Loading...
Approved May Minutes ZBA-927MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 22,2078 The New Hanover County zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meetinB 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, May 22, 2Ot8. Members Present Members Absent Raymond Bray, Chairman Ha nk Adams- Vice-Chairman Joe Miller Richa rd Kern Kristen Freeman Brett Keeler Mark Na bell Cameron Moore Ex Officio Members Present Ben Andrea, Executive Secretary Sharon Huffman, County Attorney Denise Brown, Clerk The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. By the Chairman, Mr. Raymond Bray Mr. Bray 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. APPROVAT OF MARCH 27, 2018 MEETING MINUTES cAsE zBA-927 Mr. Andrea explained that Trinity Express Development, LLC, applicant, on behalf of Hasi Burns property owner, is requesting a variance form the Special Highway Overlay District building setbacks per Section 55.4-3 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 8128 Market Street. Mr. Andrea stated the subject site consist of 1.54 acres and is zoned B-2, Highway Business zoning district. The properties to the north and across Market Street have the same B-2 zoning classification. Mr. Andrea stated the land to the southeast and southwest are zoned l-1, Light lndustrial. Mr. Andrea stated the majority of the subject site falls within the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD), which extends 500' from each side of right-of-way of Market Street. 1 Following a motion by Mr. Joe Miller and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hank Adams the minutes of March 27, 2078 meeting was unanimously approved. Chairman Bray then swore in County staff, Mr. Ben Andrea. Mr. Andrea stated that Trinity Express Development, LLC, the petitioner, is seeking to develop the property at 8128 Market Street located in the Porters Neck Community. The subject site is located next to the ABC store in Porters Neck. Mr. Andrea mentioned to the north of subject site is a seafood sales establishment. Mr. Andrea stated this particular SHOD area runs from Bayshore Drive and extends to the Pender County line. Mr. Andrea stated the SHOD was applied to the area in March 1990. Mr. Andrea stated subject site is currently undeveloped, however the applicant has indicated the interest in developing the property with light automobile repair facility. Mr. Andrea stated the topography of the site appears to be relatively flat, soils consisting at the site are Lynn Haven fine sand and Leon sand according to the Soil Survey of New Hanover County. Mr. Andrea stated in his personal opinion there are no environmentalfeatures such as wetlands that would impede site design. Mr. Andrea stated he not personally walked the subject site to verify impediments on the site. Mr. Andrea stated the property is about 100' in width and of a rectangular shape. Mr. Andrea stated site is about 570' deep from Market Street. The site has been in current form since recording of TRACT 4 on survey of lands of Charity P. Sidbury (MB t4, Page 6l in 1972. Mr. Andrea stated the SHOD language was added to the county's zoning ordinance in 1986, and subsequently zoning actions were approved to apply the SHOD to certain significant highway corridors in the county, including Market Street corridor from the Pender County line. There are other locations of SHOD in the county located at North College Road, l- 40, and l-140 corridor. Mr. Andrea explained the purpose of the SHOD district per Section 55.4-1 of the Zoning Ordinance is to protect the natural beauty and scenic vista that exists along lnterstate Highways and other specifically designated roadways that serves as major access ways and gateways into New Hanover County. Mr. Andrea stated protection of these roadways is important and necessary to maintain and preserve the County's undisturbed roadsides that are characterized by their natural woodlands and open spaces. Mr. Andrea stated the continued protection of these scenic highways is also a valuable asset to the County's tourism economy and enhances the attractiveness of the area for trade and investment. Mr. Andrea reiterated this language was added to the ordinance in 1986. Mr. Andrea stated if the SHOD regulations did not apply to the subject site parcel there would be no requirement of building setback from the side or the rear property line since the adjacent parcels are not zoned residential or have residential uses on them. Mr. Andrea stated building setbacks of Section 60.3 only apply if there is an adjacent parcel that is zoned residential or if the site has a residential use on the site. Mr. Andrea stated due to the SHOD regulations are applied to the subject site, the required building setbacks are 100' from the Market Street right-of-way and 25' from the side property lines for the portion of the parcel within the SHOD. Mr. Andrea stated the area outside of the SHOD regulations would not require side setbacks per zoning. Mr. Andrea reiterated the applicant wants to use the subject site for a light use of automobile service and repair facility. Mr. Andrea stated the applicant presented an application proposing two services, one three-bay oil service building in the front of the site and a second larger building behind the bay in the back of building for auto-repairs. Mr. Andrea stated the site plan displays the front three-bay building would be 10'from one side lot line and 22' from the other lot line while the larger six bay service building in the rear would be 10'from one side lot line and about 36'from the other side lot line. Mr. Andrea reiterated that the applicant is requesting that both side lot line setbacks be reduced from the 25' requirement per the SHOD regulations to 10'. 