TOWN OF CARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING
September 11, 2000

The Zoning Board of Adjustment previously denied this variance request on December 8, 1986 (See Exhibit A for the case record). The owner at that time, Mr. Donald Huisingh, had illegally enclosed an existing carport to convert it into a garage. Since the required side setback was 10 feet, the carport (and the garage) should have been setback 10 feet from the property line. However, the carport was a legal nonconformity since the carport was constructed prior to the property being in Cary's zoning jurisdiction. Any alteration to the carport (such as enclosing to convert to a garage) would have required that the structure be brought into compliance with the 10-foot setback standard, unless a variance was granted. The garage currently sits about 2.3 feet from the side property line.

After the Zoning Board of Adjustment denied the variance request, the owner applied for another variance request for the same purpose on May 20, 1987. However, the case was never heard (See Exhibit B for the case record).

The owner was required to remove all materials that had been added to enclose the carport within 30 days of the Board's December 8, 1986 decision. As of April 1, 1987 this had not been done. Thus, the Town sent the owner another notice on April 1, 1987 giving him another 30 days to remove all materials added to the carport. To date, the materials were never removed and structure remains illegal.

On December 18, 1998, Mr. James Phillips purchased the property from Mr. Huisingh. Mr. Phillips began constructing a roof over his house without a building permit. Mr. Phillips was asked to stop construction and secure a permit. When the permit application was submitted, the Town noticed that the existing garage (i.e. enclosed carport) encroached into the side yard setback. Thus, the Town has suspended all work until the Zoning Board of Adjustment acts on the variance request.

Section 6.1.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance states that the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall refuse to hear a variance request which has been previously denied, unless it finds that there have been substantial changes in the conditions or circumstances relating to the matter.

Thus, the Board will first need to determine whether it wants to hear the variance request again. Should the Board determine that circumstances have changed significantly since December 9, 1986, the Board will then open a public hearing to consider Mr. Phillip's request. Of course, the Board has the option of not hearing the case.