February BOA Packet DraftFebruary 27, 2024, 5:30 PM
I.Call Meeting to Order (Chair William Mitchell)
II.Approval of January 23, 2024 Minutes
(Attendees at January Meeting – Vice Chair Michael Keenan, Jonathan Bridges, Will Daube, Caleb
Rash, Michael Sanclimenti, Ed Trice)
IV.Old Items of Business
V.Regular Items of Business
Case BOA-987 – Greg Dobur, on behalf of BVC Myrtle Grove LLC, property owners, is requesting
a variance of 20’ from the 6’ maximum height requirement per Section 5.6.2.J.4.A.3 and a
variance of 84 square feet from the 150 square foot maximum area requirement per Section
5.6.2.J.4.A.3 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. This property is zoned
B-2, Regional Business District and is located at 5501 Carolina Beach Road.
Case BOA-988 – Cindee Wolf, applicant, on behalf of Paul E. and Deanne R. Meadows, property
owners, is requesting a variance from the 35’ rear setback requirement per Section 3.1.3.C.1
and from the 25’ side street setback requirement per Section 3.4.5.D of the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance. This property is zoned RA, Rural Residential District and
is located at 4737 Castle Hayne Road.
VI.Other Business
VII.Adjourn
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
William Mitchell, Chair | Michael Keenan, Sr. Vice-Chair
Will Daube | Caleb Rash | Greg Uhl
BOARD ALTERNATES
Jonathan Bridges | 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 222, WILMINGTON, NC 28403
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The New Hanover County Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meeting at 5:30
PM at the New Hanover County Government Center Complex, 230 Government Center Drive, in Conference Room 136, in Wilmington, NC on Tuesday January 23, 2024.
Members Present
Michael Keenan, Sr., Vice-Chair
Will Daube Caleb Rash Jonathan Bridges Michael Sanclimenti
Ed Trice
Members Absent
William Mitchell, Chair
Greg Uhl
Ex Officio Members Present
Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor
Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney
Lisa Maes, Administrative Coordinator
Damion Fulford, Administrative Specialist
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by Vice Chair Michael Keenan, Sr.
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS
Vice Chair Keenan 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.
Vice Chair Keenan asked if there were any corrections to the last meeting’s minutes, to which a
board member noted that there were no corrections.
Vice Chair Keenan called for a motion to accept the November 14th, 2023 meeting minutes as written or with noted changes. Mr. Rash made the motion to approve the minutes as written, to which Mr. Daube seconded.
The board unanimously adopted the minutes.
Vice Chair Keenan swore in Planning Operations Supervisor, Ken Vafier.
CASE BOA-986
Mr. Vafier presented the staff report on the case. He noted that the applicant wants to build a
swimming pool on the site that will be near a conservation area and that according to the New
Hanover Unified Development Order there must be a 75’ setback from the conservation resource. He stated that the site is located at 5916 Nautical Isle Court in the Helms Port community. Reffering to a zoning map, Mr. Vafier noted that the site is zoned R-15, and is representative of the larger zoning district in the area. He then presented a photograph showing that this zoning typically
contains single family detached housing, with lot size no greater than 15,000 square feet and a
density no higher than two and a half units per acre.
Mr. Vafier then provided an aerial photograph to illustrate the typical land use pattern of the area and to show that the site was in close proximity to the Intercoastal Waterway. He stated that the conservation area contained Salt Marsh and Maritime Shrub Thickets, and that the UDO provided
additional preformance controls in relation to setbacks for impervious surfaces, structures and
runoff. He then stated that the applicant is nearing completion of a three story home on the site that was originally permited in March 2023 and that the Certificate of Occupancy was issued in late December 2023.
Detailing the request, he explained that the applicant wants to build a 15’x 35’ ground level pool
on the eastern portion of the lot, adjacent to the conservation resource. He then stated that if built
as proposed there would be approximately 14’ of encroachment on the north side of the pool and an 11’ of encroachment on the southern side, resulting in approximately 500 square feet of pool encroaching into the 75’ setback. He then explained that while the surface of the pool is considered pervious, it has historically been considered a structure by UDO and that structures or impervious
surfaces must be setback 75’ from the conservation resource. He then provided site photographs
to help the board visualize the site.
