Loading...
3.23.21 Agenda Packet March 23, 2021, 5:30 PM I. Call Meeting to Order (Chairman Cameron Moore) II. Approval of February Minutes (currently in draft status) February Member Attendees: Cameron Moore, Kristin Freeman, Michael Keenan, Maverick Pate, Luke Waddell III. Regular Items of Business Case BOA-956 – Kenneth Haynes, applicant, on behalf of Jeffrey and Jeane Finucan, property owners, is requesting a variance of 8.33’ from the 20’ minimum rear yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.9.D of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned R-10, Residential District and is located at 4504 Barnards Landing Road. Case BOA-957 – Martha Estela Vicente Andrade, applicant and property owner, is requesting a variance of 1.2’ from the 20’ minimum side yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.5.D of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned AR, Airport Residential District and is located at 1514 Roane Drive. IV. Other Business Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Update – Marty Little, Long Range Planner V. Adjourn 1 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The New Hanover County 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, February 23, 2021. Members Present Members Absent Cameron Moore, Chairman Hank Adams Kristin Freeman, Vice-Chair Pete DeVita Maverick Pate Richard Kern Luke Waddell Michael Keenan Ex Officio Members Present Ken Vafier, Executive Secretary Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney Ron Meredith, Current Planner The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Cameron Moore. Mr. Moore explained that the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial board appointed by the Board of Commissioners to consider variances from residents in New Hanover County where special conditions would create unnecessary hardships. He said the Board of Adjustment also hears appeals of the County’s interpretation in enforcement of the Unified Development Ordinance. The appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Following a motion by Mr. Waddell and seconded by Vice-Chair Freeman, the minutes from the January 26, 2021 meeting were unanimously approved. The Chairman then swore in County staff Ken Vafier and Ron Meredith. CASE ZBA-955 Mr. Meredith stated that the applicant and property owner, is requesting two variances relating to landscaping and tree retention. The applicant is requesting a variance from tree retention requirements per Section 5.3.4(C) and interior landscaping requirements per Section 5.4.5(C) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The subject site is called the Cape Fear Regional Soccer Complex expansion located at 205 Sutton Steam Plant Road, Wilmington, NC. The zoning classification for the subject site is I-2, Heavy Industrial District. 2 Mr. Meredith stated that the site consists of 65.47 acres located to the south of Sutton Steam Plant Road, north of Sampson Street. Currently, there are seven existing sports fields on the northern part of the property. The applicant has provided plans with intensions to construct four additional sports fields, a restroom facility, and additional parking on the site, totaling eleven sports fields to be housed at the complex. The subject tract was once a landfill and is now part of an EPA Brownfields Revitalization Program. An environmental cleanup for the earlier use is active on the site. The cleanup action can aid in returning abandoned industrial facilities, waste disposal sites and former gas stations to productive future uses. Mr. Meredith stated due to the Unified Development Ordinance requirements related to vegetation at the Brownfields location, the applicant finds difficulty in adhering to the tree planting requirements in the UDO. When applying the applicable provisions of the UDO, approximately 323 trees would be required to be planted within the proposed disturbed area as part of the tree retention requirements, and one tree per 144 square feet would be required meet the interior parking standards to provide required plantings. A large portion of the site is occupied with landfill/brownfields areas so the planting area is limited. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan that proposes about 150 understory trees to be placed outside the landfill/brownfields boundary location. The applicant contends that the variance is necessary in order to be compliant with site vegetative cover standards for landfills/brownfields as specified by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Mr. Meredith stated the applicant is requesting two variances; the first variance is from Section 5.3.4 (C) and is to plant 150 trees from the required 323 trees, and the second variance being requested is from the requirement of Section 5.4.5(C) for 49 trees to be planted due to the vegetative restrictions to the Brownfields area. Chairman Moore asked if the variances could be separated. Mr. Meredith answered that each variance request could be considered separately. Mr. Vafier stated that if the Board deliberates and decides to grant the variances this could be done in one (1) motion or the variance could be individually decided upon based on the findings. Mr. Keenan asked how were the outside boundary areas established. Mr. Meredith stated the areas are listed per the designated Brownfields areas. Chairman Moore then swore in David Bergmark. Mr. David Bergmark, McAdams Engineering - Mr. David Bergmark stated he is assisting the applicant and owner of the subject site, City of Wilmington, with the application and process of requesting the variance. Mr. Bergmark stated that as the site was previously a landfill facility there are limits to planting the trees as required in the UDO, in addition to meeting the requirements of NC Department of Environmental Quality. 