Raleigh Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 11, 2016
RALEIGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
The Raleigh Board of Adjustment met in regular session on Monday, April 11, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Room 201 of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 W. Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina with the following present:
Board Staff
J. Carr McLamb, Chairman (City) John Silverstein, Attorney to the Board
Karen Kemerait, Vice Chair (City) Assistant Planning Director Travis Crane
Eugene Conti, Secretary (City) Planning Administrator Eric Hodge
Donald Mial (County) Assistant Deputy Clerk Ralph Puccini
Neil Riemann (City Alternate)
Judson Root (City Alternate) (Arrived late)
Brian Williams (City)
These are summary minutes unless otherwise indicated:
Chairman McLamb called the meeting to order, introduced members of the Board and staff present, and read the rules of procedure for today’s meeting. He then swore in Assistant Planning Director Travis Crane and Planning Administrator Eric Hodge, who used a PowerPoint presentation in aid to giving testimony.
The following applications were heard with actions taken as shown:
******************************************************************************
A-40-16 – 4/11/16
Decision: Approved as requested.
WHEREAS, Sharon Brodie, property owner, requests a 6.8’ rear yard setback variance, pursuant to Section 2.2.1 of the Part 10A Unified Development Ordinance to allow for the enclosure of an existing porch that results in a 23.2’ rear yard setback on a .25 acre property zoned R-4 and located at 4509 Fortingale Circle.
Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn) explained the request stating the applicants propose converting an existing screened-in porch to year-round use. He stated Staff is not opposed to the request.
Applicant
Sharon Brodie, 4509 Fortingale Circle (sworn), stated when she secured a contractor for the project it was assumed there would be no issues; however, the issue was uncovered when she had the property re-surveyed.
Opposition
None.
Requests for Notification
None.
Findings of Fact
1. Applicant seeks a variance from UDO §2.2.1 to enclose an existing rear porch.
2. The Board has considered Applicant's verified application and the evidence and testimony adduced at the hearing.
3. Applicant participated in a pre-application conference with a Planning and Development Officer to review the Application.
4. Public Notice requirements of UDO §10.2.1.C. have been met.
5. In order to comply with UDO §2.2.1, Applicant would have to provide a 30 foot rear yard setback in this R-4 zoning district.
6. Applicant is unable to comply with UDO §2.2.1 because the porch would encroach 6.8 feet into the rear yard setback.
7. The porch is currently open, but if enclosed, it would not meet the rear setback because the lot is pie-shaped.
8. The proposed enclosure would not expand the porch in any manner.
9. Strict compliance with the provisions of the ordinance would deprive Applicant from the reasonable use of the property.
10. The character of surrounding properties would not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance.
11. Denial of the variance would result in insignificant public benefit but would greatly harm Applicant.
12. The Board has also considered the following relevant factors:
(a) The character and use of buildings and structures adjoining or in the vicinity of the property mentioned in the application.
(b) The number of persons residing, studying, working in or otherwise occupying prior decision may be reversed, modified, or affirmed buildings adjoining or in the vicinity of the property mentioned in the application.
Conclusions of Law
1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance.
2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property.
3. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the Applicant or the property owner.
4. The variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.
5. This decision is subject to review for fraud, material misrepresentation, or other misconduct at the proceeding or for violations on the subject property of either any provision of the UDO or an imposed limiting condition, and if such a determination is made by the Board, its prior decision may be reversed, modified or affirmed.
Motion
Chairman McLamb moved to approve the variance as requested. His motion was seconded by Ms. Kemerait and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (McLamb, Kemerait, Conti, Mial, Williams); Noes – 0. Chairman McLamb ruled the motion adopted on a 5-0 vote and the variance granted.
******************************************************************************
Mr. Williams requested that he be excused from participation in the following application as his firm has the Applicant as a client. Chairman McLamb stated that, without objection, Mr. Williams would be excused and indicated Mr. Riemann would be voting on the application.
A-41-16 – 4/11/16
Decision: Approved as requested.
