May 24 2022 Agenda Packet
May 24, 2022, 5:30 PM
I. Call Meeting to Order (Chairman Cameron Moore)
II. Approval of March 22, 2022, Minutes
(Attendees at March Meeting – Chair Cameron Moore, Vice Chair Kristen Freeman, Richard Kern,
Maverick Pate, Luke Waddell)
III. Old Items of Business
IV. Regular Items of Business
Case BOA-966 – Andrew Weiss with ILM Airport Hotel Partners LLC, applicant, on behalf of New
Hanover County Airport Authority, property owner, is requesting a variance of 65’ from the 35’
maximum height requirement per Section 3.4.9, and from the maximum height requirement per
Section 5.10 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned
AC, Airport Commerce District and is located on a portion of 1724 Gardner Drive.
Case BOA-967 – Samuel B. Potter, applicant, on behalf of New Jack Partners LLC, property owner,
is requesting a variance from the lot dimension standards in Section 6.2.2.A.6.f. of the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to allow for the lot depth to exceed the width-
to-depth ratio, as shown on the prepared plan. The property is zoned R-15, Residential District
and is located at 4601 and 4607 New Jack Road.
Case BOA-968 – Will Riddick with D.R. Horton, applicant and property owner, is requesting a
variance of 5’ from the 20’ minimum performance residential periphery setback requirement per
Section 3.1.3.D.1.a of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is
zoned R-15, Residential District and is located at 6550 River Road.
V. Other Business
VI. Adjourn
1
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT-DRAFT
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, March 22, 2022.
Members Present Members Absent
Cameron Moore, Chairman Hank Adams
Kristin Freeman, Vice-Chair Pete DeVita
Maverick Pate Michael Keenan
Luke Waddell
Richard Kern
Ex Officio Members Present
Ken Vafier, Executive Secretary
Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
Wendell Biddle, Zoning Compliance Official
Denise Brown, Administrative Specialist
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 ordinance variances from residents in New Hanover County where special
conditions would create unnecessary hardships. He said the Board 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
Chairman Moore asked if the Board has reviewed the January 25, 2022, minutes for corrections. Mr. Waddell
motioned to approve the minutes from January 25, 2022, with no edits, Vice Chair Freeman second the motion.
All ayes to approve the January 25, 2022, minutes.
Chairman Moore then swore in Ken Vafier, Wendell Biddle, and Matthew Nichols.
CASE BOA-965
Jackalope Development, LLC, applicant and property owner, is requesting a variance of 15’ from the 50’
minimum front yard setback requirement per Section 3.4.10. D of the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial District and is located at
6605 Amsterdam Way.
Mr. Biddle stated that the applicant is requesting a variance of 15’ from the 50’ front yard setback requirement
to allow for expansion to Screen Builders, LLC located in the Dutch Square Industrial Park. Mr. Biddle stated
that the subject site is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. The subject site is adjacent to a R-10 community to the
northeast of the parcel.
2
Mr. Biddle stated that the I-1 District, per section 3.4.10.D of the New Hanover County UDO, permits assembly
packaging and transport services. These services referenced in this zoning district are intended to support
commerce and employment as referenced in the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Biddle stated that there is a 50’ front yard setback per the UDO in the I-1 District.
Section 2.1 of the UDO outlines the method for measuring front setback and front yard as follows:
SETBACK, FRONT – The depth of a front setback shall be measured at right angles to a straight line
joining the foremost points of the side lot lines, and in such a manner that the front yard established
shall provide minimum depth parallel to the front lot line.
YARD, FRONT – A yard extending between side lot lines across the front of a lot adjoining a public or
private street. Through lots shall be considered to have two front yards.
Mr. Biddle added that there is a 30-foot access easement that extends from Amsterdam Way to the subject site’s
front property line. Based on this standard, the front yard for the subject property would be parallel to the
southern boundary, which is the lot line closet to where the property adjoins Amsterdam Way, the nearest
public street.
Mr. Biddle stated that the southern property line is the location that determines where the 50’front setback
should be measured from. Mr. Biddle presented the applicant’s site plan with the addition to the south side of
the existing building at the subject site. In addition, there is a 30’ public access and utility easement running
between Amsterdam Way and the subject property which is the only means of entry and exit.
Mr. Biddle stated that the applicant contends that due to the restrictions of the parcel, the variance is necessary
to provide flexibility in the site design for growth of their business to expand and meet production needs. The
proposed extension would be 2,600 sf structure (50’ x 52’). This expansion would encroach 15’ into the 50’
setback requirement.
Matt Nichols, PLLC- Mr. Nichols presented on behalf of the property owners of 6605 Amsterdam Way
located in the Dutch Square business district. Mr. Nichols stated that the unique lot is not located on a main
street and only accessible thru a 30 ft access easement that leads to the rear of property. Mr. Nichols stated that
the front setback regulations fall within the middle of the parcel and presents challenges in zoning requirements
to the applicant’s expansion design.
Mr. Nichols presented photos of the Dutch Square industrial park and surrounding business. He stated that there
is a residential district to the north of the subject site. Mr. Nichols stated that there is no vehicular inter-
connectivity from the residential district and the subject parcel. Mr. Nichols stated that the map for the site was
recorded in 2000 with the drainage and buffer easement visible on the document. The utility easement is visible
on the recorded map. Mr. Nichols stated that when the applicant purchased the property building in 2014 the
easement was present.
Mr. Nichols stated that the parallel easement made the subject site unsuitable for the proposed expansion. Mr.
Nichols stated that the applicant proposes an expansion to the property for vehicle movement, goods, and
deliveries. Mr. Nichols stated the applicant proposes an expansion to the only area of the property that would
allow for growth. However, the utility easement presents a hardship. Mr. Nichols stated that the applicant
proposes a 15’setback to construct an expansion of residential custom-built screens business. Mr. Nichols stated
the business has been busy for few years with eight employees.
3
Mr. Nichols stated that there is not another location on the property that would accommodate the expansion due
to the unique lot size and easement presence. The expansion is within the goals of the New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan in supporting economic development in the I-1 business district.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
BOARD DELIBERATION
Chairman Moore stated the applicant has provided a narrative for the variance request proposal in the variance
application.
Chairman Moore inquired about the parking requirements. Mr. Vafier stated the parking regulations would be
reviewed during the permit process.
Mr. Waddell asked when the property was purchased.
Mr. Waddell made a motion to approve the variance as requested by the applicant of the 15’ from the 50’
minimum front yard setback per Section 3.4.10.D of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance.
Chairman Moore request the variance approval references EXHIBIT A presented by the applicant’s counsel for
record retention.
Mr. Pate second the motion.
The Board voted unanimously to GRANT the variance request for 6605 AMSTERDAM WAY.
The Board's decision was based on 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 the 50’ front setback in the I-1 districts per Section 3.4.10. D of the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. This
conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
• An existing business needs to expand to accommodate growth. Due to the unique features of the
existing structure and lot, necessary expansion of the business is limited to the front setback of the
parcel.
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:
• The unique shape and location of the lot within the industrial park requires large drainage and buffer
easements that run across significant portions of the parcel.
• The existing structure’s unusual orientation is due to the easements that run across the lot.
4
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:
• The applicant did not build the structure on the lot. At time of purchase, the applicant did not
anticipate the need to expand to keep up with the growth of the business.
• The applicant did not create the drainage and utility easements that restrict the ability to develop in
other areas of the parcel.
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:
• The intent of the I-1 districts as per the UDO Section 3.4.10. A are to “… support the development of
commerce and employment clusters recommended in the Comprehensive Plan." The
applicant's expansion would provide business growth and economic development within the New
Hanover County, that is consistent with and in harmony with the surrounding area and the intent of
the UDO.
• Neighboring parcels are zoned as I-1. The permitted encroachment into the easement will not
adversely affect the or the industrial park.
There being no further business before the board, it was properly moved by Mr. Waddell and seconded by Mr.
Pate to adjourn the meeting. All ayes.
Please note the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings.
