TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: December 12, 2023
RE:
Title
A23-54. Order of Approval - Findings of Fact: Variance to increase maximum fence height, located at 1010 Marlborough Road (REID 0427101984000), and being the property of Greg and Effie Kalevas.
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
2 - Malik Davis
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2022
Goals 2027
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 is requesting a variance to increase the maximum fence height in the Community Commercial zoning district (CC).
On December 12, 2023, the Zoning Commission held an Evidentiary Hearing regarding this case. After receiving all evidence and testimony, the Commission voted 5-0 to approve the Variance application.
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: Greg and Effie Kalevas
Applicant: Bryan Fisher
Requested Action: Increase maximum fence height.
Zoning District: Community Commercial (CC)
Property Address: 1010 Marlborough Road
Size: 0.86 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Fishers Home Pros
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
• North: CC - Lindy’s
• South: NC and LI - Salon 1026 and Saam’s Party Tents
• East: CC - Single Family Dwelling and Preen Hair Boutique
• West: CC - William’s Carpet Care
Letters Mailed: 20
Issues/Analysis:
The buildings on the subject property were constructed in 1984, according to Cumberland County Tax records. The Unified Development Ordinance outlines various standards regarding fences. The UDO requires that fences or walls that serve other individual development, apart from single family (attached or detached) and two- to four-family dwellings, maintain a maximum height of 4 feet in the front yard, 6 feet in corner side yards, and 6 feet in interior side and rear yards.
The applicant has requested a variance from 1 standards of the UDO. The requested changes are as follows:
• Increase maximum fence height from 6 ft. to 8 ft.
The owner has requested this variance in order to bring the site into compliance with the ordinance and obtain the proper permits.
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
There is no intended development or construction known to be associated with this variance request.
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 “Commercial property, security measures, theft will be eliminated.”
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 “Security measures, commercial building, eliminating theft.”
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 “I have lost 4k worth of equipment and had to spend money on tools, etc. I have nothing to lose than to complete this variance.”
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 structure of the fence is nice gesture to the surrounding businesses within this area. The surrounding business owners have agreed that the safety of their establishment has or have improved.”
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 “Not sure what this question is asking.”
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact.
Options:
1. Approve Findings as submitted by staff.
2. Approve Findings with specific changes.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends option 1 above.
Attachments:
1. Order of Findings of Fact
2. Application
3. Aerial Notification Map
4. Zoning Map
5. Land Use Map
6. Subject Property Photos
7. Surrounding Property Photos
8. Site Plan