TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer C. Baptiste - Planning & Zoning Division Manager
FROM: Craig Harmon, CZO - Senior Planner
DATE: June 9, 2026
RE:Title
A26-23 - Variance
A request by James Smith of J H Smith Investments for a variance to the fence height standards (Section 30-5.D.4.a) to allow for a taller fence for security purposes at 1651 Cedar Creek Road (0446815034000).
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
2 - Malik Davis
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal I: Safe and secure community
• 1.3 - To ensure low incidence of property and violent crime
A properly erected security fence of appropriate height to match the existing security fencing will better enable thief and trespasser deterrence.
Goal II: Responsive city government supporting a diverse and viable economy
• 2.4 - To sustain a favorable development climate to encourage business growth
A proper security fence will enable the expansion and redesign of a local commercial enterprise.
Goal III: City investment in today and tomorrow
• 3.2 - To manage the City’s future growth and strategic land use
A properly heighted security fence will enable the parcel to be used for the commercial venture without requiring additional land or significant land redevelopment.
Executive Summary:
Request
The applicant requests a variance to UDO Table 30-5.D.4 to increase the maximum fence (including chain link) height within the side and front yards from 4 feet to 6 feet; an increase of 2 feet.
Zoning Commission Decision Point
The Zoning Commission acting in accordance with NCGS § 160D-705(d) and UDO Section 30-2.C.14.e.2 must decide a course of action:
• Approve the variance request as submitted
• Approve the variance request with conditions
• Deny the variance request
Variance Criteria
1. Unnecessary Hardship
2. Peculiar Conditions
3. Minimum Action Necessary
4. Spirit of the Law
5. Public Safety
Background:
Owner: James Smith; Monica Smith
Request: Increase maximum fence (including chain link) height from 4 feet to 6 feet for security and uniformity purposes
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 0446815034000
Parcel Size: ± 0.97 acres
Existing Site Conditions: Cedar Creek Road Mini Storage
Immediate Context: Commercial properties to the north, south, and west with residential across both streets
Utilities: Public water, sewer, and electricity
Public Notice: Notification letters were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site equating to 17 notices sent.
Issues/Analysis:
Variance Criteria
In accordance with NCGS § 160D-705(d) and UDO Section 30-2.C.14.f five standards must all be met for a variance to be granted.
1. Unnecessary hardship - Strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships; it shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property; and
2. Peculiar Conditions - Any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, such as location, size, or topography, and are not the result of the actions of the land owner, nor may hardships resulting from personal circumstances as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public be the basis for granting a variance; and
3. Minimum Action - The variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures; and
4. Spirit of the Law - The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and preserves its spirit; and
5. Public Safety - In the granting of the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done.
Applicable Standards and Request
UDO Section 30-5.D.4 is the table which outlines the fence height standards based on the location within the lot. The subject property is located within the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district.
• Existing Front Yard Fence (including chainlink) Height Maximum: 4 feet
o Proposed Variance: 6 feet (increase of 2 feet)
Claim Presented by Applicant
The claim is that the request is for security purposes and to match the existing appearance of the adjacent parcels which contain the storage units.
Required Variance Findings
The Commission must determine whether the evidence supports EACH of the five criteria and associated findings.
The following is a neutral framing of how the record may be evaluated based on the claims and evidence provided by the applicant.
• Unnecessary Hardship
o Applicant asserts that the ordinance unnecessarily restricts the security of the storage facility by creating an area of easier scalability
o The Commission may consider whether these are considered practical or unnecessary difficulties.
• Peculiar Conditions
o Applicant asserts that the parcel being a corner lot creates limited fence usability for security purposes.
o The Commission may consider whether these conditions are unique to the land rather than common to other commercial lots
• Not Self-Created
o Applicants assert that the conditions are not self-created
o The Commission may consider whether these conditions are a self-created problem
• Spirit of the Law
o The Commission may evaluate whether varying the maximum fence height standards is in harmony with the law and does not impact public safety.
• Minimum Action Necessary
o Applicant asserts the request is the minimum action necessary to allow for appropriate security and uniformity
o The Commission may consider whether this is the minimum height necessary to achieve the goal.
Budget Impact:
Immediate (Legislative): No additional costs, collection of a $1000 application fee
Longterm (Construction): Onsite improvements are funded by the developer. City Council evaluates any potential public capital projects via budget adoption and capital investment processes.
Options:
• Approval - Find that the request meets all criteria
• Approval, but with conditions - Find that the request meets all criteria if adhering to a set of conditions
• Denial - Find that the request does not meet one or more criteria
• Table - Find that more information is necessary to make findings and table the case for a later commission date
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
No staff recommendation shall be provided. Commission action is based on the variance standards defined in Section 30-2.C.14.F and NCGS § 160D-705(d) based on the evidence found in the record.
end
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Current Zoning Map
4. Future Land Use Map
5. Site Pictures (Subject Site)
6. Site Pictures (Surrounding Properties)
7. Site Plan