2 Mr. Andrea stated the SHOD has more restrictive regulations than the underlining zoninB districts; such as signs, screening, lot coverage along with building and parking setbacks. Mr. Andrea states the building setbacks is a minimum of 25' per the SHOD requirements per Section 55.4-1 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Bray then swore in Mr. Tom Johnson and Mr. Wyatt Bone. Mr. Tom lohnson, willioms & Mullins PLLC - Mr. Johnson presented he would like the staff report presented by staff be entered into the record. Mr. Johnson stated the lot is approximately 100'wide and was created in 1972. Mr. Johnson stated in 1998 the SHOD was applied and with the 25' setback requirement for the subject site setback it is difficult to develop the lot for adequate business use. Mr. Johnson stated the applicant didn't see the parcel useful with a narrow footprint. Mr. Johnson stated with the property size and shape, the applicant is requesting a reduction of setbacks by variance approval. Mr. Johnson stated they are requesting 10' setback all around which would provide flexibility in constructing a building on the lot. Mr. Johnson stated the subject site is surrounded by other businesses. Mr. Johnson stated at these businesses the setbacks are consistent with today's request. Mr. Johnson stated the Engineer is present and will explain the drafted building plan for the site and explain the need for a reduction of setbacks to the 10'. Mr. Johnson stated given the setbacks in the area the aesthetics will not be affected with the requested 10'setback. Mr. Johnson stated given other uses in the area there are close setbacks on adjacent properties. Mr. lohnson stated had a building been implemented prior to the SHOD regulations in 1990 they would have more flexibility and a variance would not be required. Mr. Johnson stated the creation of the size of the lot was not created by the applicant. Mr. Johnson stated county ordinance revisions were implemented after the subject parcel was divided into the 100' wide lot. Mr. Johnson other businesses in the area have lots that are wider than the subject parcel. ln addition, the subject site requires driveway aisle space to enter and exit the rear building. Mr. Johnson stated county Fire codes must be adhered to with the 22' width. Mr. iohnson stated additional buffering would be difficult at the subject site given its present condltion. Mr. Johnson stated the engineer is present to relay information on the proposed plan and the need for the request setback dimensions. Mr. Wyott Bone, EngineeL Roleigh, NC - Mr. Bone stated they are requesting the 10' setbacks to provide future flexibility in site design. Mr. Bone stated currently plans of the building have not been finalized. Mr. Bone stated the proposed site plan is the intended layout however as for unforeseen reasons in construction, the narrow size parcel could present a hardship in completion such as if the building should shift. Mr. Bone stated they may have to adjust in constructing with the building layout. Mr. Bone stated they do not want to be boxed in on one size and not the other. Mr. Bone stated the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance requires 100' building setback from the road right-of-way Mr. Bone stated plans displays 50' parking setback and they will plant the required landscape buffer at the front. Mr Bone stated they are adhering to the corridor being maintained as suggested per the ordinance. Mr. Bone stated as mentioned if the subject site was not in the SHOD regulations there would be no side setbacks required. Mr. Bone stated they are requesting a 10' setback. Mr. Bone stated the typical site design of the proposed automobile repair shop to have the larger maintenance building in the rear of the business. Mr. Bone stated the owner is in agreement in the building layout. Mr. Bone stated currently they are alterin8 the site plan to better meet county code regulations. Mr. Bone stated once the two 25'required side setbacks are considered, the site is left with a 50'wide buildable area for the portion of the parcel that is within the SHOD. Mr. Bone stated the building is 68' wide with a 22' wide driveway on the left side to get to the proposed second building on the lot. Mr. Bone stated the parcel is not an overly dense parcel. Mr. Miller inquired of the size dimensions of both buildings 3 Mr. Bone stated the front building is proposed at 68' wide and the second building estimate at 50' wide Mr. Miller inquired of the reason for the 25' setback requirement in the SHOD. Mr. Miller inquired is the application of requirement due to the aesthetics or safety concern. Mr. Andrea stated he had no involvement of initiating change in ordinance however in his opinion the SHOO regulations were implemented due to aesthetics. Mr. Miller indicated if the SHOD requirements were not required the applicant would have a zero setback to adhere