Loading...
APRIL BOA MinutesThe New Hanover County Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meeting at 5:30 P.M. at the New Hanover County Govemment Center Complex. 230 Govemment Center Drive. in Conference Room 139, Wilmington. NC. on Tuesday, April25'",2023. Members Present Membcrs Absent William Mitchell, Vice-Chair Michael l. Keenan, Sr. Michael Sanclimenti Ed Trice Cameron Moore. Chairman Mai,erick Pate Richard Kem Luke Waddell Ex Officio Membe rs Prescnt Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attomey Julian Griffee. Current Planner Jeiny Tisbert, Administrative Specialist The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by the Vice Chair, Mr. William Mitchell. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Vice Chair William Mitchell 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 thirly days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. Mr. Mitchell motioned to adopt the March 286 minutes. Mr. Keenan motioned to approve the minutes. and Mr. Trice seconded the motion. The Board unanimously adopted the minutes. Mr. Mitchell swore in Julian Griffee, Current Planner, and Ken Vafier, Planning Manager. CASE BOA-979 Mr. Vafier stated that since there were not enough mernbers of the board present to be a full board, the applicant would like to request a continuance. Mr. James Wicker from Wicker and Marsh formally requested an extension to the May 23, 2023 meeting. Mr. Keenan moved to approve the continuance. Mr. Sanclimenti seconded the motion. The Board unanimously moved to grant the continuance to the May 23,2023 meeting. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE BOA.98O Mr. Julian Griilee presented the case. stating that the applicant, Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions. on behalf of the property ou,ner, Emest Faison. is requesting a variance of 15 feet from the 30-foot minimum interior side setback requirement per Table 3.1 .3.C.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, in order to convert a single-family dwelling into commercial space. The subject site is located at 6505 Carolina Beach Road in the southem portion ofthe county, between the Halyburton Parkway and My(le Grove Road intersections. Cunently, the site is zoned R-15, which is intended to aocommodate low density residential development. The applicant is seeking a conditional rezoning of the parcel fiom R-15 to B-2 so that the parcel can be developed rvith a contractor's office. The surrounding zoning of the parcel is R-15 to the south and east. and B-2 to the north and to the west across the Carolina Beach Road right ofway. Mr. Griffee provided an aerial map depicting the subject site and the surrounding area. Single family residential exists to the south and east ofthe subject parcel. and commercial operations exist to the north and the west. Mr. Griffee proceeded in providing an oven iew of the proposed site plan. The existing single-family dwelling encroaches in the 3O-foot setback required for commercial structures within B-2 zoning districts when adjacent to single family uses. There are additional dimensional standards for commercial structures on commercial and industrial zoned parcels that abut residential uses and platted lots. The standards for site (interior) and rear setbacks were described. lf the rezoning were to be approved, the parcel would be subject to Section 3. 1 .3.C.1 of the UDO, which requires a 30-foot setback for commercial structures when adjacent to single-family use. As such, a non-conformity u,ould be created as the existing single-family structure, which the applicant seeks to convert to a commercial structure, is located 15.9 feet from the side interior property line. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 3.1.3.C.1, requesting a l5 foot from the 3O-foot side interior setback requirement. Mr. Griffee provided images depicting the current conditions of the site and abutting single family parcel to the south. One image shorved a pink flag indicating the approximate location of the property line. Mr. Griffee concluded by stating that the applicant is requesting a variance of l5 foot to accommodate the rezoning of the parcel from R- 15 to conditional B-2 district. The applicant contends that the variance is necessary due to factors including limited buildable area to develop the site with a commercial use and the presenoe ofan existing structure that does not meet the necessary 30-foot side interior setback required of the B- 2 zoning district'a,hen adjacent to a residential platted lot. There is a wish for the adaptive re-use ofthe existing structure, and a strict applicatioa ofthe ordinance would result in the demolition of the existing structure and the construction ofa neu,building to meet the larger setback. Mr. Mitchell srvore in Cindee Wolf. Ms. Wolf stated that 6505 Camlina Beach Road is an existing house beside some businesses and surrounded by residential property. They are in the process ofrezoning the property so the decision of the Board would be conditional upon the approval of the rezoning. Rural Plumbing is a small business in town that in the past has rented their space. They have an opportunity to buy a piece