_____________________________________ _________________________________
Executive Secretary Chairman
Date ________________________________
BOA-966 Page 1 of 5
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MAY 24, 2022
CASE: BOA-966
PETITIONER: Andrew Weiss with ILM Airport Hotel Partners LLC, applicant, on behalf of New Hanover
County Airport Authority, property owner.
REQUEST: Variance of 65’ from the 35’ maximum height allowance per Section 3.4.9, and from the
maximum height allowance per Section 5.10 of the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance for a hotel located in the ILM Business Park.
LOCATION: 1724 Gardner Drive
PID: R04200-001-025-000
ZONING: AC, Airport Commerce District
ACREAGE: 4.69 acres of a 1,338.95-acre tract
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
Andrew Weiss with ILM Airport Hotel Partners LLC, applicant, on behalf of New Hanover County Airport
Authority, property owner, is requesting a variance of 65’ from the 35’ structure height maximum allowance
per Section 3.4.9, and from the maximum height requirement per Section 5.10 of the New Hanover County
Unified Development Ordinance.
The requested variance would apply to one structure, a 92,850 square foot hotel with approximately 150
rooms, associated parking, and a height of a 100-feet. The applicant is proposing to construct the hotel
on the south side of Airport Boulevard, east of the existing Circle K and west of the terminal. Airport
Boulevard will serve as the primary access to the proposed hotel.
Figure 1: Applicant’s Exhibit A showing the structure subject to the variance request.
BOA-966 Page 2 of 5
The applicant’s hotel proposal was reviewed at the May 18, 2022 Technical Review Committee (TRC)
meeting. The variance would be required prior to TRC approval of the proposed site plan.
The calculation of a building height is described in the definition for Building Height in the Unified
Development Ordinance:
Building Height - The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the proposed finished
grade at the front of the structure to the mean level of the slope of the main roof.
While hotels are allowed to have an additional height allowance up to 100 feet in the B-2 and I-1 Districts,
a 35-foot height limited is maintained in the AC, Airport Commerce District, in order to avoid conflicts with
all airport operations.
Structures proposed for the AC, Airport Commerce District, are subject to specific dimensional standards in
Section 3.2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance as follows:
Figure 2: AC Dimensional Standards, UDO Section 3.4.9.
BOA-966 Page 3 of 5
Section 5.10 Airport Height Restriction
Section 5.10.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance, in addition to NC G.S. 63-31(d), delegates New
Hanover County with statutory authority as owner of the Wilmington International Airport.
In addition to the requirements for the AC District, the Unified Development Ordinance also includes airport
height restrictions for areas outside the specific AC and AR Districts through airport specific zones to include
a Precision Instrument Runway Approach Zone, Transitional Zones, a Horizontal Zone, and a Conical Zone.
These zones are present to prevent any interference from development with airport operations.
Applications for variances from the provisions of section 5.10 shall be submitted and reviewed in
accordance with Section 10.3.11, Variance – Zoning and Subdivision:
Any variance granted in accordance with subsection A above, may be so conditioned as to require the
owner of the structure or tree in question to install, operate, and maintain, at the owner's expense, such
markings and lights as may be deemed advisable to effectuate the purpose of this Unified Development
Ordinance and reasonable in the circumstances. If deemed proper by the Board of Adjustment, this
condition may be modified to require the owner to permit the New Hanover County Airport Authority,
at its own expense, to install, operate, and maintain the necessary markings and lights.
UDO Section 5.10.7 except as otherwise provided in this section (5.10), no structure shall be erected,
altered, or maintained, and no tree shall be allowed to grow in any zone created by this Ordinance to
a height in excess of the applicable height limit herein established for such zone. Such applicable height
limitations are hereby established for each of the zones.
As defined in Section 5.10.8, Use Restrictions, nothing in this section (5.10) shall be construed as
prohibiting the construction or maintenance of any structure, or growth of any tree, to a height of 50
feet above the surface of the land. Such potential obstructions are to be resolved through the purchase
of property in easement, or in fee simple. In addition to the height restrictions imposed by the
imaginary surfaces, no structure or natural growth shall be erected, altered, allowed to grow,
or be maintained within the areas defined in Section IV at such height as would result in the increase
of any minimum flight altitude, vectoring altitude, ceiling, minimum descent altitude, or landing
or take-off visibility minimum for any category of aircraft as established by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), unless approved by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners or
staff.
The applicant contends that it is not economically feasible to build the hotel at the required 35-foot height
limit, the proposed location is unique within the zoning district as stated in the application, and there are
unique safety and land use issues found only within airports. The applicant also states that the hotel would
promote additional economic growth.
In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance of 65’ from the 35’ maximum height allowance per
Section 3.4.9, and from the maximum height requirement per Section 5.10 of the New Hanover County
Unified Development Ordinance for one structure proposed at a height of 100 feet within a development
proposal currently under review by the New Hanover County TRC.
BOA-966 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.
The Board of Adjustment shall grant a variance from the requirements of Section 5.10, Airport Height
Restriction, on finding that a copy of the application was furnished to the Airport Authority for
advice as to aeronautical effects of the proposed variance and the Airport Authority was given 15
days to respond to the application, and on reaching all of the following conclusions, based on
findings of fact supported by competent, substantial, and material evidence presented at the hearing:
1. A literal application or enforcement of the regulations will result in unnecessary hardship; and
2. The relief granted, will not be contrary to the public interest, will not create a hazard to air
navigation, will do substantial justice, and will be in accordance with the spirit of this Ordinance.
The following factors do not constitute sufficient grounds for approval of a variance:
1. A request for a particular use that is expressly, or by inference, prohibited in the zoning
district;
2. Hardships resulting from factors other than application of the standards of this
Ordinance;
3. The fact that land or a structure may be utilized more profitably or be more marketable with
a variance;
4. The citing of other nonconforming or conforming uses of land or structures in the same or other
zoning districts; or
5. Financial hardship.
BOA-966 Page 5 of 5
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.
K
E
R
R
2
3
R
D
GO RD O N
MARTIN
L
U
T
HER
K
ING JR
KERR
CA
S
T
L
E
H
A
Y
N
E
BLU
E
C
LAY
CASTLE
HAYNE
MARKET
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
I-140
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
B
E
A
C
H
U
S
H
W
Y
4
2
1
K
E
R
R
I
-
4
0
SIDBURYSite
New Hanover County Board of Adjustment
Address: 1724 Gardner Drive
Variance from the maximum height requirements per Section 3.4.9 and 5.10 of the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance.
Applicant: Andrew Weiss
Case: BOA-966 Vicinity Map
May 24, 2022
3,000
Feet
Proposed Site
K E R R
GORDON
2
3
R
D
CA
S
T
L
E
H
A
Y
N
E
BLU
E
C
L
A
Y
M A RTIN LUTHERKINGJR
New Hanover County Board of Adjustment
Address: 1724 Gardner Drive
Variance from the maximum height requirements per Section 3.4.9 and 5.10 of the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance.
Applicant: Andrew Weiss
Case: BOA-966 Zoning Map
May 24, 2022
3,000
Feet
Proposed Site
GORDON
GORDON
KE
R
R
23
R
D
BLU
E
C
L
A
Y
CA
S
T
L
E
H
A
Y
N
E
KERR
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR
New Hanover County Board of Adjustment
Address: 1724 Gardner Drive
Variance from the maximum height requirements per Section 3.4.9 and 5.10 of the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance.
Applicant: Andrew Weiss
Case: BOA-966 Aerial Map
May 24, 2022
3,000
Feet
Proposed Site
ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-966
The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on May 24th, 2022 to
consider application number BOA-966, submitted by Andrew Weiss, applicant, on behalf of New Hanover
County Airport Authority, property owner, requesting a variance of 65’ from the 35’ structure height
maximum allowance per Section 3.4.9, and from the maximum height requirement per Section 5.10 of
the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to use the property located at 1724 Gardner
Drive on a 4.69 acre portion of the 1,338.95-acre tract (PID: R04200-001-025-000) 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 Variance of 65’ from the 35’ maximum height allowance per Section 3.4.9, and from the
maximum height allowance per Section 5.10 of the 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:
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
Additional findings for variances from Airport Height Restrictions:
1. A literal application or enforcement of the regulations will result in unnecessary hardship:
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
2. The relief granted, will not be contrary to the public interest, will not create a hazard to air
navigation, will do substantial justice, and will be in accordance with the spirit of this Ordinance:
• _______________________________________________________________________.