to Mr. Miller stated other businesses are in close proximity of subject parcel such as the ABC Store and PT's restaurant which appears to be located on their property line. Mr. Andrea stated he's aware of the ABC Store and PT'S restaurant and was unable to retrieve the site plan for the businesses. Mr. Andrea stated GIS rough estimate of the ABC store building is about 25ft setback which meets code requirement. Mr. Andrea stated to his knowledge there were no past variance approvals for the ABC site to obtain closer dimensions than the 25'. Mr. Andrea stated the ABC Store was constructed recently and the SHOD requirements were to be met by the business. Mr. Andrea speculated that the ABC store may have decreased the side setback with increase landscaping to the front. Mr. Andrea stated the ordinance language suggest intent an applicant could use the front setback if more visual screening i.e. planting was applied along the front property line. Mr. Andrea relterated the ordinance does not read clearly however one could make that interpretation. Mr. Andrea stated the language reads to increase the amount of planting to reduce parcel setbacks Chairman Bray stated his interpretation of increasing planting is for all property sides. Mr. Johnson stated there is a similar auto oil changing business diagonal from the subject site. Mr..lohnson stated the business will provide similar services to the community. There is a car wash close to site. Chairman Bray inq uired of the long term use for the rear of the property Mr. Johnson stated currently there are no future plans of developing the rear of the property. Mr. Johnson stated they will adhere to any stormwater regulations that may impact the proposed auto repair facility. 4 Mr. Miller inquired as to how setbacks can be reduced per the SHOD ordinance language. Mr. Andrea stated the planting would be required along the Market Street right-of-way area based on his interpretation of the ordinance provision. Chairman Bray inquired of the existing auto oil changing shop in the vicinity. Mr. Johnson stated extra property will be to the rear due to the natural configuration of the subject lot. Mr. Johnson stated the rear property travels outside the 500'SHOD range which allows for no setback in this area of the lot. Mr. Bone reiterated there are no plans to develop the rear of the subject site. Mr. Bone stated the rear of the site will have an above ground stormwater infiltration system. Mr. Miller asked the applicant if minimizing the encroachment into the required setback was considered. Mr. .,ohnson stated there were shorter layouts researched for a smaller setback however, a show of goodwill offering of a 10ft setback and 22setback on the other side. Mr. Johnson stated the client can best operate the business successfully within the setback requested Ms. Freeman inquired when was the property purchased Mr. Johnson stated there are in the due diligence stage, the property has not been purchased as ofyet. Mr. Kern asked could the three-bay proposal be decreased to a two-bay Chairman Bray then sworn in Mr. Soignet. Mt. Michdel Soignet; Developer - Mr. Soignet stated they typically design four-bay drive thru for auto oil changes to the front of the businesses for successful interactions with consumers. Mr. Soignet stated due to the size and configuration width of the lot a smaller three-bay stall was designed for better use. Mr. Soignet stated the rear second building will provide mechanical auto repair services and tire changes. Mr. Soignet mentioned there is a four-bay auto site on the other side of town ln operates successfully of the same business use. Chairman Bray inquired ofthe entry drive-thru location for the cars as they drive into the first building Mr. Soignet stated the request for a three-bay stall is to seek maximum use of the site. Mr. Soignet stated typically business are equipped with four-bay for oil change however due to the lot size it's not feasible. Chairman Bray inquired of relocating the buildings to the rear for use. Mr. Soignet stated the proposed building for the auto repair to the front is to draw traffic in visibility as a strong business conception for success. M r. soignet stated they req uest the bu ild ing be to the front of the pro pe rty. Mr. Soignet stated rear location of the buildings would not meet zoning regulation of proposed business. Mr. Soignet stated the corridor area does not have many 100'wide parcels such as the subject site. Mr. Soignet stated due to the lot size; should the owner decide to sell the new owner would require variance approval to build on the narrow site. 5 Chairman Bray inquired of the Lynn Haven and the Leon sand association as it relates to the subject site. Mr. Andrea pulled up the GlS soils map and confirmed that Leon soil is in the front and the Lynn Haven soil is to the rear of the property. Mr. Soignet stated the auto repair staff will drive the cars from the exit of the front building and enter to the rear building for mechanical repairs as needed. Mr. Soignet stated there are several restraints to the site. Mr. Soignet stated currently the site has one parking spot to the front which will creates limitations. Mr. Johnson stated it is easier to adjust the zero setback to a 10ft setback to operate the auto repair service. Mr. Johnson stated the applicant has