Wilmington Board of Adjustment Meeting - March 20, 2025
Wilmington Board of Adjustment Meeting - March 20, 2025
The Board of Adjustment of the City of Wilmington held a quasi-judicial public hearing on Thursday, March 20, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Skyline Center, 929 North Front Street, Wilmington, NC. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jeff Hovis and adjourned at approximately 2:23 p.m. The board considered four variance requests, taking action on three and continuing one.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes (February 20, 2025): Vice-Chair Moore moved to approve the minutes; seconded by Board Member Mitchell. The motion carried 5-0 unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 3 (3rd & Kidder Street): Andrea Arth, a local realtor, spoke in favor of granting the variance. She stated that working with the applicant previously, granting the variance would keep costs down and create more affordable housing opportunities. She also noted that meeting the code would require adding 300–400 square feet of dead space, pushing up prices.
Discussion Items
-
413 Shipyard Boulevard – Variance to City Code Sections 18-318 and 18-321 (Parking Lot Landscaping):
- Staff presented that the applicant proposed 11 parking spaces (minimum 5, max 12) but provided no parking lot shading or landscaping. The variance sought to eliminate all parking lot landscaping requirements.
- Cliff Braam, representing the property owner (Atlantic Plumbing), explained the owner bought the property without full knowledge of requirements. The business needs all 11 spaces for employees and service vehicles.
- The board suggested exploring pervious surfaces (which would eliminate the shading requirement) and reconfiguring parking to incorporate at least partial landscaping. Staff noted that pervious surfaces would not be subject to the shading requirement but would still require landscape islands and buffers.
- After discussion, the applicant agreed to revise the site plan with city staff input and return to the April meeting. Vice-Chair Moore moved to continue to April 17, 2025; seconded by Board Member Norman. Motion carried 5-0.
-
3741 Oleander Drive – Variance to City Code Section 18-389 (Wall Sign Standards):
- Staff reported that the applicant (Dollar Tree) requested a variance to allow one wall sign of 131.43 sq ft, exceeding the 50 sq ft limit for multi-unit buildings. The current sign (47.1 sq ft) is already in compliance.
- Heather English, agent for the applicant, argued that the building’s setback (450 ft from the street) and obstructions (Hardee’s, bank, other retail) limit visibility of a 50 sq ft sign. She noted the proposed sign would cover only 8.5% of the façade, well under the 20% cap for standalone buildings.
- The board acknowledged the site constraints but emphasized consistency with past denials for similar requests. Chair Hovis noted the existing Dollar Tree sign was visible from the road, undermining the hardship argument. The motion to deny was made by Vice-Chair Moore, seconded by Board Member Mitchell, and carried 5-0.
-
3rd & Kidder Street – Variance to City Code Section 18-44 (Fenestration Requirements for UMX District):
- Staff explained that the applicant proposed an 8-unit townhouse project with a private courtyard. The code requires 50% fenestration (glass) along street-level façades (30% on secondary frontages). The applicant’s design provided only about 25% on 3rd Street and 18% on Kidder Street, with plans for perforated metal screens that would obscure vision, reducing effective glazing.
- Kevin Pfirman, applicant/architect, argued the code is written for commercial storefronts and does not accommodate fully residential developments. He emphasized the hardship stems from applying commercial standards to a residential project. The courtyard design provides privacy and stormwater management, and the project meets all other code requirements.
- Andrea Arth spoke in support during the public hearing. After rebuttal, the board reopened the evidentiary hearing for further testimony from the applicant. The board concluded that the applicant met the four findings of fact required for a variance, noting the code does not currently accommodate fully residential uses in the UMX district. Vice-Chair Moore moved to approve; seconded by Board Member Norman. The motion carried 5-0.
-
154 Parkwood Drive – Variance to City Code Section 18-199 (Accessory Structure Setbacks):
- The applicant requested a continuance to the April 17, 2025, meeting. Vice-Chair Moore moved to continue; seconded by Board Member Mitchell. Motion carried 5-0.
Key Outcomes
- Item 1 (413 Shipyard Blvd): Continued to April 17, 2025, with direction for the applicant to work with city staff on a revised plan including pervious surfaces and possible reconfiguration.
- Item 2 (3741 Oleander Drive): Denied 5-0. The variance did not meet the required findings of fact.