Vice Chair Keenan asked about the location of the pool in location to the brick patio, to which Mr. Vafier responded it would be aproximately 17’ from the north edge and 13.3’ from the south edge of the patio.
He then finished his presentation by summarizing the applicant’s request for a variance to encroach
aproximately 14’ into the conservation resource setback because the presence of the conservation resources, coastal wetland line, the location of the site, and other setbacks limit the buildable area of the site.
He then asked if the Board had any questions.
Vice Chair swore in Amy Schaefer, John Jarvis, and Chris Smiley, the three applicants.
Ms. Schaefer stated that she was speaking on behalf of the homeowner, Larry Alderson, and then started the applicant presentation and provided various photographs of the site, including the site plan. She then explained that the homeowner received CAMA permit approval to build a two-tier bulkhead, which gave more building space, and that the process delayed the pool application. She
then stated that due to Home Owners Association input caused the home to be setback further in
the lot, limiting the buildable area.
She then reiterated that the home is fully ouside of the conservation resource setback, that the pool would only be partially in the setback and that the CAMA permit approval created buildable area
that was not available when construction first started.
Ms. Schaefer then stated that the hardship is no fault of the homeowners, the lot configuration, topograpghy, HOA regulations, and the time it took to receive CAMA permit approval for the bulkhead all affected the plan to build the pool.
Mr. Rash asked if there was a specific reason for the 75’ setback. Mr. Vafier answered that he was
not certain why the specific dimension of 75’ was chosen, but it ensured there is ample space to
handle water runoff and other safety hazards. He also stated that several years ago there was a letter of map amendment to remove floodzone designation for the area because of elevation.
Mr. Daube asked about what would occupy space between pool and patio. Mr. Smiley answered that the steps of the deck take up the space, that extra space between the steps and the pool was
needed for safety, and there was aproximately a four-foot space from steps to pool.
Mr. Rash asked if any other neighbors have a pool. Mr. Jarvis answered that a nearby lot was building a pool. He stated that because of the elevations, you could dig 10 feet down and not hit ground water.
Mr. Daube asked if HOA requirements stipulated further setbacks and a longer driveway. Mr.
Jarvis answered that the HOA required homes to be built in a way that a neighbors house is either
further in front or farther behind. Mr. Daube then asked if there were no HOA requirements, would the pool be able to meet requirements, to which Mr. Jarvis answered probably not.
Vice Chair Keenan asked if there were any further questions.
Vice Chair Keenan closed the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
BOARD DELIBERATION
Mr. Vafier reiterated the procedure for board deliberations.
Mr. Rash stated that does not have any problems with the pool, but he does not believe that it is an unnecessary hardship to not have a pool.
Ms. Schaefer stated that the hardship is not the pool but the CAMA setbacks and the HOA setbacks.
Ms. Schaefer stated that she believed that apporval of the CAMA permit and building of the bulkhead should reset the setback line. She explained that the applicant was complying with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Mr. Bridges asked if the pool dimensions included any additonal patio area, to which Ms. Schaefer
responded that the dimensions included the proposed deck.
Mr. Bridges asked if the pool already had a building permit. Mr. Vafier answered that the pool did not have a permit and that it would have to undergo a review process by the Engineering department.
Vice Chair Keenan motioned to approve the request and accept the findings of fact provided by
the applicant. Mr. Rash seconded the motion.
All ayes.
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 theordinance, specifically the 75’ Conservation Resource setback requirement perSection 5.7.4 B (1), Additional Perfromance Controls, of the New Hanover CountyUnified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. Thisconslusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
•The 75’ setback from the Coastal Wetland Line restricts the usable property. The home
is well outside of the 75’ setback and the pool would only partially be in the 75’ setback.
•Application of the 75’ setback only allows for a narrow buildable area behind the home
which is of consistent size and placement of other homes in the neighborhood.
•CAMA approval of the bulkhead – which created additional buildable area - was not
approved until after construction began on the home.
