August BOA Agenda Packet
August 22, 2023, 5:30 PM
I. Call Meeting to Order (Vice Chair William Mitchell)
II. Approval of June 27, 2023 Minutes
(Attendees at June Meeting – Chair Cameron Moore, Vice Chair William Mitchell, Michael J. Keenan
Sr., Michael Sanclimenti, and Ed Trice)
III. Old Items of Business
IV. Regular Items of Business
Case BOA-983 – Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of SAVEDOG Project,
Inc., property owner, is requesting a variance from the side interior and rear setbacks per
Section 3.1.3.C.1, and a variance from the front yard setback per Section 3.4.11.D of the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The property is zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial
District and is located at 4503 N College Road.
V. Other Business
VI. Adjourn
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Vacant, Chair | William Mitchell, Vice Chair
Michael Keenan, Sr. | Caleb Rash | Greg Uhl
BOARD ALTERNATES
Richard Kern | Michael Sanclimenti | Ed Trice
Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use | Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, CONFERENCE ROOM 139 WILMINGTON NC 28403
MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The New Hanover County Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meeting at 5:30 P.M. at the New Hanover County Government Center Complex, 230 Government Center Drive, in the Lucie Harrell Conference Room, Wilmington, NC, on Tuesday, June 27th, 2023.
Members Present Members Absent Cameron Moore, Chair William Mitchell, Vice-Chair Michael J. Keenan, Sr.
Michael Sanclimenti
Ed Trice
Richard Kern
Ex Officio Members Present
Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Jeiny Tisbert, Administrative Specialist The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by the Chair, Mr. Cameron Moore.
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS 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. Mr. Moore motioned to adopt the May 23rd minutes. Mr. Keenan motioned to approve the minutes, and Mr.
Mitchell seconded the motion.
The Board unanimously adopted the minutes. Mr. Mitchell swore in Ken Vafier, Planning Manager. CASE BOA-979 Mr. Vafier presented the case, stating that the variance is a request of 19 feet from or above the maximum 6-foot limitation on free standing signs within the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD). The site is located at 7650 Market Street. This is in the northeastern portion of the county approximately 1/3 of a mile from the
intersection of Torchwood Boulevard and Bayshore Drive with Market Street. The underlying zoning district of the site is zoned B-2, Regional Business district. Market Street in this area of the county is within the SHOD. The SHOD was adopted as an overlay district on certain road corridors beginning in 1986 with the intent to protect the natural beauty and scenic vistas that exist along interstate highways and other specially designated roadways as service major accessways and gateways into the unincorporated areas of the county. Currently, the
SHOD is located along I-40, North College Road, North Martin Luther King, I-140 from Market Street over to 421 and the subject vicinity, from Torchwood north to the county line. The SHOD does contain requirements for setbacks outside storage parking and loading lot coverage and signage that are in addition to or supersede the requirements of the base zoning district applied to the property. Staff defers to the regular sign section in
section 5.6 except for free standing signs again when limited to 6 feet in height. There is also a maximum surface area limit of 150 square feet if the sign is within the 100-foot setback and there are no outdoor
advertising signs or billboards permitted in the SHOD.
Mr. Vafier continued by giving some background on the request. He stated that there was a conceptual review for the project as proposed with a convenience store with fuel sales which was presented to the Technical Review Committee on May 13th of 2020. A formal application was then submitted for the October 21st, 2020,
TRC agenda. Planning staff comments for both submittals indicated to the engineering firm in charge of doing
the site work that the development was subject to SHOD requirements including the requirements that signage in the SHOD is limited by the applicable provisions. In a written response to the TRC comments the engineering firm did acknowledge that the sign was subject to the SHOD requirements. They noted on subsequent submitted drawings which had a note that addressed the sign regulations that this was to be
permitted by others. This footnote was included on subsequent drawing sets of bids to the county as early as
December 15th, 2020. It is quite common in the review process and submittal process that there are subcontractors or other contractors for specific aspects of the development proposal so the application for the freestanding sign was then submitted by the sign contractor in January of 2023 it subsequently did receive zoning approval a couple of days later and the permit was ultimately issued on January 30, 2023. The sign was
inadvertently given permit approval at a height of 25 feet and was constructed at this height out of compliance
with the SHOD regulations. Staff was made aware of the error on preparing to conduct a final inspection of the sign which was called in to be performed in early March of this year and after further research into the issue, consultation with legal staff, it was determined that the sign would have to be brought into compliance with the SHOD regulations despite being given permit approval in error. There are options for compliance which may
include a reduction of the sign height to the required 6-foot dimension, moving the sign outside of the 100-foot
set back line, or appealing the decision that the sign is out of compliance with the applicable regulations. The case is being heard tonight because another option would be to request a variance to allow the sign to remain as constructed.
