TOWN OF CARY
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 
MINUTES

Monday, September 8, 2003, 7:00PM

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

APPLICATION:   03-V-011

STAFF CONTACT:   Beth Lewis

SUBJECT PROPERTY:  101 Solway Court, Cary, NC  27511

APPLICANT(S):  Cheri Daniels

OWNER(S):  Cheri Daniels

REQUEST:  Variance of 5’ to the required 5’ setback for an accessory structure, and a variance of 4.5’ to the required 5’ setback between the principal structure and a detached accessory structure to construct a 20’ wide detached carport.

TESTIMONY:  The Board heard testimony from staff and the property owner.  The testimony included:

Cheri Daniels – property owner

·       There’s a sewer easement on the left hand side of house preventing her from putting the carport on that side.
·      Neighbor has no objection to the carport coming up to their joined property line.
·      Will have to remove a 70-80’ pine tree.
·      The problem with putting the carport in the back of the house is that they would have to remove 5 or 6 large pine
      trees which is part of the ambiance of the neighborhood and would reflect on the whole neighborhood.

ACTION:   Mr. Block 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 has not met the approval criteria set
forth for a variance in Section 3.20.5 of the Cary LDO, and the application be DENIED.

Mr. Block’s motion included that the findings 1 through 5 below be found, and that Ms. Daniels be denied a
variance to construct a 20’ wide detached carport.  

      FINDINGS OF FACT:

      1.   The application for the variance was filed by Cheri Daniels, the owner of the property.
2.   The applicant took part in the pre-application conference required by 3.10.3(B).
3.   The property has the following dimensions: 90’ along Solway Court , 150’ along the northern side property line,
      140’ along the southern side property line, and 122’ along the rear property line.
4.   The property is improved with a single-family residence.
5.   The property is zoned R12, Residential 12, which requires a 30’ front setback, a 25’ rear setback, a 10’ side
      setback, a 5’ setback from the property line for a detached accessory structure, and a 5’ setback between the
      principal structure and a detached accessory structure.

Ms. Strickland seconded the motion.  The Board voted (10-0) in favor of the motion to deny the variance application.
 

APPLICATION:   03-V-012

      STAFF CONTACT:   Beth Lewis

      SUBJECT PROPERTY:  116 Cricketgrass Drive, Cary , NC 27513

      APPLICANT(S):  Champion Window Co., Morrisville , NC   27560

      OWNER(S):   Barbara Terry

      REQUEST:   Variance of 8’ to the required 15’ rear setback to retain a recently-constructed patio room placed in error.

      TESTIMONY:   The Board heard testimony from staff, Mr. Rick Garee, Mr. Richard Covington, Ms. Betsey Mikita, Ms.
      Lynne Westen and Ms. Lisa Kyes.  The oral testimony included:

      Rick Agree – Installation Manager for Champion Windows

• Stated the definition of a foundation as being the deck as a whole along with the footings.
• Mr. Garee submitted a plot plan for the building permit.  This plot plan showed that the distance from the rear of the proposed sun room to the property boundary was 15 feet.  (The actual distance is seven feet.)
• On 5/7/03 the permit was approved by Michael Austin.  The permit included the following statement:  “A sealed as-built foundation survey is required at the time of the foundation inspection.”
• 6/5/03 – Foundation inspection – pink slip that was left did not say they needed to stop working and submit survey.  After that inspection the room was built within two days.
• 6/11/03 – A framing inspection was requested, and that’s when they were notified that they needed an as-built foundation survey.  “This was the only time that I was notified of a foundation survey.”
• Could find no existing iron pipe on property.  He measured from the closest corner to within a couple of feet of gravel walkway, trying to allow for common area.

     Richard Covington – adjacent property owner

     He has no objection to this application.

       Betsey Mikita – Board of Directors of Hermitage Park and Chairman of Architectural Controls Committee

      ·    Plot plan Ms. Terry gave to the builder is the plot plan that they were all given when they closed on their homes.
      ·     The committee reviewed her request and, based on her plot plan, they approved it.

     Mr. Garee

     ·    He followed what he could read of the old one (survey).  The older one was very sketchy.  Could only make out the
         outer parts of the property lines.
     ·    The measurement for the house probably was not done.

     Lynne Westen – President of Homeowners Association

     ·    Also has a sunroom in this development that was approved 5 years ago.
     ·    There are two other houses in this development that have 10x12’ sunrooms on them that were approved by Town of
         Cary .
     ·    They have a little more room in the back of their houses because they run up against the pond.

     Lisa Kyes – adjacent property owner

     ·    There’s only about 2 or 3 feet from the walkway to Ms. Terry’s window.  Their view of the woods, the trees and the
         lake that was back there is obstructed.
     ·    Her family is opposed to the structure remaining there because it does detract from what they had before it was put
         up.

     After hearing the testimony, the Board discussed the application.

     ACTION:   Mr. Werner 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. Werner’s motion included that all of the findings below be found, and that the applicant be granted a variance to
     retain a patio room at 116 Cricketgrass Drive .  

     FINDINGS OF FACT:  

        1.   The application for the variance was filed by Champion Window Co., an agent for the owner Barbara Terry.
      Both the agent and the owner signed the application
2.   The applicant took part in the pre-application conference required by 3.10.3(B).
3.   The property has the following dimensions: 41.5’ along Cricketgrass Drive , 83’ along each side property line,
      48.89’ along the rear property line.
4.   The property is improved with a single-family residence.
5.   The property is zoned TR, Transitional Residential, which requires a 20’ front setback, a 15’ rear setback, and
      a side yard setback with a minimum of 1’ and an aggregate of 13’.

Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion.  The Board voted (4-6) in favor of the motion to approve the variance
application.  Since a four-fifths majority is required to approve a variance request, approval was denied.