made the adjustment of a four-bay stall to a three-bay for successful operation at the subject site. Chairman Bray inquired of large vehicles utilizing the access ofthe site for deliveries Mr. Soignet stated small trucks will access front entry delivering supplies and tires. Ms. Freeman inquired of landscaping plans for the site Mr. Soignet stated upon variance approvalthey will implement required landscaping for the site. Mr. Johnson stated the owner will adhere to zoning permit and landscape requirements for the site Chairman Bray inquired of the amount of pavement in close proximity to the subject site property line Mr. Andrea stated there are no zoning stipulations that would limit the driveway from being close to the property line. Chairman Bray inquired of a drainage ditch on the site Mr. Andrea stated there appears to be a maintained drainage ditch at the subject site. Mr. Soignet stated there is an elevation change on the site that appears to resemble a ditch. Mr. Soignet stated a drainage ditch did not show up on the survey map. Chairman Bray inquired of the impervious area at the site. Mr. Johnson stated the impervious is below the maximum amount for the parcel Chairman Bray inquired of the pavement material to be used at the subject site. Mr. Johnson stated asphalt pavement would be implemented Chairman Bray then swore in Mr. Bobby Brown Mr. Brown stated he's concern of the drainage issue at the subject site. Mr. Brown stated there are two nearby retention ponds located adjacent the subject site and to his knowledge these ponds do not meet state requirements. Mr. Brown stated there is a drainage ditch that flows halfway thru the subject site parcel. Mr. Brown stated the adjacent ABC Store was elevated approximately to 41' during construction. Mr. Brown stated his property is located to the rear of the subject site with elevation of about 32'. Mr. Brown stated upon heavy rain the retention ponds overflow to his property which retains enormous water. Mr. Brown stated his shop floods on occasion from heavy water retention. Mr. Brown stated the retention ponds are 35' on the bottom and his property elevation is 32'. Mr. Brown stated the ABC store at 41' elevation can handle the 6 Mr. Bobby arcwn, Adidcent Re Neighbor - Mr. Brown presents today with no opposition to the applicant requesting a variance approval however, he's concerned of the water flow to his business which is located to the rear of the subject site. Mr. Brown stated anyone who purchases the parcel would require variance approval due to the landscape and shape of the lot. water however his property suffers from excessive standing water. Mr. Brown stated the rear of the property at best guess is about 32' of his property which abuts the subject parcel. Mr. Brown stated the rear of the subject site is constantly wet. Mr. Brown stated he would hope the elevation of the site would be raised to avoid additional water retention. Mr. Brown stated he's present to voice is concerns to the applicant regarding the site standing water. Mr. Brown stated he's interested in what measures of corrections will be implemented in prevent additional water on the site as it impacts his property at the rear of the subject site. Chairman Bray asked how long has Mr. Brown owned the rear property. Mr. Brown stated he purchased the property in 2000 and he did not have water retention issues Mr. Miller inquired who maintains the retention ponds near the subject site. Mr. Brown stated Retention Pond Services maintains the adjacent retention ponds. Mr. Brown stated after a hard rain the water in the pond runs out for a few days across to his property. Chairman Bray asked Mr. Brown has his property been perked before Mr. Brown stated he has not had the land at his site perked. Mr. Brown stated once adjacent new construction land was raised the waterflow runs to his lower level property. Mr. Brown stated Pfs restaurant and the ABC Store sits at 41ft elevation. Mr. Brown stated he is aware the 100'wide lot without variance approval cannot be utilized as a business. Ms. Freeman inquired how far does the water run on Mr. Brown's property Mr. Brown stated the rear pond water runs steadily all across his property site. Mr. Tom lohnson, Rebuttol - Mr. Johnson stated they will address water standing on the sub.iect site however they are seeking relief from the board to develop the site with a variance. Mr. Johnson stated the applicant will develop the site utilizing stormwater regulations as to not create additional hardship to the adjacent neighbors. Ms. Freeman inquired if the entire subject lot would be concrete Mr. Johnson stated the front are of the lot is proposed concrete. The rear maintenance area will not be concrete. Mr. Johnson stated the rear ofthe property is proposed to remain in its natural state. Landscaping will be applied to the site as requlred. Mr. Miller inqulred of the single parking space. Mr. Johnson stated the subject site will not have concrete on the entire lot Mr. Keeler inquired did the appllcant received a variance for the current sign implemented in 2005. Mr. Andrea stated the applicant did not receive a variance for the current sign at the fuel site Chairman Bray then closed the public hearing and board discussion began 7 Mr. Miller stated he's in in favor of approving the requested setback from the