Mr. Vafier presented a few site photos.
Mr. Vafier concluded by stating that the applicant has elected to pursue the option of requesting the variance from the SHOD regulations in order to achieve compliance, contending that variance is necessary due to hardship created through the development review process. This is further detailed in their application that was
submitted and they are here to present their request. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance of 19
feet from or above the 6-foot height limitation on these signs in the SHOD district in order to allow the permitted and constructed 25-foot sign to remain in its current location and configuration. Mr. Moore asked if the Board had any questions for staff.
Mr. Keenan asked about a sign visible in the background of a site photo that was presented earlier. Mr. Vafier stated that that sign was most likely a non-conforming sign. There are some legal nonconformities along the corridor.
Mr. Moore asked if the setback is compliant. Mr. Vafier stated that it was.
Mr. Mitchell asked if there was an issue with where the sign is located. Mr. Vafier stated that there was not. Mr. Sanclimenti asked if staff were aware of any other signs that have been approved that have been out of
compliance in the SHOD area. Mr. Vafier stated that he does not believe any for signs. He continued to state
that he recalls an issue where the steps of a residential home were permitted to be in the setback and the variance was requested and received for that. Those are the only 2 requests for variance based off an error similar to this that he can recall in his tenure with the county. The zoning review staff processes an average of
50 to 60 permit reviews per day, so while it's unfortunate that this occurred, he believes there is a good process in place to catch the majority of things that are coming through the system.
Mr. Moore asked for clarification on the process and where the error was made. Mr. Vafier stated that the error would have been during the zoning review. The site proposal goes to TRC first and is reviewed by planning staff members and then the individual building permit is submitted separately. In this instance, the building and the canopy came in separately from the sign permit, which was submitted at a later date. The zoning item
review is just one component of the review process. Building would review the sign as well as possibly other
departments, so there are different item reviews for different building permits and once all are approved the building permit is issued. Mr. Moore asked if you were to remove the SHOD requirements, what could actually go there as far as a sign.
Mr. Vafier stated that the sign that is currently up would meet regulations.
Mr. Moore asked if there were any further questions for staff. Mr. Moore swore the applicants, James A. Wicker and Khalid Saleh.
Mr. James Wicker of Wicker Properties began by stating that he sold the property to Mr. Saleh. His office is across the street, in a great location and has cleaned up several old sheds that were there and put together a couple of lots they were separated and combined them. In 2020, during COVD, the applicant submitted a permit which lapsed because they couldn't get the laborer there to do the work. Another permit was needed and issued
due to the delay, and they were given a second permit. The development team did not know that there was a
problem and were under the belief that the owners did exactly what they were told to do including payment for the permit and construction work. It is a digital sign, a large expensive sign and to take it down and erect a small one is very expensive. It is in the right location and needed for the business. Mr. Wicker stated that he is aware that this is a quasi-judicial hearing, and four conclusions should be met with findings of fact.
Mr. Wicker presented photographs of all the signs that are within a half mile of the location. Mr. Wicker concluded by stating that this one sign will not affect the SHOD at this moment and was available to answer any questions.
Mr. Moore asked if it was a timing issue with the permits. Mr. Wicker stated that the permit expired due to COVID. Mr. Sanclimenti asked if the photographs shared by Mr. Wicker were all in the SHOD area. Mr. Wicker
confirmed that they are.
Mr. Vafier stated that anything south of Torchwood and Bayshore intersection on Market Street would not be in the SHOD.
Mr. Moore asked if there were any further questions for the applicant.
Mr. Moore asked the Board if they have any questions before opening the meeting to the public. There was a discussion amongst the Board discussing the images provided by Mr. Wicker and what signs laid
within the SHOD.
Mr. Moore moved the meeting to public comment.
Mr. Moore swore in William “Bill” Bass, owner of 7701 Lost Tree Road.
Mr. Bass stated that his concern was the lighting on the property, and that he had fought the deal with Balkcum
Auto when they bought the house that was directly behind his. When he purchased his home, it was a residential area and has been quickly commercialized. He was a certified lighting consultant through American Lighting Institute and has a degree from GE that was obtained in the 1970s. He lives 300 feet from a service station that is being built, and using a foot candle meter was able to read 27-foot candles in his backyard. The lighting alone
would not make a person miss the service station.
