TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: September 15, 2025
RE:
Title
A25-40. Request for a Variance to allow a structure to encroach into the rear yard setback at 5405 Palm Circle (REID #0406971715000), owned by Mabel Ninette Guin. (Tabled from August 12)
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 2.4: Sustain a favorable development climate to encourage business (and residential) growth.
- Goal 3: City Investment in Today and Tomorrow
- Objective 3.2: Manage the City’s future growth and strategic land use.
- Objective 3.4: Revitalize neighborhoods with effective code enforcement and violations abatement.
- Goal 4: A Desirable Place to Live, Work, and Recreate
- Objective 4.5: Ensure a place for people to live in great neighborhoods.
Executive Summary:
This case concerns a request to reduce the required rear yard setback at 5405 Palm Circle by approximately three feet to allow for a covered porch. The property is zoned SF-10 and is located within the city limits of Fayetteville.
Section 30-2.C.14 – Variance:
A variance allows limited deviations from the dimensional standards of the Ordinance – such as height, yard setbacks, or lot coverage – when strict application would impose an undue and unique hardship on the landowner. To qualify, the hardship must arise from special conditions beyond the landowner’s control, such as unusual topography or the narrowness, shallowness, or irregular shape of the parcel.
Variances are intended for rare and exceptional circumstances and are to be granted sparingly. They may not be used to change permitted land uses or to modify conditions of approval established through other procedures.
Background:
Owner: Mabel Guin
Applicant: Red Door Homes of Central North Carolina
Requested Action: Reduce the minimum rear yard setback by approximately three feet to allow for a covered porch.
Zoning District: Single Family Residential 10 (SF-10)
Property Address: 5405 Palm Circle
Size: 0.36 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Single-Family Dwelling
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: 29
Issues/Analysis:
The subject property is located at 5405 Palm Circle and is zoned Single-Family Residential 10 (SF-10). According to the dimensional standards outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the minimum rear yard setback for single-family detached dwellings in the SF-10 district is 35 feet.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a covered rear porch to encroach approximately three feet into the required rear setback. The proposed porch is indicated on the submitted plot plan as extending beyond the rear setback line.
The lot is approximately 0.36 acres and is wedge-shaped, with a curved front property line along Palm Circle. This configuration reduces the usable depth of the lot at the rear, particularly near the corners. The existing and proposed improvements are oriented toward the buildable center of the lot, but the proposed 12’x12’ covered porch projects beyond the required setback line.
All surrounding properties are zoned SF-10 and are developed with single-family residences. The variance request is limited to the dimensional encroachment of the porch and does not involve changes to use, density, or lot coverage. The request is subject to the review criteria outlined in Section 30-2.C.14 of the UDO.
Insufficient Justification for Variance
The following circumstances, on their own, do not provide sufficient justification for the approval of a variance:
1. The existence of similar conforming or nonconforming structures or uses within the same or nearby zoning districts;
2. The intent to establish a use that is not permitted within the applicable zoning district, whether expressly or by implication; or
3. Statements of economic hardship or claims that the property would yield greater value or profit if the variance were granted.
Subsequent Development:
The applicant does not propose or describe any additional or subsequent development beyond the current request. The application is specifically limited to allowing a covered rear porch that encroaches approximately three feet into the 35-foot rear setback. It states that the purpose of the variance is to avoid modifying the home design or incurring additional costs due to a construction oversight.
No new structures, changes in use, or further development activities are indicated in the application materials. The scope is restricted solely to the porch encroachment.
Findings:
The following findings are based on the applicant’s submitted responses and the best available information regarding the proposal, absent any testimony that may be presented during 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, “If we are unable to move forward with a variance, the homeowner whom has entrusted us to build their dream home, will have to incur additional costs, or face significant modifications to their home plan no fault of their own for an error they did not make. In home building, information and plans go through so many different hands and processes, and as a result we regret this has been missed due to timing. It has been noted, and we will make the necessary tweaks to our process to try and prevent this from happening.”
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, “N/A”
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, “The variance is all that is needed to proceed in moving forward. We are only 3 feet over the back setbacks, and if granted, we can continue building.”
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 ensures that there is room for correction and mistakes. We are trusting human hands to build, and ensure compliance, however we all understand that mistakes happen, and there must be room for error and correction.”
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, “In granting the variance, the public safety and welfare are assured, because by granting use this variance, there is no harm that can come of permission to encroach 3 feet.”
Budget Impact:
Based on the submitted materials, there is no direct budget impact associated with this application. The request pertains to a single residential property and does not involve any city-funded improvements, infrastructure extensions, or changes to service provision.
Staff time required for processing the application falls within the normal scope of Planning Division operations and is covered by existing personnel and resources.
Options:
The Zoning Commission is authorized to approve or deny the requested variance. In doing so, the Commission must base its decision on the five required findings of fact as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance.
A motion to approve the variance may be made if a member determines that the evidence in the record is substantial, competent, and sufficient to support all five findings. The motion should clearly articulate each individual finding and identify the corresponding evidence upon which it is based.
If the Commission finds that one or more of the required findings cannot be supported by the evidence presented, a motion to deny the variance may be appropriate. In such cases, the motion should specify which finding(s) are not met.
The Commission may also impose reasonable conditions upon approval, provided those conditions are related to the variance request and intended to ensure compliance with the intent of the Ordinance.
When presenting a motion to approve, the member should provide a concise summary of the evidence supporting each of the five findings. Further discussion by the Commission may expand on the record as needed to support its decision.
Possible Motions and Factual Findings:
Motion to approve the application as submitted.
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 application subject to 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 application.
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 have been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________.
Recommended Action:
N/A
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Land Use Map
5. Subject Property Photos
6. Surrounding Property Photos
7. Plot Plan