TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Craig Harmon – Senior Planner
FROM: Heather Eckhardt, CZO – Planner II
DATE: September 15, 2025
RE:
Title
A25-39: A variance request to address maximum front yard setback in the Hospital Area Overlay at 7 parcels along Melrose Road and Beaumont Road (0416979256000, 0416978223000, 0416977219000, 0416976116000, 0416974189000, 0416979336000, and 0416977441000), owned by Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc. (Tabled from September 9)
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
5 – Lynne Greene
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2022
Goals 2027
Goal 2: Responsive City Government Supporting a Diverse and Viable Economy
• Objective 2.2 – Invest in community places to ensure revitalization and increase quality of life
Goal 4: Desirable Place to Live, Work and Recreate
• Objective 4.5 – Ensure a place for people to live in great neighborhoods
Executive Summary:
The applicant requests a variance to increase the front yard setback in the Hospital Area Overlay (HAO), which requires buildings to be within 10 feet of the street. The proposed building would be set back 130 feet from Melrose Road to allow for patient drop-off and handicap parking.
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: Cumberland County Hospital System
Applicant: NV5 Engineers
Requested Action: Increase maximum front yard setback in the Hospital Area Overlay
Zoning District: Office and Institutional (OI)
Property Address: 3308, 3318, and 3322 Melrose Road; two unaddressed parcels on Beaumont Road, 524 Beaumont Road, and an unaddressed parcel on Saliba Ln
Size: 3.14 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Medical offices
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
• North: OI – Medical offices
• South: OI – Medical offices
• East: OI – Medical offices
• West: OI – Medical offices
Letters Mailed: 21
Issues/Analysis:
The existing structures on the subject properties were built in the late 1970s. While they were likely constructed in compliance with the development ordinance in place at that time, they will be demolished to allow for the development of a new single building.
With the adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the Hospital Area Overlay (HAO) was established. The HAO aims to promote compatibility between residential and non-residential land uses and to encourage high-quality development that supports the growth of Cape Fear Valley Hospital and related uses. One of the goals of the HAO is to foster more attractive, pedestrian-friendly environments that are less dominated by automobiles. To support this, the ordinance includes a 10-foot “build-to” line for front yard setbacks. A “build to” line is also known as a maximum front yard setback (as opposed to the minimum front yard setback seen in many residential zoning districts).
The proposed building will comply with the required 10-foot maximum front setback along Beaumont Road. However, a variance is being requested along Melrose Road to allow the building to be set back 130 feet from the right-of-way. This increased setback is needed to accommodate a patient drop-off area and a consolidated location for required handicap-accessible parking.
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 proposed medical office building is a continuation of the ongoing work taking place at Cape Fear Valley Hospital. The site will be required to meet all other standards of the Unified Development Ordinance such as parking, landscaping, lighting, etc.
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 “Moving the building away from Melrose Road allows the patient/visitor experience to take place in the front of the building, and keeps visitors away from the back of house (loading/unloading areas, compactors/dumpster, generators, etc,) operations. Moving the building to within 10' of the Melrose Road right-of-way per the Ordinance requirements would remove this separation between patient/visitors and the service 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 Hospital has emphasized the need for an intuitive site, and building entry for their patients so that their wayfinding and navigation is the least stressful aspect of their healthcare visit. Offsetting the building from Melrose Road provides a distinct visual indicator to patients of how to get to their appointments safely, and on time.”
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 “As mentioned previously, moving the building away from Melrose Road will assist in patient drop-off in the front of the building and allow for separation of the patient/visitor area from the back-of-house service areas.”
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 “This variance will allow for a more functional building for the Cape Fear Valley Campus and will not adversely affect the surrounding properties.”
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 “This variance will assist with public safety and welfare by establishing a clear patient/visitor entrance to the building and separating this entrance from the back of house service area. This separation of uses will be a benefit to the general public as they use this new building.
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact.
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 increase the maximum front yard setback in the Hospital Area Overlay.
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