Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Build To Frontage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Goddard School's variance request for 2313 North Salem Road addition
Summary
The Board of Adjustment voted 4-0 to deny a variance sought by Bates and Associates and the Goddard School for a 1.63-acre site on North Salem Road that would have reduced buildable street-front requirements.
The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment on April 7, 2025, denied a request from Bates and Associates and the Goddard School to waive part of the minimum buildable street‑front requirement for a 1.63-acre addition at 2313 North Salem Road.
Staff recommended denial, saying the applicant's situation appeared to be a self-imposed design choice and that viable alternatives likely exist. The property is zoned CS (Community Services). Under the code, CS districts require a minimum of 50 percent of a site's build-to frontage to be occupied by building facades; up to 10 percent of that requirement may be satisfied with approved supplemental elements such as a masonry screen wall (32–42 inches high), a covered functional outdoor space or a colonnade.
Planning staff said the building as proposed would occupy roughly 42.6 percent of the required frontage, leaving about 7.4 percent — approximately 15.5 feet — unmet. Staff found the applicant could locate a supplemental element elsewhere on-site and therefore recommended denial. If the board were to approve the variance, staff recommended conditioning approval on installation of a hedgerow 32–42 inches high and about 15.5 feet long along the frontage as a visual supplement.
Representatives for Bates and Associates and the Goddard School said the site is under active construction and that moving or building a masonry screen wall would either intrude on required playground space (infant/toddler areas) or fall into an existing utility easement. Allen Hillis, owner of the Goddard School, told the board the facility must meet state licensing requirements for playground area and fencing. Planner Gretchen and the applicant discussed alternatives; Adi Mundy of Bates and Associates said the team would be "happy to provide just that vegetation" as a possible solution.
After discussion, a motion to approve the variance with staff conditions failed on a roll call of Fox: no; Atkins Horry: no; Keys: no; Young: no (motion failed 0–4). The board and staff noted the applicant may pursue alternate design changes — for example, a compliant covered outdoor space or modified shade structures — and could return if they can demonstrate lack of feasible alternatives.
