BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS

Transcription

1 Town of Oak Island BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Council Chambers Oak Island Town Hall 2 p.m. February 27, 2018 Call to Order: Approval of Minutes ( ) Old Business: (none) New Business: (1) Variance Request Driveway Other Business: (1) Board Member Reports (2) Staff Reports Adjournment:

2 MINUTES Board of Adjustment October 18, A.M. Oak Island Town Hall Council Chambers Present: Chairman Reece Simmons, Members Niki Cutler, Bob Ludwig and Jack Moore, Alternate Member Charlie Coffee, Planning and Zoning Coordinator Jake Vares, Town Attorney Brian Edes and Assistant Manager/Town Clerk Lisa P. Stites, CMC. Member Steve Yuhasz was unable to be present. Mr. Moore made a motion to approve the Minutes of September 20, Mr. Ludwig seconded and the motion passed unanimously. (Mr. Coffee abstained, which counted as a vote in the affirmative). New Business: Variance request Ms. Stites administered the oath to all those who wished to speak during the hearing. Mr. Edes reviewed the process for the quasi-judicial hearing. He reminded the Board members that they needed to remain fair and impartial. Mr. Edes asked if any members had a financial interest in the project; none indicated they had. Mr. Edes asked if any of the members had made site visits; all but Ms. Cutler said that they had made a site visit. Answering questions from Mr. Edes, none of the members indicated they spoke to the applicant or spoke to staff about the application, nor was there anything about their site visits that would make them unable to only consider the competent evidence presented today, or that there was any other reason that would make them unable to be fair and impartial. Mr. Vares gave his staff report. The property is located at 917 E. Beach Drive. The applicant is asking to build into the secondary dune as it has been defined. The applicant is asking for relief from the Town s ordinance Sec , the definition of secondary dune. Mr. Vares said that the word system means that it is on more than one lot. He said the Town s definition goes beyond what the State requirements are. Town staff met with NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) staff at the site yesterday. Exhibit A is the agenda packet and Exhibit B is an from DCM dated October 17, A copy was provided to the applicant and to the Board. Mr. Edes noted that the applicant was present, was sworn, and had no objection to the Exhibits being entered. Mr. Vares said that the affirms the location of the frontal dune. He said that the notification requirements for the hearing were met. Mr. Edes told the applicant he was entitled to cross-examine Mr. Vares. Kelly Smith, 39 Creswell Manor Drive, Greensboro and 3208 E. Pelican Drive: Mr. Smith asked Mr. Vares about the , saying that the did not address the frontal dune, but rather the stable vegetation line. Mr. Vares said his reading of the was that DCM staff was confirming that where the vegetation line was flagged by Town staff and where it was shown on the survey submitted was accurate. Mr. Edes asked Kelly Smith what his connection was to the application; Mr. Smith said he was under contract to purchase the property. Joy Easley, attorney representing the current property owner (Milton Darr): Ms. Easley asked Mr. Vares if the actually said anything about the frontal dune. Mr. Vares said it was correct that it addressed the stable vegetation line. Ms. Easley asked if there were anything in the definition of secondary dune as to a pattern; she read the definition. Mr. Vares said that the word pattern is not in the definition; he said that pattern and continuity were synonyms. Mr. Vares said that pattern was not used in the definition but was something staff considered when making a determination. Ms. Easley asked Mr. Vares if he would agree that the definition for secondary dune requires that the berm or dune in question meet the continuity of the existing surrounding primary frontal dune.

