TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: April 8, 2025
RE:
Title
A25-10: A variance request to address maximum lot coverage at 3299 Quarry Drive (0418817137000), owned by Vincent and Linda Higgins, represented by Christopher Haywood of Haywood Builders Inc.
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
District 9 - Deno Hondros
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal II: 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 IV: 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 City Code limitation that restricts residential structures to a maximum of 30% of the total lot square footage. According to the applicant, the proposed custom home, located at 3299 Quarry Drive in Fayetteville, exceeds this threshold with a ground-floor footprint of 6,777 square feet on a 17,275-square-foot-lot. This design is essential to accommodate the unique accessibility needs of the homeowners’ disabled child. The home features a specially designed garage, carport, and indoor pool - vital amenities in the child’s mobility, transportation, and therapeutic exercise. All ground-floor elements, including hallways, doorways, and rooms, are being tailored to ensure full wheelchair access. The requested variance is crucial to providing a safe, functional, and inclusive living environment, and the proposed design complies with all required setbacks, as documented in the submitted plot plan.
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:
• Owners: Vincent and Linda Higgins
• Applicant: Christopher Haywood
• Requested Action: Exceed lot coverage for disability access.
• Zoning District: SF-10 (Single-Family Residential 10)
• Property Address: 3299 Quarry Drive
• Size: 0.40 acres ±
• Existing Land Use: Vacant
• Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
o North - SF-10 (Vacant/Wooded)
o South - SF-10 (Single Family Houses)
o East - SF-15 (Single Family Houses)
o West - SF-10 (Single Family Houses)
Issues/Analysis:
The request is for a variance from the maximum lot coverage standard established in Section 30-3.D.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for properties zoned SF-10 (Single-Family Residential 10), which limits principal structure coverage to 30% of the total lot area. The subject property, located at 3299 Quarry Drive, contains 17,275 square feet, allowing a maximum footprint of 5,182.5 square feet. The proposed home includes a ground-floor building envelope of 6,777 square feet, exceeding the allowable coverage by approximately 1,595 square feet, or 9%. Based on these figures, the applicants are requesting an increase in the maximum lot coverage to approximately 40%.
The variance is being sought to construct a custom, ADA-accessible home designed for the applicants’ disabled daughter. The proposed design includes wider hallways and doorways for wheelchair access, a handicap-accessible garage and carport, and an indoor therapeutic pool accessible via wheelchair lift. Of the 6,777 square feet proposed on the ground floor, 1,725 square feet consists of unheated but essential areas, including the garage, storage spaces, porches, a spa area, and a carport. These elements are intended to support the child’s mobility, safety, and daily living needs within a fully accessible ground-floor layout.
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):
The findings are based on the applicant’s responses to the submitted application and the most reliable information regarding the proposal before any testimony is presented 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:
I affirm that the requested variance meets the applicable standards. This home is being designed to ensure that our daughter can continue to live safely and independently into adulthood, with support from a caregiver. The layout and features of the home will enable her to engage in purposeful and meaningful activities of daily living within a fully accessible environment.
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:
This variance addresses a unique personal hardship by allowing the construction of a custom home that will provide the applicants’ disabled child - and her family - with the ability to engage in typical daily activities within a safe, secure, and fully accessible environment.
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:
As shown in the submitted plans, all hallways, doorways, and ground-floor rooms are specifically designed to ensure full accessibility for the applicant’s disabled child, allowing her to navigate the home safely and independently.
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:
We are requesting a variance to permit a larger ground-floor building envelope than typically allowed, to meet the specific square footage requirements necessary for constructing a fully accessible home tailored to the needs of a disabled family member.
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 lot measures 17,275 square feet, which, under current zoning regulations, permits a maximum building footprint of 30%-or approximately 5,182 square feet. The proposed ground-floor footprint for the custom home is 6,777 square feet, which exceeds the allowable limit. Of this, 4,348 square feet will be heated living space, while the remaining 1,725 square feet includes essential features such as a garage, storage areas, porches, and accessibility components. Specifically, the design comprises a 721-square-foot area, featuring an open carport and indoor spa, as well as a 755-square-foot garage. These elements are integral to the home’s purpose: to provide full ground-floor accessibility for the applicant’s disabled child and to support her mobility, safety, and therapeutic needs within the home.
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:
The motion is to approve a variance that increases the maximum lot coverage to 40% of the lot area.
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:
___________________________________________________________________
The motion is 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:
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. Site Plan