ofproperty and locate their facility there. The intent is to adapt the existing house as their offices and build a new building in the back. Ms. Wolf continued by stating that the variance that is being asked is for a portion ofthat existing house is within the 3O-foot B-2 side setbaJk that Mr. Griffee described. What is being requested is a 15-foot variance from that side set back so that the existing building sitting in there can in fact remain part of the projeot. As Mr. Griffee pointed out, the property liie runs between the building and a house adjacent to it. The house adjaoent is to the rear. There will f" o "i.uut buffer for planrs/plantings. tven though it is only set back I 5 feet instead of 30 feet the visibility of that end of the building wouid not bi crushed really in the adjacent property owner's privacy or security. The requested r,ariance of I 5 feet is for the adaptive reuse of the existing structure. Ms. Wolf continued by stating that the hardships are that the only altemative is demolition of the existing structure and new construction so that it could meet prescribed setbacks. The hardship of the exrsting structure is peculiar to this site and the existing structure is conforming to the R-15 zoning distriot that it is in. The nonconfbrmity is being created by the rezoning which is not the result ofactions taken by the applicant. She stated that she believed that the adaptive reuse of the existing structure is a strategy ofthe comprehensive land use plan that facilitates redevelopment options that emphasize or enhance the area's character while the oonditional district that this will be party to ensures compatibility and minimization of impacts on those adjacent residenoes. The existing side property setback meets all building code regulations even at l5 feet. The 30 foot is strictly an ordinance requirement for separation ofuses and the visual screening and physical separation rvill be provided as part ofthe landscape regulations. Allowing some latitude in this specific requirement on this particular use and parcel would not adversely affect the spirit, purpose, or intent of the ordinance nor pose a publio safety issue. Approval of the variance for a reduced setback would provide substantial justice for the property owner to pursue reasonable use of the existing structure. Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any questions. Mr. Keenan asked ifvegetation will be added. Ms. Wolf confirmed that vegetation would be added and that there is a requirement for any commercial use regardless ofthe setback to provide buffering between it and any residential use. That will all be part ofthe Technical Review Committee process. If and when this is approved Monday May 1'1, 2023, by the Commissioners, then the applicant will have to go through all of the detailed design and permitting which will include landscape buffering. Mr. Keenan asked if there is an option for a fence. Mr. Trice asked what his response u,as or what feelings Ms. Wolf received when speaking to Mr. Wilkerson. Ms. Wolf stated that he seemed more interested in what it meant for his property in the future, but he also has property behind this (family property). She stated he was interested more in her role as a planner rather than particularities to this project. Mr. Sanclimenti asked exactly what will be going on in the front of the existing building that is for commercial use_ Ms. Wolf stated there would be offices of Rural Plumbing. Ifs large enough and included in the list of potential uses as part of the conditional district rezoning of what they call studios and instructional sen'ices. Ifthey split the building into t\\,o there would be Rural Plumbing offices and a gift shop or Rural Plumbing offices and a yoga studio. If Rural Plumbing at some future date got out altogether those same couple ofpotential uses of instructional studios and general retail. Based on the existing building it is limited to the tlpes ofuses it could have. Mr. Griffee statcd that he is rvorking with Ms. Wolf on the rezoning process. What has been put forth before thc Planning Board and then ultimately going to the Board of Commissioners at least scheduled for Monday May l,t, is the requested use for contractors' offices as well as business services, business and professional offices, instructional sen ioes and studios, and personal sen,ices. With the conditional business district this entire parcel rvill be subject and limited to these specific uses outlined by them. Ms. Wolf confirmed that there is and stated that there is a fence back at the new building. Ms. Wolf stated that she had been in oontact several times with Mr. Wilkerson who is the owner of the adjacent property. She stated that they spoke about his property. future use ofhis property and how this affects him. Ms. Wolf confinned and added that the specific site plan was to change. it would have to go back through the conditional zoning process to amend it formally. Mr. Sanclimenti asked where parking would be since it appears on the drawing that there's one handicapped space. Ms. Wolf stated that that is all that they need at this point. The reason for the other possible uses is more in the future