TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer C. Baptiste, Planning & Zoning Division Manager
FROM: Craig Harmon, Senior Planner
DATE: August 11, 2026
RE:Title
A26-33: A variance at 5103 Hayden Lane (0405976938000) to reduce the rear setback to 24 feet in a Single-Family Residential 10 (SF-10) zoning district owned by Raffaella Massa of Castle Rising Properties LLC.
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
5 - Councilman Lynn Greene
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2025
Goal III - The City of Fayetteville will be a city invested in Today and Tomorrow.
• Objective 3.2: To manage the city’s future growth and strategic land use.
Goal IV - The City of Fayetteville will be a highly desirable place to live, work and recreate.
• Objective 4.5: To ensure a place for people to live in great neighborhoods.
Executive Summary:
Castle Rising Properties, LLC requests an 11-foot variance from the required 35-foot rear-yard setback for the property at 5103 Hayden Lane. The variance would allow a single-family residence to be located onto the SF-10-zoned lot with an approximate rear setback of 24 feet. The request applies only to the rear setback, and the applicant states that all other applicable zoning requirements will be met.
The applicant states that the lot’s irregular shape, angled property lines, and curved road frontage limit the available buildable area and make compliance with both the required front and rear setbacks impractical.
According to the application, the requested relief is the minimum necessary to permit reasonable residential use of the property, maintain appropriate spacing from adjoining properties, and preserve the residential character of the surrounding area without adversely affecting public safety or welfare.
Background:
Owners: Castle Rising Properties, LLC
Applicant: Raffaella Massa, Castle Rising Properties LLC
Requested Action: Variance to reduce the rear yard setback by 11 feet to 24 feet in a zoning district where a 35 feet setback is required.
Zoning District: SF-10 - Single-Family Residential 10
Property Address: 5103 Hayden Ln
Size: 0.26 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
• North: CC - Single-family residential
• South: R10 - County Single-family residential
• East: SF-10 - Single-family residential
• West: SF-10 - Single-family residential
Letters Mailed: Notices sent to all owners within a 300-ft. buffer of the subject parcel (21 addresses on the culled mailing list).
Issues/Analysis:
Castle Rising Properties, LLC requests an 11-foot variance from the required 35-foot rear-yard setback for the SF-10-zoned property at 5103 Hayden Lane. The proposed placement of an existing single-family residence would be then be required to meet an approximate rear setback of 24 feet. The request is limited to the rear-yard setback, and the applicant states that all other applicable zoning requirements will be satisfied.
The Zoning Commission must determine whether the evidence presented demonstrates that all five variance standards are met.
1. Practical Difficulties and Unnecessary Hardship
Applicant’s Response: The applicant states that strict application of the 35-foot rear setback creates a hardship because the lot’s irregular shape and dimensions significantly limit the available buildable area. According to the application, the residence cannot reasonably be placed on the lot while complying with all other required setbacks, and the requested 11-foot reduction is the minimum relief necessary to allow reasonable residential use.
2. Unique Circumstances Related to the Land
Applicant’s Response: The applicant identifies the lot’s angled property lines, curved road frontage, and overall configuration as circumstances unique to the property. The application states that these conditions were not created by the property owner and are not common to the surrounding neighborhood. It further states that complying with both the 30-foot front setback and the 35-foot rear setback is impractical because of the parcel’s layout.
3. Minimum Action Necessary
Applicant’s Response: The applicant states that the requested variance is the minimum action necessary to permit reasonable residential use of the property. The proposed placement is described as providing a practical and balanced site layout while maintaining reasonable spacing from adjoining properties and remaining compatible with surrounding development.
4. Harmony with the Ordinance
Applicant’s Response: The applicant states that the variance would allow reasonable residential use of a legally created lot while preserving the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed use is a single-family residence, and the applicant states that the placement would not adversely affect adjoining properties, public safety, or general welfare.
5. Public Safety, Welfare, and Substantial Justice
Applicant’s Response: The applicant states that granting the variance would not negatively affect public safety or welfare because the property would remain in residential use and the requested relief is limited to the amount necessary to address the lot’s configuration. The applicant further states that approval would allow reasonable use of the property while maintaining compatibility with nearby residences.
The Commission should determine whether the applicant has presented competent evidence that all five variance standards are met based on the information presented in the application and testimony given during the evidentiary hearing. Any approval should include specific findings for each standard and remain subject to all other applicable zoning, building, fire, stormwater, and permitting requirements.