3 Mr. Bergmark stated that the landfill/brownfields boundary is restricted in that the root depth shall be no greater than 18 inches at maturity with no root runner. Mr. Bergmark stated they are requesting two variances, one variance under the provisions of the UDO, approximately 323 trees would be required, the applicant is requesting to plant 150 trees outside of the former landfill boundary. The second variance relates to the landscaping parking lot requirements of one (1) tree per 144 square feet required for interior parking standards. Mr. Bergmark stated they are imposing to plant six (6) trees around the restroom area. Mr. Bergmark stated they are offering double the amount of additional green space to the parking lot. Mr. Bergmark stated they are limited in applying the UDO regulations in plantings due to the former landfill spacing, steep slopes, existing utilities and easements they cannot plant within. Vice-Chair Freeman asked if the soccer fields are indoor or outdoor. Mr. Bergmark stated the subject site fields are outdoor with one synthetic surface, the remaining are grass. Mr. Waddell inquired of which agency that imposes the Brownfields regulations Mr. Bergmark stated the NC DEQ imposes regulations to Brownfields sites for oversight and operational use. Chairman Moore asked how many boxes are there and where would the trees be located. Mr. Bergmark stated they cannot go pass the 18 inches in caliber of trees at the site. Mr. Waddell asked how the applicant came to propose the 150 trees. Mr. Bergmark stated their team agreed 150 trees as the base to ensure growth with the space allowed for the trees to be successful in growth in the future. The City of Wilmington representative was present as the owner of the subject site. NO OPPOSITION PRESENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DISCUSSION Chairman Moore stated that both variance request could be combined in deliberation. Mr. Burpeau stated the Board may reference the findings of fact in their deliberation in entirety. Mr. Vafier stated the Board could consider any conditions that the applicant is referencing in the variance. Chairman Moore stated that the applicant has provided a narrative and read the findings of facts submitted. A. A variance of 323 trees to be retained or planted. The applicant is proposing to plant 150 trees outside the Landfill/Brownfield boundary. 4 B. A variance of 49 trees requiring one planted or existing tree shall be required every 144 sf of total interior landscaped area, with a minimum one tree in each parking island. Mr. Keenan made a motion to approve the variance based on findings submitted. Mr. Waddell second the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. The Board cited the following conclusions and findings of fact: 1. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically a variance of 173 trees from Section 5.3.4(C) of the UDO requiring that a minimum of 15 trees at least two inches DBH or two caliper inches, as applicable, shall be retained or planted on a parcel where development occurs; and a variance of 49 trees required from Section 5.4.5(C) of the UDO requiring one planted or existing tree shall be required for every 144 square feet of total interior landscaped area, with a minimum of one tree in each parking island of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:  Due to the site’s previous use as a landfill, the strict application of the ordinance as it relates to tree plantings would directly conflict with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s vegetative cover regulations for prior landfill sites. The DEQ’s planting requirements include that the root depth be no greater than 18 inches at maturity with no root runner greater than 6 inches (See exhibit A-Section 2.1 Plant Requirements). This requirement permits grass and shrubs, but precludes planting of trees within the area of the site previously used as a landfill (Which is the vast majority of the site and fully includes the parking area by the building- See Exhibit L1). 2. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results from unique circumstances related to the subject property, such as location, size, or topography. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:  Prior use of the site as a landfill is what is creating the conflict the County’s landscaping requirements. This existing condition is particular to this site, and with only one other landfill in the County, is not indicative of a condition that is common to the surrounding area or County in general. 3. It 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 following FINDINGS OF FACT:  Neither the applicant nor the property owner established the prior use as a landfill. Thus, the site-specific circumstance creating the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. 5 4. It 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:  Tree protection and landscaping regulations are intended to enhance the aesthetic appearance of new development with the natural landscape to the benefit of the County’s visual and environmental character.  