3 MINUTES October Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 4 Mr. Vares said that his reading of the language was that if there is a primary frontal dune on the site then the secondary dune must have some continuity with the existing frontal dune. Ms. Easley asked Mr. Vares if he was saying that he looks at the pattern when he is there; Mr. Vares agreed. Thomas Smith, 1840 Tangled Briar Court, Weddington, owns adjacent properties: Mr. Smith asked staff if there was an effective frontal dune or is what is left following the last storm is the frontal dune, or if what was being called the secondary dune was actually the frontal dune. Mr. Vares said that staff s position is that there is a separate frontal dune, albeit not a large one, that is more seaward. Kelly Smith: Mr. Smith said he had been vacationing here for about 12 years and had built a home on East Pelican about 6 years ago. The property at 917 E. Beach is a buildable property. During the process of designing a house, it came up that the secondary dune would be under the house. There would be no egress to the house except to the beach, so a variance is being sought, not to remove the dune though, as it provides safety. They just want to shift it forward so they can provide ingress and egress under the house. Chairman Simmons confirmed that by forward, he meant seaward; Mr. Smith confirmed that was correct. Mr. Smith said that having all the parking on the street would block views for neighbors as well. Mr. Moore asked how much the dune would need to be shifted. Kelly Smith said approximately 15 feet. Mr. Edes reminded the Board that any variance could be issued with conditions. Mr. Moore asked if by moving it, the secondary dune would touch the ridge of the primary dune; Kelly Smith said he did not believe it would. Mr. Moore asked if Kelly Smith was under contract to buy the property; he said he was. Ms. Cutler asked if the lot was buildable; was the issue that what they wanted to build was larger than the building envelope would allow. Kelly Smith said what they wanted would not be larger than the building envelope. The building envelope is shallow; he needs to get as much width as possible. Ms. Easley asked Kelly Smith about the building envelope, saying that based on the CAMA setbacks he could build; Mr. Smith said that was correct. Ms. Easley asked if the secondary dune prohibits him from using the building envelope; he said that was correct. Mr. Edes said the Board may want clarification on that point. Ms. Easley said that there was a building envelope that would meet CAMA setback requirements but the secondary dune ordinance renders the lot unbuildable because of the location of the secondary dune. Answering a question from Mr. Edes, Ms. Easley said that absent a variance, the lot is not buildable. Ms. Easley spoke about her prior work experience in the permitting field, and said that she knows regulations change, but that her understanding was that the house would have to be on pilings, and that the pilings could not be put into the secondary dune. Development Services Director Steve Edwards said that they could build over the dune, but would not be able to put in access, ingress or egress or parking because of the secondary dune. Ms. Easley said that there is an exception in the ordinance, and that staff could work with the applicant on that. Thomas Smith said that he owns property adjacent to the property in question. He said he opposed the variance request, because if is granted, it will gut the secondary dune ordinance. He said there is 300 continuous feet of what he calls primary dune, but what staff is calling secondary dune he calls primary dune. The dune gives important protection. This secondary dune survived Hurricane Matthew. If you open it up, you open up a gap. Mr. Smith said that he opposes this variance request and thinks it would be a shame to go around an ordinance only put in place a year ago.

4 MINUTES October Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 4 Kelly Smith said he wanted to confirm that it was a staff determination that it was a secondary dune; Thomas Smith said that it was the only dune that has survived since Hurricane Floyd. Kelly Smith said that was not the staff determination. Thomas Smith said staff was calling a 1-foot sand dune as the frontal dune. Kelly Smith again asked if it was staff determination as to what was the secondary dune. Thomas Smith said that staff said the frontal dune was a dune because it rose one foot. Kelly Smith said that he was asking to adjust the secondary dune s location. Thomas Smith said that it would then be out of line with the remaining secondary dune, meaning there would be a break instead of an uninterrupted secondary dune. Kelly Smith said that they were not trying to remove it. Thomas Smith said they were trying to make it non-continuous. Mr. Moore asked Thomas Smith if he had anything on the adjacent property; he said that they used to own a house there until 1998 but moved it because the underwash made it uninhabitable. They moved it across the street and if they had not, pieces of the Pier were across their lot and high tide was at the road. The secondary dune was pushed up with sand that came out of the road following Hurricane Floyd. He said it was the lowest areas on the beach, and one of the narrowest areas of the beach. During Hurricane Matthew, he said everything washed to the secondary dune, which held. Chairman Simmons asked Mr. Vares about the continuation of the dune line, saying it does cross several lots. He asked if it were relocated would there be some interruption. Mr. Vares said that would be correct. Ms. Easley asked if the applicant was proposing to relocate and reconnect the dunes. Mr. Vares reviewed the application and confirmed that was the case. Ms. Easley said she just wanted to confirm that the applicant was not proposing to leave a gap. Ms. Cutler asked Kelly Smith if that was his intention, to connect the dunes though it would project out forward; Kelly Smith said that was correct. Kelly Smith said that the lot was buildable and that they were requesting not to remove the dune, just to shift it. He hoped to build on the lot, which would increase the tax base for the Town. Thomas Smith said he opposed the variance request because he thought the ordinance passed in 2016 was a good ordinance to protect the beach. He said allowing the variance would make a gap in the secondary dune. Ms. Easley said Kelly Smith appeared before the Board and provided a narrative in his application. Regarding the variance criteria, Ms. Easley said Kelly Smith did provide evidence of hardship, as there would be no ingress or egress, or parking, and that the hardship results from conditions of the property. She said that here we are dealing with the topography; it was a dune created by sand pushing after Hurricane Floyd (1999). She said the applicant is trying to use a lot and a half to build a house and to provide ingress, egress and parking. Ms. Easley said that the applicant had provided evidence that he did not cause the hardship. She also said that he has shown he can continue the continuity of the dune system by connecting it. She also said that this would not be a precedent; there is a lot in the 2600 block of East Beach where the dune was relocated without requesting the ordinance because the ordinance allows for that staff determination. Ms. Easley said the secondary dune definition was vague and ambiguous. Ms. Easley said that the continuity can be maintained and that Kelly Smith can build a house and have parking that won t have to be adjacent to Beach Drive. She asked for the variance to be granted and encouraged the Board to include language regarding maintaining continuity of the dune system. Mr. Edes reviewed the process of the hearing thus far and the exhibits entered (A and B). Mr. Moore made a motion to close the hearing at 10:51 a.m. Mr. Ludwig seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Chairman Simmons said that regarding the first criteria, he agreed that there would be some hardship, though he said the Board needed to keep in mind that the ordinance was put in place for a reason. Mr.