2.It is the Board's conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains resultsfrom unique circumstances related to the subject property, such as the location, size,or topography. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
•The Coastal Wetland Line crosses the property at an angle and reduces the parcels
buildable area. The lot is situated on a curved road and cul-de-sac which also creates
angled frontage.
•The setbacks and easements located on the property only allowed for a small percentage
of the property to be built upon and the property owner applied for a CAMA major
permit to install a tiered bulkhead as well as a CAMA minor permit for the residence,
driveway, and landscaping. CAMA approved both permit requests.
3.It is the Board's conclusion that the hardship did not result from actions taken b the
applicant or the property owner. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGSOF FACT:
•The hardship is not a result of actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The
developer of the neighborhood created the lot configuration and size.
•CAMA approval of the bulkhead – which created additional buildable area, was not
approved until after construction began on the home.
4.It is the Board's conclusion that, if granted, the variance will be sonsistent with thespirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such the public safety is securced. And
substantial justice is achieved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGSOF FACT:
•The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of theordinance. The New Hanover County UDO, Section 5.7 – Conservation Resourcesstates the purpose is to protect important environmental resources in the county.
•This variance request protects the environmental resources as demonstrated by theapproved CAMA permits. In addition, public safety and substantial justice areachieved.
No additional conditions were placed on the approval.
There being no further bsuiness before the Board, it was properly moved by Mr. Keenan to adjourn.
MEETING ADJOURNED
Please note the minutes are not a verbatim recording of the proceeding
_____________________
Executive Secretary
_____________________
Vice Chair
_____________________
Date
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 27, 2024
BOA-987 Page 1 of 7
CASE: BOA-987
PETITIONER: Greg Dobur with Big V Property Group, applicant, on behalf of BVC Myrtle Grove
LLC, property owners.
REQUEST: Variance of 20’ from the 6’ maximum height requirement per Section 5.6.2.J.4.A.3
and a variance of 84 square feet from the 150 square foot maximum area
requirement per Section 5.6.2.J.4.A.3 of the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO).
LOCATION: 5501 Carolina Beach Road
PID: R07610-004-004-000
ZONING: B-2, Regional Business
ACREAGE: 1.17 Acres
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant is requesting a variance related to the height and square footage of a free-standing sign to
allow more panels for new tenant opportunities. This sign will match the other Village at Myrtle Grove
Shopping Center sign which is currently located on site. The applicant acquired Village at Myrtle Grove
Shopping Center in 2016. It was first redeveloped in 2007 after the outparcels were built out. The
outparcels that are located along Carolina Beach Road were developed between 1990-2003.
Figure 1: Applicant’s Site Plan with Staff Markups
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 27, 2024
BOA-987 Page 2 of 7
The proposed freestanding sign would be located on the subject parcel near the frontage along Carolina
Beach Road. However, the proposed sign exceeds the six-foot maximum height requirement and the
maximum 150 square feet of surface area that is required per the UDO.
Currently there is an existing sign for the Villages of Myrtle Grove Shopping Center. The aerial
photograph below indicates the location of the existing sign along Carolina Beach Road.
Figure 2: The Villages of Myrtle Grove Shopping Center with location of existing sign
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 27, 2024
BOA-987 Page 3 of 7
Based on Table 5.6.2.H the proposed free-standing sign is permitted by right in the B-2 zone per the Table
5.6.2.H of the Unified Development Ordinance’s Permitted and Prohibited Signs by Zoning District. The
subject parcel is zoned B-2, Regional Business.
Section 3.4: B-2 Regional Business District
3.4.5: The intent of the Regional Business (B-2) District is to provide for the proper site
layout and development of larger format or larger structure size business uses,
including big box stores and automobile dealers. It is also designed to provide for
the appropriate location and design of auto-oriented uses that meet the needs of
the motoring public or that rely on pass-by traffic.
Figure 3: Table 5.6.2.H
A freestanding sign along Carolina Beach Road has different requirements for height and area than
other areas zoned B-2, the maximum height is six feet, and the maximum area is 150 square feet. The
proposed sign area is 234 square feet and 26 feet in height. This represents a difference in height of
20 feet and an additional 84 square feet over what is allowed under Section 5.6.2.J.4.A.3 of the UDO.
