Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Wilmington Board of Adjustment Meeting Summary - June 18, 2026

Board of Adjustment — Thursday, June 18, 2026

BodyWilmington, North Carolina

SessionBoard of Adjustment

DateThursday, June 18, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 4:40:36

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

1:36

All right, Abe, you could take a seat.

1:38

We're gonna go ahead and get started.

1:43

I'm gonna call to order the Board of Adjustments meeting for the City of Wilmington.

1:47

Today is Thursday, June 18th, 2026.

1:51

The time is 101.

1:54

Before we get started, I'm going to read the Board of Adjustment Introduction.

1:58

Hearings before the Board of Adjustments are quasi-judicial in nature.

2:01

Decisions of the board are based on the records of these proceedings.

2:05

To grant a variance requires a concurrent vote of four-fifths of a member of the board.

2:22

Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date of filing of the board's order in the planning division.

2:27

A hearing before the board is conducted in accordance with rules of procedure.

2:31

Those who want to testify in a case are sworn as witnesses.

5:00

These are the four findings you must consider when reviewing this waiver request.

5:03

The property has an identifiable erosion problem or has unusable features.

5:12

The shoreline stabilization measure extends beyond the buffer no more than necessary.

5:16

And the shoreline stabilization measure will not significantly impair public trust rights or damage adjacent waterfront properties.

5:26

The applicant states that there is a documented need for shoreline stabilization protection as demonstrated by KMA's issuance of a general permit on February 27th, 2026.

5:36

The applicant can further contends there is concern that runoff into the adjacent wetlands and open water areas will likely occur without proper containment of the upland area.

5:44

The applicant says that the shoreline at this location exhibits uh steep slope as well.

5:50

According to the applicant, the proposed bulkhead would be installed along the waterward side of the existing erosion escarpment just above the coastal wetland line, thereby reducing the impacts within the resource buffer.

6:01

The applicant says the adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures would be installed to prevent runoff into the adjacent properties or into the adjacent wetlands and waterways.

6:12

This concludes staff's presentation.

6:14

I like my presentation in case summary to be entered into the record.

6:17

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, and the applicant is here as well.

6:20

Does anyone have any questions of Zach?

6:24

All right, thank you.

6:26

Would the owner or the agent for the owner like to do a presentation?

6:39

Good afternoon, Chairman.

6:40

Thank you.

6:40

My name is Jason Dale, Commissioners.

6:42

My name is Jason Dale.

6:44

I'm here on behalf of Mr.

6:46

and Miss Peebles.

6:48

Unfortunately, they're not able to make it today.

6:50

Mr.

6:50

Peoples is ill and his wife had prior obligations.

6:54

So I'm here today solo to walk through their evidence or not walk through their evidence, but walk through the factors that are consistent with their request for a variance from the city for the for the bulkhead installation.

7:10

So thank you, Zach, for the presentation.

7:15

Sorry, just before I just for the record, I have to have you state your address just for the I'm sorry, excuse me.

7:19

You're good.

7:19

1423 Cedar Court, Wilmington, North Carolina, 28411.

7:24

Appreciate it.

7:24

Thank you.

7:24

Yes, sir.

7:25

Thank you.

7:26

So before you, maybe you have this depiction up before you, but this was a photograph taken drone imagery that was taken of the property back over the late winter months when Mr.

7:40

Peebles was considering putting in a retaining wall.

7:43

As you can see, the neighboring property to the north of this one.

7:49

Their bulkhead is actually depicted, and they went through this process with you last summer.

7:55

So I was here on behalf of Stephen Beecham to obtain the variance request for that particular wall that that's currently installed.

8:05

So this request would be to tie into that wall, extend over approximately 195 feet with a new bulkhead, and then bring a return back along the west or excuse me, southern property boundary.

8:19

It would not extend all the way to the southern line because there's a wetland resource that comes in and is captured in the area.

8:28

So this particular wall would just more or less stabilize the shoreline directly in front of the residence that's under construction.

8:36

Height of the wall would approximate the neighboring wall to the north.

8:41

And as you may have seen in the photos.

8:46

How do I advance this?

8:52

Sir.

8:55

If you hit that.

8:56

Okay, just the error keys.

8:57

Okay, great.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████52%

Procedural███████████████████22%

Pending Litigation█████████████████20%

Environmental Protection██2%

Public Safety██2%

Personnel Matters██2%

Summary of Proceedings

Wilmington Board of Adjustment Meeting Summary - June 18, 2026

The Wilmington Board of Adjustment held a special meeting on Thursday, June 18, 2026, to consider four variance requests and a consolidated appeal regarding the zoning interpretation of outdoor amplified sound.

Consent Calendar

Approval of Minutes (May 28, 2026 Special Meeting): The minutes were approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0.

Public Comments & Testimony

Public testimony was limited to the applicants and their representatives. No members of the public spoke for or against the variance requests at 230 and 402/403 Summer Rest Road, 2722 Shandy Lane, or 306 Anderson Street. During the appeal hearing, extensive testimony was provided by parties with standing.

