REQUEST: The applicants are requesting a variance to replace an existing wooden deck with a larger family room, deck, and screened room. The proposed addition will encroach the required 10-foot setback from a buffer by ten (10) feet, and encroach the required 20-foot rear yard setback by five (5) feet. The proposed addition will be fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line.

After hearing testimony from staff and the applicant, the Board discussed the application. Discussion included consideration of the buffer, which adjoined Town open space/greenway, and that there was about 213 feet to the next closest property in the rear due to the greenway. JW Shearin explained that the open space/greenway and the residential use are different classes of use, and therefore a buffer would be required even today, although now under the UDO, the buffer would not be plotted on the residential lot.

1. Drue and Lynn Merkle, all of whom have requested the variance, own the property.
2. The property has the following dimensions. Approximately 40 feet along Ashley Brook Court, the front property line; 135 feet along the rear property line; 109 feet along the east side property line; 130 feet along the west side property line.
3. The property is not vacant.
4. The property is zoned R30PUD, which is residential and requires a 20 foot front yard setback, a 20 foot rear yard setback, a setback of 10 from the buffer, and a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet, with an aggregate of 15 feet.
5. There are no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that exist on the property.
6. There is insufficient space on the property to construct the proposed addition of a size and in a manner compatible with surrounding property without encroaching the setbacks.
7. Construction of the family room/screened room/deck addition will have a negative impact on adjoining property.
8. If the family room, screened room, and deck cannot be constructed, there is other practical use of the property.

Based on the application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the UDO, and the above findings, the Board concludes that the applicant has not met the standards set forth for a variance of ten (10) feet to the required setback from a buffer and five (5) feet to the required rear yard setback to construct a family room, screened porch, and deck at 213 Ashley Brook Court, as spelled out in Section 6.1.5 of the Cary UDO, and the application is DENIED.

REQUEST: The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, Davis Hein, is requesting a variance to enlarge the home through (a) an addition to the rear of the home to the master bedroom, the master bath, and the kitchen, and (b) an addition of a carport and storage area. The carport/storage addition is proposed to encroach the corner side yard setback from Shincliff Court by three (3) feet. The bedroom/bath/kitchen addition is proposed to encroach the rear yard setback by thirteen (13) feet.

After hearing testimony from staff, the applicant and the property owner, the Board discussed the application. There was testimony that the storage area in the rear of the house currently encroaches, but that it is legal nonconforming. There was also discussion about the manner in which the house is situated on the lot.

ACTION: Mr. Weaver made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Strom, that after conducting a duly advertised public hearing and reviewing the application, testimony and evidence and the general purposes of the UDO, we find the following facts:

1. The applicant is an agent, lessee, or contract purchaser authorized by all the property owners to file this application, and written documentation of that authorization has been received.
2. The property has the following dimensions. 108 feet along Kimbolton Drive, 73 feet along Shincliff Court, 120 feet along the rear property line, and 91.56 feet along the interior side property line.
3. The property is not vacant.
4. The property is zoned R12, which is residential and requires a twenty (20) foot front yard setback, a twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback, an eighteen (18) foot corner side yard setback, and a ten (10) foot side yard setback.
5. There are no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that exist on the property.
6. The conditions are not the result of the applicant’s own doing; the home was positioned this way when the current owner purchased it. The additions, however, are creating an encroachment that did not previously exist.
7. The applicant desires to enlarge the master bedroom, master bath, and kitchen, and add a carport/storage area, and is not able to obtain a building permit because the proposed additions encroach the required setbacks from Shincliff Court and from the rear property line.
8. There is insufficient space on the property to construct the proposed additions of a size and in a manner compatible with surrounding property without encroaching the required corner side and rear yard setbacks.
9. If the additions cannot be constructed, there is other practical use of the property.
10. Construction of the bedroom/bath/kitchen addition and carport/storage addition will have a negative impact on adjoining property.

Based on the application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the UDO, and the above findings, the Board concludes that the applicant has not met the standards set forth for a variance of three (3) feet to the required corner side yard setback from Shincliff Court and a variance of thirteen (13) feet to the required 25 foot rear yard setback to make an addition to the master bedroom/bath/ kitchen in the existing home, and to add a carport/storage area at 1207 Kimbolton Drive, as spelled out in Section 6.1.5 of the Cary UDO, and the application is DENIED.