TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer C. Baptiste - Planning & Zoning Division Manager
FROM: Alannah Hudson - Planner I
DATE: August 11, 2026
RE:Title
A26-34: A variance at 521 Suffolk Court (0530350151000) to reduce the corner side setback from 30 feet to 16.05 feet in a Single-Family Residential 10 (SF-10) zoning district owned by Pertrilla Poe.Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
District 1 - Council Member Dr. Stephon Ferguson
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal 4: A Thriving, Livable Community
Objective 4.5: Support the development of vibrant, well-connected neighborhoods that enrich the quality of life for all residents.
Executive Summary:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Unified Development Ordinance to reduce the required corner side setback, from 30 feet to 16.05 feet.
Per Section 30.2.C.14, variances are intended to provide relief from dimensional standards in cases where exceptional conditions - beyond the landowner’s control - create a unique hardship under the strict application of the Ordinance. Variances do not authorize changes to permitted uses or modify conditions of approval, and they are to be granted only under limited and specific circumstances.
Background:
Owner: Pertrilla M. Poe
Applicant: Michael Brown
Requested Action: Reduce setbacks to allow construction of a residential carport
Zoning District: SF-10 (Single Family Residential 10 District)
Property Address: 521 Suffolk Ct
Size: 0.28 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
o North - SF-10 Single Family Residential
o South - SF-10 Single Family Residential
o East - SF-10 Single Family Residential
o West - SF-10 Single Family Residential
Issues/Analysis:
The request is for a variance from the minimum setbacks established in Article 30-3.D.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for properties zoned SF-10 (Single Family Residential 10), which requires buildings to be 30 feet from the corner side property line.Per the applicant, complying with the required setbacks in this zoning district would restrict the property owner from constructing a desired carport to store vehicles out of the elements. Applicant states this variance is needed because the lot is a corner lot, reducing the amount of usable square footage of their property.
Insufficient Justification for a Variance:
The following do not constitute valid grounds for granting a Variance:
• The existence of conforming or nonconforming uses or structures elsewhere in the same or other zoning districts;
• A request to establish a use that is expressly or implicitly prohibited within the zoning district; or
• Claims of economic hardship or increased profitability that would result from approval of the Variance.
Findings of Fact (Based on Applicant’s Responses):
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 subject property is a corner lot with two street frontages, which results in larger required setback areas than a typical interior lot. According to the applicant these additional setback requirements significantly reduce the available buildable area on the property. The existing residence and driveway location further limit where an attached residential carport can reasonably be constructed.
The proposed 20-foot by 20-foot open carport is designed to be located over the existing driveway and attached to the home. Strict application of the 30-foot setback requirement creates a practical difficulty by preventing construction in the only functional location available. The applicant states that the requested 13.95-foot setback variance is the minimum relief necessary to allow a customary residential improvement while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. According to the applicant the proposed carport will not adversely affect public safety, traffic visibility, drainage, or neighboring properties.
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 that the practical difficulties associated with the request result from the property’s unique physical characteristics. The subject property is a corner lot with frontage on both Suffolk Court and Westminster Drive, which creates larger required setback areas than would apply to a typical interior lot. According to the applicant, these setback requirements, together with the existing location of the residence and driveway, substantially limit the area available for construction of an attached carport.
The applicant further states that these conditions are inherent to the property and were not created by the current owner. The requested variance is based solely on the lot’s configuration and location and is not related to personal circumstances or actions by the owner. The applicant maintains that the requested setback reduction is the minimum relief necessary to construct a customary residential carport over the existing driveway while remaining compatible with surrounding single-family residences.
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 that the requested variance represents the minimum action necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. The proposed 20-foot by 20-foot attached open carport would be constructed over the existing driveway, which the applicant identifies as the only practical location because of the corner-lot configuration, required setbacks, and existing placement of the residence.
The applicant further states that reducing the required 30-foot setback to 16.05 feet, a variance of 13.95 feet, is the minimum relief needed to accommodate the structure. According to the applicant, any further reduction in the requested variance would prevent construction of a functional two-car carport in the only feasible location. The applicant maintains that no additional relief is being requested, and that the improvement would remain compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood.
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 that granting the requested variance would remain in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Ordinance by allowing a customary residential accessory structure while preserving the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed 20-foot by 20-foot attached open carport would be constructed with materials and a roof design that match the existing residence, helping maintain a consistent appearance with the property and nearby homes.
The applicant further states that the variance would not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare. According to the applicant, the proposed carport would not obstruct traffic visibility, interfere with drainage, or negatively affect neighboring properties. The applicant maintains that the request is limited to the minimum setback relief necessary because of the property’s corner-lot configuration and existing improvements, and that approval would preserve the intent of the ordinance while allowing a reasonable residential improvement.
5. There is sufficient evidence that 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:
The applicant states that granting the requested variance would protect public safety and welfare while allowing reasonable use of the property. The proposed 20-foot by 20-foot attached open carport would be constructed in accordance with all applicable North Carolina Building Code and City permitting requirements. According to the applicant, the open-sided structure would not obstruct traffic visibility, interfere with drainage, or impede access for emergency services or utilities.
The applicant further states that the proposed carport would be compatible with the surrounding single-family neighborhood by matching the existing residence in design, roof pitch, and exterior materials. The applicant maintains that approval of the requested 13.95-foot setback variance would not adversely affect neighboring properties or the public interest. Instead, it would allow a customary residential improvement on a uniquely constrained corner lot while preserving the intent of the Unified Development Ordinance and providing substantial justice.
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact associated with this request.
Options:
The board has the authority to approve or deny the request based on the five required findings of fact. Members must assess the evidence and determine whether the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships based on the land’s unique characteristics.
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. The members must state all five findings of fact, along with the evidence presented to support each finding.
If the members cannot find specific supporting facts under any of the five findings of fact, they must consider a motion to deny the claim. The motion should indicate which of the five findings of fact cannot be met.
The board can also place reasonable conditions on the variance approval.
If a member wishes to make a motion to approve the variance, they should provide a brief statement recapping the evidence that supports 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 factual findings.
Possible Motions and Factual Findings:
Motion to approve a variance to reduce the corner side yard setback from 30 feet to 16.05 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 resulting from unique circumstances related to the land. They 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:
______________________________________________________________________
The motion is 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 resulting from unique circumstances related to the land. They 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::Recommended Action
N/A
end
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