inquired regarding the lesser spaces potential impact of fire or safety hazard. Mr. Devita states there is a
reason the ordinance was implemented to control scenarios' such as today's case. Mr. Devita is concerned of
the lesser amount of parking will impact future tenants having not enough parking spaces. Mr. Devita inquired
as to off-site parking at the neighboring commercial site. Mr. Devita states concerns of the initial development
being approved and was parking addressed during the special use permitting process. Mr. Barnhill inquired as to
the apartment development strate8y in parking spaces and is it universal with other apartment complexes in the
area. Mr. Devita suggest the developer reduce the number of apartments being built and keep the required
parking spaces as the zoning ordinance states. Mr. Miller inquired to the zoning ordinance reference to
apartment requirements of overflow parking for guest parking. Mr. Miller inquired as to requirement of on
street parking for apartment complex. Mr. Devita inquire as to the architect of the apartment complex designs
of not addressing adequate parking. Mr. Devita states the lesser amount of parking spaces proposed to be
removed will be felt by the tenants in the future possibly whereby the county will receive complaints.
BOARD DECISION:
1. Blue Ridge Engineering, PLLC, petitioner, is requesting a 0.2 space per unit variance from the 2
parking spaces required per residential unit under Zoning Ordinance Section 81: Minimum Porking
Requirements. The property is located at 183 Porters Neck Road and zoned B-1, Business District.
Case ZBA-895
2. On a motion by Mr. Pete Devita and seconded by Mr. Joe Miller the board voted unanimously to
GRANT the variance based on STAFF findings and facts.
4
The Chairman then swore in Neil Shephard-Blue Ridge Engineering, PLLC.
There was no one present to speak in opposition to granting the variance request.
PUEtIC HEARING CTOSED
BOARD DISCUSSION:
SECOND CASE EEFORE THE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Robert and Stacy Campbell, property owners, are requesting a 4.9'variance from 10'side yard setback required
per Zoning Ordinance Section 51.6: R-15 Residential District to add an attached 20'by 23.2'carpet to their home
at 617 Bayshore Drive. The proposed addition would result in a setback of 5.1' from their side property line.
Case No. Z84-896.
STAFF OVERVIEW
Mr. Andrea states the petitioner is proposing an addition to the side of their home at the end of their driveway
of an attached 464 sq. ft. carport to accommodate two vehicles. Currently, the property does not have a
covered vehicle parking area such as a car port or Barage, and the proposed addition would not only protect
their vehicles, but also provide a covered area for Mr. and Mrs. Campbell to enter and exit their vehicles, which
would be particularly helpful for Mrs. Campbell, who is handicapped and must rely on a medical device for
walking. Mr. Andrea states if a detached carport is proposed, it would have to be separated from the home a
distance of 5' and could not be located in the front yard. There is an existing building and pool in the rear yard
which further limits the placement of the proposed carport to the side of the home, which is the ideal location
due to the existing driveway and ease of accessibility for Mr. and Mrs. Campbell.
Mr. Andrea states there is 24 ft. from the Campbell's home and the adjacent property distance; in addition,
there is a special flood hazard area of AE and x located near the applicants property. Mr. Andrea states the
applicants are proposing a carport size of 20'ft wide and 23.2'in depth to be attached to their existing home.
Currently, the home does not have a garage or carport; the Campbell's are parking their cars in the driveway
pad. Mr. Andrea states the zoning ordinance preclude an accessary building in any front yard. Mr. Andrea states
the side yard setback is limited due to the width that is offered and the backyard is incumbent by some existing
development. Mr. Andrea states the applicants has stated he has received damage to his car to due unforeseen
weather activity and the carport would assist in eliminating some activity such as their vehicles. Mr. Andrea
states all required notifications were sent to appropriate neighbors and no opposition has been relayed to the
staff prior to case proceedings. Mr. Andrea states after a field visit to the applicants' neighborhood there are
quite a few carports attached to some of the homes in the community. Mr. Andrea concludes anyone requesting
a carport or detached garage should contact the planning staff for Suidance.
5
The proposed addition would result in a setback of 5.1'from the Campbell's side property line and 24'to the
proposed carport and the neighboring home at 621 Bayshore Drive.
Mr. Andrea presented visual aerial display of the applicant's property from various angles of Bayshore Drive.
PRELIMARY FINDINGS OF FACT
The applicant has asserted the following preliminary "findings of fact." Staff, in their review of the case, has
commented on the assertions of fact. The Boards findings may agree or disagree with the following
statements.
The Board must find that an unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. lt
shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of
the property.
A. Application of the required 10' side yard setback requirement would prevent the development
of an attached carport that could accommodate two vehicles, resulting in hardships including
the abilitv for the Campbell's to have a weatherproof area to enter and exit their vehicles, as
well as continued damage to the vehicles from falling debris, hail etc.
2. The Board must find that the hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such
as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships
resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the
basis for granting a variance.
A. The existing home is approximately 25.4'from the side property line, and an existing building in
the rear of the property restricts the placement of a detached carport. Additionally, the existing
driveway and parking pad provides the most convenient and logical place to develop a covered
parking area.
3. The Board must find the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property
owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the
granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship.
A. Property records indicate the Campbell's purchased the home in 1993 and did not build the home
or design the home with consideration for the addition of a covered parking area that could meet
the required side yard setback requirements. Therefore, the hardship does not result from actions
ta ken by the Campbell's.
4. The Board must find that the requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of
the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantialjustice is achieved.
A. Granting the variance would result in a side yard setback of 5.1', and a setback of 25.1' from the
adjacent home, consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the setback requirements in the R-
15 zoning district.
Mr. Cdmpbell expressed his grotitude to the boord for todoy's proceedings ond supports the boord's effort in
decision determindtions of vdrionce request to ossist county residents.
There was no one present to speak in opposition to the variance request
1
6
Public Hearing Closed.
B. Granting the variance would not diminish public safety and would result in substantial and
equitable justice for the property owners.
BOARO DISCUSSION:
BOARD DECISION:
1. Robert and Stacy Campbell, property owners, are requesting a 4.9' variance from 10' side yard setback
required per Zoning Ordinance Section 51.6: R-15 Residential District to add an attached 20'by 23.3'
carport to their home at 617 Bayshore Drive. The proposed addition would result in setback of 5.1' from
their side property line. The property is zoned R-15, Residential District. Case ZBA-895
2. On a motion by Mr. Joe Miller and seconded by Mr. Pete Devita the board voted unanimously to GRANT
the variance based on the STAFF findings and facts.
MEETING ADJOURNED,
Executive Secretary Chairman
7
Mr. Devita requested the findings of fact be relayed verbally by staff. Mr. Lewis inquired as to the procedure of
informing the neighboring homeowners of the applicant's request. Mr. Lewis inquired as to how common are
carports in this community. Mr. Lewis inquired of adjacent neighbor's similarity of carports being added to the
properties. Mr. Lewis stated his concerns of potential homeowners assuming a carport can be added with a
variance.