• _______________________________________________________________________.
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 65’ from the 35’ maximum
height allowance per Section 3.4.9, and from the maximum height allowance per Section 5.10 of the UDO
be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any:
ORDERED this 24th day of May, 2022.
____________________________________
Cameron Moore, Chairman
Attest:
________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board
Exhibit A
to
Application for Variance
The Wilmington International Airport (ILM) is a vital asset to the community as the
only international airport serving southeastern North Carolina, and the ILM Business Park
is a key part of ILM’s success. As indicated in an ILM press release on April 7, 2022,
seventy-five (75) acres of new ground leases have been signed for the ILM Business Park
in the last six months alone. For several years, the New Hanover County Airport Authority
has worked diligently to attract a hotel to the ILM campus.
The Applicant is proposing to invest $40 million dollars to bring a luxury Crowne
Plaza Hotel to the ILM campus to serve both business and leisure travelers. As stated in
ILM’s press release:
“The six-story, 150-room hotel will host a variety of spaces and amenities
to meet any business or leisure need. Guests will experience Crowne
Plaza’s unique design style which integrates work and personal needs,
featuring co-working zones and relaxing spaces for both productivity and
restoration. The Crowne Plaza Wilmington International Airport additionally
will offer flexible, all-day dining across its restaurant, lounge and rooftop bar,
allowing guests to eat or snack while conducting business or personal
engagements.”
The illustration below demonstrates the very high-quality architecture and design
of the proposed luxury hotel, which will be a great asset for ILM and will attract future
businesses and investment in the ILM Business Park and the entire region.
The project is very important economically not only to ILM but also to all of New
Hanover County, including the creation of approximately 125 permanent jobs, as well as
the benefits to business and leisure travelers on a regional basis. In order to construct
the hotel, which will require 95 to 100 feet in height, the Applicant requires a 65-foot
variance pursuant to NHC UDO § 5.10.5 and NHC UDO § 10.3.11 from the standard 35-
foot building height provision in the Airport Commerce (AC) District set forth in NHC UDO
§ 3.4.9.D. Without the height variance, construction of the hotel as designed and intended
cannot be accomplished, and ILM will not be able to achieve its longstanding goal and
vision of attracting a very high-quality hotel, including conference/meeting space and
signature restaurant, lounge and rooftop bar overlooking the ILM campus, which will serve
as a catalyst for future growth and development in the ILM Business Park.
Additionally, and as explained more fully herein, it should be noted that airport
zoning variance requests are unique and fall under special provisions of N.C. General
Statutes Chapter 63 (Aeronautics), Article 4 (Model Airport Zoning) and NHC UDO
Section 5.10 (Airport Height Restriction). Unlike other provisions of the UDO, Section
5.10 is adopted by the NHC pursuant to the authority conferred by N.C.G.S. § 63-30 et
seq. N.C.G.S. § 63-32(b) specifically provides for height variance requests within airport
zoning districts as follows:
(b) Variances. – Any person desiring to erect any structures, or
increase the height of any structure, or permit the growth of any tree,
or otherwise use his property, in violation of airport zoning
regulations adopted under this Article, may apply to the board of
appeals, as provided in G.S. 63-33, subsection (c), for a variance
from the zoning regulations in question. Such variances shall be
considered pursuant to G.S. 160D-705 and be in accordance with
the spirit of the regulations and this Article.
N.C.G.S. § 63-32(b).
Furthermore, N.C.G.S. § 63-33(c), sets forth the variance procedure as follows:
(c) Administration of Airport Zoning Regulations – Board of Appeals.
– Airport zoning regulations adopted under this Article shall provide
for a board of appeals to have and exercise the following powers:
(1) To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement,
decision, or determination made by the administrative
agency in the enforcement of this Article.
(2) To hear and decide special use permits upon which such
board may be required to pass under such ordinance.
(3) To hear and decide specific variances.
A zoning board of adjustment may be appointed as the board
of appeals. Otherwise, the board of appeals shall consist of five
members, each to be appointed for a term of three years and to be
removable for cause by the appointing authority upon written
charges and after public hearing. G.S. 160D-405 and G.S. 160D-
406 shall be applicable to appeals, special use permits, and
variance petitions made pursuant to this section.
N.C.G.S. § 63-33(c). Accordingly, this is a very unique variance request, and the statute
provides that it should be considered pursuant to the general variance criteria in N.C.G.S.
§ 160D-705 and “in accordance with the spirit of the regulations and this Article [(N.C.G.S.
Chap. 63, Article 4)]”.
1. Unnecessary hardship would result from 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.
ILM is a major regional and international transportation center, and the ILM
Business Park is a key part of its success. The New Hanover County Airport Authority
has worked for years to attract a luxury hotel with a very high-quality design to the ILM
campus. It is not economically feasible to construct a hotel of the intended design and
quality on the subject property under the very limited, 35-foot height standard in the AC -
Airport Commerce District. As proposed, 80% of the subleased site is covered by non-
income producing parking spaces, and the planned parking is the minimum required by
code. If one were to attempt to spread the building out to meet a 35-foot height
requirement, the parking requirement would require subleasing so much additional land
as to make the project economically not possible. A smaller building to maintain the same
subleased area and the subsequent reduction in the number of hotel rooms would also
make the hotel economically unfeasible and would defeat the intended purpose of
bringing a hotel to ILM.
Without a much needed height variance for the hotel, ILM will not achieve its long
sought-after goal of having a high-quality hotel on this site, resulting in a loss of more than
$40 million dollars in investment into the ILM Business Park, a loss of approximately 125
permanent jobs for this project alone, and a loss to the overall plan and vision for attracting
future business development, growth and jobs to the region.
Also, it is important to note that the project is on a strict development timeline.
Under the sublease, all approvals must be completed for a construction start in late
September 2022 in order to maintain the development schedule and meet the project
deadlines. The interest rate for the development loan will not be set until all approvals
are in place, and it is crucial to get this rate locked as soon as possible. In this rate
environment, a few months delay could threaten the feasibility of the project if interest
rates go up as predicted. That is why a variance is the only solution to this particular
issue from a timing standpoint. Without a variance, there would be a tremendous
economic hardship to the Applicant, resulting in a loss of this very significant project for
the entire region.
As stated in New Hanover County’s Comprehensive Plan:
“ILM receives no public funds or dollars from the County and therefore must
be totally self-sufficient, generating funds to support its $7.4 million annual
budget. With air carriers looking for ways to reduce their costs, they want
airports to reduce the fees they charge airlines. Therefore, ILM has to find
alternative revenue streams to remain financially solvent. The ILM Airport is
aggressively promoting and receiving interest in nearly 230 acres of
available landside area for development as business office and commercial
purposes for both aviation and non-aeronautical companies.”
(Comprehensive Plan, Existing Conditions, p. 32).
Such a hardship would be entirely unnecessary as the New Hanover County UDO
anticipates variances to the Airport Height Restriction. ILM must be able to preserve its
flight corridors and ensure aviation safety. ILM and the County must also comply with all
FAA regulations and requirements with regard to development within the ILM Business
Park. A baseline height of 35’ feet is set within the AC – Airport Commerce District for
good reason; however, the County has also adopted a special section of the UDO
(Section 5.10 Airport Height Restrictions) pursuant to N.C.G.S. Chapter 63, which
specifically contemplates and allows height variances within the Airport Commerce
District where appropriate and safe, pursuant to appeal board (Board of Adjustment)
approval.
