Raleigh Board of Adjustment Minutes - 11/14/2016

Raleigh Board of Adjustment

November 14, 2016

RALEIGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES

The Raleigh Board of Adjustment met in regular session on Monday, November 14, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Room 201 of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina with the following present:

BoardStaff

J. Carr McLamb, Chairman (City)David Gadd, Attorney to the Board

Karen Kemerait, Vice Chair (City)Assistant Planning Director Travis Crane

Donald Mial, Secretary (County)Assistant Planning Administrator Eric

Neil Riemann (City)Hodge

Judson Root (City)Assistant Deputy Clerk Ralph Puccini

Jamie McCaskill (City Alternate)

These are summary minutes unless otherwise indicated:

Chairman McLamb called the meeting to order, and introduced members of the Board and staff present. He indicated Mr. Riemann has been elevated to full voting member and welcomed the Board’s newest member, Jamie McCaskill, who was recently appointed by the Raleigh City Council as an alternate member. He also welcomed Attorney David Gadd, who is sitting in for John Silverstein.

Chairman McLamb read the rules of procedure for today’s meeting, and then swore in Assistant Planning Director Travis Crane and Assistant Planning Administrator Eric Hodge, who used a PowerPoint presentation in giving testimony.

The following applications were heard with actions taken as shown:

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – BOARD SECRETARY POSITION VACANT – COUNTY MEMBER DONALD MIAL ELECTED TO SERVE

Chairman McLamb indicated the position of Board Secretary was now vacant as the previous Secretary, Eugene Conti, had indicated he did not wish to seek reappointment when his term expired. Chairman McLamb opened the floor for nominations for the position of Board Secretary.

Chairman McLamb nominated County member Donald Mial for the position of Board Secretary. His nomination was seconded by Mr. Riemann, and Mr. Mial accepted the nomination. There were no other nominations made; thus Chairman McLamb closed the floor to nominations and Mr. Mial’s nomination was put to a vote that resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. Chairman McLamb ruled the motion adopted unanimously and congratulated Mr. Mial on his election to Board Secretary.

A-118-16 – 11/14/16

Decision:Approved as requested.

WHEREAS,WilliamJ.Dumont,propertyowner,requestsa.9’side setbackvariancepursuanttoSection2.2.1.oftheUnifiedDevelopmentOrdinancetolegalizearecentlyconstructedadditiontotherearoftheexistingdetachedhousethatresultedina4.1’sideyardsetbackona.13acrepropertyzonedResidential-10andlocatedat612E.SouthStreet.

Assistant Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn)indicated the subject property previously appeared before the Board in 2014 to approve a front yard setback variance of 1.68 feet to legalize the then-existing dwelling. He stated the current request is for a recently-constructed rear addition, and indicated the issue came to light during an as-built survey. He stated the addition encroaches slightly further than the original front section, and indicated Staff does not oppose the request.

Applicant

Will Sumont, 303 Bathgate Drive, Cary (sworn), indicated the 2014 variance was approved under the previous owner, and stated he bought both the subject and adjacent lots. He indicated he received the plans for the addition from the previous owner, and acknowledged the error was discovered after the foundation for the addition was poured. He stated the dwelling has since been sold; however, the buyers are currently living in the dwelling as renters until this issue is resolved. In response to questions, he stated the error was discovered the day before closing by the surveyor.

Brief discussion took place regarding the 2014 variance granted to legalize the original portion of the dwelling.

Opposition

None.

Requests for Notification

None.

Findings of Fact

1.Applicants seek a variance from UDO §2.2.1 to legalize an addition to the rear of a dwelling.

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 §2.2.1, Applicants would have to provide a 5 foot side yard setback in this R-10 zoning district.

6.Applicants are unable to comply with UDO §2.2.1 because the new addition to the rear encroaches 0.9 feet into the side yard setback.

7.The encroachment was discovered after the addition was completed.

