Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA allows subdivision of long-held double-house parcel at Malloy and Pauley streets
Summary
The Board approved variances to allow creation of two lots from a single parcel that currently contains two houses at 713 Malloy Street and 1012 Pauley Street, contingent on a survey and platting process.
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved variances to permit a property that currently contains two houses on one parcel to be subdivided into two separate lots, allowing clearer lot boundaries for the houses at addresses listed as 713 Malloy Street and 1012 Pauley (Pauley) Street.
City staff told the board the parcel contains two houses built decades ago before current minimum lot-area and frontage rules were adopted. Under NC 6.2 zoning, new parcels must generally be at least 6,000 square feet with 60 feet of frontage. The staff proposal would create one parcel meeting the 6,000-square-foot minimum and leave the other with about 4,400 square feet and roughly 55 feet of frontage—smaller than the standard but not smaller than the minimum legal lot size established under other zoning regimes for existing lots.
Staff said recording a surveyed property line would not change the neighborhood’s character because both houses have existed in place for more than 50 years. The applicant, Herman Thomas (owner on record listed as Mary Ella Bug), sought the variance to allow future subdivision if the owner or a future buyer chooses to record a plat. Several neighbors asked questions at the hearing about how a survey would affect property lines; Thurman Brown, a nearby resident, said he received a letter and wanted clarification about where any new line would fall.
City staff and board members clarified that the board’s approval permits the option to subdivide but does not itself create two legal lots—an accurate, licensed survey and a final plat would be required before the division is recorded. In its motion the board found extraordinary and exceptional conditions related to the parcel’s age and existing development, agreed the subdivision would not substantially detract from adjacent properties, and voted to approve the variance.
Board members and staff noted that if a future owner seeks demolition or rebuilding on either parcel, additional variances or approvals might be required to meet current setback standards.