The purpose of the ordinance is not to prevent the construction of buildings taller
than 35 feet at ILM; rather, the ordinance contemplates review of proposed building
heights on a case-by-case basis where appropriate and in accordance with the spirit of
N.C.G.S. Chapter 63, Article 4. The site of this proposed hotel structure is safely located
away from any flight paths/corridors and is an appropriate location for a structure taller
than 35 feet. It is also significant to note that the County recently amended the UDO to
provide height for hotels up to 100 feet in the I-1 and B-2 Districts. Accordingly, hotels at
a height of 100 feet are entirely consistent with the current UDO provisions, where
appropriately distanced from existing residential development. Additionally, the project is
required to go through the FAA review and approval process to ensure compliance with
all applicable flight safety standards and requirements.
2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as
location, size or topography. Hardship resulting from personal circumstances, as
well as hardships resulting from conditions that area common to the neighborhood
or general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.
This particular property and the height variance request are entirely unique. ILM
is the one and only international airport serving New Hanover County and the 8.5 county
catchment area (where passengers live), and the County is very fortunate to have such
a tremendous transportation and economic development asset for our region. It is a
unique property, uniquely situated, and has a unique variance procedure under Chapter
63 of the General Statutes. The property is administered by the New Hanover County
Airport Authority. As stated above, one of the major goals of the New Hanover County
Airport Authority is to bring a hotel to the ILM campus in order to continue to serve the
needs of travelers in our region and to continue to be good stewards of our community
airport and meet current and future growth needs. As noted above and stated in the NHC
Comprehensive, ILM does not receive public funds from the County and must be self-
sufficient, which creates both unique challenges and opportunities for the property.
Additionally, due to economic challenges facing the airline industry, ILM must find
alternative revenue streams, including growth and development of the ILM Business Park,
in order to preserve and maintain the economic health of our region’s only international
airport. Additionally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will have final approval on
the heights of any structures and will not allow anything that is unsafe or would interfere
with flights.
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.
Neither the Applicant nor the property owner created the hardship. The Applicant
is only attempting to deliver a high-quality project that has been a major goal of the Airport
Authority for several years within a very unique location subject to unique development
rules and regulations. The proposed development will have a positive economic impact
on the airport and the entire County, but it must do so in an economically feasible way
and within all applicable regulations, including FAA requirements. The Applicant does
not have control over the existing regulations and does not control the current conditions
of the economy. The property owner, the New Hanover County Airport Authority, and New
Hanover County must also work within FAA regulations with regard to any proposed
construction at ILM.
Additionally, part of the hardship is due to the very unique safety and land use
issues found only within airports and related airport business parks. The County’s
standard 35-foot height limitation generally within the Airport Commerce District as a
whole is prudent and necessary from an aviation safety standpoint, subject to permitted
and necessary additional height allowances on a case-by-case basis through the height
variance process. Aviation safety also requires compliance with all FAA rules and
regulations, which is why the N.C. General Statutes and the NHC UDO treat airport height
restrictions differently. A minimal baseline 35-foot height with an additional code section
(UDO § 5.10.5) specifically allowing for height variances based on the specifics of each
individual project or proposed building is a reasonable and necessary method of
administering and regulating heights within the airport property. The North Carolina
General Statutes specifically authorize the Board to grant variances when appropriate in
the spirit of the enabling statute, which is designed not to frustrate economic development
but to ensure airport safety and FAA compliance.
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.
As stated above, this variance request presents a very unique circumstance and
situation. The County, consistent with the authority conferred by Article 4 of Chapter 63
of the North Carolina General Statutes, adopted NHC UDO § 5.10 Airport Height
Restrictions in part to allow for variances to building heights at ILM where appropriate and
permitted by the FAA on a case-by-case basis, while also maintaining a baseline 35-foot
height restriction generally across the airport property and zoning area. The proposed
hotel is very important to ILM, the County and the community as a whole. It will be a
significant benefit and investment of $40 million dollars into the local economy, creating
approximately 125 permanent jobs for our region. It will also serve the needs of business
and leisure travelers and promote additional economic growth and development of ILM
and the ILM Business Park, which is fundamental in the economic success of ILM—a
tremendous asset to New Hanover County and the entire region.
Additionally, the request is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the vital role of the airport in our community, as
stated in the plan in Existing Conditions p. 29: “The Wilmington International Airport (ILM)
is a key economic engine for our 8.5 county catchment area (where our passengers live)
and a significant regional asset for our community.” (emphasis added).
The NHC Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as a Commerce
Placetype. A few of the stated goals for this placetype include:
Promote fiscally-responsible growth.
Use public infrastructure improvements to leverage private investments.
Support business success.
Support workforce development and economic prosperity for all.
Conserve and enhance our unique sense of place to attract individuals, companies
and organizations.
Hotel Location
As shown above, the Comprehensive Plan states that Commerce Zones are meant
to serve as employment and production hubs and that industrial uses, and
complementary office and commercial uses are appropriate. It also specifically allows for
building heights up to 7 stories. All of this is entirely consistent with the proposed project.
The proposed hotel project is entirely consistent with and promotes all of these
goals. The Applicant will be making a very large economic investment in our public airport
property, creating jobs, increasing the tax base, and assisting in attracting additional
companies and organizations to the ILM Business Park and our community.
Additionally, to ensure aviation safety, the FAA must approve the building height
for the proposed project. Accordingly, public safety will be secured through the FAA
review process.
In summary, this project is a much needed and long sought-after development
project and milestone for the ILM Airport. It will be an asset to the community serving
business and leisure travelers with a significant upfront financial investment that will
encourage more economic development and job growth for the region. The variance
request is entirely consistent with the spirit and intent of the County UDO, the County
Comprehensive Plan policies and goals for growth and development, ILM’s development
and growth plans, and Chapter 63, Article 4 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
TRASH
RESTAURANT FRONTCOURTYARD
WZ >/D/EZz
EKdZ > ^
&KZKE^dZhd/KE
TRASH WZ >/D/EZz
EKdZ > ^
&KZKE^dZhd/KE
TRASH
RESTAURANT FRONT
COURTYARD
X
X
X X X X X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
WZ >/D/EZz
EKdZ > ^
&KZKE^dZhd/KE
WZ >/D/EZz
EKdZ > ^
&KZKE^dZhd/KE
04
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 1976 (CONTINUED)
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AIRPORT ZONING PL~ - PROPOSED ZONING AND REZONING
TO ESTABLISH DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND REGULATIONS OF THE AR (AIRPORT RESIDENTIAL) ZONE
AND THE AI (AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL) ZONE FOR PORTIONS OF ZQNING AREA #9A, #lOA and #8B
OF THE COUNTY AND PORTIONS OF THE CITY SOUTH OF SMITHS CREEK WITHIN THE VICINITY OF
THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT.
Mr. Tom Mathis of the Planning Staff presented the proposed Airport Zoning Plan
to the Commissioners. He stated that the plan had beeq reviewed and approved by mem-
bers of the Wrightsboro Planning District and also the:Airport Commission.
I
Chm. Davis asked if there was anyone present to speak for or against the proposed
Airport Zoning Plan.
Mr. Hugh Noffsinger, a local realtor, appeared before the Board to protest the
AR Zoning north of the Airport.
The following persons appeared to speak in favor of the proposed Airport Zoning
Plan:
Mr. Robert Moore
Mrs. Audry Feenstra
Mr. James McAllister
Ms. Serilla James
Mr. R. C. Shackelford, Jr., Asst.
Airport Manager
Mrs. Trudy Van Luyn
Mr. C. A. Spencer offered his comments on the proppsed plan.
Comm. O'Shields moved, seconded by Comm. Taylor, to adopt the proposed Airport
Zoning Plan as outlined by the p~anning Department.
Mr. Mathis pointed out that there were four ordinapces that would need to be
approved and signed in order to outline the zoning area~ involved.
Mr. Herbert Fisher appeared to request the Board to consider the possibility of
pyramid zoning in the Airport Zoning Area.
f"\
Comm. O'Shields amended his motion, seconded by Co~rum. Taylor, to include the
adoption of the following ordinances in order to accomplish the necessary zoning
changes for the Airport Zoning Plan:
An Ordinance of the County of New Hanover Amendinq the Zoning Ordinance of
New Hanover County, North Carolina, adopted October 6, 1969.