5 MINUTES October Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 4 Moore said there was evidence heard that it can t be built upon without moving the dune. Chairman Simmons said that the lot could be built on without a variance, though maybe not as desired. Mr. Edes said that he was not advocating one way or the other, but the hardship he heard in evidence was building over the dune and the ingress and egress issue. Ms. Cutler noted that the application did not state that there could not be egress, just that it would have to go under the house, which was not desirable. Regarding the second criteria, Chairman Simmons said that the lots on either side have the exact same dune line, so he did not see that the attributes were particular to this property. Mr. Moore agreed. Ms. Cutler said that the second subsection was more applicable to this situation. Mr. Coffee said as you go down the beach, you ll find the same thing. Chairman Simmons read the third criteria and agreed that there was no action by the applicant or property owner to cause the hardship. Regarding the fourth criteria, Chairman Simmons said that the secondary dune would protect a lot of property as the primary dune is so small. He said the secondary dune is heavily vegetated, and that would be lost by moving it. With all the storms we have seen, Chairman Simmons said that he was not of a mind to juggle dune locations. Ms. Cutler reminded the Board members that all four criteria must be met to approve a variance. Mr. Moore said that regarding criteria 4, as recently as 2016, the Town took action to add this definition and did so with consideration of the benefits of doing it or not doing it. He said the only criteria met was the third one, in his opinion. It appeared that all four of the members, including the Chairman, agreed. Mr. Moore made a motion that we find as fact that the criteria 1, 2 and 4, were not met, and that only the third criteria was met, and that the variance be denied. Ms. Cutler seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Edes reviewed the Findings of Fact that would be included in the Order Denying the Variance. Mr. Ludwig made a motion to adjourn at 11:02 a.m. Mr. Moore seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Attested: Lisa P. Stites, CMC Assistant Manager/Town Clerk Reece Simmons

6 TOWN OF OAK ISLAND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEM MEMO Agenda Item: New Business Item No. 1 Date: January 23, 2018 Issue: Variance Application Department: Planning & Zoning Administrator Presented by: Jake Vares Estimated Time for Discussion: 35 Minutes Subject Summary: The variance request you will be hearing is a quasi-judicial decision so it must be conducted in a way to ensure procedural and substantive due process. Anyone wanting to provide testimony must be sworn in. As a quasi-judicial hearing the decision makers must be fair and impartial and you must base your decision only on the competent evidence you receive. If anyone has a direct or potential financial interest in this proposed project then they should recuse themselves. A 4/5 th vote is required to be granted a variance. Conditions can be applied but they must be proportional and directly applicable to the applicant s variance situation. In other words they should be designed in such a way to assist the applicant come into better and closer conformance with the towns zoning regulations. All of the evidence and testimony heard is supposed to be substantive and competent in nature. Each case is decided on a site by site basis. The decision has to be based on the specific site and not the owner or other locations they may own or have issues with. The Board of Adjustment is to look at the circumstances of the property, not the circumstances of the property owner. At the end of the hearing a motion to adopt a finding of facts document has to be adopted and signed by the chair once a decision has been officially made, regardless if the variance is approved or denied. Findings of Fact are essentially an accepted record of the exhibits, evidence presented, and a formal recording of the decision made at the hearing. The motion to adopt the findings of facts can be made in conjunction with the motion to approve or deny the application or as a separate motion afterwards. The finding of fact document will be provided at the time of the hearing. General Statute (GS) 160A-388. (d) codifies the evaluative criteria that is required for the board to determine has been met when deciding a variance request. The four standards are: (1) Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. (2)The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance. (3)The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. (4)The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.

