APPLICATION:  03-V-004

      STAFF CONTACT:  Beth Lewis

        SUBJECT PROPERTY:  406 Melanie Lane , Cary , NC   27511

        APPLICANT:  Thomas and Sherry Lehman

        OWNER(S):    Thomas and Sherry Lehman

        REQUEST:     The applicants are requesting a variance of 4’ to the required 10’ side yard setback to construct
        a garage at a single-family residence.  The request is to permit encroachment into the required 10’ side yard
        setback by a maximum of 4’ for the left front corner of the garage.  Approximately the first 5’ of the depth of
        the garage would encroach the setback, beginning with a 4’ encroachment and decreasing to zero, as the lot
        widens as the depth increases toward the rear of the lot.

ACTION:     Mr. Koeppel moved that, based on the application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the UDO, and the findings below, the Board concludes that the variance requested would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance, and that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that result from carrying out the strict letter of the Cary UDO.

Mr. Koeppel’s motion included that the findings 1 through 11 below be found, and that Mr. and Mrs. Lehman be granted a variance to construct a one and one-half car (20-foot) garage at 406 Melanie Lane.

  FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. The property is owned by Thomas and Sherry Lehman, both of whom have requested the variance. 

2. The property has the following dimensions: The property is a pentagon, with approximately 44.4’ along Melanie Lane, 161.6’ along the south (side) property line, and 129.9’ along the north (side) property line, and 130’ and 124.7’ along the two lines that make up the rear property line.  The property is just over one-half acre in area. 

3. The property is developed with a single-family residence.

4. The property is zoned R12, which is Residential 12, and requires a 20’ front yard setback, a 25’ rear yard setback, and 10’ side yard setbacks.

5. The applicant is unable to obtain a building permit for the proposed garage, as it would encroach the required 10’ side yard setback by 4’.

6. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that exist on the property.  There are two easements along the northern side of the property, totaling 20’ and precluding development along that side of the property.  There is a creek and 20' drainage easement behind the residence, effectively dividing the property in half and limiting the use of the property on the far side of the creek.  Finally, on the far side of the creek, there is a 30’ sewer easement traversing the width of the property, limiting any development in that area, if the creek could be broached.

7. The conditions are not the result of the applicant’s own doing.  The easements were instituted before the structure was built.

8. The applicant is not able to obtain a building permit.  The garage as planned, a 20’ wide structure, is a one and one-half car garage.  A structure of that size is planned because there are exterior stairs in that area, and the stairs would be enclosed in the garage.  A narrower garage would be difficult to use for even one car, as the stairs would encroach into the parking area.  The 4’ variance requested is just about the width of the stairs.  The encroachment into the setback would not be for the entire depth of the garage, but for the first 5’.  The proposed garage could be set 5’ further back on the lot, but this might require moving the exterior stairs.

9. There is insufficient space on the property to construct the proposed structure.  There is insufficient space on this site to construct the garage without encroaching setbacks or easements and to enclose the exterior stairs.

10. The construction will not have a negative effect on adjoining property, as the residence abutting the Lehman’s property on this side is over 30’ from the common property line.  Even if the neighbors planned to build a garage the same size as this planned garage, the structures would still be at least 19’ apart at the closest.

11. Construction of the garage will not impair emergency access, create a fire hazard, or otherwise be contrary to public health.  The 20’ wide easements on the other side of the residence provide ample access to the rear for any emergency use.

   Mr. Cantrell seconded the motion.  The Board voted ((10-0) in favor of the motion to approve the variance
         application.

   APPLICATION:  03-V-007

         STAFF CONTACT:  Beth Lewis

         SUBJECT PROPERTY:  100 Fawn Court , Cary , NC   27513

   APPLICANT:  William C. Graham

         OWNER(S):    William C. Graham

         REQUEST:     The applicant is requesting a variance of 5’ to the required 10’ side yard setback in the area of the
         rear corner to construct a 20’ wide garage addition to a single-family residence.  The garage encroaches for a
         distance of approximately 10’ in length into the required setback.

         ACTION:     Mr. Werner moved that based on the application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the
         UDO, and the findings below, the Board concludes that the variance requested would be in harmony with the general
         purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance, and that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that
         result from carrying out the strict letter of the Cary UDO.

         Mr. Werner’s motion included that the findings 1 through 7 below be found, and that Mr. Graham be granted a
         variance to construct a 20’ wide garage at 100 Fawn Court .

   FINDINGS OF FACT:
 
  1.   The property is owned by William C. Graham, who has requested the variance.
  2.   The property has the following dimensions: The property is a triangle, with approximately 170’ along each
        property line.  The property is 3/10 of an acre.
  3.   The property is developed with a single-family residence.
  4.   The property is zoned R12, which is Residential 12, and requires a 20’ front yard setback, a 25’ rear yard
        setback, and 10’ side yard setbacks.
  5.   The applicant is unable to obtain a building permit for the proposed garage, as it would encroach the required 10’
        side yard setback by 5’.
  6.   The conditions are not the result of the applicant’s own doing.  The lot was platted and the residence built when
        the applicant purchased the parcel.
  7.   There is insufficient space on the property to construct the proposed structure.  There is insufficient space on
        this site in this location to construct the planned garage in the desired location without encroaching setbacks.

  Mr. Koeppel seconded the motion.  The Board voted ((9-1) in favor of the motion to approve the variance application,
  with Mr. Block casting the dissenting vote.

  APPLICATION:  03-V-008

  STAFF CONTACT:  Beth Lewis

  SUBJECT PROPERTY:   314 Howland Avenue , Cary , NC 27513

  APPLICANT:  Dalma B. Jones, Jr.