A copy of this Ordinance as adopted and signed is 90ntained in Exhibit Book, IV,
Page 24.
An Ordinance of the County of New Hanover Establishing the Airport Zoning
Area by Zoning an Unzoned Portion of the County and by Amending the Zoning
Map of Zoning Area#lOA of New Hanover County, Nort:h Carolina, Adopted
July 1, 1974."
A copy of this Ordinance as adopted and signed is contained in Zoning Ordinance
Book I, Section lOA: Page 11.
An Ordinance of the County of New Hanover Establi1:hing the Airport Zoning
Area by Zoning an Unzoned Portion of the County and by amending the Zoning
Map of Zoning Areas #8B, #9A and #lOA of New Hanover County, North Carolina,
Adopted June 19, 1972, July 1, 1972, and July 1, 19.74, Respectively."
A copy of this Ordinance as adopted and signed is contained in Zoning Ordinance
Book I, Section 8B, Page 9; Section 9A, Page 18; and Section lOA, Page 12.f\
An Ordinance of the County of New Hanover Establishing the Airport Zoning
Area by Zoning an Unzoned Portion of the County and By Amending the Zoning
Map of Zoning Areas lt8B and #9B of New Hanover County, North Carolina,
Adopted June 19, 1972, and July 1, 1972, Respectively."
A copy of this Ordinance as adopted and signed is contained in Zoning Ordinance
Book I, Section 8B, Page 10 and Section 9B, Page 26.
Upon vote, the motion carried as follows:
I
I
I
l
Voting Aye: Comm. O'Shields, Taylor, Wright and Chn. Davis
Absent: Comm. Alper
- CODE OF ORDINANCES
APPENDIX A AIRPORT ZONING ORDINANCE
New Hanover County, North Carolina, Code of Ordinances Created: 2021-08-23 17:53:16 [EST]
(Supp. No. 12, Update 4)
Page 1 of 7
APPENDIX A AIRPORT ZONING ORDINANCE1
Enactment:
This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by G.S. 63-30—63-37. It is hereby found that
an airport hazard endangers the lives and property of users of the New Hanover County Airport and of occupants
of land in its vicinity, and also, if of the obstruction type, in effect reduces the size of the area available for landing,
taking off, and maneuvering of aircraft, thus tending to destroy or impair the utility of the New Hanover County
Airport and the public investment therein. Accordingly, it is declared:
(1) That the creation or establishment of an airport hazard is a public nuisance and an injury to the region
served by the New Hanover County Airport; and
(2) That it is necessary in the interest of public health, public safety, and general welfare that the creation
or establishment of airport hazards be prevented.
It is further declared that both the prevention of the creation or establishment of airport hazards and the
elimination, removal, alteration, mitigation, or marking and lighting of existing airport hazards are public purposes
for which political subdivisions may raise and expend public funds and acquire land or interest in land.
Preamble:
An ordinance regulating and restricting the height of structures and objects of natural growth, and otherwise
regulating the use of property as specified in this ordinance, in the vicinity affected by the use of the New Hanover
County Airport by creating primary zones, approach zones, transition zones, horizontal zone and conical zone, and
establishing the boundaries thereof; providing for changes in the restrictions and boundaries of such zones;
defining certain terms used herein; referring to the New Hanover County Airport Height Zoning Map which is
incorporated in and made a part of this ordinance; providing for enforcement; establishing a board of adjustment;
and imposing penalties.
IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section I: Short title.
This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as "The New Hanover County Airport Height Zoning
Ordinance."
1Editor's note(s)—Printed in this appendix is the county's airport zoning ordinance, as adopted by the board of
commissioners on May 9, 1973. Amendments to the ordinance are indicated by parenthetical history notes
following amended provisions. The absence of a history note indicates that the provision remains unchanged
from the original ordinance. Obvious misspellings and punctuation errors have been corrected without
notation. For stylistic purposes, headings and catchlines have been made uniform and the same system of
capitalization, citation to state statutes, and expression of numbers in text as appears in the Code of
Ordinances has been used. Additions made for clarity are indicated by brackets.
Cross reference(s)—Aviation, ch. 8.
Created: 2021-08-23 17:53:16 [EST]
(Supp. No. 12, Update 4)
Page 2 of 7
Section II: Definitions.
As used in this ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) Airport means New Hanover County Airport.
(2) Airport elevation means the established elevation of the highest point on the usable landing area
(31.00 feet above mean sea level).
(3) Airport hazard means any structure, tree, or use of land which obstructs the air space required for, or is
otherwise hazardous to, the flight of aircraft in landing or taking off at the airport.
(4) Airport reference point means the point established as the approximate geographic center of the
airport landing area and so designated, the coordinates of which are: Latitude 34;deg;-16;min;-
10.7;sec;, Longitude 77;deg;-54;min;-10.8;sec;.
(5) Board of adjustment means a board consisting of members appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners of the County of New Hanover, State of North Carolina, as provided in G.S. 63-33(c).
(6) Height means for the purpose of determining the height limits in all zones set forth in this ordinance
and shown on the zoning map, the datum shall be related to mean sea level elevation unless otherwise
specified.
(7) Landing area means the area of the airport used for the landing, takeoff, or taxiing of aircraft.
(8) Nonconforming use means any structure, tree, or use of land which is lawfully in existence at the time
the regulation is prescribed in the ordinance or an amendment thereto becomes effective and does not
then meet the requirements of said regulation.
(9) Non-precision instrument runway means a runway having an existing instrument approach procedure
utilizing air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance, or any type navigation equipment for
which a straight-in, non-precision instrument approach procedure has been approved, or planned, and
for which no precision approach facilities are planned or indicated on an FAA planning document or
military service airport planning document.
(11) Person means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint stock
association, or body politic, and includes a trustee, receiver, assignee, administrator, executor,
guardian, or other representative.
(10) Precision instrument runway means a runway having an existing or planned instrument approach
procedure utilizing an instrument landing system (ILS) or a precision approach radar (PAR).
(12) Runway means the paved surface of an airport landing strip used for take-offs and landings.
(13) Structure means an object constructed or installed by man, including, but without limitation, buildings,
towers, smokestacks, and overhead transmission lines.
(14) Tree means any object of natural growth.
Section III: Zones.
In order to carry out the provisions of this ordinance, there are hereby created and established certain zones
which include all of the land lying within the primary zones, instrument approach zones, noninstrument approach
zones, transition zones, horizontal zone and conical zone. Such areas and zones are shown on the New Hanover
Created: 2021-08-23 17:53:16 [EST]
(Supp. No. 12, Update 4)
Page 3 of 7
County Airport Height Zoning Map dated December, 1971, which is attached to this ordinance and made a part
hereof.2 The various zones are hereby established and defined as follows:
(1) Primary zone. A surface longitudinally centered on the runway, extending 200 feet beyond the end of
that runway (the end of the runway does not include any overruns or blast pads). The width of the
primary zone is 1,000 feet for both precision instrument runways (23 and 34) and for category "D" non-
precision instrument runways (5 and 16). This primary zone extends for a distance of 500 feet on either
side of the runway centerline and at right angles thereto.
(2) Instrument approach zone. A zone longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and
extending outward and upward from each end of the primary zone. An approach zone is applied to
each end of each runway based upon the type of approach available or planned for that runway end.
(A) Precision instrument approach zone. The inner edge of the approach zone is the same width as
the primary zone (1,000 feet) and it expands uniformly to a width of 16,000 feet. The approach
zone extends for a horizontal distance of 50,000 feet beyond the primary zone, its centerline
being a continuation of the centerline of the runway. This applies to existing precision instrument
Runway 34 and to existing Runway 23 for future precision instrument status.
(B) Non-precision instrument approach zone. This approach zone is used on runways in category "D"
(visibility minimums as low as three-fourths mile). The inner edge of the approach zone is the
same width as the primary zone (1,000 feet) and it expands uniformly to a width of 4,000 feet.