Section 5.6.2: General Provisions
5.6.2.J.4.A.3: Carolina Beach Road. Freestanding signs along Carolina Beach Road shall comply
with the provisions of this section except that only one freestanding ground sign
not to exceed six feet in height and a maximum surface area of 150 square feet
is permitted.
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 27, 2024
BOA-987 Page 4 of 7
Figure 4: Zoning Map
The applicant contends a variance is necessary because with the lack of signage and access identification
along Carolina Beach Road is resulting in the loss of potential new tenants. These potential national tenants
also want multiple ingress/egress points along Carolina Beach Road. With multiple ingress/egress points
it will provide safer access into the shopping center from Carolina Beach Road. With the variance, the
increase in height and area there will be more tenant opportunities as well as panels for advertising.
Wells Fargo currently has a freestanding sign, as shown below, at the location of the proposed sign. If
approved, the Wells Fargo sign will be removed and the proposed sign will replace it.
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 27, 2024
BOA-987 Page 5 of 7
Figure 5: Current Wells Fargo Sign (proposed sign to replace)
The proposed sign will be identical to the current Villages of Myrtle Grove sign, this sign is also along
Carolina Beach Road.
Figure 6: Current Villages of Myrtle Grove Sign (proposed sign will be identical)
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 27, 2024
BOA-987 Page 6 of 7
In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum sign height requirement as well as
the maximum sign square footage along Carolina Beach Road. The proposed sign would be 234 square
feet, with a maximum height of six feet. This applicant contends this variance will provide more tenant
opportunities, as the proposed sign will allow more panels to accommodate all available spaces. If
approved the current Wells Fargo sign will be removed and will be replaced by the proposed
freestanding sign along Carolina Beach Road.
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 27, 2024
BOA-987 Page 7 of 7
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
William Mitchell, Chair | Michael Keenan, Sr. Vice Chair
Will Daube | Caleb Rash | Greg Uhl
BOARD ALTERNATES
Jonathan Bridges | 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-987
The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on February 27, 2024, to
consider application number BOA-987, submitted by Greg Dobur, on behalf of BVC Myrtle Grove LLC, property
owners, is requesting a variance of 20’ from the 6’ maximum height requirement per Section 5.6.2.J.4.A.3 and
a variance of 84 square feet from the 150 square foot maximum area requirement per Section 5.6.2.J.4.A.3 of
the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to use the property located at 5501 Carolina Beach
Road in a manner not permissible under the literal terms of the UDO, and having heard all 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 20’ height requirement and the 150 square foot maximum area requirement per
Section 5.6.2.J.4.A.3 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an
unnecessary hardship would/would not result. (It shall 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 a 20’ and 84 square foot variance from the 6’ and
150 square feet required per Section 5.6.2.J.4.A.3 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance
be GRANTED/DENIED. Approval is subject to applicant within 7 days signing a document acknowledging
applicant’s consent to all of the following conditions, if any:
If the applicant does not sign a document acknowledging consent to all listed conditions, then this approval is
null and void.
ORDERED this 27th day of February 2024.
____________________________________
Chair
Attest:
________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
s
a
t
M
y
r
t
l
e
G
r
o
v
e
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
55
1
1
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Wi
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
N
C
Home Depot
Sign Panel Size
78” x 78”
Target Sign
Panel Size
78” X 78”
Proposed New Monument Sign # 5
Carolina Beach Road 20’ – 24’ high x
13’ wide. CONTINGENT ON NEW
HANOVER COUNTY SIGN VARIANCE.
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
s
a
t
M
y
r
t
l
e
G
r
o
v
e
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
55
1
1
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Wi
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
N
C
Proposed New Monument Sign # 5
Carolina Beach Road 20’ – 24’ high x
13’ wide. CONTINGENT ON NEW
HANOVER COUNTY SIGN VARIANCE.