  OWNER(S):    Dalma B. Jones, Jr.

  REQUEST:      The applicant is requesting variances for two accessory structures.  The request for the building along
  the western property line (Building A)  includes a request for a variance of 14” to the required 5’ side yard setback for
  an accessory structure and a 1’ variance to the required 5’ setback between a principal structure and an accessory
  structure.  The request for the building along the eastern property line (Building B) includes a request for a variance of
  8” to the required 5’ side yard setback for an accessory structure to relocate an existing building.

  ACTION:      First variance request for Building A

Mr. Werner moved that based on the application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the UDO, and the findings below, the Board concludes that the variance requested would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance, and that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that result from carrying out the strict letter of the Cary UDO.

Mr. Werner’s motion included that the findings 1 through 9 below be found, and that Mr. Jones be granted a variance to retain an existing accessory structure (Building A).

  FINDINGS OF FACT:

1.   The property is owned by Dalma B. Jones, Jr., who has requested the variance.
2.   The property has the following dimensions: 70’ along Howland Avenue , approximately 133’ along the rear
      property line, approximately 210’ along the western side property line, and approximately 162’ along the eastern
      side property line.  The property is approximately 0.43 acres.
3.   The property is developed with single-family residence.
4.   The property is zoned R-12, which is Residential 12, and requires a 20’ front yard setback, a 25’ rear yard
      setback, 10’ side yard setbacks, and a setback of 5’ for accessory structures.  A setback of 5’ between
      accessory structures and the principal structure is required as well.
5.   The applicant is unable to obtain a building permit for the structure on the western property line, as it encroaches
      the required setback.  He is unable to obtain a building permit to move the structure on the eastern property line,
      as it would then encroach the setback.
6.       There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that exist on the property.  The lot has a steep grade in
      the rear yard, requiring all structures to be placed on the front half of the lot to avoid a steep drop-off.
7.   The conditions are not the result of the applicant’s own doing.  The steep grade in the rear was created before
      the residence was constructed.
8.   The applicant is not able to obtain a building permit.  A permit for this building would not be granted, as the
      building does not meet the setbacks.
9.   The construction will not have a negative effect on adjoining property.  The residence next door is almost 50’ from
      Mr. Jones’ residence.  With this proposed addition, there will still be over 30’ between the closest points of the
      structures.

Mr. Koeppel seconded the motion.  The Board voted (8-2) in favor of the motion to approve the variance application with Mr. Cantrell and Mr. Frick casting the dissenting votes.

ACTION:      Second variance request for Building B

Mr. Koeppel moved that based on the application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the UDO, and the findings below, the Board concludes that the variance requested would not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the UDO, and that there are no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that result from carrying out the strict letter of the Cary UDO.

Mr. Koeppel’s motion included that the findings 1 through 7 below be found, and that Mr. Jones be denied a variance to relocate an existing accessory structure (Building B).




1.  The property is owned by Dalma B. Jones, Jr., who has requested the variance.
2.  The property has the following dimensions: 70’ along Howland Avenue, approximately 133’ along the rear
     property line, approximately 210’ along the western side property line, and approximately 162’ along the eastern
     side property line.  The property is approximately 0.43 acres.
3.  The property is developed with single-family residence.
4.  The property is zoned R-12, which is Residential 12, and requires a 20’ front yard setback, a 25’ rear yard
     setback, 10’ side yard setbacks, and a setback of 5’ for accessory structures.  A setback of 5’ between
     accessory structures and the principal structure is required as well.
5.  The applicant is unable to obtain a building permit for the structure on the western property line, as it encroaches
     the required setback.  He is unable to obtain a building permit to move the structure on the eastern property line,
     as it would then encroach the setback.
6.  There are no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that exist on the property.  The building currently
     exists, and meets the required setbacks.
7.  There is sufficient space on the property to construct the proposed structure.  The structure currently exists, and
     is conforming.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.  The Board voted (6-4) in favor of the motion to deny the variance application with Mr. Block, Mr. Frick, Ms. Riggsbee and Mr. Weaver casting the dissenting votes.

        APPLICATION:  03-V-009

        STAFF CONTACT:  Beth Lewis

        SUBJECT PROPERTY:   102 Lendl Court , Cary , NC   27511

        APPLICANT:   Donald and Margaret Singer

        OWNER(S):     Donald and Margaret Singer

        REQUEST:      Variance of 10’ to the required 10’ setback from a buffer to construct a sunroom addition to a
        single-family residence.

        ACTION:     Mr. Crutchfield moved that due to the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Singer were not present, the Board
        postpone hearing this case until the next meeting of the Board of Adjustment.

  Mr. Strom seconded the motion.  The board voted unanimously in favor of the motion to postpone this case until the
  next meeting of the Board.

6.   New and Old Business

The Board met from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. , prior to the scheduled meeting, for a training session on the new Land Development Ordinance which became effective on July 1, 2003 .  In attendance were:  Mr. Berndt, Mr. Block, Mr. Cantrell, Mr. Crutchfield, Mr. Frick, Mr. Koepel, Mr. Strom, Mr. Werner, Mr. Weaver, Ms. Riggsbee, Chris Simpson, J.W. Shearin, Chad Meadows, Beth Lewis, June Nemetz, Walter Harris.  Senior Planner Chad Meadows presented the new LDO along with group discussion.   Mr. Meadows informed the Board that paper copies of the LDO should be available for all members by the end of the year.

At the end of the regular meeting, Ms. Lewis discussed the 2004 Board of Adjustment meeting schedule which will be prepared shortly.  She recommended that the Board consider the option of eliminating one meeting during the summer months with discussion to follow at the next Board of Adjustment meeting.

7.   Adjournment