TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Craig Harmon, CZO - Senior Planner
DATE: September 9, 2025
RE:
Title
A25-25. Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback at 734 Southview Circle (REID 0439067354000) and being the property of MATTHEWS, CAROL L;MATTHEWS, JAMES G (Tabled from the June 10 & Aug. 12, meetings)
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
3 - Benavente
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 as built to accommodate a person with a 100% disability according to the Veterans Administration (VA).
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: Carol Matthews
Requested Action: Reduce minimum front yard setback as built
Zoning District: Single Family Residential 10 (SF-10)
Property Address: 734 Southview Cir
Size: 0.35 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 - Single family residential
Letters Mailed: 33
Issues/Analysis:
The subject property is located within the Warrenwood subdivision. The single-family house was constructed in 1981 per Cumberland County tax records. The current owners purchased the property in 2006.
The City of Fayetteville’s Code Enforcement division contacted the property owner regarding the construction of a metal carport 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 as built. The new carport is shown in the attached photos.
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 “it would be a hardship for my husband to maneuver the distance from our driveway to the front door without using an assistive device. Entering and exiting the vehicle requires additional time. Iwould need to drive my vehicle through the yard to the front door if the carport is taken down Removing the carport would be an additional hardship. My husband and I would have to hire someone to take it down as we are 80 and 77. The carport is made to withstand hurricane winds and is well made .It does not detract from the appearance of the other homes in the area.”
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 “The front yard does have a slight slope. My husband has had several falls recently and is currently taking a blood thinner for atrial
flutter and at risk for a bleed if injured.”
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 “If the variance is granted, no action would be required. If not and the carport needs to be removed, equipment will be needed for the removal with additional cost to us. The property will revert to what it was. But the main objective here is that my husband will be safer. That was the purpose of the installation of the structure.”
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 “The carport is tinted to match the color scheme of the house and blends in well. The structure is sound and is back from the road but doesn't meet the zoning setback rules by only several feet.The intent was to make it pleasing to the eye while providing a safe structure.”
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 structure does not infringe on neighbors property or wellbeing. It is guaranteed for winds up to 140 MPH. Water from the carport is channeled away from others to a drain on our property. My husband and I are safer and the area is well lit. I would appreciate the variance.”
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 the as built conditions.
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:
Hold an evidentiary hearing regarding this application.
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Land Use Map
5. Subject Property Photos
6. Surrounding Property Photos