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
s
a
t
M
y
r
t
l
e
G
r
o
v
e
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
55
1
1
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Wi
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
N
C
Wells Fargo
5501 Carolina Beach Road
Signage
Easement Area
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 27, 2024
BOA-988 Page 1 of 5
CASE: BOA-988
PETITIONER: Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Paul E. & Deanne R.
Meadows, property owners.
REQUEST: Variance from the 35’ rear setback requirement per Section 3.1.3.C.1 and from the
25’ side street setback requirement per Section 3.4.5.D of the New Hanover County
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
LOCATION: 4737 Castle Hayne Road
PID: R01700-002-007-000
ZONING: RA, Rural Agricultural, Proposed Rezoning to B-2, Regional Business
ACREAGE: 0.93 Acres
BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
The subject parcel is located along Castle Hayne Road and is the site of an existing nonconforming vehicle
repair shop, with enough acreage to further subdivide pending a proposed rezoning.
The applicant is requesting a variance related to the rear and street side setbacks to the existing vehicle
repair structure to allow for a rezoning that would bring the existing commercial use into legal conformity.
The existing use is considered a Vehicle Service Station, Minor, defined by the UDO as:
Repair of small and/or personal vehicles consisting of a minor nature, such as tune ups, oil changes,
chassis lubrication, tire change or repair, wheel alignment, and muffler repair or installation.
The requested variance would be required for and contingent upon the successful rezoning of the property
from a RA, Rural Agricultural District to a (CZD) B-2, Regional Business District. The anticipated rezoning
would allow additional flex space to be added to the southwest, but that component of the request would
not impact the variance under consideration. Per the UDO’s Principal Use Table, the use will be permitted
by right in the B-2 zone:
Figure 1: Table 4.2.1
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 27, 2024
BOA-988 Page 2 of 5
Figure 2: Applicant's Site Plan with Staff Markups
The anticipated rezoning would bring the existing commercial use into legal conformity. However, at 21.7’
from the side property line and 0.8’ and 6.95’ from the neighboring rear property line, the existing structure
would not meet the required street side setback of 25’ from the Sodney Street side property line and 35’
from the adjacent parcel to the west, zoned as RA, for the B-2 district that is prescribed by Table 3.1.3.C.1
of the UDO:
N
25’ Required Side
Setback, Street
Current Property
Line
Current
Property Line
Existing 5,000 sq. ft.
structure
35’ Required
Rear Setback,
Street
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 27, 2024
BOA-988 Page 3 of 5
Figure 3: Table 3.1.3.C.1
For a rezoning of the property to B-2, the setback between the proposed commercial structure and the
residentially zoned adjacent parcel to the west will be required to be no less than 35’. Thus, the
applicant is requesting a variance of 24.2’ and 28’ from the required rear setback on the western
property line. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a variance of 8.3’ from the required street side
setback on the northern property line.
20 ft.
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 27, 2024
BOA-988 Page 4 of 5
Figure 3: Zoning Map
The subject property consists of 0.94 acres. Located along Castle Hayne Road, this parcel is currently zoned
RA, Rural Agricultural. The properties directly adjacent and along the same side of Castle Hayne Road are
also all zoned RA. Directly across the road lie two parcels zoned R-20, Residential 20. Adjacent to the R-
20 are parcels zoned O&I, Office and Institutional, and B-1, Neighborhood Business.
In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance from the street side setback of 25’ and rear setback of
35’ to allow compliance of existing structures. The applicant contends that the variance is necessary to bring
the existing structure into legal compliance and “would provide substantial justice for the property owner
to pursue reasonable use of the lands.”
