TOWN OF CARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING
Monday, June 10, 2002

CASE:

02-V-008

STAFF CONTACT:

Beth Lewis, Planner

(919) 469-4342
e-mail: ehlewis@ci.cary.nc.us

APPLICANT(S):

Frank Martin

OWNER(S):

Frank and Mary Martin

LOCATION:

101 Olympic Drive, Cary, NC 27513

 

PRESENT ZONING:

Residential-30 Planned Unit Development (R30-PUD)

REQUEST:

The applicants are requesting a variance of 3.15 feet to the required 20’ corner side yard setback and a variance of 0.71 feet to the required 27 foot front yard setback for an open porch on an existing home to add a sunroom to the rear of the home that would not encroach any setbacks.

FACTORS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A VARIANCE:

The "variance" process…is intended to provide limited relief from the [UDO] in those cases where strict application of a particular requirement will create a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship prohibiting the use of land in a manner otherwise allowed under the UDO. A variance is not designed to remove inconveniences or financial burdens, but to provide relief where the requirements of the UDO render the land difficult or impossible to use because of some unique physical attribute of the property itself or some other factor unique to the property for which the variance is requested. [Sec. 6.1.1.]

The Board may not grant variance that would

The Standard for issuing a variance, as set forth in Sec. 6.1.5. (a) The Board may grant a variance, which is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. (b) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of the zoning ordinance, the Board may vary or modify the regulation or provisions of the ordinance, so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done.

REQUEST

The applicants are requesting a variance of 3.15 feet to the required 20 foot corner side yard setback and a variance of 0.71 feet to the required 27 foot front yard setback for an open porch (the required setback for a principal structure is 30 feet, but an open porch may encroach 3 feet), for an existing home. The applicants wish to construct a sunroom at the rear of the home that would not encroach any required setbacks.

FINDINGS

Undisputed Facts:

  1. The property is owned by Frank Martin, who has requested the variance
  2. The property has the following dimensions: Approximately 90 feet along Arlington Ridge, the front yard; approximately 100 feet along Olympic Drive, the corner side yard; 67.32 feet along the rear property line, opposite Arlington Ridge; 100 feet along the interior side yard, opposite Olympic Drive.
  3. The property is improved with a single family home.
  4. The property is zoned R30PUD, which is residential and requires a 30 foot front yard setback, a 25 foot rear yard setback, a 20 foot corner side yard setback, and a 15 foot aggregate interior side yard setback.

 

    If you are inclined to deny the variance If you are inclined to grant the variance request, follow this route: request, follow this route:

5.  There are no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships present.
  1. The problem is not unique to this property: There are other structures in Cary that do not meet the required setbacks.
  2. The applicant created the problem: The applicant would not need to seek a variance if they chose to make no additions to the home.
  3. Without the variance, the applicant could still secure reasonable return from the use of the property, because the property is currently improved with a single-family home.

If you choose to deny the variance , you may stop after making the above findings, or may make additional findings.

5. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that exist.

(a) The following unique conditions exist on the property (cite unique conditions such as wetlands, slopes, etc), causing practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship in developing the property in conformance with the UDO : The home was built in 1989 and the existing encroachments to the setbacks were created at the time.

(b) The applicant did not create the problem. They did not know about the encroachments until they applied for a building permit for the proposed sunroom, and learned of the encroachments.

(c) Without the variance, the applicant will not be able to secure a reasonable return from the use of the property because: without a variance for the existing structure, no additions may be made to the home, as the home is currently nonconforming.

OR

6. Granting the variance would meet the spirit of the UDO, public safety and welfare will be secured and substantial justice will be done, because:

(a)    The requested variances would make an existing nonconforming home legal. This is a problem that the current property owners inherited, and without the variances, they could make no additions to the home.

If you desire to attach conditions to the grant of the variance,

Requiring certain conditions to be met will alleviate the problems with granting the variance.

Conditions:

MOTION TO GRANT VARIANCE WITH/WITHOUT CONDITIONS

After conducting a duly advertised public hearing and reviewing the application, testimony and evidence and the general purposes of the UDO, we find the following

FACTS: [insert facts found]

 

 

CONCLUSION:

  1. Based on the application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the UDO, and the above findings, the Board concludes that the applicant meets each of the standards set forth for a variance in Section 6.1.5 of the Cary UDO.
  2. The applicant is hereby granted a variance to construct a sunroom to be located 101 Olympic Drive.
  3. This variance is conditioned upon:

 ____  a fence being constructed

 ____  a buffer to be installed

_____ a ______

 

MOTION TO DENY VARIANCE

After conducting a duly advertised public hearing and reviewing the application, testimony and evidence and the general purposes of the UDO, we find the following

FACTS: [insert facts found]

 

CONCLUSION:
  1. Based on the application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the UDO, and the above findings, the Board concludes that the applicant has not met the standards set forth for a variance in Section 6.1.5 of the Cary UDO, and the application is DENIED.