Discussion Items

230 and 402/403 Summer Rest Road (Variances for Bulkheads): Zac Smith presented the staff reports. The Board unanimously approved both requests (5-0), finding that documented erosion, CAMA permits, and the satisfaction of the four variance findings of fact supported the requests. Applicant/agent Jason Dail expressed support for the projects, arguing the bulkheads were necessary for shoreline stabilization and runoff control.
2722 Shandy Lane (Variance for Accessory Building in Front of Principal Building): Pat O'Mahony presented the staff report. The Board unanimously approved (5-0) the variance for a detached two-car garage. Applicant attorney Steve Coggins argued a unique hardship existed due to a drainage easement, unusual lot configuration, and cul-de-sac frontage, creating a situation where no compliant location for the structure existed. The Board agreed. (Note: This item appeared twice on the agenda but was heard as a single item).
306 Anderson Street (Variance for Fence Height): Grace Lamay presented the staff report. The Board unanimously denied (5-0) the request to retain a six-foot front-yard fence on a corner lot (max 4ft). Applicant Adam Stone argued the fence was needed to safely contain a rescued dog. The Board determined the hardship resulted from actions taken by the applicant and the variance was not consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, which addresses public safety and neighborhood aesthetics.
Appeal of Zoning Interpretation on Outdoor Amplified Sound (Items 6A & 6B):
- Consolidation: The Board voted unanimously (5-0) to consolidate the two related appeals for efficiency.
- Preliminary Standing Issue: Grady Richardson, attorney for appellant Chill Beers, LLC, moved to dismiss the appeal filed by Kevin High for lack of standing. Corrie Lee, representing Mr. High on the standing issue, argued Mr. High's property (957 feet from the subject property) was within the regulated area and that noise interfered with his use and enjoyment of his property. Trey Ferguson, Board attorney, reviewed the legal standards for standing requiring special damages. The Board ruled Mr. High did not have standing by a vote of 3-2, dismissing his appeal.
- Main Appeal: The Board received testimony from Planning Director Linda Painter, who authored the interpretation. She relied on the city's noise ordinance definition to specify that outdoor amplified sound involves equipment operated by the business using electrical power. Applicants Justin Smith and Grady Richardson argued the interpretation created an arbitrary and absurd distinction between electrically and non-electrically amplified sound, rendering lawful, low-volume sound from a previously approved outdoor LED screen prohibited.
- Board Deliberation and Decision: The Board discussed that while Ms. Painter followed the correct administrative process for issuing a zoning interpretation, the resulting definition produced absurd and unreasonable consequences. The Board chose not to draft a new definition themselves. Greg Thompson moved to reject the planning director's interpretation and return the matter to city staff for further consideration. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously (5-0).

Key Outcomes

Approval of Minutes: Approved 5-0.
230 Summer Rest Road (Bulkhead): Variance approved 5-0.
402/403 Summer Rest Road (Bulkhead): Variance approved 5-0.
2722 Shandy Lane (Accessory Building): Variance approved 5-0.
306 Anderson Street (Fence): Variance denied 5-0.
1502 Castle Street (Appeal): Withdrawn by applicant.
Consolidation of Sound Appeals (6A & 6B): Approved 5-0.
Standing of Kevin High (508 S. 22nd St): Denied (3-2).
Appeal of Zoning Interpretation (2144 Wrightsville Ave): Zoning interpretation rejected and remanded to staff (5-0).

Meeting Transcript

All right, Abe, you could take a seat. We're gonna go ahead and get started. I'm gonna call to order the Board of Adjustments meeting for the City of Wilmington. Today is Thursday, June 18th, 2026. The time is 101. Before we get started, I'm going to read the Board of Adjustment Introduction. Hearings before the Board of Adjustments are quasi-judicial in nature. Decisions of the board are based on the records of these proceedings. To grant a variance requires a concurrent vote of four-fifths of a member of the board. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date of filing of the board's order in the planning division. A hearing before the board is conducted in accordance with rules of procedure. Those who want to testify in a case are sworn as witnesses. These are the four findings you must consider when reviewing this waiver request. The property has an identifiable erosion problem or has unusable features. The shoreline stabilization measure extends beyond the buffer no more than necessary. And the shoreline stabilization measure will not significantly impair public trust rights or damage adjacent waterfront properties. The applicant states that there is a documented need for shoreline stabilization protection as demonstrated by KMA's issuance of a general permit on February 27th, 2026. The applicant can further contends there is concern that runoff into the adjacent wetlands and open water areas will likely occur without proper containment of the upland area. The applicant says that the shoreline at this location exhibits uh steep slope as well. According to the applicant, the proposed bulkhead would be installed along the waterward side of the existing erosion escarpment just above the coastal wetland line, thereby reducing the impacts within the resource buffer. The applicant says the adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures would be installed to prevent runoff into the adjacent properties or into the adjacent wetlands and waterways. This concludes staff's presentation. I like my presentation in case summary to be entered into the record. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, and the applicant is here as well. Does anyone have any questions of Zach? All right, thank you. Would the owner or the agent for the owner like to do a presentation? Good afternoon, Chairman. Thank you. My name is Jason Dale, Commissioners. My name is Jason Dale. I'm here on behalf of Mr. and Miss Peebles. Unfortunately, they're not able to make it today. Mr. Peoples is ill and his wife had prior obligations. So I'm here today solo to walk through their evidence or not walk through their evidence, but walk through the factors that are consistent with their request for a variance from the city for the for the bulkhead installation. So thank you, Zach, for the presentation. Sorry, just before I just for the record, I have to have you state your address just for the I'm sorry, excuse me. You're good. 1423 Cedar Court, Wilmington, North Carolina, 28411. Appreciate it. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. So before you, maybe you have this depiction up before you, but this was a photograph taken drone imagery that was taken of the property back over the late winter months when Mr. Peebles was considering putting in a retaining wall. As you can see, the neighboring property to the north of this one. Their bulkhead is actually depicted, and they went through this process with you last summer. So I was here on behalf of Stephen Beecham to obtain the variance request for that particular wall that that's currently installed.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com