VARIANCE REQUEST
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 27, 2024
BOA-988 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 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
William Mitchell, Chair | Michael Keenan, Sr. Vice Chair
Will Daube | Caleb Rash | Greg Uhl
BOARD ALTERNATES
Jonathan Bridges | 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-988
The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on February 27, 2024, to
consider application number BOA-988, submitted by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf
of Paul E. & Deanne R. Meadows, property owners, is requesting a variance from the 35’ rear setback
requirement per Section 3.1.3.C.1 and from the 25’ side, street setback requirement per Section 3.4.5.D of the
New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to use the property located at 4737 Castle Hayne
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 draw the following
CONCLUSIONS:
1. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance,
specifically the 35’ rear setback requirement per Table 3.1.3.C.1, and the 25’ side street setback
requirement per 3.4.5.D of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an
unnecessary hardship would/would not result. (It shall 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 a 34.2’ and 28.05’ variance from the 35’ rear setback
required per Table 3.1.3.C.1 and a 3.3’ variance from the 25’ side, street setback of the New Hanover County
Unified Development Ordinance be GRANTED/DENIED. Approval is subject to applicant within 7 days signing
a document acknowledging applicant’s consent to all of the following conditions, if any:
If the applicant does not sign a document acknowledging consent to all listed conditions, then this approval is
null and void.
ORDERED this 27th day of February 2024.
____________________________________
Chair
Attest:
________________________________
Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board
Page 1 of 5
Variance Application – Updated 05-2021
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165
FAX (910) 798-7053
planningdevelopment.nhcgov.com
ZONING & SUBDIVISION VARIANCE APPLICATION
This application form must be completed as part of a request for a zoning and/or subdivision variance. The application
submitted through the county’s online COAST portal. The main procedural steps in the submittal and review of
applications for a variance are outlined in the flowchart below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as
well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the application, are set out in Section 10.3.11 of the Unified
Development Ordinance.
Public
Hearing
Procedures
(Optional)
Pre-Application
Conference
(Optional)
Community
Information
Meeting
1
Application
Submittal &
Acceptance
2
Planning
Director Review
& Staff Report
3
Public Hearing
Scheduling &
Notification
Advisory Body Review & Action
4
Board of
Adjustment
Hearing &
Decision
5
Post-Decision
Limitations and
Actions
1. Applicant and Property Owner Information
Applicant/Agent Name Owner Name (if different from Applicant/Agent)
Company Company/Owner Name 2
Address Address
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
Phone Phone
Email Email
Cindee Wolf
Design Solutions
P.O. Box 7221
Wilmington, NC 28406
910-620-2374
cwolf@lobodemar.biz
Castle Hayne, NC 28429
Paul E. & Deanne R. Meadows
4717 Indian Corn Trail
meadowsd@earthlink.net
910-617-5105 (Contact: Rick Meadows)
Page 2 of 5
Variance Application – Updated 05-2021
2. Subject Property Information
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Total Parcel(s) Acreage Existing Zoning and Use(s)
3. Proposed Variance Narrative
Subject Zoning Regulation, Chapter and Section
In the space below, please provide a narrative of the application (attach additional pages if necessary).
4737 Castle Hayne Road 322112.95.1866 [R01700-002-007-000]
RA / Commercial 0.94 ac.
Page 3 of 5
Variance Application – Updated 05-2021
CRITERIA REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE
The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance if it finds that strict application of the ordinance results in
an unnecessary hardship for the applicant, and if the variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and
intent of the ordinance. The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable),
how the proposed use meets these required findings (attach additional pages if necessary).
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.
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.
A hardship would result from strict application of the prescribed setback because it would
require demolition of the existing structure, and new construction to meet the larger
setback.
The hardship results from the desire for adaptive re-use of an existing structure. The
property is currently zoned for residential use, and the structure is conforming to that zoning
district's setback. However, the proposed rezoning to use the structure for commercial use
would create a non-conforming situation.
Page 4 of 5
Variance Application – Updated 05-2021
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.
Again, the hardship to the property owner would be the necessity to remove a perfectly
good structure, rather than adapting it for a different use.
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 of a variance for a reduced setback would provide substantial justice for the
property owner to pursue reasonable use of the existing structure.
Son
d
e
y
R
o
a
d
Cape Fear Township / New Hanover County / North Carolina
(No Scale)
Vicinity Map
3. Current Zoning District: RA
2. Tract Area: 40,844 s.f.± (0.94 ac.)
1. New Hanover County Parcel No.:
General Notes:
4. Comprehensive Plan Classification:
Site
Project No.:Property Address: 4737 Castle Hayne Road
Development Notes:
the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance.
