TOWN OF CARY
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 
MINUTES

Monday, August 11, 2003, 7:00PM

Town Hall, Building A, Auditorium
316 N. Academy St., Cary, N.C.
Web Site: http://www.townofcary.org

APPLICATION:   03-V-009

STAFF CONTACT:   Beth Lewis

SUBJECT PROPERTY:    102 Lendl Court , Cary , NC 27511
  
APPLICANT(S):   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. 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 11 below be found, and that Mr. and Mrs. Singer be granted a variance to construct a sunroom at 102 Lendl Court .

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1.   The property is owned by Donald and Margaret Singer, who have requested the variance. 

2.   The property is six-sided, and has the following dimensions:  Approximately 57’ along Lendl Court, approximately 139’ along the eastern side property line, approximately 80’ and 122’  along the western side property line, approximately 60’ along the fifth side, and 152’ along the rear property line.  The property is almost ½ acre in area (0.46 acre).  

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

4.   The property is zoned R30PUD, which is Residential 30 Planned Unit Development, and requires a front setback of 20’, a minimum side setback of 10’, a rear setback of 10’, and a 10’ setback from a buffer.

5.   The applicant is unable to receive a building permit for a sunroom in the location planned, as it would be constructed into the required setback from a buffer.

6.   There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that exist on the property.  The property is impacted by a 30’ buffer in the rear and along one side property line.

7.   The conditions are not the result of the applicant’s own doing. The buffers were in place when the subdivision was platted. The structure was in place when the applicant purchased the property.

8.   The applicant is not able to obtain a building permit.  The proposed sunroom is planned to be constructed up to the edge of the buffer, requiring a variance of 10’ to the required 10’ setback from a buffer.

9.   There is insufficient space on the property to construct the proposed structure in the planned location. 

10. The construction will not have a negative effect on adjoining property.  The property adjoins farmland to the rear, and the farmland is protected by the 30’ buffer on the applicant’s property.  The 30’ buffer and 10’ setback from a buffer are in effect a 40’ rear yard setback, which is larger than the required rear yard setbacks in most neighborhoods.

11. Construction of the garage will not impair emergency access, create a fire hazard, or otherwise be contrary to public health. Access to the rear of the property would be available on the opposite side of the residence.

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

APPLICATION:   03-V-010

STAFF CONTACT:   Beth Lewis

SUBJECT PROPERTY:    215 Covington Square Drive, Cary , NC  27513
 
APPLICANT(S):   Philip and Tina Hammer

OWNER(S):         Phillip and Tina Hammer

REQUEST:   Variance of 4’ to the required 20’ rear setback to construct an addition to the rear of a single family residence.

ACTION:   Mr. Koeppel moved that, based on the application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the LDO, and the findings below, the Board concludes that the applicant meets each of the approval criteria set forth for a variance in Section 3.20.5 of the Cary LDO.

Mr. Koeppel’s motion included that all of the findings below be found, and that the applicant be granted a variance to construct a two-story den/bedroom addition to be located at 215 Covington Square Drive.

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1.      The application for a variance was filed by all the owners of the land affected by the variance.

2.   The applicant took part in the pre-application conference required by 3.10.3(B).

3.   The property has the following dimensions:  80’ along Covington Square Drive, approximately 132’ and 125’ along the side property lines, and a V-shaped rear property line made up of two line segments approximately 47’ and 45’ in length.

4.   The property is improved with a single-family residence.

5.   The property is zoned PDD Major, Planned Development District Major, and requires a 20’ front setback, a 5’ minimum/15’ aggregate side setback, and a 20’ rear setback.

6.   Special circumstances or conditions exist that are not common to similarly situated areas or buildings. The special circumstance is the shape of the property.  The property has a V-shaped rear property line, a constraint not found on other properties in the subdivision.

7.   Practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with the Ordinance’s standards because:

a)   Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Finding according to Wake County records, this residence has fewer square feet than many of the surrounding properties.  The addition would bring this property more in line with the surrounding neighborhood;

b)   Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer.  Finding this addition would have no effect on the delivery of public services;

c)   Whether the applicants’ predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance.  Finding without a variance, any addition to the residence would be limited by the rear property line configuration.

8.     The requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of the specific standards, the Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan.

9.     The conditions or circumstance found to affect the applicant’s property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to address the conditions or circumstances.  This lot’s unusual shape is not found in other lots in this neighborhood, and is unusual anywhere in Cary .

10.   The variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.  This addition only enroaches a small portion of the required setback by a maximum of 4’, for a total area of approximately 15 square feet.

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