Mr. Moore asked Mr. Bass if his contention was more with the building itself or with the sign. Mr. Bass answered by stating that it is more about the lighting than the sign. He has called the county twice wanting to know what kind of lighting output was on this sign because there is not another service station on Market Street
that has the kind of light that that sign is putting out. He had asked about what the lighting requirements for the
sign were and stated that his concern is also that it is close, location wise. Mr. Moore swore in Ms. Gayle Bell, owner of 7621 Lost Tree Road.
Ms. Bell stated that she has driven or has been driven down Market Street between Bayshore and Porters Neck
and has not seen any high signs above the standard limit except for one billboard. She believes they are in a different category. She does not know what signs the applicant has pointed out that are also higher, but she has not seen any and she has been looking. She feels that the rules were broken by installing this high sign and they should not have been broken. She continued by stating there is no need for a higher sign just because it has
already been installed. That is not a reason for it to stay and she feels very strongly that it should remain within
the regulations that are required for the area that it is in. She stated that she feels the applicants’ have not been good neighbors. From what she understands there has already been a gas spill and they have gone over the allowed lumens in their lighting, and they had to be called on that to decrease the lighting there.
Mr. Moore swore in Ms. Elizabeth Sites, owner of 7604 Lost Tree Road.
Ms. Sites stated that in preparation for this meeting tonight she thought about going up and down Market Street looking at signs in compliance of the SHOD. She stated that in the 9 years she has lived in that area she is not aware of one business in that 2.4-mile stretch from Bayshore to Porters Neck Road, that has closed its doors
because the sign was 6 feet tall as Mr. Wicker had mentioned earlier. Mr. Wicker also stated individuals would
need to know the price of gas. There is an Exxon station at Market Street and Porters Neck Road within the SHOD. She has pumped gas there many times in those years and she is clearly aware of how much it costs her each time. Allowing a variance to the sign height opens the door for other businesses to do the same, thus diminishing the reason for the development ordinances in the first place which is quoting earlier were “to
protect the natural beauty of our environment”. While the property owner may not feel this request is a big deal,
she believed that the residential property owners surrounding him disagree. Ms. Sites submitted photographic evidence for the record.
Ms. Sites continued, stating that the images provided by Mr. Wicker were from the vantage point of Market
Street. The photos she is providing show the vantage point from the residential backyards. She stated that homes are surrounded by the light pollution from this business. They see this inside what are supposed to be their safe places at night. Ms. Sites proceeded to address the Board and relayed concerns regarding impacts from developments in proximity to residential properties, effects on wildlife, and changes to the residential
quality of life.
Mr. Moore swore in Scott Oberholzer, owner of 7623 Lost Tree Road.
Mr. Oberholzer put into record 3 images taken from the inside of his home. The photos depict lighting coming in from the sign and the building.
Mr. Sanclimenti clarified if the photos were taken from the outside, which Mr. Oberholzer stated the photos were all taken from the inside. Mr. Moore swore in Dr. Joseph Davis, owner of 7722 Lost Tree Road.
Dr. Davis stated that not only is he a resident of the area, but he also owns a business located at 7658 Market Street which is directly adjacent to the property in question. Mr. Davis submitted email evidence from October 2020 to Mr. Saleh stating that the signs should not exceed 6 feet over height. Dr. Davis stated that the nonconforming sign next door was grandfathered in before the SHOD and it was okayed by the Department of
Transportation to remain there after their expansion. He counted 62 conforming signs between Bayshore light
and Porters Neck, which is the SHOD area. This new gas station has over 50 lights and a circular sign that is over 20 feet above the grade and will be shining directly into all the residences adjacent to his business. Dr. Davis concluded that he has not been able to expand his business and has lived under the regulations and has not complained about it. Dr. Davis stated that they knew what they were doing, although the applicants swore
on the Bible that they did not, his email evidence shows they did.
Mr. Sanclimenti asked Dr. Davis when his sign was grandfathered and how tall it is. Dr. Davis stated that his sign was up before the SHOD in 1986 and the sign is about 15 ft high possibly.
Mr. Mitchell asked if his sign is the blue one that has been shown in the distance of the photographic evidence.
Dr. Davis stating that his sign was the blue one seen in the background. Mr. Moore moved back to the applicant for cross examination and rebuttal.