Budget Impact:
No significant City budget impact is anticipated. Staff review and administrative costs are expected to be absorbed within existing departmental resources.
Options:
The Board may approve, deny, or approve with conditions. Its decision must rely solely on the record and the five required findings of fact. Approval is appropriate only if competent, material, and substantial evidence supports each finding. If any single finding is not supported, the correct action is denial.
A member who believes the evidence satisfies all findings may move to approve and should briefly recap the evidence for each finding. If one or more findings are not met, a motion to deny should identify the specific finding(s) and explain why, with citation to the record.
When granting approval, the Board may attach reasonable, related, evidence-based conditions to ensure the findings are met. Deliberations should focus on concise discussion tied to each required finding.
Case A26-33 - Possible Motions and Required Findings
(Rear-yard setback variance for a single-family home at 5103 Hayden Ln., PIN 0405976938000; SF-10 zoning with a 35-ft. rear setback standard. Requested reduction: 11 ft. - proposed rear setback 24 ft.)
Motion to Approve (as requested)
Motion: Approve a variance to reduce the required SF-10 rear yard setback in UDO §30-3.D.3 from 35 feet to 24 feet (an 11-foot variance) to allow a single family home at 5103 Hayden Ln., as depicted on the submitted site plan in the record.
Findings of Fact required for approval (all five must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence):
1. Practical difficulties / unnecessary hardships: Strict application would cause practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, shown by:
2. Unique land-related circumstances / not self-created: Any hardship stems from unique, land-related circumstances and not the applicant’s actions, shown by:
3. Minimum action: This is the least modification necessary to enable a reasonable use, shown by:
4. Harmony with the Ordinance; spirit preserved: The variance is in harmony with the UDO’s purpose and preserves its spirit, shown by:
5. Public safety, welfare, and substantial justice: Granting assures public safety and welfare and achieves substantial justice, shown by:
Motion to Approve with Conditions
Motion: Approve a variance to reduce the required SF-10 rear yard setback in UDO §30-3.D.3 from 35 feet to 24 feet (an 11-foot variance) to allow a single family home at 5103 Hayden Ln., as depicted on the submitted site plan in the record. with the following conditions tied to the exhibits and findings:
Findings of Fact for conditional approval (all five must be supported):
1. Practical difficulties / unnecessary hardships (as conditioned):
2. Unique land-related circumstances / not self-created (as conditioned):
3. Minimum action (as conditioned):
4. Harmony with the Ordinance; spirit preserved (as conditioned):
5. Public safety, welfare, and substantial justice (as conditioned):
Example conditions (tailor to the record):
1. Location & setback floor: The garage shall be constructed substantially as shown on the submitted site plan; the rear setback shall be no less than 18.88 feet at any point. Any relocation requires new approval.
2. Lot coverage compliance: Total building coverage shall remain at or below the SF-10 30% lot coverage maximum; zoning review shall verify at permitting stage.
3. Drainage control: Roof runoff from the addition shall be directed on-site (gutters/downspouts/splash blocks or equivalent) so as not to discharge onto adjacent lots or rights-of-way; no grading into adjoining properties.
4. Code/permit conformance: The project must comply with all applicable codes and obtain required permits; staff shall verify conformance with the approved exhibits and these conditions at permit and inspection.
Motion to Deny
Motion: Deny the variance to reduce the SF-10 rear yard setback for a single family home at 5103 Hayden Ln.
Findings statements supporting denial (identify which findings are not met and why):
1. Insufficient evidence that strict application causes practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, because:
2. Insufficient evidence that any hardship arises from unique land-related circumstances rather than the applicant’s actions, because:
3. Insufficient evidence that the request is the minimum action necessary to allow reasonable use, because:
4. Insufficient evidence that the request is in harmony with the Ordinance and preserves its spirit, because:
5. Insufficient evidence that public safety and welfare are assured and that substantial justice would be done, because:
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
Because A26-33 is a quasi-judicial variance, staff does not recommend approval or denial. The Board must base its decision solely on competent, material, and substantial evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. Due-process requirements prohibit staff from advocating either way.
The burden of proof remains with the applicant. The Board - not staff - must make the findings and the final determination.
end
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Land Use Map
5. Subject Property Photos
6. Surrounding Property Photos
7. Plot Plan