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

CASE:

03-V-010

STAFF CONTACT:

Beth Lewis
Planner
(919) 465-4610
e-mail: beth.lewis@townofcary.org

 

APPLICANT(S):

Philip and Tina Hammer

OWNER(S):

Philip and Tina Hammer

LOCATION:

215 Covington Square Drive, Cary , NC   27513

PRESENT ZONING:

PDD Major

SETBACK:

20’ front
20’ rear
5’ minimum/15’ aggregate side

 

REQUEST:

Variance of 4’ to the required 20’ rear setback to construct an addition to the rear of 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 requirements of the LDO 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.  It is not intended that variances be granted merely to remove inconveniences or financial burdens that the requirements that the LDO may impose on property owners in general.  Rather, it is intended to provide relief where the requirements of the ordinance render 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. (Section 3.20.1)

Only the following standards of this Ordinance are eligible for a variance:

·         The lot width, setback, height, building coverage, or structure spacing standards set forth in Chapters 6 and 7;

·         The buffer width standards set forth in Section 7.2.3 when the Minor Modification procedures in Section 3.19 are unable to address the hardship;

·         Any of the off-street parking and loading standards set forth in Section 7.8 when the Minor Modification procedures in Section 3.19 are unable to address the hardship;

·         The setback standards for real estate signs set forth in Section 9.3.2(R):

·         The square footage standards of wall signs set forth in Section 9.3.2(W) and (X);

·         The requirements for signage in the Town Center area set forth in Section 9.6 provided the request has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Town Center Review Commission. 

Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance from any written conditions attached by the Town Council to its approval of a Special Use (Section 3.8), subdivision plat or site plan (Section 3.9, conditional use district (Section 3.4), or aspect of an approved planned development master plan (Section 3.4).

Any variance requests associated with properties within the Town Center District shall be forwarded to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for review and decision, except that variance requests from downtown signage standards in Section 9.6 would first go to the Town Center Review Commission for review and recommendation. 

REQUEST

The applicants are requesting a variance of 4’ to the required 20’ rear yard setback to construct a two-story bedroom/den addition and an open deck at the rear of a single-family residence.  The request encompasses approximately 15 square feet in area, the rear corner of the planned structure.

The deck encroaches the rear setback by no more than 4’ so no variance is required, but the proposal for all the planned work is presented in its entirety.  Decks may encroach the required setbacks, but must be at least 5’ from the property line for residences built before 1998.  This deck is approximately 16’ from the rear property line, and over 20’ from the side property line.  It meets all the requirements.

FINDINGS

Undisputed facts:

1.      The property is owned by Philip and Tina Hammer, who have requested the variance.

2.      The property has the following dimensions:  80’ along Covington Square Drive, approximately 132’ and 125’ along the side property lines, and a V-shaped rear property line made up of two line segments approximately 47’ and 45’ in length.  

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

4.      The property is zoned PDD Major, Planned Development District Major, and requires a 20’ front setback, a 5’ minimum/15’ aggregate side setback, and a 20’ rear setback.

5.      The applicant is unable to receive a building permit to construct a two-story den/bedroom addition since it would encroach the required 20’ rear setback by 4’.

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 is no beneficial use of the property without the variance, as evidenced by    .

6.  There is practical use of the property without the variance.  The property is developed with a single-family residence.

7.  The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered as a result of the variance.  According to Wake County records, this home has fewer square feet that many of the surrounding properties.  The addition would bring it in line with the surrounding properties.

7.  The essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered as a result of the variance, as evidenced by              . 

8.  Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. This addition is in character with the neighborhood.

8.  Adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance, as evidenced by                  . 

9.  The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Public services exist in the area, and this proposed addition would not impair that service.

9.  The variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer, as evidenced by                  .

10.  The applicant did not purchase the property with knowledge of the requirement, as evidenced by                .

10.  The applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement.  The lot was platted and the structure built when the applicants purchased the property.

11.  The applicant’s predicament cannot be mitigated through some method other than a variance.  The unusual shape of the lot cannot be changed.  The residence is constructed in such a way that an addition of this shape is required to fit with the rear of the structure.

11.  The applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some other method other than a variance.   An addition with a less-traditional shape could be constructed that would meet the setback requirements.

12.  Special circumstances or conditions exist that are not common to other areas or buildings that are similarly situated. This lot has an unusual rear property line that is not found on any other lot in the area.

12.  No special circumstances or conditions exist that are not common to other areas or buildings that are similarly situated, as evidenced by                   .

13.  The conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations.  This lot is of a very unusual shape, not common in this area or elsewhere in Cary .

13.  The conditions or circumstances affecting the property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations, as evidenced by     .

14.  Practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with the standards of the ordinance, and the request will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purpose of the standard, the LDO, or the Comprehensive Plan.  This addition will be in keeping with the rest of the residences in the neighborhood.  Without a variance, no addition to the residence would be practicable.

14. Practical difficulty will not result from strict compliance with the standards of the ordinance, and the request will have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purpose of the standard, the LDO, or the Comprehensive Plan.  The structure can be used as a single-family residence as it is.

 

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 LDO, 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 LDO, 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 LDO.

2.      The applicant is hereby granted a variance to add a two-story den/bedroom addition.

3.      This variance is conditioned upon:

MOTION TO DENY VARIANCE

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

FACTS:  We find facts 1 through 5 and 6 through 14.

CONCLUSION:

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

 

Large Vicinity Map

Small Vicinity Map