1. All development shall be in accordance with
Hanover County regulations.
2. Project shall comply with all Federal, State & New
PRELI
M
I
N
A
R
Y
Not Fo
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Design Solutions
P.O. Box 7221
Wilmington, NC 28406
Tel. 910-620-2374
Scale:
Date:
Revisons:
23-33
1'' = 20'
01/16/24
N
E
S
W
S
N
W E
Community Mixed-Use
322112.95.1866
Concept Plan
Zoning District
Development Data:
200
Graphic Scale
10 4020 10
Owner / Developer:
[PID R1700-002-007-000]
Tract Area - 40,844 s.f.± (0.94 ac.)
Total Building Area - 8,500 s.f.±
Parking - (@ 2.5 spaces / 1000 s.f. GFA)
Min. Spaces Req'd. = 9
** Spaces Prov'd. = 10 ** (2 garage spaces)
Approximate Surface Coverage -
Total - 8,500 s.f.± (38.7%)
Max. Proposed Building Height - 1-Story / 20'
Meadows CommercialConditional
Proposed District - (CZD) B-2
Paul & Deanne Meadows
4717 Indian Corn Trail
Castle Hayne, NC 28429
Rooftop -3,500 s.f.±
Parking Area -4,300 s.f.±
2. This property is not impacted by any AEC.
3. There is no evidence of Conservation Overlay
resources.
4. This site is not impacted by any recognized
historic or archeological significance.
5. No cemeteries were evidenced on the site.
6. Existing regulated trees have been field located. No
"Specimen" trees were identified. Tree protection
7. There is no evidence of jurisdictional wetlands.
8. There is no evidence of endangered species or
habitat issues on the site.
Site Inventory Notes:
9. This tract is not impacted by any Special Flood Hazard
10. The site runoff will flow into the Prince George
1. Soils: On (Onslow loamy fine sand) &
and mitigation - if necessary - will be completed
during detailed design & permitting.
Area as evidenced on FEMA Map 3720323100K,
dated August 28, 2018.
Off-site Driveway - 700 s.f.±
Case No.:
Creek watershed.
Pn (Pantego loam)
Utility Notes:
1. Water service will be provided by a private, on-site
well. Sanitary sewer service is provided by a
gas & telephone shall be installed underground.
3. Solid waste disposal will be by dumpster pickup by
2. All utility services, such as electric power, CATV,
private on-site septic system.
private contractor / hauler.
NC H
W
Y
1
1
7
PAR
M
E
L
E
R
D
SODN
E
Y
R
D
Cas
t
l
e
H
a
y
n
e
R
o
a
d
(
U
.
S
.
H
w
y
.
1
1
7
)
Sonde
y
R
o
a
d
/
S
.
R
.
1
3
3
4
(Va
r
i
a
b
l
e
W
i
d
t
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
/
W
)
23
23
21
21
WaterOak
N 66°
2
4
'
2
5
"
W
1
5
8
.
9
0
'
S 36
°38
'
3
5
"
W
24
4
.
5
7
'
N 2
8
°
2
7
'
3
5
"
E
22
6
.
9
3
'
S 69°58
'
2
5
"
E
195.25
'
(50' R
/
W
)
22
21
22
23
19
19
20
20
48''
Live
Oak
32''
DoorO/H
(1,
7
5
0
s
.
f
.
)
Spa
c
e
35'
50'
DoorO/H
35'
New
"
F
l
e
x
"
(1,
7
5
0
s
.
f
.
)
Spa
c
e
New
"
F
l
e
x
"
Existing
Gravel
Existing
Gravel
Exis
t
i
n
g
She
d
Existing
Shed
Existing
Garage
Existing
Office
Existing
Shed
0.8'
7.0'
20'
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
B
u
f
f
e
r
35'
R
e
a
r
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
20' T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
B
u
f
f
e
r
30' Si
d
e
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
Existing -5,000 s.f.±
Proposed New -3,500 s.f.±
Existing -18,889 s.f.±
Proposed New -21,956 s.f.±
21.
7
'