Wilmington Board of Adjustment Meeting – August 20, 2026

On Thursday, August 20, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., the City of Wilmington Board of Adjustment held a quasi-judicial public hearing to consider two items: a variance request for impacts to specimen trees at 308 Hooker Road, and an appeal of a staff determination that a fence at 1159 Sea Lavender Drive violated city code. The board voted unanimously to approve the variance with conditions and to uphold the staff determination on the fence.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes – June 18, 2026: The minutes from the June 18, 2026 meeting were approved by a 5-0 vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Item 1 – 308 Hooker Road Variance: Gary Craig Turner, a resident at 6109 Title Reach Court (adjacent to the property), expressed concern that once lots are subdivided, remaining trees (other than the two specimen trees under the variance) would have no protection from removal by future homeowners. He questioned the effectiveness of the city’s tree ordinance in protecting those trees.
• Item 2 – 1159 Sea Lavender Drive Appeal: Ashley Fritz, a resident of 1163 Sea Lavender Drive, testified that the fence did not obstruct visibility and that the homeowners had already been impacted by the developer’s placement of homes. She argued that the fence was essential for privacy and quality of life, and that the two-foot height discrepancy did not compromise safety.

Discussion Items

• Item 1: 308 Hooker Road – Variance for Specimen Tree Impacts

  • Staff Planner Todd Rademacher presented the request to exceed the maximum 20% critical root zone (CRZ) impact for two specimen southern live oak trees, seeking relief for 28% impact on each tree. The property is an 8-lot residential subdivision. Staff recommended a condition to prohibit removal of the trees in perpetuity via a recorded covenant.
  • Applicant’s consulting engineer, Jay Quinesto, stated that over 12 design layouts were considered to minimize tree impacts, and that the road could not be designed to meet code without exceeding the 20% CRZ threshold. He noted that the two trees would be preserved in setbacks and that the applicant was committed to protecting them.
  • Board members discussed the possibility of permeable surfaces and the adequacy of the 8% overage. The board reopened the evidentiary hearing to clarify that the covenant would apply only to the two trees in question, and that subdivided lots under one acre would be exempt from city tree removal requirements. The applicant agreed to the covenant condition.

• Item 2: 1159 Sea Lavender Drive – Appeal of Fence Violation

  • Assistant Planning Director Brian Chambers presented the staff determination: The property is on a corner lot with a 10-foot setback along all frontages per a special use permit (SUP). A 6-foot wooden fence was built 5.25 feet from the property line, violating the 4-foot height limit in the front yard and the setback requirement. Staff offered three remedies: reduce height to 4 feet, relocate the fence to meet the 10-foot setback, or remove the fence.
  • Attorney Brooke McCormick, representing homeowners Austin and Christian Ogre, argued that the lot is a corner lot and that only one front yard exists (where the driveway and front entrance are located). She contended that the fence is in the side yard, where an 8-foot height limit applies, and that the setback requirements do not apply to fences per LDC section 18-433. She also noted that the original notice of violation did not cite setback issues.
  • Board members questioned the definition of “front yard” and the applicability of the SUP. The board clarified that the 10-foot setback applies to the entire frontage along Sea Lavender Drive, and that the fence is within that setback. The board discussed safety concerns about visibility around the curve.

Key Outcomes

• Item 1: 308 Hooker Road Variance – The board voted 5-0 to grant the variance, with a condition that a recorded deed restriction or covenant be placed on the two affected lots prohibiting removal of the two specimen trees in perpetuity (with a possible exception for diseased or hazardous trees). The motion cited that the variance met the four findings of fact: unnecessary hardship, conditions peculiar to the property, hardship not self-created, and consistency with the spirit of the ordinance.
• Item 2: 1159 Sea Lavender Drive Appeal – The board voted unanimously (with one member recused) to uphold the staff’s determination of violation. The owner must bring the fence into compliance by either reducing the height to 4 feet within the 10-foot setback, relocating the fence to meet the setback, or removing the fence. The board did not grant a variance; the applicant chose to appeal rather than seek a variance.