TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Heather Eckhardt, CZO - Planner II
DATE: August 13, 2024
RE:
Title
A24-34. Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback at 1512 Paisley Avenue (REID 0406567253000) and being the property of Andre and Brianna Outlaw.
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
7 - Brenda McNair
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2022
Goals 2027
Goal 2: Responsive City Government Supporting a Diverse and Viable Economy
• Objective 2.1: To ensure a diverse City tax base
Goal 4: Highly Desirable Place to Live, Work, and Recreate
• Objective 4.5: To ensure a place for people to live in great neighborhoods
Executive Summary:
The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 30 feet to 25 feet.
30.2.C.14 Variance:
The purpose of a variance is to allow certain deviations from the dimensional standards of this Ordinance (such as height, yard setback, lot coverage, or similar numeric standards) when the landowner demonstrates that, owing to special circumstances or conditions beyond the landowner's control (such as exceptional topographical conditions, narrowness, shallowness, or the shape of a specific parcel of land), the literal application of the standards would result in undue and unique hardship to the landowner and the deviation would not be contrary to the public interest.
Variances are to be sparingly exercised and only in rare instances or under exceptional circumstances to relieve undue and unique hardships to the landowner. No change in permitted uses or applicable conditions of approval may be authorized by variance.
Background:
Owner/Applicant: Andre & Brianna Outlaw
Requested Action: Reduce minimum front yard setback from 30 feet to 25 feet
Zoning District: Single Family Residential 10 (SF-10)
Property Address: 1512 Paisley Avenue
Size: .28 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Drive through restaurant
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
• North: SF-10 - Single family residential
• South: SF-10 - Single family residential
• East: SF-10 - Single family residential
• West: SF-10 - Vacant woodlands - previously Arran Lake
Letters Mailed: 22
Issues/Analysis:
The subject property is located within the Arran Lakes subdivision. This section of the Arran Lakes subdivision was platted in 1965. The single-family house was constructed in 1972 per Cumberland County tax records. The current owners purchased the property in 2022.
In February 2024, the City of Fayetteville’s Code Enforcement division contacted the property owner regarding the construction of a front porch without the required building permit. Subsequently, the owner reached out to the Planning division regarding the process of obtaining a variance and began the process of obtaining a survey.
Section 30-3.D.3 of the City of Fayetteville’s Unified Development Ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard setback from the front of a single family house to the front property line.
Insufficient Justification for Variance
The following does not constitute grounds for a Variance:
1. The siting of other nonconforming or conforming uses of land or structures in the same or other districts;
2. The request for a particular use expressly, or by inference, prohibited in the district; or
3. Economic hardship or the fact that property may be utilized more profitably with a Variance.
Subsequent Development:
The applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 30 feet to 25 feet. The newly constructed front porch encroaches into the front yard setback by 4.57 feet. Without an approved variance, the owner will need to reduce the size of the front porch.
The new porch is 23.6 feet wide and 7.9 feet deep. Prior to the construction of the new front porch, the house had a front stoop that was roughly 10 feet wide and 3 feet deep (without the stairs).
The following findings are based on the responses submitted in the application by the applicant and the best available information about the proposal without the benefit of testimony provided at the evidentiary hearing.
Findings of Fact Statements as reviewed by the Planning Staff:
1. There is sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “The prior existing porch was failing and needed to be replaced. I was never made aware of the need for a permit from any of the companies I spoke to about repairing the porch. Once I finished the repairs, received the citation and submitted the permit, which was denied, I spoke to a gentleman in the zoning department who informed me my old porch was also likely out of compliance. Had I not replaced the porch injury would've resulted by using the front door. The front of my house is unreasonably close to the set back line; virtually any porch installed will likely violate the limit. My spouse is a disabled veteran, so using the garage as a permanent entry is not possible for her due to the difficulties associated with climbing the stairs from the basement to the main floor.”
2. There is sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “There is a 45 degree decline walking down the driveway heading to the garage. Due to my spouse’s disability walking down that hill then back up the stairs to access the main floor causes immense stress and discomfort. Not using the front door due to the existing home being non compliant even without a front porch is unrealistic.”
3. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “Previous front porch was 26 feet from setback line. current porch is approximately 23 feet from setback line. requesting a two feet exemption due to not having access to the front door without a front porch.”
4. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “Current front porch increases neighborhood average home value and regularly receives compliments.”
5. There is sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare has been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “The extended porch and roof offers protection from the elements preventing mold buildup in the basement.”
Budget Impact:
None
Options:
The Board’s Authority: The board has the authority to approve or deny the request and must base its decision on the answers to the following five required findings of fact:
If a member believes that the evidence presented is substantial, competent, and sufficient to meet the required findings of fact then the member may make a motion to approve the variance and the members must state all of the following five findings of fact along with the evidence that was presented to satisfy each finding.
If the members cannot find specific supporting facts under all five findings of fact, the members must consider a motion of denial. A motion of denial should indicate which of the five (5) of the findings of fact cannot be met.
The board can also place reasonable conditions on any variance approval.
If a member wishes to make a motion to approve the variance they should make a brief statement that recaps the evidence showing each of the five findings of fact. Any discussion by the Board following a motion may include a recap of the evidence supporting each of the five (5) factual findings.
Possible Motions and Factual Findings:
Motion to approve a variance to reduce the required front yard setback to 25 feet.
Findings of Fact Required to Approve this Request:
1. Strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
2. Any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
3. The Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
_____________________________________________________________________
4. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
5. In the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
Motion to approve the variance(s) as requested but with added conditions
Findings of Fact Required to Approve this Request with added conditions:
1. Strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
2. Any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
3. The Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
4. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
5. In the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
Motion to deny the variance as requested.
Findings of Fact Statements Required to Deny this Request:
1. There is not sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
________________________________________________________________
2. There is not sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
3. There is not sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
4. There is not sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
5. There is not sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare has been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________.
Recommended Action:
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Land Use Map
5. Subject Property Photos
6. Surrounding Property Photos
7. Site Plan