Wilmington Board of Adjustment Meeting – May 15, 2025

The Wilmington Board of Adjustment convened on Thursday, May 15, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers to hear four agenda items: two variance requests from old business, two from new business, and a continuance request. The board approved the minutes from the April 17 and April 24 special meetings, granted a continuance for one item, and voted unanimously on all three variance applications after public testimony and deliberation.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of minutes from the April 17, 2025 meeting (motion carried unanimously).
• Approval of minutes from the April 24, 2025 special meeting (motion carried unanimously).
• Continuance of Item 4 (5302 Autumn Drive – variance for lot area calculation method) to the June 12, 2025 meeting, as requested by the applicant (motion carried unanimously).

Public Comments & Testimony

• 154 Parkwood Drive (Item 1): Terry Perham, neighbor at 160 Parkwood Drive, expressed concerns about potential flooding from the carport, stating that the structure is too close to her property. She noted that the applicant had previously built without permits on other structures and that the situation caused her significant stress. Under cross-examination, she acknowledged no expert evidence of water intrusion but remained worried about hurricane flooding.
• 420 Evans Street (Item 2): No public testimony was offered; the applicant did not appear.
• 1601 S 13th Street (Item 3): No public testimony from additional community members. The applicant’s team (Sam Frank, Amanda McLeod, Rusty Snow) presented detailed evidence and answered board questions.

Discussion Items

1. 154 Parkwood Drive – Variance to Accessory Structure Setbacks (BADV-28-325)

• Staff presentation: Grace Lamay, Planner I, described that the 11×30-foot carport was built with a 3-foot side setback instead of the required 5 feet due to a misinterpretation of permit requirements. The city waived the application fee because the error partly originated from staff guidance.
• Applicant’s attorney Dakota Lipscomb argued that the 75-year-old applicant, Cobra Lane, followed all instructions from the city and county websites and phone calls, rebuilt the carport after being told to move it, and that the structure now sits 3 feet 3 inches from the property line (1 foot 9 inches short of the 5-foot requirement). He emphasized no fire safety risk (15-foot gap to neighbor’s house) and that the carport has gutters and a silt fence to manage runoff.
• Board discussion focused on the four variance findings. Members noted the applicant’s good faith efforts and the lack of expert evidence from the neighbor regarding flooding. The board found unnecessary hardship due to the property’s peculiar conditions (driveway, stairs) and that the hardship did not result from the applicant’s actions.

2. 420 Evans Street – Variance to Setback Requirements (BADV-30-425)

• Staff presentation: Kathryn Thurston, Zoning Administrator, explained the lot is a 33-foot-wide lot in the R-5 district (requires 50-foot width). The applicant requested a 5-foot side yard setback instead of 7 feet to allow a single-family dwelling. The applicant originally mentioned a duplex, but the lot is too small (needs 7,000 sq ft for duplex; lot is ~3,036 sq ft).
• Board members questioned the inconsistency with the applicant’s absence and confirmed that approval would only permit a single-family home. Staff noted many neighboring lots are similarly non-conforming and that a proactive rezoning to R-3 was opposed by the community. The board agreed that the variance met the four findings: unnecessary hardship due to substandard lot size, peculiar conditions (33-foot width), no self-created hardship (lot platted in 1928), and consistency with intent (single-family use fits neighborhood).

3. 1601 S 13th Street – Variance to Tree Preservation Standards (BADV-31-525)

• Staff presentation: Grace Lamay reported that the redevelopment of the Houston Moore Apartments (150 units built in 1952) into 200 units in two phases would require removal of up to three specimen live oaks. The applicant’s initial request covered nine trees, but after design revisions, the variance now only seeks permission to remove one 38-inch live oak with certainty and possibly two others (a 38-inch and a 33-inch) depending on grading impacts. Six other specimen trees will be fully preserved with reduced critical root zone impacts.
• Applicant’s team (Sam Frank, attorney; Amanda McLeod, landscape architect; Rusty Snow, developer) detailed the design evolution, including notching building corners, relocating driveways, and using permeable paving to protect root zones. They stated that the site currently has 53% critical root zone impact; the proposed design reduces that to 17%. The applicant committed to planting substantial new trees as part of the redevelopment, though mitigation requirements for removed trees would be handled through the Technical Review Committee process.
• Board discussion touched on mitigation fees for affordable housing projects and the species selection for new plantings. Members praised the collaborative effort to save trees and agreed that the variance satisfied all four findings: unnecessary hardship (impossible to redevelop without removal), peculiar conditions (dense mature trees on a small urban site), no self-created hardship (trees were planted long before current code), and consistency with spirit (affordable housing and improved green space).

Key Outcomes

• Item 1 (154 Parkwood Drive): Motion to approve the variance based on four findings of fact. Passed 5-0.
• Item 2 (420 Evans Street): Motion to approve the variance as requested (for single-family dwelling only). Passed 5-0.
• Item 3 (1601 S 13th Street): Motion to approve the variance to remove up to three specimen trees. Passed unanimously.
• Item 4 (5302 Autumn Drive): Continued to the June 12, 2025 meeting by unanimous vote.
• The meeting adjourned after a brief introduction of a new board member.