7 Be sure to use these General Statute requirements when hearing the case. If approval is granted, the case needs to comply with all of the G.S. standards. Furthermore, variances are not allowed to grant a change in permitted uses. The applicant is requesting an allowance in the form of a variance to install a third driveway at 222 Keziah Street, parcel identification number The applicant is applying for relief from a town s ordinances Section Sec (e) which says No more than two combined entrances and exits shall be allowed on any parcel of property, the frontage of which is less than 200 feet on each street. The property in question is a corner lot at the intersection of Keziah Street and Live Oak Drive which is 160 by 120 feet in dimensions and already has two existing driveways as you can see from the site-plan survey. A new driveway onto Keziah Street would create a third driveway which would not be permitted by the ordinance because the allowable driveway limit would be exceeded. The attached applicant s justification narrative summarizes their cases as to why the G.S. criteria has been met and explains the conditions on the site. The applicant is asking that the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow the addition of one new driveway connection onto Keziah St. The attached documentation contains: the applicable ordinance excerpts, the applicant s justification narrative, application paperwork, general site maps of the area, a site-plan survey, a photo, doctors note, and the state evaluative criteria checklist. Official certified letters have been sent to the adjacent property owners and a sign, required by the Town zoning ordinance, has been placed at the site detailing the hearing date, time and location, per the zoning ordinance requirements (Sec c). It is for the Board of Adjustment to determine if the attached variance application meets all the outlined criteria in the General Statutes. The hearing should not be closed until after the vote has occurred because if something comes up during deliberation then the applicant or opponents cannot submit information that may be relevant to the discussion/deliberation. I suggest at the end of the meeting the state criteria checklist be reviewed and each General Statute standard be assessed before a vote is taken. The motion when the vote occurs needs to specifically state why or why not the General Statute criteria is or is not met. Attachments: Ordinance excerpts, Variance Application form, applicant justification narrative, photos, surveys, site area map, doctors note, General Statute Evaluative Criteria handout Action Needed: approve, deny, or approve with conditions Suggested Motion: Applicant does meet all of the general statute mandated evaluative criteria or the applicant does not meet all of the general statute mandated evaluative criteria specifically because and to adopt the associated finding of fact. Funds Needed: $0.00 Follow Up Action Needed: Issue official notice to the applicant.

