TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer C. Baptiste - Planning & Zoning Division Manager
FROM: Alannah Hudson - Planner I
DATE: August 11, 2026
RE:Title
A26-35: A variance request to reduce required setbacks at 514 Quality Rd (0426944091000), owned by Saribet M. Sandoval and Carmelo S. Noyola.
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
District 2 - Malik Davis
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal 2: A Responsive City Government Driving Economic Diversity and Sustainability
• Objective 2.1: Expand and diversify the City’s tax base to promote long-term fiscal resilience and economic stability.
Goal 4: A Thriving, Livable Community
• Objective 4.5: Support the development of vibrant, well-connected neighborhoods that enrich the quality of life for all residents.
Executive Summary:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Unified Development Ordinance to reduce the required side yard setback, from 10 feet to 3.6 feet, post-construction.
Per Section 30.2.C.14, variances are intended to provide relief from dimensional standards in cases where exceptional conditions - beyond the landowner’s control - create a unique hardship under the strict application of the Ordinance. Variances do not authorize changes to permitted uses or modify conditions of approval, and they are to be granted only under limited and specific circumstances.
Background:
Owner: Saribet M. Sandoval and Carmelo S. Noyola
Applicant: Saribet M. Sandoval
Requested Action: Reduce setbacks to allow construction on small parcel.
Zoning District: SF-6 (Single Family Residential 6 District)
Property Address: 514 Quality Rd
Size: 0.10 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
o North - SF-6 Single Family vacant land abutting subject property
o South - SF-6 Single Family Residential and Quality Road frontage
o East - SF-6 Single Family Residential abutting subject property
o West - SF-6 Single Family Residential abutting subject property
Issues/Analysis:
The request is for a variance from the minimum setbacks established in Article 30-3.D.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for properties zoned SF-6 (Single Family Residential 6), which requires buildings to be 10 feet from the side property lines. The subject property, located at 514 Quality Road, has already been constructed 3.6 feet from the side property line at its closest.
Insufficient Justification for a Variance:
The following do not constitute valid grounds for granting a Variance:
• The existence of conforming or nonconforming uses or structures elsewhere in the same or other zoning districts;
• A request to establish a use that is expressly or implicitly prohibited within the zoning district; or
• Claims of economic hardship or increased profitability that would result from approval of the Variance.
Findings of Fact (Based on Applicant’s Responses):
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 the house is an investment property that we have been working on for over a year and the absence of the variance doesn't allow us to complete the project. There have been many set back from the inspectors requesting things like getting an engineer from the foundation and framing of the house. We had so many expenses to follow all the requirements for the inspectors and by now requesting this variance.
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 that we have invested a lot of time and money but we don't see the end of the tunnel. We live in Charlotte and the commute has been difficult, we have people that work with us on our projects but we had to use people in the community of Fayetteville to work with us. We had so many requests from the inspectors from getting an engineer for the foundation and the framing of the house, also had to rent a portable potty for 4 to 5 months and the endless inspections fees.
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 that by granting the Variance will give the opportunity for a family in the community to enjoy a beautiful home and the land and structures will be the key for a family to build memories. Also the house gives a better appearance to the community and may inspire others in the community to upgrade their homes.
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 variance will provide peace of mind to my husband that wants to finish with this project and see the opportunity to invest on another home in Fayetteville hoping the process will not be to difficult the next time. I think the Variance will bring the spirit back and preserve to this project.
5. There is sufficient evidence that 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:
The applicant states by granting the Variance the public safety and welfare of the community will not be harmed and the right thing has been done. I truly believe if the inspection of the foundation had been done the Variance would have not been something that will be doing right now.
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact associated with this request.
Options:
The board has the authority to approve or deny the request based on the five required findings of fact. Members must assess the evidence and determine whether the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships based on the land’s unique characteristics.
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. The members must state all five findings of fact, along with the evidence presented to support each finding.
If the members cannot find specific supporting facts under any of the five findings of fact, they must consider a motion to deny the claim. The motion should indicate which of the five findings of fact cannot be met.
The board can also place reasonable conditions on the variance approval.
If a member wishes to make a motion to approve the variance, they should provide a brief statement recapping the evidence that supports 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 factual findings.
Possible Motions and Factual Findings:
Motion to approve a variance to reduce the side setback from 10 feet to 3.6 feet.
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 resulting from unique circumstances related to the land. They 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:
______________________________________________________________________
The motion is 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 resulting from unique circumstances related to the land. They 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::Recommended Action
N/A
end
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