Wilmington Board of Adjustment Meeting - April 16, 2026

The Wilmington Board of Adjustment convened at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 16, 2026, in City Council Chambers at 929 N. Front St., Wilmington, NC. Chair Jeff Hovis called the meeting to order and read the board's quasi-judicial procedures; Planning Coordinator Amy Bradshaw administered the oath to all prospective speakers. All five members were present, along with three alternates and city staff. The board unanimously approved the March 19, 2026 minutes and conducted an evidentiary hearing on a single appeal: whether a structure at 646 Long Leaf Acres Drive is a fence subject to City Code Section 18-325. The board voted 5-0 to overturn the zoning officer's determination, and the meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m.

Approval of Minutes

• The March 19, 2026 regular meeting minutes were approved as revised by a 5-0 vote (motion by Vice-Chair Patrick Moore, seconded by Alain Norman).

New Business: 646 Long Leaf Acres Drive (BACEO-1-426)

• Planning Manager Patrick O'Mahony presented the city's case. Following an anonymous complaint, a zoning inspection on January 30, 2026 found a structure approximately 12 feet in height (the minutes state it exceeded 12 feet) along the southwest property line of the R-15 zoned property. It was located within the 20-foot front setback, intersected the front property line, and its structural supports faced the adjacent property. A notice of violation was sent February 6, 2026, and the applicant appealed March 2, 2026.
• Staff explained that the Land Development Code does not define "fence" and cited two dictionary definitions: "a barrier that defines a property line and closes or borders on a field, yard, or the like" and "a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a boundary." Fence regulations limit front-yard fences to 4 feet in height, side/rear-yard fences to 8 feet, prohibit chain link in front setbacks, and require structural components to face inward, not toward adjacent properties.
• Applicant Nicole Jones argued the structure is a lacrosse backstop, not a fence. She stated it was installed exclusively for recreational and safety purposes, to contain high-speed lacrosse balls (her son shoots at about 90 mph) during daily athletic training and to protect neighboring homes and vehicles from stray balls. She said it does not define property boundaries, provide privacy, restrict access, or obstruct views; that neighbors were consulted beforehand and support it; and that the family plans to remove it when no longer needed, by approximately 2032, when her daughter is expected to graduate college.
• Staff responded that code exceptions for backstops apply to tennis courts and ball fields, which are recreation facilities not permitted on single-family residential lots.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Fred Pickler (649 Long Leaf Acres Drive) spoke in support, saying he had retrieved 50-60 stray lacrosse balls over the years and describing the structure as protecting neighbors' property and providing a safe practice space for the children, who he said have no ill intent.
• Walter O'Connor (642 Long Leaf Acres Drive) spoke in support, recounting his own 2016 experience with anonymous code complaints and asking the board to consider the request favorably.
• Judy Collins (266 Dallas Drive; the transcript identifies her as "Julie Collins") spoke in support, describing the backstop as professionally constructed, thoughtfully planned, and visually unobtrusive, and urged the board to consider waiving fees or fines if it voted against the appeal.

Board Deliberations

• A board member reported visiting the property and concluded the structure does not meet the common definitions of a fence because it does not mark a boundary, provide enclosure, or prevent intrusion; another member agreed the definition did not match. Discussion also covered construction materials, regulations for sporting equipment on residential properties, and setback requirements.
• Assistant City Attorney Michael Satterfield advised that the legal standard is a preponderance of the evidence supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, and that the board could not attach a condition (such as a June 2032 removal deadline) to a determination of this type.
• In discussion, board members noted that the code permits private tennis courts if setbacks are met, as an analogous use, and that the removal of local athletic fields referenced by the applicant is controlled by the county and Board of Education, outside city jurisdiction.

Key Outcomes

• Vice-Chair Moore moved to overturn the city's determination that the structure constituted a fence; Norman seconded; the motion passed 5-0.
• The board concluded the structure did not satisfy the commonly accepted definition of a fence because it was not intended to mark boundaries, provide enclosure, or prevent intrusion.
• The next regular Board of Adjustment meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 21, 2026.

Note: The final paragraph of the raw transcript contains unrelated content from a Wilmington City Council meeting (including proclamations, a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report public hearing, and Historic Preservation Commission procedures) that does not appear in the Board of Adjustment agenda or minutes; it appears to be extraneous transcription material.