TOWN OF CARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING
August 11, 2003

 

CASE:

03-V-009

STAFF CONTACT:

Beth Lewis
Planner
(919) 465-4610
e-mail: ehlewis@ci.cary.nc.us

APPLICANT(S):

Donald and Margaret Singer

 

OWNER(S):

Donald and Margaret Singer

 

LOCATION:

102 Lendl Court , Cary , NC   27511

PRESENT ZONING:

 

Residential 30 PUD (R-30-PUD)

SETBACK:

 

Front – 20’
Side – 10’ minimum, 20’ aggregate
Rear – 10’
From buffer – 10’

 

 

REQUEST:

Variance of 10’ to the required 10’ setback from a buffer to construct a sunroom addition to a single-family residence.

TOWN OF CARY                                                                   
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                                          

VARIANCE WORKSHEET

  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

·     permit establishment of a use which is not otherwise allowed, or

·     change the zoning district classification, or

·     vary any written conditions attached by Council to a special use, subdivision plat, site plan     or conditional use district or master plan for a PUD, or

·     vary any standard where Council alone acts (sexually oriented business and Thoroughfare     Corridor Buffer) 

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 seeking a variance of 10’ to the required 10’ setback from a buffer to construct a sunroom addition to a single-family residence.

FINDINGS

Undisputed facts:

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.

 

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

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.

6.  There are no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that exist on the property.  The property is almost ½ acre in size.  An area almost 70’ deep exists on the opposite side of the residence, containing an area large enough for the proposed addition without encroaching any buffers or setbacks.

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.

7.  The conditions are the result of the applicant’s own doing.  The setbacks and buffers existed when the applicant purchased the residence in 1999.  In 1994, the Town of Cary approved a setback reduction from buffers, from 15’ to 10’.  The residence itself  encroaches 1’ into the current 10’ setback from the buffer, and encroached 6’ into the setback from the buffer when it was originally constructed.  The structure is only 39’ from the rear property line, and to meet the requirements prior to 1994, it should have been 45’.  To meet the current requirements, it needs to be 40’ from that property line.  Had the residence been sited correctly on the lot when it was first constructed, an addition may have been possible without the need for a variance.

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.

8.  The applicant is able to obtain a building permit.  While the applicant may not be able to build the proposed sunroom in the proposed location without a variance, a sunroom of equal size can be constructed elsewhere on the lot without encroaching any setbacks.

9.  There is insufficient space on the property to construct the proposed structure in the planned location, as evidenced by _____. 

9.  There is sufficient space elsewhere on the property to construct the proposed structure. 

10.  There is no other practical use of the property, as evidenced by _____________.

10.  There is other practical use of the property.  The property is developed with a single-family residence. 

11.  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.  The construction will have a negative effect on adjoining property, as evidenced by _________.

12.  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.

12.  Construction of the garage will impair emergency access, create a fire hazard, or otherwise be contrary to public health, as evidenced by _____________________.

13.  Requiring certain conditions to be met will alleviate the problems with granting the variance. Those conditions would be ______.

13.  Requiring certain conditions to be met will not alleviate the problems with granting the variance.

 

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:  We hereby finds facts 1 through  5 and ________.[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 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.

2.   The applicant is hereby granted a variance to construct a sunroom that encroaches the required 10’ setback from a buffer by 10’.

3.   This variance is conditioned upon:

q       the sunroom being constructed such that the  encroachment is minimized by __________________.

q       construction of a fence.

q       installation of a buffer.

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:  We find facts 1 through 5 and 6 through 13.

CONCLUSION:

1.   Based on the application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the UDO, and the above findings, the Board concludes that the variance requested would not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the UDO, and that there are no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that result from carrying out the strict letter of the Cary UDO, and the application is DENIED.

 

Small Vicinity Map  

Large Vicinity Map

 

Proposed variance work sheet 1.