Mr. Wicker stated that everything he has stated has been sincere and truthful. He stated that any gas leaks were
rumors and that they called adjacent neighbors. He mentioned that the building conforms to state rules and regulations and people can come and go and safely get gas. He stated that as for the lighting, the County has rules and the applicants are now trying to get the others in compliance.
Mr. Moore asked if there were any questions from the Board to the applicant.
Mr. Sanclimenti asked Mr. Wicker to explain further about the canopy lights and if there will be any form of adjustment. Mr. Wicker expressed that his understanding is that some of the canopy lights are supposed to be at maximum 2.0 foot candles and they have contracted with a lighting company that is looking into it in order to
change the lights out to comply.
Mr. Moore wanted to remind the public, applicant, and board, that the discussion is not about the building, the case is regarding the sign. Mr. Moore asked staff where this site sits with CO and what issues are outstanding.
Mr. Vafier stated that an application was submitted for a conditional rezoning. It went to the Planning Board on
March 2nd of this year. At that public hearing, several of the adjacent property owners came out and relayed a lot of the concerns that have been heard tonight, and the staff started looking into them and discovered the issue of compliance with the sign. That application made its way through the review process and on April 3rd was considered by the Board of Commissioners. At that meeting the adjacent property owners again came out and
addressed some of the concerns that are being discussed at this hearing. Staff was directed specifically in that
public hearing to assess the site for compliance with the lighting. Mr. Vafier stated that he personally conducted a site visit after dark on April 26th with a foot candle reading and did find readings in excess of the allowable 2.0-foot readings at the property line. Mr. Vafier stated he relayed that information to Mr. Wicker and said work is needed to get the site into compliance before a Certificate of Occupancy can be obtained. Lighting is one of
the components along other zoning items such as parking, and landscaping, that get looked at during the final inspection. Mr. Vafier stated that he had been in communication with the development team and that they were
working on bringing the site lighting into compliance.
Mr. Moore then asked if there were any members of the public who would like to offer rebuttal. Mr. Bass stated that he called the County twice about the sign to know what kind of light output there was in it,
and he had yet to get anything back from the County.
Ms. Sites stated that the picture she had presented was taken March 1st, taken from her phone on a nightly walk. She stated that from October to March that is how her neighborhood appears. Ms. Sites stated that she begged to differ on a commend made earlier by Mr. Wicker that this gas station doesn't look different from others. She
observed that if one were to drive up and down the street there are other gas stations that are not as vibrant and
illuminated and again within the SHOD requirements for their signage. Ms. Sites asked that the Board take into consideration the notes that have been made during the hearing, and that the residents are in a position where they know that development is coming along Market Street. Ms. Sites concluded by saying that it is a great community, and the residents just want to keep it that and want to support local businesses but are concerned
over the effects of the lighting on site.
Mr. Oberholzer wanted to confirm that the images he had emailed would be recorded as evidence. He stated that a high fence may possibly work but landscaping may be needed as well.
Mr. Moore asked if there was anyone else that would like to make a public comment.
Mr. Moore requested a motion and close the public hearing and move into deliberation. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
BOARD DELIBERATION Mr. Mitchell motioned, and Mr. Keenan seconded accordingly.
Deputy County Attorney, Karen Richards informed the Board that before moving to deliberation, the application
is about the sign and a variance for the sign. While there was a lot of the conversation regarding the site lighting, this is being investigated by staff and the only thing for Board consideration is the variance request for the sign height.
The Board members discussed the rules and regulations of the sign and whether the applicant was properly
informed of the sign's height. The Board continued to deliberate and go over the findings of fact. Mr. Moore asked if any Board member would like to make a motion.
Mr. Keenan motioned to approve the request and accept the findings of fact as found in the application. Mr.
Moore seconded. The motion did not pass with a 3-2 vote. Mr. Sanclimenti then motioned to deny the request. Mr. Trice seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-1 to deny the variance request, with Mr. Moore dissenting.
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 6’ maximum height requirement for a freestanding sign
in the Special Highway Overlay District per section 3.5.3(D)(6) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would not
result. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
• The Board did not find that an unnecessary hardship would result. 2. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains
does not result 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 Board did not find that an unnecessary hardship would result.
3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
• In 2020, the applicant was made aware of the 6’ height requirement via
documentation including e-mails, site plans and Technical Review comment sheets provided by Planning & Land Use staff.
• If the applicant hired an engineering staff, they would have been responsible
for compliance with the SHOD requirement.