The approach zone extends for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet beyond the primary zone, its
centerline being a continuation of the centerline of the runway. This applies to existing Runways
5 and 16.
(3) Transitional zone. Transitional zones are established adjacent to the primary zone and approach zones
as indicated on the zoning map. Transitional zones symmetrically located on either side of the primary
zone and approach zones have variable widths as shown on the zoning map. These zones extend
outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a
slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary zone and from the sides of the approach zones for their
entire lengths. Within the confines of the periphery of the horizontal zone, the transitional zone
extends at a slope of 7 to 1 until it has reached an elevation of 150 feet above the established airport
elevation (intersects the horizontal zone). The transitional zone along the approach zones flare
symmetrically along either side and slope outward and upward at a slope of 7 to 1 until they intersect
the horizontal zone.
Transitional zones for those portions of the precision instrument approach zone which project through
and beyond the limits of the conical zone are parallel to the approach zone outer limits and extend a
distance of 5,000 feet on each side of the approach zone as measured horizontally from the edge of
the approach zone and at right angles to the runway centerline extended. These transitional zones
intersect and are terminated, as shown on the airport height zoning map at the periphery of the
conical zone.
(4) Horizontal zone. A horizontal plan 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the periphery of
which is constructed by swinging arcs of 10,000 feet in radii from the center of each end of the primary
zone of each runway and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs.
(5) Conical zone. A zone extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal zone for a
horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.
2Editor's note(s)—The map referred to in this section is on file in the office of the county clerk.
Created: 2021-08-23 17:53:16 [EST]
(Supp. No. 12, Update 4)
Page 4 of 7
Section IV: Height limitations.
Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, no structure or tree shall be erected, altered, allowed to
grow, or maintained in any zone created by this ordinance to a height in excess of the height limit herein
established for such zone. Such height limitations are computed from the established airport elevation and are
hereby established for each of the zones in question as follows:
(1) Primary zone. The elevation of any point on the primary zone is the same as the elevation of the
nearest point on the runway centerline.
(2) Precision instrument approach zone. One foot in height for each 50 feet in horizontal distance (slope of
50 to 1) beginning at the primary zone and extending outward for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet.
Then one foot in height for each 40 feet in horizontal distance (slope of 40 to 1) for an additional
horizontal distance of 40,000 feet. This applies to existing precision instrument Runway 34 and to
existing Runway 23 for a possible future precision instrument status.
(3) Non-precision instrument approach zone. One foot in height for each 34 feet in horizontal distance
(slope of 34 to 1) beginning at the primary zone and extending outward for a horizontal distance of
10,000 feet.
(4) Transitional zone. One foot in height for each seven feet in horizontal distance beginning at the primary
zone and the approach zones (within the periphery of the horizontal zone) and extending upward the
distance required to reach a maximum height of 150 feet above the established airport elevation of
31.00 feet above mean sea level (intersects the horizontal zone).
Transitional zones for those portions of the precision instrument approach zone which project through
and beyond the limits of the conical zone shall have a height limit of one foot in height for each seven
feet in horizontal distance beginning at the elevation of the approach zone and extending outward for
a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet (as measured at right angles to the runway centerline extended)
parallel to the said precision instrument approach zone. These transitional zones intersect and are
terminated, as shown on the airport height zoning map, at the periphery of the conical zone.
(5) Horizontal zone. A horizontal plane 150 feet above established airport elevation of 31.00 feet. The
horizontal zone being at an elevation of 181.00 feet above mean sea level.
(6) Conical zone. One foot in height for each 20 feet in horizontal distance (slope of 20 to 1) beginning at
the periphery of the horizontal zone and extending outward for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.
Where an area is covered by more than one height limitation, the more restrictive shall prevail.
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed as prohibiting the growth, construction, or maintenance of any
tree or structure to a height up to 150 feet above the established airport elevation except where same comes in
conflict with the primary zone, transitional zones, and the approach zone (both types).
Section V: Use restrictions.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance, no use may be made of land or buildings within any
zone established by this ordinance in such a manner as to create electrical interference with radio communication
between the airport and aircraft, make it difficult for flyers to distinguish between airport lights and others, result
in glare in the eyes of flyers using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, or otherwise endanger
the landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft.
Created: 2021-08-23 17:53:16 [EST]
(Supp. No. 12, Update 4)
Page 5 of 7
Section VI: Area of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to G.S. 63-31(d), New Hanover County exercises its statutory authority as owner of the New
Hanover County Airport, and in order to protect the approaches of said airport, the jurisdiction of this ordinance is
extended to all areas depicted on the New Hanover County Airport Height Zoning Map, including areas within the
City of Wilmington and Pender County.
Section VII: Nonconforming uses.
(A) Regulations not retroactive. The regulations prescribed by this ordinance shall not be construed to require
the removal, lowering, or other changes or alteration of any structure or tree not conforming to the
regulations as of the effective date of this ordinance, or otherwise interfere with the continuance of any
nonconforming use. Nothing herein contained shall require any change in the construction, alteration, or
intended use of any structure, the construction or alteration of which was begun prior to the effective date
of this ordinance, and is diligently prosecuted.
(B) Marking and lighting. Notwithstanding the preceding provision of this section, the owner of any
nonconforming structure or tree is hereby required to permit the installation, operation, and maintenance
thereon of such markers and lights as shall be deemed necessary by the airport manager to indicate to the
operators of aircraft in the vicinity of the airport, the presence of such airport hazards. Such markers and
lights shall be installed, operated, and maintained at the expense of the board of commissioners of the
county of New Hanover, State of North Carolina, or the Federal Aviation Administration.
Section VIII: Permits.
(A) Future uses. Except as specifically provided in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 hereunder, no structure or tree shall
be erected, altered, planted, or otherwise established in any zone hereby created unless a permit therefore
shall have been applied for and granted. Permits for any type of construction exceeding the height
restrictions in the city or county zoning ordinance may be requested by applying for a special form that may
be obtained in the county building inspector's office. Each application for a permit shall indicate the purpose
for which the permit is desired, with sufficient particularity to permit it to be determined whether the
resulting use, structure, or tree would conform to the regulations herein prescribed. If such determination is
in the affirmative, the permit shall be granted.
(1) In the area lying within the limits of the horizontal zone and the conical zone, no permit shall be
required for any tree or structure less than 75 feet of vertical height above the ground, except when,
because of terrain, land contour, or topographic features, such tree or structure would extend above
the height limits prescribed for such zone.
(2) In the areas lying within the limits of the precision instrument and the non-precision instrument
approach zones, but at a horizontal distance of not less than 4,200 feet from each end of the runways,
no permit shall be required for any tree or structure less than 75 feet of vertical height above the
ground except when such tree or structure would extend above the height limit prescribed for such
precision instrument or non-precision instrument approach zones.
(3) In the areas lying within the limits of the transitional zones beyond the perimeter of the horizontal
zone, no permit shall be required for any tree or structure less than 75 feet of vertical height above the
ground except when such tree or structure, because of terrain, land contour, or topographic features
would extend above the height limit prescribed for such transition zones.
(4) In the other areas of transitional zones, no permit shall be required for any tree or structure less than
75 feet of vertical height above the ground except where a lower height limitation has been
Created: 2021-08-23 17:53:16 [EST]
(Supp. No. 12, Update 4)
Page 6 of 7
established by the requirements of this ordinance, and the property owner has been notified by letter
of such limitation. Such specific height limitation, upon determination and notification by certified mail
to the property owner shall be incorporated in this ordinance by reference as if set forth in full.
Nothing contained in any of the foregoing exceptions shall be construed as permitting or intending to permit
any construction, alteration, or growth of any structure or tree in excess of any of the height limits established by
this ordinance as set forth in section IV.
(B) Existing uses. No permit shall be granted that would allow the establishment or creation of any airport
hazard or permit a nonconforming use, structure, or tree to be made or become higher, or become a greater
hazard to air navigation than it was on the effective date of this ordinance or any amendments thereto, or
than it is when the application for a permit is made.