8 Attachments DIVISION 6. - DRIVEWAYS AND CURB CUTS [4] Sec General requirements. (a) A permit is required through the department of development services prior to construction or reconstruction of a driveway approach. (b) The fee for the permit is specified in the town's fee schedule. (c) All driveway work done on state highway rights-of-way is subject to approval by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. No work shall be commenced until a valid copy of a NCDOT driveway permit, if applicable, is provided to the town. (d) All driveways shall meet state or town specifications. Driveway construction in the right-ofway of the town shall be inspected by appropriate town personnel. (e) Number of driveways permitted: (1) No more than two combined entrances and exits shall be allowed on any parcel of property, the frontage of which is less than 200 feet on each street. Additional entrances and exits on parcels with frontage of greater than 200 feet shall be allowed only after showing of actual requirements for convenience and necessity and upon approval by the planning board. Where safely feasible, driveway access shall be restricted to streets other than E. Oak Island Drive. (2) For corner lots, and lots abutting more than one street, one combined entrance-exit shall be permitted per street frontage provided that an additional point of entrance-exit may be permitted on parcels with greater than 250 feet in width. The additional point of entrance-exit may be applied on one street frontage only; the street frontage selected for the additional point must exceed the minimum 250 feet width standard. (3) Where frontage is less than 50 feet, only one combined entrance-exit shall be permitted. (f) No driveway may be installed in a manner that adversely affects adjoining property owners or conflicts with any public facilities or uses such as traffic signals, utility poles, loading zones, and sewer cleanouts. Any adjustments of public facilities to accommodate driveways shall be at the expense of the permit applicant. (g) No driveway material shall be installed in a manner that the finished surface shall wash or collect on town or state maintained roads or streets or upon adjacent or abutting property. (h) Driveways shall be designed and installed so that the lot and driveway do not drain to the public right-of-way or upon adjacent of abutting property. (i) On sections of arterial or collector streets which are not constructed with curb and gutter or drainage channelization, island areas shall be introduced which shall serve as physical barriers to direct the flow of traffic and to separate street traffic from activity on private property. Island shape shall be defined by raised curbing constructed to the North Carolina Department of Transportation specifications, the interior surface of which shall be landscaped with grass or low growing shrubbery. Sec Design requirements. (a) Residential uses. (1) For a single drive on an interior lot, minimum driveway width at the property line shall be ten feet and maximum width shall be 24 feet at right-of-way. (2) For two drives, the maximum driveway width of any single drive is 24 feet in a dedicated right-of-way, with a combined maximum total for two drives of 32 feet where lot frontage is 60 feet or less and 40 feet where lot frontage is greater than 60 feet but less than 200 feet. Drives must have a minimum distance of five feet between each point of access as measured at the edge of pavement to the property line, plan is approved by the town

9 stormwater administrator or designee, and is in compliance with all other sections of this chapter. (3) For a single drive on a corner lot, the maximum driveway width on a front lot line is 24 feet in a dedicated right-of-way. (4) For a single drive on a corner lot without water frontage, the maximum driveway width on a side lot line is 32 feet in a dedicated right-of-way where side lot frontage is greater than 60 feet but less than 200 feet. A second driveway is not permitted on the front lot line, the plan must be approved by the town stormwater administrator or designee, and it must be compliance with all other sections of this chapter. (b) Commercial uses. The minimum driveway width at the property line shall be 16 feet and the maximum width shall be 24 feet at the edge of the street pavement. Where access by tractor trailers or other large vehicles is anticipated, one combined entrance-exit of 36 feet in width may be permitted; where this is allowed, there shall be no other entrance-exit allowed for single frontage lots and no other entrance-exit shall be permitted on the same street frontage on a corner lot. In addition to the foregoing, the following design standards and principles shall be adhered to: (1) At street intersections, driveways shall be located as far from the intersection as practicable but in no case shall the closest point of a driveway be nearer than 25 feet from the intersecting right-of-way lines to the beginning of the outside driveway radius as measured at the right-of-way line. (2) The distance between two driveways on the same property on the same side of the street shall not be less than 20 feet, said distance shall be measured along the right-of-way line between the tangent projection of the inside edges of the two driveways. (3) Driveways shall be constructed to be no less than five feet from any property line. (4) No loading and/or unloading of vehicles shall take place on the right-of-way adjacent to service stations, convenience stores, or filling stations. (5) The use of joint or shared driveways shall be encouraged where practicable. (6) Proposed driveways shall be designed in consideration of existing driveway on adjacent properties and shall be designed to achieve the spacing objectives of this section the degree practicable. (7) The location of proposed driveways shall be considered in relation to existing driveways on the opposite side of the street and may be required to align with such existing driveways to reduce the potential for turning movement conflicts on the fronting roadway. (c) The grade of entrance. The grade of the entrance shall slope away from the street surface for a distance of at least six feet unless otherwise directed by the development services and/or public works department. (d) Expansion joints shall be required a minimum of 3½ feet from each side of the center line of the public water and sewer line when a driveway of impervious surface is placed over these lines. These joints must be placed in, not cut. The public utilities department will locate the water and sewer lines. All paved driveways must have an expansion joint parallel to the property line. (e) If driveways are paved, the pavement shall meet the following standards: Driveways shall have a minimum base equal to four inches (nominal) of ABC stone (crusher run), and one inch of asphalt, or four inches (nominal) of concrete. Alternative paving materials intended to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from the site may be approved by the development services and/or public works departments.