• Other fuel stations in the SHOD conform to the 6’ height requirement with no loss of business.
4. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if granted, the variance 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:
• The Board did not find that granting the variance would be consistent with the
spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance. THEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the application for a VARIANCE from of 19’ from the 6’ maximum height requirement for a freestanding sign in the Special Highway Overlay District
per section 3.5.3(D)(6) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance be DENIED.
There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved and seconded by to adjourn the meeting. All ayes.
MEETING ADJOURNED.
Please note the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings.
Executive Secretary
Chairman Date
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 1 of 8
CASE: BOA-983
PETITIONER: Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of SAVEDOG Project Inc,
property owner.
REQUEST: Variance to reduce three of the four property setbacks: the front yard setback from
50’ to 20’ per Section 3.4.11.D, the rear yard setback from 45’ to 25’ per Table
3.1.3.C.1, and a variance to reduce the setback along the parcel’s southeastern side
yard from 20’ to 10’ per Table 3.1.3.C.1 of the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO).
LOCATION: 4503 N. College Road
PID: R01800-006-002-002
ZONING: I-2, Heavy Industrial District
ACREAGE: 0.61 Acres
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce three of the four property setbacks: the I-2 front setback,
the southeast interior side setback adjacent to an R-15 non-residential parcel, and the rear setback
adjacent to an R-15 residential property. This request to reduce the three setbacks is to accommodate a
proposed animal shelter. This specific shelter will provide a 1–2-night temporary stay for displaced and
or abandoned animals. The property owner will use this proposed facility as an interim safe haven for the
animals while they are in transit to a more permanent location. Animal shelters are permitted by right within
the I-2, Heavy Industrial District and are defined by the UDO as:
A non-residential facility that is used to house or contain animals, and is owned, operated, and
maintained for the purpose of providing temporary kenneling and care for the animals and finding
permanent adoptive homes for them.
Figure 1: Table 4.2.1 of the UDO
The UDO defines Setbacks as:
The minimum distance a building or structure must be separated from the lot lines. Setbacks are specified
as front, side, and rear; are located within the corresponding front, side, and rear yards; and establish
the minimum required front, side, and rear yards.
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 2 of 8
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.
SETBACK, SIDE
The width of a side setback shall be measured in such a manner that the side yard established
is a strip of the minimum width required by the district regulations with its inner edge parallel
with the side lot line.
SETBACK, REAR
The depth of a rear setback shall be measured in such a manner that the rear yard established
is a strip of the minimum width required by district regulations with its inner edge parallel with
the rear lot line.
The I-2 parcel consists of 0.61 acres and is located in Castle Hayne along the North College Road corridor.
It is approximately three quarters of a mile west of Interstate 40 and one mile north of the Interstate 140
bypass. The northwest adjacent lot, also zoned I-2, is developed with a convenience store. The southeast
adjacent lot, zoned R-15, Residential, is used for religious assembly which is a nonresidential land use. The
remaining adjacent lots both west and south, along with the parcels directly across College Road are also
zoned R-15. However, these parcels are used as single-family residential dwellings which require greater
setback distances between them and the subject parcel.
Figure 2: Zoning Map
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 3 of 8
Section 3.4.11.A of the UDO stipulates that within the I-2 district, regulations are established to protect
development situated outside the district and that environmental impacts caused by the uses within the
district are to be minimized. Per Section 3.4.11.D of the UDO, the I-2 district is prescribed a 50-foot Front
setback.
Figure 3: Section 3.4.11.D of the UDO
Figure 4 details an aerial photograph and the application of the 50’ Front setback along with a line illustrating
the applicant’s proposed 20’ setback.
Figure 4: Required & Proposed Front Setback
I-2 50’ Front Setback
Proposed 20’
Front Setback
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 4 of 8
The applicant’s variance request is to also reduce the rear and side setback requirements established in
UDO Table 3.1.3.C: Interior Side and Rear Setbacks from Residential Properties. Adjacent to the subject
parcel’s rear and southeast lot lines are residentially zoned R-15 parcels. Table 3.1.3.C.1 specifies the
required setbacks for the I-2 district based on the lot’s adjacent land use:
Table 3.1.3.C.1: Interior Side and Rear Setbacks from Residential Properties, establishes the
setback requirements for structures in the B-1, CB, B02, O&I, AC, I-1, and I-2 districts from lot
lines shared with abutting single-family or duplex residential uses and/or platted lots located within
a general residential zoning district (RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or R-5). The setbacks
in Table 3.1.3.C.1 may be reduced in the AC, I-1, and I-2 Districts in accordance with Section
5.4.3, Transitional Buffer Standards, but may not be reduced below the absolute minimum setback
specified in Table 3.1.3.C.1 (by use of the language “in no case less than”).