The requested variance to the County’s Tree Retention (Section 5.3.4) and Landscaping for the Parking Lot Interiors standards (Section 5.4.5.C) Represents the Minimum variance required in order to accommodate the State’s regulations for prior landfill sites, by removing specified trees plantings, while providing double the required amount of internal landscape island planting areas to offset the reductions in tree coverage.  Care will be taken to the provide natural and aesthetically pleasing landscaping in areas where tree root depth would violate state regulations through the use of shrubs, ground covers, and ornamental grasses. It is our firm belief that the requested variance proposals are true to the spirit of the ordinance within the site limitations, and will preserve public safety and justice. There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved by Mr. Keenan and seconded by Vice-Chair Freeman to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. Please note the minutes are not a verbatim of the record of the proceedings. _____________________________________ _________________________________ Executive Secretary Chairman Date ________________________________ BOA-956 Page 1 of 5 VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 23, 2021 CASE: BOA-956 PETITIONER: Kenneth Haynes, applicant, on behalf of Jeffrey and Jeane Finucan, property owners. REQUEST: Variance of 8.33’ from the 20’ minimum rear yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.9.D of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. LOCATION: 4504 Barnards Landing Road PID: R07015-004-009-000 ZONING: R-10, Residential District ACREAGE: 0.27 Acres BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Kenneth Haynes, on behalf of Jeffrey and Jeane Finucan, property owners, are requesting a variance from the minimum rear yard setback requirement of 20’ in order to construct a 1,128 sf pool enclosure on the subject property. The subject property is located on a 0.27-acre lot, and currently contains an existing 384 sf shed adjacent to an in-ground pool. The applicant applied for a screened-in enclosure to cover the in-ground pool, but a re-submittal was required as the total area of the accessory structure would require that it meets the principal setbacks for the R-10 district (see attached staff Exhibit 1) The UDO defines an accessory structure as follows: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - A structure subordinate to a principal structure and use, the use of which is customarily found in association with and is clearly incidental to the use of the principal structure of the land and which is not attached by any part of a common wall or roof to the principal structure. (When a specific structure is identified in this Ordinance as accessory to another use or structure, the structure need not be customarily incidental to, or ordinarily found in association with, the principal use to qualify as an accessory structure.) Section 4.4.4 of the UDO requires that accessory structures in excess of 600 sf meet the minimum required setbacks for a principal structure in their respective zoning district: 4.4.4 STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES B. Accessory Structure Accessory structures shall comply with the following standards: 1. No accessory structure shall be erected in any required yard nor within five feet of any other building, except that accessory buildings not exceeding 600 square feet may be permitted in the required side and rear yards provided such accessory buildings are at least five feet from the property line and do not encroach into any required easements. BOA-956 Page 2 of 5 The UDO allows for two different types of subdivision design: Performance Residential Developments and Conventional Residential Developments. In a performance development, individual lots are not subject to the specific yard requirements of a zoning district provided that the density for the zoning district is not exceeded. In a conventional development, the UDO requires that the dimensional standards for each zoning district be met. The subject parcel is a part of Huntington Forest, which was recorded in 1994 as a conventional development. The required rear yard setback in the R-10 district is 20’ as specified in the dimensional standards in Section 3.2.9 of the UDO: The proposed enclosure will be attached to the existing shed and will total 1,512 sf. Applying the language from Section 4.4.4.B.1 would require that the structure meet the 20’ rear yard setback. The applicant is proposing to locate the enclosure over the existing concrete pool deck, which would lie 11’8” from the rear property line, for an encroachment of 8.33’ into the required setback. BOA-956 Page 3 of 5 Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan with Staff Markups The applicant contends that the variance is necessary in order to provide additional security for the pool in addition to protection of the applicant’s young family members from insects. In addition, they contend that they began the project under the impression the enclosure could encroach up to 5’ from the property line, and the pool and surrounding deck has already been installed and cannot be altered at this time. In summary, the applicants are requesting a variance from the minimum rear yard setback requirement of 20’ in order to construct a 1,128 sf pool enclosure on the subject property over the existing pool and deck. Barnards Landing Road 4508 Barnards Landing 4500 Barnards Landing Proposed 1,128 SF Enclosure, 11’8” from Rear Property Line Existing 384 SF Shed BOA-956 Page 4 of 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT POWER AND DUTY: The Board of Adjustment has the authority to authorize variances from the terms of the Unified Development Ordinance where, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the regulations would result in unnecessary hardship. In granting any variance, the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the Unified Development Ordinance. A concurring vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the voting members of the Board shall be necessary to grant a variance. A variance shall not be granted by the Board unless and until the following findings are made: 1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. ACTION NEEDED (Choose one): 1. Motion to approve the variance request based on the findings of fact (with or without conditions) 2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or documentation (Specify). 3. Motion to deny the variance request based on specific negative findings in any of the 4 categories above. BOA-956 Page 5 of 5 Staff Exhibit 1: 2020 Aerial Photo with Approximate Locations of Existing Shed and Proposed Pool Enclosure Existing 384 SF Shed Proposed 1,128 SF Enclosure, 11’8” from Rear Property Line IndianTrail Barnards Landing Road Craddoc k Dri veBalfoureDriveChil dersCourtShallowfordDriveRIVERRD Case: BOA-956 New Hanover County Board of Adjustment Site Vicinity Map March 23, 2021 210 Feet Address: 4504 Barnards Landing Rd Variance from Rear Yard Setback Requirement Applicant: Kenneth Haynes Owner: Jeffery Finucan Barnards Landing Road ShallowfordDriveBalfoureDriveR-10 Case: BOA-956 New Hanover County Board of Adjustment Zoning Map March 23, 2021 100 Feet Address: 4504 Barnards Landing Rd Variance from Rear Yard Setback Requirement Applicant: Kenneth Haynes Owner: Jeffery Finucan Barnards Landing Roa d ShallowfordDriveBalfoureDriveCase: BOA-956 New Hanover County Board of Adjustment Aerial Map March 23, 2021 100 Feet Address: 4504 Barnards Landing Rd Variance from Rear Yard Setback Requirement Applicant: Kenneth Haynes Owner: Jeffery Finucan ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-956 The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on March 23, 2021 to consider application number BOA-956, submitted by Kenneth Haynes, applicant, on behalf of Jeffrey and Jeane Finucan, property owners, a request for a variance of 8.33’ from the 20’ minimum rear yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.9.D to use the property located at 9515 River Road in a manner not permissible under the literal terms of the ordinance and having heard all the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT and draws the following CONCLUSIONS: 1. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically a variance of 8.33’ from the 20’ minimum rear yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.9.D New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would/would not result. (It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________. 2. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results/does not result from unique circumstances related to the subject 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.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________. 3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did/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.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________. 4. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if granted, the variance will/will not 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:  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________. THEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the application for a VARIANCE from New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to allow a variance of 8.33’ from the 20’ minimum rear yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.9.D of the UDO be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any: ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2021. ____________________________________ Cameron Moore, Chairman Attest: ________________________________ Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board BOA-957 Page 1 of 3 VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 23, 2021 CASE: BOA-957 PETITIONER: Martha Estela Vicente Andrade, applicant and property owner. REQUEST: Variance of 1.2’ from the 20’ minimum side yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.5.D of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. LOCATION: 1514 Roane Drive PID: R04211-003-003-000 ZONING: AR, Airport Residential District ACREAGE: 0.34 Acres BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Martha Estela Vicente Andrade, applicant and property owner, is requesting a variance from the minimum side yard setback requirement of 20’ in order to place a 1,792 sf mobile home on the subject property. The applicant is proposing to relocate the 64’ x 28’ mobile home on the parcel, which consists of 0.34 acres and has width of 101.62’. The placement of the home would result in both side yards having an 18.8’ setback. Figure 1: Proposed Site Plan with Staff Markups Roane Drive Front Yard 1510 Roane Proposed Side Yard Dimensions Rear Yard 1518 Roane BOA-957 Page 2 of 3 The UDO allows for two different types of subdivision design: Performance Residential Developments and Conventional Residential Developments. In a performance development, individual lots are not subject to the specific yard requirements of a zoning district provided that the density for the zoning district is not