10

11

12

13

14 (Attachment) Justification For Variance Adding A New Driveway Connection 222 Keziah St, Oak Island, NC A primary reason the property owners, Joe & Janet Sutherland, are planning an addition to their house at 222 Keziah St is to improve access to the house for the handicapped co-owner. Joe has a neurological condition called CMT (Charcot Marie Tooth, aka Hereditary Peripheral Neuropathy) that severely limits his ability to walk. CMT weakens nerve signals to & from the extremities, especially the legs, & feet, interfering with balance and the ability to stand & walk. It is progressive -- worsening with age. Currently, Joe, age 67, can still walk short distances (less than 100 feet) on smooth, level terrain using a cane, but requires a scooter or power wheelchair for greater distances. He can still climb stairs as long as there are 2 handrails, but that ability is fading, as predicted. So, an elevator is being installed in their other residence in Raleigh. The 4 steps into the existing Keziah Street house will soon be a major obstacle, and they will eventually become insurmountable. So, plans for the addition include a garage with a ramp inside from ground level to house floor level. But the garage requires a new driveway connection to Keziah Street. An existing driveway, installed decades ago by the original owner of the property, curves across the corner of the lot, connecting to both Keziah St and Live Oak Dr, running in front of the existing house. But it does not reach the planned garage. Unfortunately, a new driveway onto Keziah St constitutes a third street connection for the property, exceeding the limit of two set by the Oak Island Code Of Ordinances -- Sec e ( Number of driveways permitted ) No more than two combined entrances and exits shall be allowed on any parcel of property, the frontage of which is less than 200 feet on each street. Removal of the existing driveway might seem to avoid that violation, but it is surrounded in close proximity by healthy, long established Live Oak trees which are protected by another section of the Code Sec a3 -- The following shall be prohibited within the root protection zone of any preserved plant: grading and excavation which involves cutting or filling to a depth of more than 3 inches. Therefore, we ask that the Board Of Adjustment grant a variance to allow the addition of one new driveway connection to Keziah St. We believe the 5 standards required for approval of such a variance (as listed in the Variance Application form) are met, as follows: 1. There is unnecessary hardship resulting from strict application of the ordinances. Strict enforcement of the applicable ordinances would mean the handicapped homeowner would lose access to his home as his handicap worsens through no fault of his own. 2. The hardship of which the applicant suffers is unique to the subject property in question and is not suffered by neighboring properties. Neighboring properties have only a single driveway connection. If the owner of a neighboring property needs an additional connection, the driveway ordinance already allows for that. 3. The hardship results from conditions peculiar to the property. The unique two-connection driveway was installed in the 1950's by the original owner of the property, and the protected Live Oak trees grew over and under it in the 6 decades since. No neighboring property shares these two unique conditions. 4. The hardship suffered is not self-imposed. The two-connection driveway was installed and the Live Oak trees were planted around it long before the current owners acquired the property. And it was not acquired by choice, but was inherited from Janet Sutherland's father upon his death in December The variance request is consistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. As we understand them, the spirit and intent of the applicable ordinances is to a) prevent unlimited driveway connections to public streets, and b) protect and preserve the unique plant life... in this case, distinctive Live Oak trees, indigenous to Oak Island. The requested variance maintains both these objectives, and so is consistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinances. Thank you for your consideration.

15

16 Brunswick County GIS Data Viewer 1 / 16 / : 50 : 15 AM Addresses Roads US Hwy NC Hwy Parcels Minor Parcel Building Footprints Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 Brunswick County GIS 1: mi km Interstate State Road Condo Red: Band_1 Brunswick County GIS Brunswick County GIS

17 Brunswick County GIS Data Viewer 1 / 16 / : 51 : 50 AM Addresses Roads US Hwy NC Hwy Parcels Minor Parcel Red: Band_1 Blue: Band_3 Brunswick County GIS 1:1, mi km Interstate State Road Condo Green: Band_2 Brunswick County GIS Brunswick County GIS

18

19

20 Town of Oak Island Brunswick County, NC 2014 Variance Sample Decision Tool G.S. 160A-388 states all four of these standards must be shown for a variance to be approved: STANDARD DISCUSSION (1) Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. (2) The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances MAY NOT be the basis for granting a variance. Hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public MAY NOT be the basis for granting a variance. (3) The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. (4) The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. Other points: No change in permitted uses may be authorized by variance. Appropriate conditions may be imposed on any variance, provided that the conditions are reasonably related to the variance.