Loading...
March BOA MinutesMINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Neu'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 the Lucie Harrell Conference Room, Wilmington, NC, on Tuesday, *ur"1 23", 2023, Members Present William Mitchell, Vice-Chair Michael J. Keenan, Sr. Luke Waddell Michael Sanclimenti Ed Trice Members Absent Cameron Moore. Chairman Maverick Pate Richard Kem Ex Officio Members Present Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Karen Richards, Deputy County Attomey Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attomey Karlene Ellis-Vitalis, Long Range Planner Jeiny Tisbert, Admin'istrative Specialist The rneeting was called to order at 5:3 0 P.M. by the Vice Chairman. Mr. William Mitcheli FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Vice Chairman William Mitchell explained that the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial Board appointed by the Board of Commissioners to consider ordinance variances fiom residents in New Hanover County where speoial conditions would create unnecessary hardships. He said the Board also hears appeals ofthe County's interpretation in enforcement ofthe Unified Development Ordinance. The appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. Mr. Mitchell called for a motion to adopt the December 6d minutes. Mr. Waddell motioned to approve the minutes, and Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. The Board unanimously adopted the minutes. Mr. Mitchell swore in Karlene Ellis-Vitalis, Long Range Planner and Ken Vafier, Planning Manager CASE BOA-978 Ms. Ellis-Vitalis presented the case, stating that the applicant, Jeremy R. Blair, on behalf of Englebright and Long Holdings LLC. property owner, is requesting a variance from the maximum height requirement of 50 f'eet in the I-1. Light Industrial District in order to construot a 55 foot, 40,750 square foot studio and sound stage on the subject property. The proposed building site is located at 2l 5 N Green Meadows Drive, which consists of 1 I . 5 I acres u,ithin the Dutch Square Industrial Park. Current zoning for the subject parcel is l- l . Light Industrial, which is adjacent to property in the l-2 industrial district akrng the northem and eastem boundary of the subject parcel. Ms. Ellis-Vitalis provided an aerial image showing the access from North Green Meadows Driie. uhich is u,ithin the parcel boundary. The existing development on the parcel and the approrimate location of the proposed studio and soundstage ',vill be located on the undeveloped northeastern portion of the parccl. The site plan u,as prcsented by the applioant and shou,s in detail the fbotprint of the existing developments which are located on the subject parcel, such as parking, offices, warehouses, and loading bays. The proposed location of the studio and soundstage rvas shown as u,ell as the proposed setbacks required for the structure. District standards for building height in the I-l industrial district are a maximum ofthree stories or 50 feet maximum or 100 feet for govemment offices, buildings, hotels, motels, offices from private business, and professional activities. and research and development facilities structures. As per section 3.1 .3C of the UDO additional standards applied rvhen adjacent to residential structure residential properties. The subject parcel is not adjacent to any residential district nor eligible for an additional administrative additional height allowance for thc proposed use. The proposed use is defined in the UDO as Broadcasting and Production Studio and is permitted by right. The applicant is seeking relief under section 3.4.10D3 since the maximum permissible building height is 50 feet. Ms. Ellis-Vitalis showed a zoning map including the access easement. Ms. Ellis- Vitalis showed a vicinity map depicting the approximate location of the proposed studio and soundstage. Ms. Ellis-Vitalis concluded her presentation by summarizing that the applicant is requesting the variance of5 feet fiom the 50-foot maximum for a proposed development which is permitted by-right per the UDO. The applicant submits that these circumstances are not of the developers making but are industry standards which are required for the development. Therefore, such relief will enable a by-right development to be oonstructed accordingly. Secondly the applicant contends that the property north and east of the subject parcel in the 1-2 district is not dissimilar to the subject property. however it is allowed a height allorvance without restriction. Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any questions for staff Mr. Waddell asked if I-2 is directly adjacent and if it had height restrictions. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Vafier confirmed. Mr. Keenan asked about the approximate height of the building behind the property. The applicant mentioned that he believed it rvas about 30-feet tall. Mr. Sanclimenti asked if the use could be considered Offices .for Business and Professional Activities and could be 100 feet. Mr. Vafier answered stating that an eligible use would be able to utilize the additional height allowance up to 100 feet if they have increased setbacks or architectural step backs. That is a newer provision that is in the code. It rvas adopted several months ago to allow for those specific uses to go above the 50-foot height limit in the l-l district. There is a definition for every single land use in our table of permitted uses and this onc is defined as a Broadcasting and Production Studio d:ue to the natue ofwhat they are so since that's not a listed use eligible for the additional height allorvance. It could be considered an office and professional activity. but there is a pretty clear definition ofall the land uses in our new UDO to remove a lot ofthat subjectivity and it is clear that this is Broadcast and Productions Studb. Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any other questions Mr. Mitchell srvore in the applicant. Jeremy Blair Mr. Blair stated that the owner and their teanr have done a considerable amount <lfresearch and travel and met with various production studios. and they have a real sense for the need for interior height hence the request to get the additional 5 feet. The point u,as also rnade by staffthat most of the surrounding area is the higher intensity zoning such that there would be no limitation in use. Mr. Blair continued by stating that taking this action through this Board was a less ovenvhelming move rather than trying to rezone the whole entire site. Mr Blair felt that the presentation summarized the submltted findings of fact. Mr. Sanclimenti asked if the 5 feet would make that nruch of a difl'erense with the lighting Mr. Blair stated that based on other studios in other parts ofthe country that 5 feet makes a big difference for the full use of the prope(y. Mr. Keenan asked ifScreen Gans have a 50-foot sound stage. Mr. Blair stated that he was unaware if they did or did not. Mr. Waddell mtived to appror.e and accept the applicant's findings of faot. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. The Board agreed unanimously to close the public hearing. The Board's decision was based on the following conclusions and findings offact It is the Board's conclusion that, if the applicant complies \rith the literal terms of the ordinance, specificalll the 50' maximum building height requirement per section 3.4.10(D)(3) ofthe Ne\r'Ilanover County Unified f)evelopment Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship lvould result. This conclusion is based on the follouing FINI)INGS OF FACT: 2. It is the Board's conclusion that the hardship of rvhich the applicant complains results from unique circumstances related to thc subject propertl, such as location, size, or topograpbl'. This conclusion is based on the follo\ring FINDINGS OF FACT: The adjacent properties wrth I-2 zoning designations could support buildings with unlimited height and certain uses on the subject property and adjacent properties with similar I-l zoning designations could be developed at a height ol 100 feet. The location ofthe subject property is contained within an area designated for large industrial buildings; however, studio/sound stage is not a use provided for in the ordinance to be developed at a heighl of I 00 feet. The ordinance cannot provide a comprehensiYe list of all uses which may or mav not benefit from the additional height, so this variance u'ould eliminate a hardship for the studio/sound stage use on this particular property. 3. It is the Iloard's conclusion that the hardship did not result from actions taken b] the applicant or the properq on'ner. Ilris conclusion is based on the follo*ing FINDINGS OF FACT: The limitation ofbuilding height to 50 feel for I-1 zoning nor the exclusion ofstudio/sound stage from a list of uses allowed to be developed at a height up to 100 feet were not a result of action taken by rhe applicant or the property owner. -1. It is the lloard's conclusion that, ifgranted, thc Yariance ]Ii!! be consistent $ith the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safetl is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. 'l'his conclusion is bascd on thc folloting I'-INDINGS OF FAC'I : Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any other questions and if anyone wanted to testiry in opposition. Mr. Mitchell moved to motion and close the public hearing and move into deliberation. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DELIBERATION A building height of55 leet is required to accommodale the film industry's desired standard for clear intenor height. Strict application ofthe ordinance limiting the height to 50 feet would create an unnecessary hardship and limit the use ofthe studio/sound stage space for various productions. Light Industrial (l-2) zoning allou,s cerlain uses to be developed rvith a building height up to 100 feet. While this list ol uses cannol be considered comprehensive, these uses, including offices, hotels, and research and development facilities, could be considered lower intensity uses on industrial properties. A studio/sound stage could also be considered a lou,er inlensity use on industrial property. Also, the subject property is nol localed adjacent to residential properties but is bound by similarly zoned I-l parcels as well as more intensive l-2 zoning. The requested variance rvould only increase the allou'able building height by 5 feet, or 10%, and is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent ofthe ordinance such that public safety is secured, and substanlial justice is achieved. There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved and seconded by to adjoum the meeting. All ayes. NIEETING AD.IOLIRNED. Plcase note thc minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings. Executive SecretalJ'.-.' Z 7 .-7/- Vice Chair Date u