(C) Nonconforming uses abandoned or destroyed. Whenever the building inspector determines that a
nonconforming structure or tree has been abandoned or more than 80 percent damaged, physically
deteriorated, or decayed, no permit shall be granted that would allow such structure or tree to exceed the
applicable height limit or otherwise deviate from these regulations.
(D) Variances. Any person desiring to erect or increase the height of any structure or permit the growth of any
tree, or use his property, not in accordance with the regulations prescribed in this ordinance, may apply to
the board of adjustment for a variance from such regulations. Special restrictions may be applied to the
variance by the board of adjustment. Such variations shall be allowed where it is duly found that a literal
application or enforcement of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and
the relief granted would not be contrary to the public interest, but will do substantial justice and be in
accordance with the spirit of this ordinance.
(E) Hazard marking and lighting. Any permit or variance granted may, if such action is deemed advisable to
effectuate the purpose of this ordinance and be reasonable in the circumstances, be so conditioned as to
require the owner of the structure or tree in question to permit the board of commissioners of New Hanover
County, State of North Carolina, at its own expense, to install, operate, and maintain thereon such markers
and lights as may be necessary to indicate to flyers the presence of an airport hazard.
Section IX: Enforcement.
It shall be the duty of the New Hanover County Building Inspector to administer and enforce the regulations
prescribed herein. The building inspector shall coordinate the enforcement of this ordinance, including the
issuance of permits, with the airport manager. It shall be the duty of the airport manager to advise the building
inspector of any violations of this ordinance.
Applications for permits and variances shall be made to the New Hanover County Building Inspector's office
upon a form furnished by him. Applications required by this ordinance to be submitted to the building inspector
shall be promptly considered and granted or denied by him. Applications for action by the board of adjustment
shall be forthwith transmitted by the building inspector.
Whenever a tree that is conforming to the requirements of this ordinance on the effective date grows to a
point that is in violation of any height herein specified, the owner of such tree shall allow the county to remove or
lower such tree to a point that will make the tree comply with the height specified. Such removal or lowering of
trees shall be done at the expense of the board of commissioners of the county of New Hanover, State of North
Carolina and the county of New Hanover shall be liable for any injury or compensatory damage in accordance with
the General Statutes of the State of North Carolina.
Created: 2021-08-23 17:53:16 [EST]
(Supp. No. 12, Update 4)
Page 7 of 7
Section X: Board of adjustment.
The board of adjustment is the same body provided for in article XII of the New Hanover County Zoning
Ordinance [not included in this volume]. This body will hear appeals from cases involving the regulations of this
ordinance.
Cross reference(s)—Administration, ch. 2.
Section XI: Judicial review.
Any person aggrieved, or any taxpayer affected, by any decision of the board of adjustment may appeal
within 30 days to the superior court as provided in G.S. 63-34.
Section XII: Penalties.
Each violation of this ordinance or of any regulation, order, or ruling promulgated hereunder shall constitute
a misdemeanor and be punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment as authorized under G.S. 63-35; and each day a
violation continues to exist shall constitute a separate offense.
Section XIII: Conflicting regulations.
When there exists a conflict between any of the regulations or limitations prescribed in this ordinance and
any other regulations applicable to the same area, whether the conflict be with respect to the height of structures
or trees, or any other matter, the more stringent limitations or requirement shall govern and prevail.
Section XIV: Severability clause.
Should any section or provision of this ordinance be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional or invalid,
such decisions shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof, other than the part so
declared to be unconstitutional or invalid.
Section XV: Effective date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 60 days from and after its passage by the board of
commissioners of the county of New Hanover, State of North Carolina. Adopted by the board of commissioners of
the county of New Hanover, State of North Carolina, May 9, 1973.
Planned Hotel Site and ILM Airspace ExplanationDRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW DO NOT CIRCULATE
Block 21 of the Airport Master Record lists the airport elevationas 31.7 feet MSL
The elevation of the horizontal surface therefore is 181.7 feet MSL(150 + 31.7 = 181.7).
The proposed site of the hotel is under the horizontal surface.
Part 77 Surfaces are those defined in 14 CFR PART 77 - SAFE, EFFICIENT USE, AND PRESERVATION OF THE NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE subpart C Section 77.1913B surfaces are those defined in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 150/5300-13B tables 3-2, 3-3, & 3-4.
The Horizontal surface (Beige in the illustration to the left & isometric depiction right) is a flat plane that is150ft above the published airport elevation.It is intersected by the sloped approach and transitional surfaces (Pink and Light Pink in the illustration to the left & isometric depiction right).
Horizontal Surface Elevation 181.7 ft MSL
Ground Elevation: 24ft
Hotel Height: 94 ft AGL
Impacts to the navigable airspace can only be determinedby FAA through the 7460-1 process. This preliminary analysismakes no warranty for impact to the airspace or correctnessof fit and is not an official determination. The 7460-1 processhas been initiated and the project team is working with FAAto obtain an official determination letter.
Top of hotel is 118 ft MSL.
(94 ft + 24 ft)
Hotel MSL of 118 ft is 63.7 ft
below the Horizontal Surface.
FAA will make a determination reagarding this proposed facility.This will come as a letter when the 7460-1 process is complete.The airport reserves the right to object to the proposal basedon conditions described in the determination letter.
Surface ImpactPart 77 Approach Surface Proposed site is not under any approachPart 77 Horizontal Surface Proposed site is completely within this surfacePart 77 Conical Surface Proposed site is not within this surface13B Surface 1-7 Proposed site is not under any of these surfaces
Surface Impact Table
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 24, 2022
CASE: BOA-967
PETITIONER: Samuel B. Potter, applicant, on behalf of New Jack Partners, LLC, property owner.
REQUEST: Variance from the lot dimension standards requirement per Section 6.2.2.A.6.f of
the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance.
LOCATION: 4601 & 4607 New Jack Road
PID: R07213-033-000, RO7213-034-000
ZONING: R-15, Residential District
ACREAGE: 2.86 Acres
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
Samuel B. Potter, applicant, on behalf of New Jack Partners, LLC, property owner, is requesting a
variance to allow for the lots to exceed the depth-to-width ratio in order to allow for the proposed
dimensions as shown in the proposed subdivision map.
The applicant is proposing a 4-lot subdivision, as shown in Figure 1 below. New Jack Road serves
as the primary access to the subdivision along the western edge of the property, and the property
is bound by the Intracoastal waterway on the east. As shown, the lot width is 80’ and due to the
irregularity of the lot shape and topography, the lot depths vary from approximately 350’ to 570’.
Figure 1: Applicant’s proposed subdivision
New Jack
Road
Existing house
to be removed
Individual lots are subject to specific requirements of their designated zoning district. The subject
parcel is zoned R-15 and thereby subject to the dimensional standards in Section 3.2.8 of the UDO
as follows:
Figure 2: R-15 Dimensional Standards, UDO Section 3.2.8
In addition to compliance with dimensional standards of the zoning district of which the parcel is
located, Section 6.2.2 of the UDO states that all subdivisions shall comply with specific design
standards. Section 6.2.2.A.6.f. requires that when subdivided, new lots must be dimensioned so that
the length is no more than 4 times the mean width, as shown below.
Section 6.2.2.A.6.f:
Lots shall not have a depth greater than four times their mean width.
At the minimum lot width of 80’ required in R-15 districts, the UDO’s subdivision design standards
in Section 6.2.2.A.6.f. would only permit the lots to be a depth of 320’, or four times the width. Due
to the location of the lot along the Intracoastal waterway, CAMA setbacks and the 100-year
floodplain lines traverse the eastern portion of the lot.
Figure 3: Proposed Subdivision Plan with Staff Markups
The applicant contends that the variance is necessary to subdivide the property using minimum lot
widths due to the irregularity of the lot shape, the location of New Jack Road, and the location of
the mean high-water line.
In summary, the applicants are requesting a variance from the UDO Section 6.2.2.A.6.f. subdivision
design requirement that new lot depths not be more than 4 times their mean width, to allow the
proposed 80’ wide lots be permitted depths greater than 320’ and at a ratio of up to 7 times the
mean width.
