TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Craig Harmon - Senior Planner
FROM: Demetrios Moutos - Planner II
DATE: January 13, 2026
RE:Title
A26-03: Variance Request - 3200 Cliffdale Road (Fayetteville Academy)
Perimeter Security Fence - Street-Yard/Setback Encroachment and Height
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
8 - Shaun McMillan
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
This request directly supports the City’s goals for public safety and neighborhood quality. According to the FY25 City Scorecard, GOAL I states: “The City of Fayetteville will be a safe and secure community,” with objectives focusing on emergency and disaster response readiness, as well as improved safety outcomes. GOAL IV aims to make Fayetteville a highly desirable place to live, work, and recreate, emphasizing the importance of maintaining quality-of-life conditions in neighborhoods.
Additionally, the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan promote land-use strategies that incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles into development and public facility design, such as clearly defined public and private spaces, enhanced lighting, and informal surveillance.
This “relationship” section is included solely for context. Decision on variances are quasi-judicial and must rely exclusively on the required variance findings and on competent, material, and substantial evidence in the record.
Executive Summary:
The applicant seeks a variance to install a perimeter security fence at Fayetteville Academy, 3200 Cliffdale Road, approximately 5-7 feet inside the allowable setback. The applicant explains that the Morganton Road frontage is considered a “front yard,” which prevents compliance with the grant’s required 6-foot security height.
The property is zoned SF-10, with neighboring properties zoned SF-15. According to the Future Land Use Map, the site lies near areas designated as PARKOS and LDR.
The decision-maker must assess whether the evidence supports the required findings for granting a variance. Key ordinance provisions include fence and wall height limits, siting standards such as front-yard height restrictions and right-of-way proximity, and the variance criteria established in the City’s ordinance and state enabling statute.
Background:
1. Site and Request
• Case: A26-03
• Property: Fayetteville Academy, 3200 Cliffdale Road
• Request (as described by the applicant): “Build perimeter fence about 5-7 feet inside the allowable setback.”
• Applicant-stated purpose/justification: The applicant indicates the work is tied to a “security grant requirement,” references the fence providing “additional security,” and states the area is “deemed a front yard” along Morganton Road, affecting the ability to meet a stated “6’ security height” need.
2. Zoning and Surrounding Context
• Zoning (site): SF-10
• Adjacent zoning: SF-15
• SF-10 district purpose (relevance to existing institutional use): The SF-10 district purpose statement notes the district’s intent is primarily single-family residential and “may include… complementary uses such as… schools.”
• Future land use map exhibit: PARKOS and LDR shown in the vicinity of the site.
3. Public Notice
• Aerial notification exhibit indicates notice letters mailed and a 300-foot notification radius.
Issues/Analysis:
A. Applicable Variance Standards (what must be proven)
1) City Variance Standards
• The application materials outline the local variance criteria. The decision-maker must find that all required elements are met, including demonstration of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship resulting from strict application of the ordinance, that the hardship is not self-imposed, and that the requested variance is the minimum necessary to remain consistent with the ordinance’s intent, protect public safety, and ensure substantial justice.
• The materials further specify that variance approvals will expire if not acted upon - such as by obtaining a building permit - within the designated timeframe, unless an extension is granted.
2) North Carolina Statutory Variance Standards (G.S. 160D-705(d))
• State law requires demonstrating all of the following: (1) unnecessary hardship from the strict application of the ordinance; (2) the hardship arises from conditions unique to the property; (3) the hardship is not self-created; and (4) the variance aligns with the regulation’s spirit, purpose, and intent, ensuring public safety and substantial justice.
• State law further provides that variances cannot authorize changes in permitted uses. However, conditions may be imposed if they are reasonably related to the variance.
B. Applicable Development Regulations
1) Fence height in required yards (front-yard limitation)
• For fences or walls serving individual developments other than single-family, the UDO’s table excerpt sets a maximum height of 4 feet in front or corner side yards. However, for non-single-family developments, open-style fences may be permitted up to 5 feet in height.
• Relevance to this case: The applicant’s narrative identifies the designation of Morganton Road as a “front yard” as a key factor in the variance request, citing the need to meet a 6-foot security fence height requirement.
2) Fences within required yards (general allowance)
• According to the UDO, fence standards permit fences to be located within any required yard.
• Relevance to this case: If the variance request concerns height rather than yard location, this general allowance is insufficient. Height restrictions and any requirements related to street or right-of-way proximity remain applicable.
