Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment Meeting – September 4, 2025

The Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on Thursday, September 4, 2025, at 6:30 PM in the Council Chamber of Chapel Hill Town Hall. Six members were present, establishing a quorum. The board unanimously approved the agenda, the minutes of the June 5, 2025 meeting, and a draft order granting a previously heard variance for 7608 Justin Place. The primary item was an evidentiary hearing on an after-the-fact dimensional variance for 105 Timberlyne Court, which was ultimately denied after extensive debate and a sequence of votes.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Agenda: Unanimously approved.
• Approval of Minutes (June 5, 2025): Unanimously approved.
• Old Business – Dimensional Variance for 7608 Justin Place: The board approved the draft order granting the variance, as directed from the June 5 meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comments were made during a separate public comment period. During the evidentiary hearing, the applicant’s attorney, Neil Ghosh of Morning Star Law Group, presented the case and called Beth Elder (daughter of the property owners) to testify. Ms. Elder stated that she trusted the town’s inspection process and never intended to violate setbacks. The board also received written affidavits from neighbors supporting the variance.

Discussion Items

• After-the-Fact Dimensional Variance – 105 Timberlyne Court
  • Request: Reduce the required 14-foot interior setback to 10.9 feet for an accessory building built on a slab that encroached into the setback. The slab was installed in the wrong location by the original contractor despite passing slab inspections.
  • Applicant’s Position: The hardship was not due to the owners’ actions; they relied on the contractor and town inspections. Tearing down the structure would be economically wasteful and not in the spirit of the ordinance. Neighbors were not opposed.
  • Board Deliberation: Members struggled with finding #3 (hardship not resulting from actions of applicant). Some argued that hiring a contractor who made the error imputed responsibility to the owners. Others viewed it as an honest mistake executed by an agent. The board also questioned whether after-the-fact variances are treated differently.
  • Vote on Resolution A (Grant): Motion by Dr. Wortman, seconded. Roll call: 5 yes (Bartow, Garza, Fishkin, Weiner, Wortman), 1 no (Grasty). Needed 4/5 of the full board (7 eligible members, one recused) – required 6 votes. Resolution A failed.
  • Vote on Resolution B (Deny): Motion and second. Roll call: 5 no (Bartow, Garza, Fishkin, Weiner, Wortman), 1 yes (Grasty). A majority was needed to pass; the motion failed (5 no, 1 yes).
  • Final Motion: To direct staff to issue a written decision reflecting the outcome of the vote on Resolution A (i.e., variance denied). Unanimously approved (6-0).

Key Outcomes

• The variance for 105 Timberlyne Court was denied. The board’s final action directed staff to draft a written decision stating that the variance failed.
• Next Meeting: Scheduled for October 2, 2025.

Note: The meeting began at 6:30 PM and adjourned after approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes. The board consisted of eight members, but one was recused, leaving seven eligible; six members were present and voting.