Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 11, 2015
RALEIGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
The Raleigh Board of Adjustment met in regular session on Monday, May 11, 2015 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:
BoardStaff
Charles Coble, Chairman (City)John Silverstein, Attorney to the Board
J. Carr McLamb, Jr. ViceChairman (City)Assistant Planning Director Travis Crane
Tommy Jeffreys, Secretary (County)Planning Administrator Eric Hodge
Gene Conti (City) Assistant Deputy Clerk Ralph Puccini
Karen Kemerait (City Alternate)
Brian Williams (City Alternate)
Absent
Timothy Figgins (City)
These are summary minutes unless otherwise indicated:
Chairman Coble called the meeting to order, introduced members of the Board and staff present at today’s meeting and read the rules of procedure.
Chairman Coble noted the following change to today’s agenda:
A-29-15 – 2515 Anderson Drive. Chairman Coble indicated the City received a request from the Applicants to defer their hearing to the Board’s June meeting due to unforeseen circumstances. Planning Administrator Eric Hodge stated staff had no objection to the request; whereupon Chairman Coble stated this case will be deferred to the Board’s June 8, 2015 meeting.
Assistant Planning Director Travis Crane and Planning Administrator Eric Hodge were both sworn in with Mr. Hodge using aPowerPoint presentation in aid to presenting testimony, and the following items were discussed with actions taken as shown:
******************************************************************************
A-29-15 – 5/11/15
DECISION:Deferred to the Board’s June 8, 2015 meeting.
WHEREAS, Ralph & Kimberly McDonald, property owners, request a 9’ rear yard setback variance from the regulations set forth in Section 2.2.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance to allow for the vertical expansion of an existing detached garage as well as the construction of a two story enclosed connector that will connect the garage to the existing dwelling resulting in a 21’ rear yard setback on a .26 acre property zoned Residential-4 located at 2515 Anderson Drive.
******************************************************************************
A-30-15 – 5/11/15
DECISION:Approved the variances as requested.
WHEREAS, James Thomas, property owner, requests a 10.5’ front yard setback variance and a 15.1’ rear yard setback variance from the standards set forth in Section 10-2075 of the Part 10 Zoning Code to construct a single-family dwelling resulting in a 9.5’ front yard setback and a 4.9’ rear yard setback on a .04 acre property zoned Residential-20 and located at 207 Camden Street.
Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn) indicated the subject lot is small for Residential-20 standards and stated the Applicant’s plans include one off-street parking space. He stated staff does not oppose the request.
Chairman Coble questioned whether the proposed driveway width meets the off-street parking guidelines with Mr. Hodge responding in the affirmative.
Applicant
James Thomas, 209 Camden Street (sworn) talked about how his case was similar to one heard by the Board of Adjustment for his neighbor at 211 Camden Street.
Opposition
None.
Requests for Notification
None.
Findings of Fact
1.Applicant seeks a variance from Raleigh City Code Section 10-2075 to construct a dwelling on an existing lot.
2.The Board has considered Applicant's verified application and the evidence and testimony adduced at the hearing.
3.In order to comply with Raleigh City Code Section 10-2075, Applicant would have to meet 20 foot front and rear yard setbacks.
4.Applicant is unable to comply with Raleigh City Code Section 10- 2075 because the lot does not meet current code requirements for lot density and is too small to accommodate a dwelling that meets the front and rear yard setback requirements.
5.This property is located on Camden Street in a neighborhood that is undergoing redevelopment, and many homes therein are legal nonconformities.
6. The lot is .04 acre.
7.Off-site parking would be provided by a pad in the rear of the lot, which will be adequate to accommodate the 1 off-street parking space that is required.
8. The proposed development of this lot is consistent with the recent development of other lots in this part of Raleigh.
9.Strict compliance with the provisions of the ordinance would deprive Applicant from the reasonable use of the property.
10.Applicant's hardship is related to the unique circumstances of the property, namely its nonconforming status.
11.The Applicant's actions did not create the hardship.
12.The character of surrounding properties would not be adversely affected by thegranting of the variance.
13.Denial of the variance would result in insignificant public benefit but would greatly harm Applicant.