3) Fences near public rights-of-way (screening and offset requirements)
• The UDO standards specify that when a fence is within 15 feet of a public right-of-way and exceeds a certain height, a landscape screen must be installed. Additionally, the fence must be set back far enough from the right-of-way to accommodate this screening.
• Relevance to this case: If the proposed fence is near a public street or right-of-way, this requirement represents a distinct compliance issue apart from the variance. It may influence the final design or placement, even if the variance is approved.
C. Dimensional Context (SF-10 standards vs. plan notes)
1) SF-10 dimensional standards require minimum setbacks of 30 feet for front and corner side yards, and 35 feet for rear yards.
2) The applicant’s plans identify Morganton Road as being treated as a “front yard.” The narrative further discusses applicable setbacks and the necessity for a 6-foot fence to satisfy security grant requirements.
3) Hearing issue: The record must clearly establish (1) which yard classification applies to the Morganton Road frontage, (2) the precise fence height limit for that yard and development type, and (3) the specific numeric relief requested - such as an increase in fence height from 4 or 5 feet to 6 feet, or the extent of any setback encroachment.
D. Evidence checklist (neutral framework for the decision-maker)
1) Because a variance is a quasi-judicial decision, the outcome must be based solely on evidence presented during the hearing. The checklist below offers impartial examples of evidence that commonly support each required element:
• Unnecessary hardship resulting from strict application
o Relevant evidence includes: site constraints that affect fence placement or height; documented safety or security needs (such as grant requirements, incident history, or an operational security assessment); and constraints that render code-compliant alternatives materially impractical.
• Hardship arises from conditions unique to the property
o Relevant evidence includes: unique site configurations (such as dual frontage), adjacency to particular uses, specific circulation requirements, campus layout, unusual topography or vegetation, or other characteristics not found on neighboring properties.
• Hardship is not self-created
o Relevant evidence includes: whether the hardship stems from inherent site conditions instead of intentional design choices, and whether the variance request is prompted by factors that existed prior to current development plans.
• Consistency with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the regulation; public safety; substantial justice; and minimum necessary relief
o Relevant evidence includes: whether the proposed materials and design minimize visual impacts; whether appropriate screening and sightline safety are provided; whether the request is limited to the minimum height or encroachment necessary; and whether potential impacts on neighboring residential properties are effectively minimized.
E. Context statements in the application materials (not findings)
1) The applicant asserts that the fence is required by a security grant, will enhance overall security, and is justified in part by the property’s adjacency to nearby residences and other contextual factors.
2) However, these assertions do not constitute findings on their own; they must be substantiated or evaluated through evidence presented at the hearing.
Budget Impact:
The submitted materials indicate no direct budget impact associated with the variance request. Construction and installation costs are generally the responsibility of the applicant.
Options:
1) Approve the variance request only if all required findings are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.
2) Approve the variance request with conditions reasonably related to the variance - such as specifying fence materials, requiring screening or landscaping, or imposing timing and placement conditions for sight safety - if all findings are met.
3) Deny the variance request if any required finding is not supported by the evidence.
4) Continue or table the case to obtain additional information necessary to make findings - such as precise numerical relief requested, detailed site plans showing yard and right-of-way determinations, security grant documentation, analysis of alternatives, or details on screening and sight safety.
Variance Standards
A variance application may be approved only if all of the following standards are satisfied:
• Strict application of the ordinance requirements would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships; demonstrating that no reasonable use of the property exists without the variance is not required; and
• Any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships arise from unique circumstances specific to the property - such as its location, size, or topography - and are not caused by the landowner’s actions. Hardships based on personal circumstances or conditions common to the neighborhood or public cannot serve as grounds for a variance; and
• The variance is the minimum action necessary to enable reasonable use of the land or structures; and
• The variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and preserves its spirit; and
• Granting the variance assures public safety and welfare and achieves substantial justice.
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
Conduct the quasi-judicial hearing, enter all exhibits into the record, and decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, deny, or continue the case, strictly based on the variance standards and the evidence presented.
end
Attachments:
1. Variance application
2. Plot drawing/fence exhibit
3. Zoning map exhibit
4. Future Land Use map exhibit
5. Aerial/notification exhibit
6. Fence and wall standards excerpt
7. SF-10 dimensional standards excerpt and district purpose statement