Figure 5: Table 3.1.3.C.1: Interior Side and Rear Setbacks from Residential Properties
As the subject parcel is zoned I-2 and adjacent to residentially zoned properties, Table 3.1.3.C.1 requires
the rear setback to be 45’ and the interior side setback of the southeastern lot line to be 20 feet. The
applicant requests these setbacks be reduced to 25’and 10’ respectively.
20 Ft.
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 5 of 8
Figure 6: Required & Proposed Rear Setback
Figure 7: Required & Proposed Interior Side Setback
I-2 20’ Interior Side Setback from
Residential Properties
Proposed 10’ Interior
Side Setback
I-2 45’ Rear Setback from
Residential Properties
Proposed 25’ Rear
Setback
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 6 of 8
The applicant anticipates that a need for a public utility easement will be required during the construction of the
proposed 40’ x 60’ animal shelter. This is evidenced by the existing drainage ditch along the northwestern
property boundary that conveys off-site public drainage. This easement will further restrict the limited buildup
area accessible to the applicant. As this property line is the only boundary that is adjacent to another I-2 Heavy
Industrial District, the one property line not requiring a setback will in effect be unavailable to the applicant.
Figure 8a: Concept Plan
Adjacent I-2
District
Adjacent R-15, Residential Use,
Single Family Dwelling N
Proposed
20 ft. Front
Setback
Proposed 25 ft. Rear Setback
Adjacent to Residential
Properties
Proposed 10 ft.
Interior Side
Setback
8 ft. Privacy
Fence
Adjacent R-15, Non-Residential
Use, Religious Assembly
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 7 of 8
Figure 8b: Concept Plan
The applicant contends that if the prescribed setbacks found in the Superseding Dimensional Standards and the
front setback established in the I-2 district, the subject parcel becomes extremely limited in development area
resulting in a 24.2% usable building envelope for the parcel. At 0.61 acres, the parcel is extremely small for non-
residential use. The applicant is requesting the variance to reduce these setbacks so that the parcel may be used
as it is currently zoned. The applicant states that allowing the reduction to these three setbacks would enable
the retention of the zone which is a strategy of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance to three of the four property line setbacks to accommodate a
proposed animal shelter. The requested facility would provide a temporary, 1–2-night safe haven for animals in
transit to non-kill shelters. The setbacks requested to be reduced are the front setback from 50’ to 20’ (Section
3.4.11.D), the rear setback from 45’ to 25’ (Table 3.1.3.C.1), and the southeastern lot line from 20’ to
10’ (Table 3.1.3.C.1).
Proposed 40 x 60 ft.
Animal Shelter
Proposed 45 x 60 ft.
Garage
Adjacent I-2
District
Adjacent R-15, Residential Use,
Single Family Dwelling N
Adjacent R-15, Non-Residential
Use, Religious Assembly
12.5 x 60 ft.
Walk/Relief Area
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 22, 2023
BOA-983 Page 8 of 8
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT POWER AND DUTY:
The Board of Adjustment has the authority to authorize variances from the terms of the Zoning 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
Zoning 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
Vacant, Chair | William Mitchell, Vice Chair
Michael Keenan, Sr. | Caleb Rash | Greg Uhl
BOARD ALTERNATES
Richard Kern | Michael Sanclimenti | Ed Trice
Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use | Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, CONFERENCE ROOM 139 WILMINGTON NC 28403
ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-983
The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on August 22, 2023 to
consider application number BOA-983, submitted by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on
behalf of SAVEDOG Project, Inc., property owner, is requesting a variance from the side interior and rear
setbacks per Section 3.1.3.C.1, and a variance from the front yard setback per Section 3.4.11.D of the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance and to use the property located at 4503 N College Road
in a manner not permissible under the literal terms of the UDO 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 side interior and rear setbacks per Section 3.1.3.C.1, and the front yard setback
per Section 3.4.11.D 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
New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to allow the side interior and rear setbacks per
Section 3.1.3.C.1, and a variance from the front yard setback per Section 3.4.11.D of the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any:
ORDERED this 22th day of August, 2023.
____________________________________
William Mitchell, Vice-Chair
Attest:
________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board