8.This property was previously before the Board in 2014, at which time a front yard variance was approved.

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, Mial, Riemann, Root); Noes – 0. Chairman McLamb ruled the motion adopted on a 5-0 vote and the variance granted.

A-119-16 – 11/14/16

Decision:Approved as requested.

WHEREAS,CentennialLandCompany,LLC,propertyowner,requestsavariancetoreducethebuildingwidthinprimarybuild-to requirementssetforthinSection2.2.3.oftheUnifiedDevelopmentOrdinancefroma70%requirementdowntoa57.4%requirementtoallowfortheconstructionofafour-unittownhousedevelopmentona.47acresitezonedResidential-10andlocatedat848LakeRaleighRoad.

Assistant Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn) explained the UDO regulations regarding townhouse development and stated the Applicant proposes to build two 2-unit townhouses with appropriate driveway space. He expressed his opinion the application meets the hardship requirements; therefore Staff does not oppose the request.

Mr. Riemann questioned the intended use with Mr. Hodge responding the intended use is residential and indicated office use is not allowed.

Applicant

Attorney Sam Weathers, 720 West Hargett Street, representing the Applicant (sworn), confirmed Mr. Hodge’s testimony and indicated Lake Raleigh Road dead-ends just south of the subject property. He pointed out an adjacent townhouse development to the rear of the subject property and indicated his client proposes to build his structures with a similar look. He talked about the surrounding uses being higher density and how his client’s project would be in character with area development.

Opposition

None.

Requests for Notification

None.

Findings of Fact

1.Applicant seeks a variance from UDO §2.2.3 to reduce the 70% build-to width for the construction of a 4 unit townhouse on a .47 acre 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 §2.2.3, Applicant would be required to erect a building that is at least 70% of the lot width.

6.Applicant is unable to comply with the UDO because the required width would prevent this small 4 unit development with associated amenities from fitting on the lot.

7.The 2 buildings and driveway will be compatible with adjacent uses.

8.Strict compliance with the provisions of the ordinance would deprive Applicant from the reasonable use of the property.

9.The Applicant's actions did not create the hardship.

10.The character of surrounding properties would not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. None of the persons opposing the variances live near the subject property.

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 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 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 Ms. Kemerait and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (McLamb, Kemerait, Mial, Riemann, Root); Noes – 0. Chairman McLamb ruled the motion adopted on a 5-0 vote and the variance granted.

******************************************************************************

A-120-16 – 11/14/16

Decision:Approved as requested.

WHEREAS,RaymondCarroll,propertyowner,requestsa1.9’sideyardsetbackvarianceanda2’sumofsidesetbacksvariancetobothlegalizeandexpandtheexistingdetachedhouseverticallypursuanttoSection2.2.1. oftheUnifiedDevelopmentOrdinanceresultingina3.1’sideyardsetbackon a.17acrepropertyzonedResidential-6andNeighborhoodConservation OverlayDistrictandlocatedat1207WakeForestRoad.

Assistant Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn) stated the Applicant proposes to expand the existing structure vertically and indicated the request is to legalize the existing structure. He stated Staff does not oppose the request as the proposed addition will not encroach any further into the setback.

Applicant

Attorney Catherine Wilkerson, Lynch and Eatman, 4130 Parklake Avenue, representing the Applicant (sworn), confirmed Mr. Hodge’s testimony and affirmed the addition will not encroach further into the setback and will not be higher than the current structure.

Robby Johnson, 544 East Edenton Street (sworn), indicated he is the architect and talked about the setback issue and went on to explain the reason for the variance. He stated the addition will be well within the building height limit.

Brandon Baxley, 1211 Wake Forest Road (sworn), expressed his support for the variance.

Opposition

Mary Armanasco, 1209 Wake Forest Road (sworn), indicated her home is the adjacent property on the north side and pointed out the dwellings’ close proximity to each other. She expressed concern the addition would affect her access to sunlight with Mr. Johnson responding the proposed addition will have a flat roof and will be below the height limit.

