September 27 2022 Agenda Packet
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Cameron Moore, Chair | Kristin Freeman, Vice-Chair
Henry “Hank” Adams | Maverick Pate | Luke Waddell
BOARD ALTERNATES
Michael Keenan Sr. | Richard Kern | William Mitchell
Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use | Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, LUCIE HARRELL CONFERENCE ROOM WILMINGTON NC 28403
September 27, 2022, 5:30 PM
I. Call Meeting to Order (Chairman Cameron Moore)
II. Approval of August 23, 2022, Minutes
(Attendees at August Meeting – Chair Cameron Moore, Kristen Freeman, Michael Keenan, Maverick Pate, Luke
Waddell)
III. Old Items of Business
IV. Regular Items of Business
Case BOA-974 – Lee and Mildred Hershner, applicants and property owners, are requesting a variance of
7.5’ from the 12.5’ minimum street side yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.9.D (3) of the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned R-10, Residential District and is
located at 131 Springhill Road.
V. Other Business
VI. Adjourn
BOA-974 Page 1 of 5
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
September 27, 2022
CASE: BOA-974
PETITIONER: Lee A. Hershner and Mildred Hershner, applicants and property owners.
REQUEST: Variance of 7.5’ from the 12.5’ minimum side street setback requirement per Section
3.2.9.D of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance.
LOCATION: 131 Springhill Road
PID: R03510-004-016-000
ZONING: R-10, Residential District
ACREAGE: 0.308 Acres
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
Lee A. and Mildred E. Hershner, applicants and property owners, are requesting a variance from the
minimum street side yard setback requirement of 12.5’ in the R-10 district to construct a 600+ sf.
detached garage/workshop on the subject property.
The parcel is located at the southern extremities of the Brookside subdivision, at the intersection of
Springhill Road (to the west) and Candlewood Drive (to the south). While there are neighboring
residential properties north and west of the subject property, all the properties south and southeast of
Candlewood Drive are undeveloped and designated as FEMA buy-out tracts to the south or HOA open
space to the southeast.
Staff Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map for the Subject Parcel
BOA-974 Page 2 of 5
The detached (enclosed) garage/workshop, which will be ancillary to an existing single-family residence,
is proposed on a 0.308-acre lot. The proposed structure will be in 600+ sf., constructed within the side
yard along Candlewood Drive and set back 5’ from the property boundary.
Detached garages on single-family residential lots are considered accessory structures and defined in the
UDO as follows:
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - A structure subordinate to a principal structure and use, the use of which
is customarily found in association with and is clearly incidental to the use of the principal structure of
the land and which is not attached by any part of a common wall or roof to the principal structure.
(When a specific structure is identified in this Ordinance as accessory to another use or structure, the
structure need not be customarily incidental to, or ordinarily found in association with, the principal
use to qualify as an accessory structure.)
The UDO requires that accessory structures 600+ sf. meet the minimum required setbacks for a principal
structure in their respective zoning district as per Section 4.4.4:
4.4.4 STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
B. Accessory Structure
Accessory structures shall comply with the following standards:
1. No accessory structure shall be erected in any required yard nor within five feet of any other
building, except that accessory buildings not exceeding 600 square feet may be permitted in
the required side and rear yards provided such accessory buildings are at least five feet from
the property line and do not encroach into any required easements.
Parcels zoned R-10 are subject to the required 12.5’ street side yard setback as specified in the
dimensional standards in Section 3.2.9 of the UDO:
BOA-974 Page 3 of 5
As indicated on the location plan, the parcel is bounded by two streets and therefore subject to the 25’
front yard setback from Springhill Road and 12.5’ minimum street side setback on Candlewood Drive.
The applicants are proposing to maintain the required 20’ minimum rear yard setback and the 25’ front
yard setback. However, the applicants are requesting a variance of 7.5’ which will reduce the minimum
street side setback from Candlewood Drive from 12.5’ to 5’, citing the following as described in the
submitted application:
1. There are no neighboring residential structures south of the subject parcel along Candlewood
Drive. After severe flooding from Smith Creek the properties were acquired by New Hanover
County under the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program, demolished and the land
preserved as open space.
2. The subject parcel doesn’t typically function as a corner lot since the portion of Candlewood Drive
which borders 131 Springhill Street is not maintained since as early as 2003, NCDOT public
signage indicates “State Maintenance Ends.”
BOA-974 Page 4 of 5
In summary, the applicants are requesting a variance of 7.5’ from the minimum side yard setback
requirement of 12.5’ in order to construct a secured enclosed accessory structure of 600+ sf. with the
capacity for a 2-vehicle garage and workshop which will maintain a 5’ minimum side yard setback.
BOA-974 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).
3. Motion to deny the variance request based on specific negative findings in any of the 4
categories above.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Cameron Moore, Chair | Kristin Freeman, Vice-Chair
Henry “Hank” Adams | Maverick Pate | Luke Waddell
BOARD ALTERNATES
Michael Keenan Sr. | Richard Kern | William Mitchell
Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use | Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, LUCIE HARRELL CONFERENCE ROOM WILMINGTON NC 28403
ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-974
The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on September 27, 2022 to consider
application number BOA-974, submitted Lee and Mildred Hershner, applicants and property owners, a variance from the
minimum street side yard setback requirement of 12.5’ in the R-10 district per Section 3.2.9.D (3) of the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance to use the property located at 131 Springhill 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
the 12.5’ minimum street side yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.9.D (3) 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 the 12.5’ minimum
street side yard setback requirement per Section 3.2.9.D (3) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance
be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any:
ORDERED this 27th day of September, 2022.
____________________________________
Cameron Moore, Chairman
Attest:
________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board