14.Pursuant to Raleigh City Code Section 10-2141(b), the Board has considered the following relevant factors:
(a)The character and use of buildings and structures adjoining or in the vicinity of the property mentioned in this application.
(b)The number of persons residing, studying, working in or otherwise occupying 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 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 Coble moved to approve the variances as requested. His motion was seconded by Mr. McLamb and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (Coble, McLamb, Jeffreys, Conti, Williams); Noes – 0. Chairman Coble ruled the motion adopted and the variances granted.
A-31-15 – 5/11/15
DECISION:Approved the variance as requested.
WHEREAS, Capitol City Homes, LLC, property owner, requests a variance from all of the wooded area requirements set forth in Section 9.1.9.A. of the Part 10 A Unified Development Ordinance to allow for the construction of a detached house on a .582 acre property zoned Residential-6 Conditional Use and Urban Watershed Protection Overlay District located at 2511 Village Manor Way.
Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn) indicated this case was similar to an earlier Urban Watershed Overlay application heard at a previous Board of Adjustment meeting. He indicated the City is in the process of modifying the watershed overlay standards; but until that occurs, the variance is required. He noted the subject lot is devoid of trees and the Applicant would have to plant trees in order to meet the Urban Watershed Overlay requirements. In response to questions, Mr. Hodge stated the watershed overlay was not intended for this lot.
Applicant
Attorney Jennifer Scott, Shipman & Wright, 9208 Falls of Neuse Road, representing the Applicant (sworn), affirmed Mr. Hodge’s testimony.
Opposition
None.
Requests for Notification
None.
Findings of Fact
1.Applicant seeks a variance from UDO §9.1.9.A to allow the construction of a detached house on a .582 acre lot at 2511 Village Manor Way.
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 §9.1.9.A, Applicant would have to comply with a 40% forestation requirement for the lot.
6.Applicant is unable to comply with UDO §2.2.1 because compliance with the40% forestation coverage would prevent a suitable house from being erected on the lot.
7.This lot is subject to an Urban Watershed Overlay District that was not intended to include individual lots of this nature; however, when the UDO was written, the company compiling the UDO erroneously included all watershed districts in the overlay requirement, which subjects this lot to a 40% forestation requirement.
8.This lot is mostly cleared, and to meet the forestation requirement, trees would have to be replanted, which would inhibit the ability of Applicant to erect a house comparable in size to existing homes in the neighborhood.
9.The UDO will be modified to correct this mistake, but it has not been done yet.
10.Strict compliance with the provisions of the ordinance would deprive Applicant from the reasonable use of the property.
11.The character of surrounding properties would not be adversely affected by thegranting of the variance.
12.Denial of the variance would result in insignificant public benefit but would greatly harm Applicant.
13.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 affirmedbuildings 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 Coble moved to approve the variance as requested. His motion was seconded by Ms. Kemerait and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (Coble, Kemerait, McLamb, Jeffreys, Conti); Noes – 0. Chairman Coble ruled the motion adopted and the variance granted.
******************************************************************************
A-32-15 – 5/11/15
DECISION:Approved the variances as requested with the following conditions:
- Applicant secures a permit to demolish a portion of the dwelling at 124 Whitaker Mill Road to convert it from a duplex to a single family residence; and
- Applicant installs driveway access to both lots off of Sunrise Avenue.
WHEREAS, WPG Properties LLC, property owner, requests an 11.2’ variance from the minimum lot width requirements and a 4.4 rear yard setback variance from the regulations set forth in Section 2.2.1 of the Part 10A Unified Development Ordinance to allow for the subdivision of a .27 acre parcel into two lots, one of which would be 48.8’ wide and allow for the construction of a detached dwelling on each lot, the southernmost of which would result in a rear yard setback of 15.6’ on a property that today is .27 acre and zoned Residential-10 located at 124 Whitaker Mill Road and 1629 Sunrise Avenue.
Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn) noted the property addresses are listed as 2 parcels for tax purposes; however, they are actually 1 lot that the Applicant plans to subdivide. He stated the Whitaker Mill Road lot does not meet the minimum lot width standard noting it is only 48.3 feet wide at the street front; however the lot does fan out to the rear. He stated each lot will have 1 dwelling and that the setback variances affect the southernmost side of both lots. He stated Staff is not opposed to the request.