30’ CAMA
Setback
New Jack
Road Approximately
320’ lot depth
VE floodplain AE floodplain
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.
NE
W
J
A
C
K
SERENITY
CHAN
N
E
L
H
A
V
E
N
TANGL
E
W
O
O
D
WHIPP
O
R
W
I
L
L
SOUND
V
I
E
W
MA
S
O
N
B
O
R
O
L
O
O
P
Site
New Hanover County Board of Adjustment
Address: 4601 & 4607 New Jack Road
Variance from the lot dimension standards in Section 6.2.2.A.6.f. of the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance.
Applicant: Samuel B. Potter
Case: BOA-967 Vicinity Map
May 24, 2022
210
Feet
R-15
NE
W
J
A
C
K
SEREN
I
T
Y
TANGLE
W
O
O
D
CHAN
N
E
L
H
A
V
E
N
WHIPP
O
R
W
I
L
L
SOUND
VIEW
4601
4607
New Hanover County Board of Adjustment
Address: 4601 & 4607 New Jack Road
Variance from the lot dimension standards in Section 6.2.2.A.6.f. of the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance.
Applicant: Samuel B. Potter
Case: BOA-967 Zoning Map
May 24, 2022
210
Feet
SerenityPoint
NewJackRoad
ChannelHavenDrive
PelicanPointRoad
TanglewoodDrive
WhipporwillLane
Sound Vi
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
4601
4607
New Hanover County Board of Adjustment
Address: 4601 & 4607 New Jack Road
Variance from the lot dimension standards in Section 6.2.2.A.6.f. of the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance.
Applicant: Samuel B. Potter
Case: BOA-967 Aerial Map
May 24, 2022
210
Feet
ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-967
The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on May 24, 2022 to
consider application number BOA-967, submitted by Samuel B. Potter, applicant, on behalf of New Jack
Partners LLC, property owner, a request for a variance to allow for the lots to exceed the width-to-depth
ratio from the maximum depth requirement per Section 6.2.2.A(6)(f) of the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance to use the property located at 4601 and 4607 New Jack 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 to allow for the lots to exceed the width-to-depth ratio from the
maximum depth requirement per Section 6.2.2.A(6)(f) of the 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 for the lots to exceed the width-to-depth
ratio from the maximum depth requirement per Section 6.2.2.A(6)(f) of the UDO be GRANTED/DENIED,
subject to the following conditions, if any:
ORDERED this 24th day of May, 2022.
____________________________________
Cameron Moore, Chairman
Attest:
________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 24, 2022
CASE: BOA-968
PETITIONER: Will Riddick, applicant, on behalf of D.R. Horton, property owner.
REQUEST: Variance request of 5’ from the 20’ minimum Performance Residential periphery
setback requirement per Section 3.1.3.D of the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO).
LOCATION: 6550 River Road, Wilmington
Parcel ID: R07800-005-013-000
ZONING: R-15, Residential District
ACREAGE: 17.13 Acres
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
Will Riddick, applicant, on behalf of D. R. Horton, property owner, is requesting a variance from the 20’
periphery setback for lots 49-61 of the Grand Bay at Beau Rivage residential development. The
application details this as a rear “buffer.” This request will allow both the HVAC systems and decks for
each lot to encroach into the periphery setback. The preliminary plat is dated April of 2022. The 17.13-
acre final plat of the subdivision is under review and has yet to be recorded. The proposed HVAC systems,
though outside of the individual lot parcel, will be owned and serviced by the lot owners. The decks,
however, will be owned and maintained by the HOA.
Figure 1: Enhanced view of proposed work for lots 49-61
River Road Park
20’ Periphery Setback
Lots
Deck
HVAC
N
BOA-968 Page 2 of 5
Figure 2: Grand Bay at Beau Rivage Residential Development
River Road Park Subject Parcels
Lots 49-61
River Road
N
20’ Periphery Setback
BOA-968 Page 3 of 5
The UDO allows for two different types of subdivision designs: 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.
Section 3.1.3.D of the UDO contains provisions governing Performance Subdivisions, which generally
address design parameters and other approval requirements. Although the conventional front, side, and
rear yard requirements are not mandated on a performance residential lot, this section still requires a 20’
setback on the periphery of the subdivision:
3.1.3. SUPERSEDING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
D. Performance Residential Development
Performance Residential Developments are not subject to the minimum lot size, minimum lot width, and
front, rear, and side setback requirements in the zoning district where they are located. Performance
Residential Developments shall comply with the standards in this section and with all other applicable
standards in this Ordinance.
1. Setbacks and Spacing
a. Buildings on the periphery of a Performance Residential Development shall setback a
minimum of 20 feet from the adjoining property line.
Figure 3: Lots 49-55 of Grand Bay at Beau Rivage Residential Development
River Road Park
20’ Periphery Setback DeckHVAC
N
BOA-968 Page 4 of 5
Figure 4: Lots 55-61 of Grand Bay at Beau Rivage Residential Development
The applicant asserts that the variance is necessary as there is no alternative location for the HVAC systems
other than to the rear of the lot. As the topography at the rear of these specific lots presents further
constraints, the HVAC system will be built upon a platform that will encroach approximately one linear foot
into the setback. The applicant also contends that rear access points for the subject lots are necessary,
stipulating that a deck per residence rather than a patio would be less intrusive to the land, provide rear
property access, and encroach less than five linear feet into the periphery setback. These decks would be
maintained and owned by the HOA, as they extend beyond the proposed lot.
In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance from the 20’ Performance Subdivision periphery
setback requirement of 5 feet for lots 49-61. This variance would allow the applicant to place HVAC
systems and provide one deck per unit allowing future residents rear ingress and egress per lot.
River Road Park
20’ Periphery Setback HVAC Deck
N
BOA-968 Page 5 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).
2. Motion to deny the variance request based on specific negative findings in any of the 4
categories above.
RI
VER
LATITUDE
H ELMS MAN
A
N
C
H
O
R
C
H
A
I
N
RIVER VIST A
CATHAY
SUGARPINE
RI V ER R O A D P AR K
SANDERS
RIVER
RIVER
New Hanover County Board of Adjustment
Address: 6550 River Road
Variance from the minimum performance residential periphery setback requirement per
Section 3.1.3.D.1.a of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance.
Applicant: Will Riddick of D.R. Horton
Case: BOA-968 Vicinity Map
May 24, 2022
390
Feet
HELM SMA N
S
U
G
A
R
PINE
PITCH PINE
RIVER
LAT ITUDE
CATHAY
RIV E R
R O A D PA R K
New Hanover County Board of Adjustment
Address: 6550 River Road
Variance from the minimum performance residential periphery setback requirement per
Section 3.1.3.D.1.a of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance.
Applicant: Will Riddick of D.R. Horton
Case: BOA-968 Zoning Map
May 24, 2022
325
Feet
S
U
GAR
PINE
LATITUDE
H ELM SMA N
PITCH PINE
A
N
C
H
O
R
C
H
A
I
N
RI
VER
CATHAY
RI V ER
R
OA D P A R K
New Hanover County Board of Adjustment
Address: 6550 River Road
Variance from the minimum performance residential periphery setback requirement per
Section 3.1.3.D.1.a of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance.
Applicant: Will Riddick of D.R. Horton
Case: BOA-968 Aerial Map
May 24, 2022
325
Feet
ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-968
The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on May 24, 2022 to
consider application number BOA-968, submitted by Will Riddick, applicant, on behalf of D.R. Horton,
property owner, a request for a variance of 5’ from the 20’ minimum Performance Residential
Development periphery setback requirement per Section 3.1.3.D(1)(a) of the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance to use the property located at 6550 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 5’ from the 20’ minimum Performance Residential Development
periphery setback requirement per Section 3.1.3.D(1)(a) of the 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 5’ from the 20’ minimum
Performance Residential Development periphery setback requirement per Section 3.1.3.D(1)(a) of the
UDO be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any:
ORDERED this 24th day of May, 2022.
____________________________________
Cameron Moore, Chairman
Attest:
________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board