applicant. Mr. Miller stated the applicant has presented a reasonable compromise to develop the narrow lot. Miller stated anything that is proposed for construction to the lot will be presented to the board for approval Mr. Miller stated a requirement of additional landscaping for off-set to the site could be applied to the variance if approved. Mr. Miller stated in overall opinion he is in favor of the proposal for approval. Vice-Chairman Adams relayed he is in favor of the applicant's proposal as presented for the subject site. Vice-Chairman Adams stated he's familiar with the area of the lot which present challenges for development Mr. Kern stated he is concerned with the one side that abuts the ABC Store that does not require a 15ft variance Mr. Miller stated the applicant is asking for what they believe will provide a buffer for a challenged construction site should alterations arise in development. Vice-Chairman stated considering 10ft or 15ft setback will not impact the neighbors on that side. Vice-Chair stated its in harmony to provide relief to the applicant and comply with approving the variance requested. Vice-Chairman Adams stated the applicant presents with a hardship. Chairman Bray stated he's concerned with the conditions of the retention ponds impacting the adjoining lots. Mr. Miller stated the retention ponds conditions are not the concern ofthe board. Chairman Bray stated the retention near the subject site should be brought up to code compliance Mr. Miller stated the applicant is not implementing a large frontal parking lot at the site Chairman Bray stated there is an oil changing facility across the street from the subject site. Chairman Bray stated he's concerned of adding an additional oil changing business across the street from one another. Mr. Miller inquired of a 25% reduction of landscaping buffer on either side regulation Mr. Andrea stated the applicate is not seeking to add additional landscaping approval to the subject site Mr. Andrea stated the board can agree to add conditions to the approval of additional landscaping or buffer as they choose. Chairman Eray inquired of conditions applied to the frontage of the subject site including the sides Ms. Shoron Huffmdn; Deputy County Aftorney - Ms. Huffman stated the board can apply variance approval conditions Mr. Kern stated he would be in favor of conditions applied to variance if approved. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the variance request as presented with additional compliance of Section 55.4- 3 condition to include additional plantings to the right-of-way per the zoning ordinance. 8 Mr. Andrea stated conditions can be applied by the board at any location if agreed to be deemed necessary to the four findings of conclusions. 1. lt is the Board's conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically, the 25' building setbacks required per section 55.4-3 of the New Hanover County zoning Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Because the subject parcel is 10O'in width, the required 25'setbacks from the side property lines reduces the available buildable area to 50' in width. Requiring the building to be placed in the 50' in the middle of the property inhibits site design necessary to comply with other requirements, including a22' wide drive aisle width per the fire code. 2. lt is the Board's conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results from unique circumstances related to the subiect property, such as location, size, or topography. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: The parcel is recta ngu la r-sha ped with about 100' in width and around 670'deep. The portion of the property adjacent to Market Street is located within a Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD). 3. lt is the Board's conclusion that the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. This conclusion is based on the followinB FINDINGS OF FACT: The subject property consists of 1.54 acres and has been on record with its existing configuration since at least 1972 when it was included as Tract 4 on a survey of the lands of Charity p. Sidbury (MB 14, page 6). The SHOD language was added to the county's zoning ordinance in 1986, and subsequent zoning actions were approved to apply the SHOD to certain significant highway corridors in the county. The SHOD in which the subject parcel lies within was created in 1990 4. lt is the Board's conclusion that, if granted, the variance will be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Non-residential building setbacks of 10' are permitted and exist elsewhere in the county. Additional plantings along the street frontage along Market Street consistent with Section 55.4-3(1) of the Zoning Ordinance will offset any negative aesthetic impact of the setback reductions. The reduction in building setback allows for reasonable use of narrow property in a manner consistent with development and uses in the surrounding area. 9 Vice-Chairman Adams second the motion. The Board approved the motion with a 5-0 vote and cited the following conclusions and findings of facts: Locating the building up to 10'from the property line will not cause any decrease in public safety. Mr. Miler motioned to adjourn the meeting. Vice-Chairman Adams second the motion. All ayes to adjourn. Ex Date: retary 1'2"('\6 10 Chairman