exceeded. In a conventional development, the UDO requires that the dimensional standards for each zoning district be met. The subject parcel is a part of the Glynwood Subdivision, which was recorded in 1974 as a conventional development. The required side yard setbacks in the AR district are 20’ as specified in the dimensional standards in Section 3.2.5 of the UDO: A previous home existed on the lot with an approximate 14’ side yard setback on the southern property line, and would have been considered a legal non-conforming situation as the AR district requirements were adopted in 1976. As the previous home was removed in 2019, continued utilization of this non-conforming side yard dimension is not permitted by Section 11.6 of the UDO, which states that if a non-conforming use or situation is discontinued for a period of 180 days, it can only thereafter be used in conformity with the current ordinance provisions: BOA-957 Page 3 of 3 Section 11.6. Abandonment and Discontinuance of Nonconforming Situations 11.6.1. When a nonconforming use is discontinued for a consecutive period of 180 days, only a conforming use may be located on the property. The applicant contends that the variance is necessary in order to place the mobile home on the lot with the accommodation of the required septic system location, and that it is a replacement of a previous home with similar side yard dimensions. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance of 1.2’ from the 20’ minimum side yard setback requirement in order to place the proposed mobile home on the subject property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT POWER AND DUTY: The Board of Adjustment has the authority to authorize variances from the terms of the Unified Development Ordinance where, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the regulations would result in unnecessary hardship. In granting any variance, the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the Unified Development Ordinance. A concurring vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the voting members of the Board shall be necessary to grant a variance. A variance shall not be granted by the Board unless and until the following findings are made: 1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. ACTION NEEDED (Choose one): 1. Motion to approve the variance request based on the findings of fact (with or without conditions) 2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or documentation (Specify). 3. Motion to deny the variance request based on specific negative findings in any of the 4 categories above. Cove Road Rossmore RoadMarne DriveRoane DriveWestgate R o a d CherylLaneCoveRoadWestgateRoad BrookfieldDriveK e rrA v e n u e KERR AVEGORDON RD Case: BOA-957 New Hanover County Board of Adjustment Site Vicinity Map March 23, 2021 210 Feet Address: 1514 Roane Dr Variance from Side Yard Setback Requirements Applicant/Owner: Martha Andrade Cove Ro a d Rossmore RoadRoane DriveAR Case: BOA-957 New Hanover County Board of Adjustment Zoning Map March 23, 2021 100 Feet Address: 1514 Roane Dr Variance from Side Yard Setback Requirements Applicant/Owner: Martha Andrade Cove Ro a d Rossmore RoadRoane DriveCase: BOA-957 New Hanover County Board of Adjustment Aerial Map March 23, 2021 100 Feet Address: 1514 Roane Dr Variance from Side Yard Setback Requirements Applicant/Owner: Martha Andrade ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-957 The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on March 23, 2021 to consider application number BOA-957, submitted by Martha Estela Vicente Andrade, applicant and property owner, a request for a variance of 1.2’ from the 20’ minimum side yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.5.D to use the property located at 1514 Roane Drive in a manner not permissible under the literal terms of the ordinance and having heard all the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT and draws the following CONCLUSIONS: 1. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically a variance of 1.2’ from the 20’ minimum side yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.5.D New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would/would not result. (It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________. 2. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results/does not result from unique circumstances related to the subject 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.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________. 3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did/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.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________. 4. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if granted, the variance will/will not 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:  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________.  _______________________________________________________________________. THEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the application for a VARIANCE from New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to allow a variance of 1.2’ from the 20’ minimum side yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.5.D of the UDO be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any: ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2021. ____________________________________ Cameron Moore, Chairman Attest: ________________________________ Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board