- Item 3 (3rd & Kidder Street): Approved 5-0. The board found that the applicant met the four findings of fact, noting the UMX code does not account for fully residential developments.
- Item 4 (154 Parkwood Drive): Continued to April 17, 2025, per applicant request.
- Next Meeting: The next regular Board of Adjustment evidentiary hearing will be held on Thursday, April 17, 2025.
Meeting Transcript
We'll go ahead and call to order the Board of Adjustments for the City of Wilmington's meeting. Today is Thursday, March 20th. It is one o'clock. Board of Adjustment Hearings before the Board of Adjustments are quasi-judicial in nature. Decisions of the board are based on the record of these proceedings. To grant a variance requires a concurrent vote of four-fifths of members of the board. To reverse or modify the determination of an administrative official requires a simple majority. Appeals to the board's decisions are to superior court and are based on the record. Appeals must be filed within thirty days of the date of the filing of the board's order in the planning division. A hearing before the board is conducted in accordance with rules of procedure. State your name, address, and speak clearly. Staff, applicants, members of the public who wish to speak today if you'll stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. All right, thank you. Our next item will be the approval of the minutes from the February twentieth, twenty twenty-five meeting. Is there a if there's no changes that take a motion for approval? Is there a second? Second. Aye. Anyone opposed? Those passed. Next on to new business. Excuse me. Parking lot landscaping requirements. And Catherine Thurston will present. Surrounding zoning is commercial services on three sides and residential zoning to the north. As part of that review, the notes on which are included as an attachment, uh, city staff informed the applicant that the quantity of parking shown on the site plan far exceeds code requirements. Based on the site's location within six hundred fifty uh six hundred and fifty feet of a single dwelling district and the square footage of the proposed building, the applicant's only required to provide part five parking spaces. The proposed site plan shows 11 parking spaces, plus a garage door on the rear that may accommodate additional parking within the building, which is more than double the required parking for the proposed use. In lieu of a reduction to the required parking, the applicant has requested variances to landscaping requirements that are set forth in City Code sections 18318 and 1832. City Code Section 18318 requires that parking areas contain sufficient tree coverage to shade 30% of the impervious vehicular use area associated with the project. The applicant has not proposed any parking lot shading. The illustration shows what is meant by parking lot shading, which serves many purposes, including reducing the heat island effect of parking lots, absorbing stormwater, and providing aesthetic appeal. The trees shown here were placed over the applicant's site plan to show where trees could be accommodated, even with the proposed building and the excess excess parking. It doesn't provide 30% shading, which is what's required by code, but it does show that the applicant has not demonstrated to staff why parking lot landscaping can't be installed at all. Additionally, City Code Section 18321 requires landscape islands at the end of all parking rows and a landscape area at least five feet in width along portions of the parking lot that abut a separate parking lot or driveway. The applicant has not proposed any parking lot landscaping. In fact, areas of the lot that are not large enough to accommodate parking have not even been proposed to satisfy the city's requirements, which is shown in the upper right-hand corner of the site plan beside the parking spot that's labeled seven. Staff would also like to note that the tax map that was included in the applicant's submittal shows that there was landscaping on the site as of May 2019, but that uh has since been removed, and there are no approvals on file with the city for removal of that landscaping. On January 30th, 2025, the applicant submitted a request for a variance to city code sections 18318 and 1832 to eliminate all requirements related to parking lot landscaping, and this matter is set for hearing before the Board of Adjustment today, March 20th, 2025. I'd like to um I'd like to ask that the board place the case summary and all attachments into the record. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have of staff, but the applicant is also present. All right, thank you. Anybody have any questions at this time? Yes, sir. Uh thank thank you very much for that presentation, and I'm I'm glad you all uh are concerned about uh having proper uh coverage uh as well as other landscape um uh features. I guess uh the question I have is has somebody calculated the what the sort of magic number of parking spaces might be if you also had the 30 percent because the illustration that you just provided, and I appreciate that was as you just said less than 30 percent, but it kind of is illustrative. Uh is there a uh uh a compromise or a middle ground number there that we we could you all have calculated or that the applicant could over we we've calculated what the minimum um parking requirement would be, and those spaces would be eight and a half feet wide by eighteen feet deep. The um handicap the required handicap space would be larger, of course.
openpublica.com