Requests for Notification

None.

Findings of Fact

1.Applicants seek variances from UDO §2.2.1 to legalize and expand an existing dwelling.

2.The Board has considered Applicant's 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 §2.2.1, Applicants would have to meet all yard setback requirements on this 0.17 acre lot in an R-6 and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay zoning district.

6.Applicants are unable to comply with UDO §2.2.1 because the existing dwelling does not meet the required side yard setback.

7.The addition is vertical and would not encroach any further into the side yard setback.

8.The proposed addition will not exceed the height of the current structure.

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 prior decision may be reversed, modified or affirmed.

Motion

Chairman McLamb moved to approve the variances as requested. His motion was seconded by Ms. Kemerait and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (McLamb, Kemerait, Mial, Riemann, Root); Noes – 0. Chairman McLamb ruled the motion adopted on a 5-0 vote and the variances granted.

******************************************************************************

A-121-16 – 11/14/16

Decision:Approved as requested.

WHEREAS,DennisM.Trimble,propertyowner,requestscompleterelieffromtheprimarystreetsetbackanda15’variancetotherearsetbackpursuanttoSection2.2.1oftheUnifiedDevelopmentOrdinanceaswellasa one-spaceparkingvariancefromtheoff-streetparkingrequirementssetforthinSection7.1.2.C.oftheUnifiedDevelopmentOrdinancetolegalizetheexistingdetachedhouseandallowforitsverticalexpansionthatresultsina 0’primarystreetsetbackanda5’rearyardsetbackwithoneoff-streetparkingspaceona.06acresitezonedResidential-10andlocatedat521AlstonStreet.

Assistant Planning Administrator Eric Hodge (sworn)indicated the subject lot is small and triangular in shape and stated the Applicant proposes to replace the existing structure with a 3-story residence on the same footprint. He stated Staff does not oppose the request.

Applicant

Attorney Isabel Worthy Mattox, Post Office Box 946, Raleigh, representing the Applicant as well as the prospective developer (sworn), explained the request citing the lot size and odd shape and affirmed the proposed structure will be built on the same footprint as the existing structure. She stated her client can provide one off-street parking space and went on to assert hardships exist due to the lot’s shape, size, topography, as well as the lone mature tree on the property that her client wishes to preserve.

David Menaker (sworn) indicated he is under contract to purchase the subject property and stated the existing encroachment into the right-of-way will be abated in order to utilize space for the driveway.

Opposition

Betty Spruill, 517 Alston Street (sworn), questioned how the project would affect her property with Chairman McLamb explaining the Applicant proposes to rebuild on the same footprint as the existing dwelling and will not encroach onto her property.

Requests for Notification

None.

Findings of Fact

1.Applicants seek variances from UDO §§7.1.2.C and 2.2.1 to legalize and expand anexisting dwelling.

2.The Board has considered Applicant's 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 §§7.1.2.C and 2.2.1, Applicants would have to meet all yard setback requirements and off-street parking requirements on this 0.06 acre lot in an R-10 zoning district.

6.Applicants are unable to comply with UDO §§ 7.1.2.1.C and 2.2.1 because the existing dwelling neither meets the required yard setbacks, nor will the lot accommodate any off-street parking.

7.The nonconforming lot has an odd shape, and the proposed structure will have the same footprint as the previously existing dwelling, and will provide for one off-street parking space.

8.An existing encroachment into the right-of-way will be abated to provide space for a driveway.

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 prior decision may be reversed, modified or affirmed.

Motion

Chairman McLamb moved to approve the variances as requested. His motion was seconded by Mr. Riemann and received the following vote: Ayes – 5 (McLamb, Riemann, Kemerait, Mial, Root); Noes – 0. Chairman McLamb ruled the motion adopted on a 5-0 vote and the variances granted.