TOWN OF CARY
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 
MINUTES
Monday, June 12, 7 p. m. 
Cary Town Council Chamber
316 N. Academy Street, Cary, NC
Web Site: http://www.townofcary.org

1.  Call to Order:  The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gaines Weaver at 7:11 p.m.

2.  Roll Call:
Board Members Present:   Lair Block, Robert Cassell, Steve Crutchfield, Eric Strom, Gaines Weaver-Chairman, Charles McDarris, Lea Strickland-Vice Chairman, Catherine Heath, ETJ
Board Members Absent:  None
Staff Present:  JoAnne Carlyle (Assistant Town Attorney), Jennifer Currin (PL), and Shelley Kirk (Secretary)

3.  Action on Minutes from the May 22, 2006 meeting:
Mr. Block made a motion to approve the minutes which was seconded by Ms. Strickland.  The Board voted unanimously (8-0) to approve the minutes.

4.  New Case Hearings:   
APPLICATION               #06-V-001
LOCATION:                   107 Wittenham Drive, Cary, NC
APPLICANT:                 Judith Tilley Stewart
OWNER:                       Judith Tilley Stewart
REQUEST:                    An 8’ variance for the rear yard setback of 25’ for a patio room on the existing deck

TESTIMONY:  Prior to testimony, Jennifer Currin stated for the record that Mr. Cassell had contacted her prior to last May’s board meeting with questions on case and reiterated that nothing was disclosed about the case in this conversation.  The following individuals were sworn in to give testimony:  Jennifer Currin and Judith Stewart.  Ms. Currin presented the case for the Town.   She reviewed the main points, emphasizing set backs, lot dimensions, and total acres in comparison to the surrounding parcels in the development.  Ms. Stewart presented her case and spoke in favor of the application.   Applicant also stated she had met with the Home Owners Association and they were in favor of her request with an incidental change to the color only.  Issues addressed related to LDO definitions of “unique” ; topography of the parcel; statement by applicant that she will not be extending patio further, just enclosing it with the patio room; and that the front façade of the house is not utilized.

FINDINGS OF UNDISPUTED FACTS: 

1. The property is owned by Judith Tilley Stewart, who has requested the variance.

2. The property has the following dimensions: 113.80’ along the North property line, 146.59’ along the rear property line, approximately 86.53’ along Barningham Court, and approximately 112.58’ along Wittenham Drive.     

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

4. The property is zoned Residential-12 (R-12), and requires a 25’ rear yard setback for enclosed structures. The applicant is requesting to encroach 8’ into the 25’ rear yard setback. The applicant is requesting the variance to enclose the deck, currently attached to the residence, to construct an enclosed patio room.

5. The applicant would be unable to get a building permit to construct the room addition without a variance.

6. The applicant took part in the required pre-application conference.

ACTION:  Board Concluded:

    1.    Undisputed Facts (Listed Above 1-6) are adopted as such; AND  

    2.    Special circumstances or conditions exist that are not common to similarly situated areas or buildings;  AND

    3.    Practical Difficulty may result from strict compliance with the Ordinance’s standards.  (The Board must consider the following approval criteria set forth in Section 3.20.5 of the Land Development Ordinance in determining “practical difficulty”:

a.   Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.

b.   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. 

c.   Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer.

d.    Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement.

e.    Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance.); AND

    4.    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; AND  

    5.    The conditions or circumstances 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.  AND

    6.    The variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT  

After conducting a duly advertised public hearing, considering and reviewing the application materials, the evidence submitted, the comments of the general public, the sworn testimony at the public hearing, and the approval criteria of Section 3.20.5 of the LDO, we find the following:

FINDINGS OF FACTS

1.  Practical difficulty may result from strict compliance, per relevant LDO sections; and     
2.  Unusual circumstances of the “unique” property doesn’t impact neighborhood; and
3.  The variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of the specific standards, the Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan

Ms. Heath made a motion to approve the variance based on the findings of fact and Mr. Cassell seconded the motion.  The applicant’s request for variance was GRANTED by the Board’s unanimous vote (8-0).

5.  New/Old Business:  Ms. Carlyle asked if the board members had any further concerns or comments about the revised worksheet and there were none.

6.  Adjournment:   Mr. Weaver adjourned the meeting at 7:27 p.m.