WHEREAS, Local Government Federal Credit Union, property owner, requests a Special Use Permit for a second low profile ground sign for a double frontage lot pursuant to Sections 7.3.8.C.C2. of the Part 10 A Unified Development Ordinance to permit one additional ground sign on a 5.49 acre property zoned OX-4-PL and located at 3600 Wake Forest Road.
Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn) indicated the subject property is the former Wake County Public Schools administration offices site. He stated the lot has frontage along both Wake Forest Road and St. Albans Drive; however it is not a corner lot; the CVS drug store occupies the corner of the 2 streets. He stated Staff is not opposed to the request.
Mr. Root arrived at the meeting at 1:10 p.m.
In response to questions, Mr. Hodge indicated this is a good case where 2 ground signs are warranted.
Applicant
Mark Caverly, Local Government Federal Credit Union (sworn), explained the request stating the lot has a second entrance off St. Albans Drive. He stated there would be no cut-through traffic on the property.
Opposition
Lisa Young, 3608 Greenlawn Drive (sworn), talked about traffic and light issues along St. Albans Drive noting there are a number of senior citizens living in the well-established neighborhood. She expressed concern the project would add 200 to 300 cars to the neighborhood traffic.
Chairman McLamb pointed out the issue before the Board is the ground sign noting the sign’s placement may help with traffic issues.
Discussion took place regarding how the project proceeded through the Planning Commission approval process with Planning Administrator Hodge pointing out the project is fast approaching Certificate of Occupancy status.
Requests for Notification
None.
Findings of Fact
1. Applicant seeks a special use permit pursuant to UDO §7.3.8.C.C2 for a second low profile ground sign.
2. The Board has considered Applicant's verified application and the evidence and the testimony adduced at the hearing.
3. Applicant participated in a pre-application conference with a Planning and Development Officer to review the Application.
4. This property has double road frontage, but it is not a corner lot, so it is only entitled to one ground sign.
5. The signs that would be located at the two entrances on separate roads would not be within sight of each other.
6. The failure to install a sign at one of the entrances would constitute a potential safety hazard for drivers attempting to locate the site from the road that did not have a sign.
6. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of the UDO.
7. The proposed use is allowed as a special use in the respective zoning district.
8. The proposed use complies with any specific use standard listed in Chapter 6 without the granting of any variance to the specific use standard.
9. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in terms of location, scale, site design, hours of operation and operating characteristics.
10. Access with respect to pedestrian, bicycle and automotive safety, traffic flow and emergency service is adequate.
11. Based on the application, including the plot plan, and the testimony at the hearing, Applicant has satisfied the requirements of UDO §§7.3.8.C.C2 and 10.2.9.
Conclusions of Law
1. Applicant has met the requirements of Raleigh UDO Section 7.3.8.C.C2, and the special use permit for the additional low profile ground sign should be granted.
2. The decision is subject to review for fraud, material misrepresentation, or other misconduct at the proceeding or for violations on the subject property of either any provision of the Raleigh UDO or an imposed limiting condition, and if such a determination is made by the Board, its prior decision may be reversed, modified, or affirmed.
Motion
Chairman McLamb moved to approve the Special Use Permit as requested. His motion was seconded by Ms. Kemerait and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (McLamb, Kemerait, Conti, Mial, Riemann); Noes – 0. Chairman McLamb ruled the motion adopted on a 5-0 vote and the Special Use Permit granted.
******************************************************************************
A-43-16 – 4/11/16
Decision: Approved as requested.
WHEREAS, Sayed Hassan Hosseini, property owner, requests a 6’ height variance, pursuant to section 5.4.3.F.15.g. of the Part 10A Unified Development Ordinance to allow for the construction of a 1.5 story detached house that results in a 30’ tall detached house on a .08 acre property zoned R-10 and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District located at 910 S. Person Street.
Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn) explained the overlay district height restrictions as well as how the revised calculations under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) created the current hardship. He stated the proposed structure would have been allowed prior to the UDO’s adoption and stated the changes in height calculation methods were not taken into account at that time.