ifthey ceased using it. they would want to make sure that there were other things you could utilize the building for. You do not want to limit yourselfto say this can only be a contractor's office. In the future ifthey were to vacate certainly parking could be included behind that storage building. Mr. Sanclimenti askcd ftrr clarifioation on where the trucks and storage of their plumbing materials would go. Ms. Wolf stated that they u,ould be stored in the new building. That area will all be fenced in. They har.e prtiposed that to be the screening fence for the buffering is a combination of fence and landscape. Mr. Keenan asked if it was partially for security purposes and Ms. Wolf confirmed it was. Mr. Keenan asked how many square feet the house is. Ms. Wolf responded by stating that it is 1,720 square feet. Mr. Sanclimenti asked if it is possible that a part of the building could be removed. Ms. Wolf responded that it is possible, and it is a part of the hardship. Mr. Vafier stated to the board that there had been a similar request that was heard at the December meeting which also was contingent upon a conditional use request to the B-2 district. With that request there were two accompanying conditions, and it may be worth discussing those and ensuring the applicant's comfort with those. Mr. Vafier stated these two conditions would be approval of the accompanying conditional use request consisting ofa rezoning ofthe property from R-15, residential district to a B-2, regional business district and this variance shall only apply to the existing structures on the property not to any expansion ofthe structures or any new structures. Mr. Mitchell asked if the Board members remembered the case Mr. Vafier was referring to, which they did. Mr. Mitchell asked Ms. Wolf if the conditions were something she would be amenable to. Ms. Wolf agreed. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was anyone that wished to testifu in opposition or in general to the case. Mr. Mitchell moved to motion and close the public hearing and move into deliberation. PUBLIC IIEARING CLOSED BOARD DELIBERATION Mr. Keenan moved tti approve and acoept the applicant's findings of thct u,ith two conditions. Mr. Trice seconded the motion. The Board agreed unanimously to close the public hearing. The Board's decision rvas based on the following conolusit.rns and findings offact: I It is the Board's conclusion that, if the applicant complies rvith the literal tcrms of the ordinance, specificalll- the 30' interior side I ard setback requirenrent pcr Table 3.1 .3.C.1, of the Neu H anover Countl Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessarv hardship xould result. This conclusion is based on thc follorving FINDINGS OF FACT: A hardship would result flom strict application of the prescribed setback because it would require demolition of the existing structure, and new construction to meet the larger setback. 2, It is the Board's conclusion that the hardship of uhich the applicant complains results from unique circumstances related to the subject propertl,, such as location, size, or topographl'. This conclusion is based on the follorving FINDINGS OF FACT: The property is unique in that the applicant has a desire for adaptive re-use of an existing structure. The proposed use of the structure for commercial use would create a non-conforming situation. 3. lt is the Board's conclusion that the hardship did not result from actions taken b1,the applicant or the property owner. This conclusion is based on the follorving FINDINGS OF FACT: The hardship to the property owner would be the necessity to remove a perfectly good structure, rather than adapting it to a different use. a 4. lt is the Board's conclusion that, if granted, the variance rvill be consistent rvith the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is sccured, and substantial justice is achieved. This conclusion is based on the follorving FINDINGS OF FACT: Approval of the requested variance would allow the adaptive re-use of an existing structure. The existing side property setback meets all building code regulations, and that yard will include a vegetated buffer for the visual screening and physical separation from the adjacent residential use. Allowing some latitude to this specific requirement on this particular parcel. would not adversely affect the spirit, purpose or intent of the Ordinance, nor pose a public safety issue. Approval ofa variance for a reduced setback would provide substantial justice for the property owner to pursue reasonable use of the existing structure. The variance rvas also granted rvith the following conditions: Approval of the accompanying Conditional Use Request consisting of a rezoning of the property from an R-15 Residential District to a B-2, Regional Business District. This varianoe shall only apply to the existing structures on the property not to any expansion of the structures or any new structures. a There being no further business before the Board. it was properly moved and seconded by to adjoum the meeting. All ayes. NIEETING ADJOI.IRNED. Please notc thc minutes arc not a verbatim record ofthe proceedings. <4.--< \e Secretary / Vice Chair Date