Brief discussion took place regarding rear yard variance requirements.
Applicant
Attorney David York, Smith, Moore, Leatherwood, 434 Fayetteville Street (sworn), representing the Contract Purchaser, stated the properties have been in their current configuration since the 1920’s, but were split into 2 parcels for tax purposes sometime in the 1950’s. He noted the County’s GIS map indicates 2 parcels. He asserted there would be no additional nonconformities created by the subdivision. He went on to indicate his client is offering 2 conditions for approval: 1) the Client will obtain a demolition permit to remove part of the duplex on the Whitaker Mill Road lot to create a single family residence; and 2) the Client will create driveway access for both lots off of Sunrise Avenue.
Opposition
None.
Requests for Notification
None.
Findings of Fact
1.Applicant seeks minimum lot width and rear yard setback variances from UDO §2.2.1 to allow for the subdivision of an existing lot.
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 meet all setback requirements for one dwelling on one lot.
6.Applicant is unable to comply with UDO §2.2.1 because there are 2 structures on an existing lot.
7.There have been two structures on this lot since 1923. The lot was split into two tax parcels in the 1950’s, but the lot has never been subdivided.
8.Since the lot is presently a nonconforming use, subdividing the lot to allow each structure to remain on its own lot would reduce the nonconformity by making the use legal.
9.Applicant has agreed to remove the duplex portion of the structure on Whitaker Mill Road, and to provide access to each lot off Sunrise Avenue.
10.Strict compliance with the provisions of the ordinance would deprive Applicant from the reasonable use of the property.
11.The character of surrounding properties would not be adversely affected by thegranting of the variance.
12.Denial of the variance would result in insignificant public benefit but would greatly harm Applicant.
13.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 affirmedbuildings 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.It is necessary and appropriate to impose the following conditions and safeguards on the issuance of the variances: (1) the duplex on Whitaker Mill Road must be converted to a single family home and (2) driveway access to both lots must be provided from Sunrise Avenue.
6.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.
7.If the condition hereto or any part thereof shall be held invalid or void, then this decision shall be void and of no effect.
Motion
Chairman Coble moved to approve the variance with the conditions as proposed by the Contract to Purchaser. His motion was seconded by Mr. Williams and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (Coble, Williams, McLamb, Jeffreys, Conti); Noes – 0. Chairman Coble ruled the motion adopted and variance granted with conditions.
******************************************************************************
A-33-15 – 5/11/15
DECISION:Approved the Special Use Permit.
WHERAS, Janice Pollard, property owner, requests a special use permit to allow live-work for a cosmetology business pursuant to section 6.7.3E of the Part 10A Unified Development Ordinance on a .26 acre property zoned Residential-4 and located at 2219 Rumson Road.
Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn) noted the Applicant produced written responses to the Special Use Permit conditions and stated Staff is not opposed to the request so long as the subject address is the Applicant’s primary residence.
Applicant
Janice Pollard, 2219 Rumson Road (sworn), in response to questions, confirmed the subject property is her primary address and stated her shop will have a separate entrance to her basement. She stated her hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by appointment, Monday through Saturday.
Opposition
None.
Requests for Notification
None.
Findings of Fact
1.Applicant seeks a special use permit pursuant to UDO §10.2.9 for a live/work unit as authorized by UDO §6.7.3.
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.Applicant proposes to operate a cosmetology shop out of the basement of her primary residence. Her hours of operation will be 8-5, Monday through Saturday, by appointment only.
5.The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of the UDO.
Conclusions of Law
1.Applicant has met the requirements of UDO §§10.2.9 and 6.9.3E, and the special use permit for the Live/Work unit should be issued.
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 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 Coble moved to approve the Special Use Permit. His motion was seconded by Mr. McLamb and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (Coble, McLamb, Jeffreys, Conti, Kemerait); Noes – 0. Chairman Coble ruled the motion adopted and the Special Use Permit granted.
******************************************************************************
A-34-15 – 5/11/15
DECISION:Deferred to the Board’s June 8, 2015 meeting.