Discussion took place regarding height restrictions and encroachments under the UDO with Planning Administrator Hodge indicating dormers are not addressed under the UDO. The discussion also included how the overlay district height restrictions are under the UDO and how that impacted the application before the Board with Chairman McLamb questioning if the variance were granted whether the dwelling would be character with the neighborhood and Mr. Hodge responding in the affirmative.
Applicant
Hassan Hosseini, 108 Kingsmill Road, Cary (sworn), indicated he proposes to build a 1,300 to 1,400 square foot dwelling to replace a previous structure that was demolished. He talked about how the proposed dwelling would help improve the neighborhood as well as how the structure would have been allowed prior to the UDO’s adoption. He stated there are several 1½ story and 2 story dwellings in the neighborhood.
Opposition
Nelson Thornton, 916 South Person Street (sworn), stated he lives 2 doors down from the subject property. He asserted building the dwelling would add to traffic issues in the neighborhood and indicated most of the houses in the neighborhood are A-frames with only a couple dwellings being 2 stories. He talked about problems trying to exit his driveway in the morning due to traffic on Person Street. Mr. Silverstein explained the proposed dwelling would be replacing a previous dwelling that has been demolished with Mr. Thornton expressing concern the proposed dwelling would not fit in the neighborhood.
Requests for Notification
None.
Findings of Fact
1. Applicants seek a variance from UDO §5.4.3.F.15.g to construct a detached house which does not meet height requirements for the R-10 Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
2. The Board has considered Applicants’ verified application and the evidence and testimony adduced at the hearing.
3. Applicants participated in a pre-application conference with a Planning and Development Officer to review the Application.
4. Public Notice requirements of UDO §10.2.1.C. have been met.
5. In order to comply with UDO requirements, Applicants would have to limit the height of the house to 30 feet.
6. Under the Raleigh City Code, the height of a structure was measured at the midpoint of a peaked roof; however, the UDO now incorporates a measurement to the pinnacle of the roof, which effectively lowers the height allowed, and would prevent the proposed 1.5 story dwelling from being erected in this district.
7. The proposed structure is of similar size and height to other dwellings in the district.
8. The previous structure on this lot has been demolished.
9. Strict compliance with the provisions of the ordinance would deprive Applicant from the reasonable use of the property.
10. Applicants’ hardship is related to the unique circumstances of the property, namely the fact that the lot has an unusual shape, and the setback is consistent with most homes in the neighborhood.
11. The Applicant's actions did not create the hardship.
12. The character of surrounding properties would not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance.
13. Denial of the variance would result in insignificant public benefit but would greatly harm Applicant.
Conclusions of Law
1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance.
2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property.
3. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the Applicant or the property owner.
4. The variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.
5. This decision is subject to review for fraud, material misrepresentation, or other misconduct at the proceeding or for violations on the subject property of either any provision of Chapter 10 of the Raleigh City Code or an imposed limiting condition, and if such a determination is made by the Board, its prior decision may be reversed, modified, or affirmed.
Motion
Chairman McLamb moved to approve the variance as requested. His motion was seconded by Mr. Conti and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (McLamb, Conti, Kemerait, Mial, Williams); Noes – 0. Chairman McLamb ruled the motion adopted on a 5-0 vote and the variance granted.
******************************************************************************
Mr. Silverstein indicated he has routinely performed real estate work for the Applicant in the next case; however, his firm is not involved with this application.
A-44-16 – 4/11/16
Decision: Approved as requested.
WHEREAS, Sears Family, LLC, property owner, requests a 3.6’ and a 2.6’ minimum lot width variance pursuant to Section 2.2.1. of the Part 10A Unified Development Ordinance to allow for the subdivision of a lot into two lots that don’t meet the minimum width requirements for the minimum depth requirements as set forth in Section 1.5.2.C. of the Part 10A Unified Development Ordinance for a currently .4994 acre property zoned Residential-6 and located at 1009 Marilyn Drive.