Morganton board denies variance request to place building 64 feet from street

The City of Morganton Board of Land Use Adjustment voted to deny a variance request from BDF Properties LLC that would have allowed a downtown building to be sited 64 feet from the street, well beyond the Central Business District (CBD) requirement of a 0–5 foot frontage setback.

Thomas Ure, chair of the City of Morganton Board of Land Use Adjustment, opened the quasi-judicial hearing and read the statutory standard the board must apply, citing North Carolina General Statutes section 160D-705 on variances. He told the room the board must find four elements before granting a variance, including an unnecessary hardship peculiar to the property and that the hardship was not self-created. "When unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of a zoning regulation or ordinance, the board of adjustment shall vary any of the provisions of the zoning regulation upon a showing of all of the following," Ure read from the statute.

Wendy Smith, director of development and design services for the City of Morganton, presented the city staff report and maps. Smith said the subject site is addressed as 400 South Sterling Street (two adjacent parcels that the applicants propose to treat as one). She said one building on the corner was constructed in 1965 and the applicants expanded the structure in 2021, adding a deck and undercover parking. Smith told the board the CBD ordinance explicitly aims "to provide a concentration of activities in a pedestrian oriented setting" and that the district—s intention is to place buildings at the street edge rather than set them back with parking in front.

Smith said the applicants asked to site the building 64 feet from the property edge — a nearly 1,300% increase above the CBD maximum setback of 5 feet — and that staff had shown the applicants alternative designs that would achieve similar square footage and parking while meeting the CBD frontage requirement. She told the board one example (turning and narrowing the building) would yield about 2,300 square feet and eight on-site parking spaces while maintaining the existing driveway crossover.

Applicant Isaac Fisher, who identified himself as the owner of multiple Morganton properties, and co-applicant Elijah Fisher, a resident and business owner at 400 South Sterling Street, testified. Isaac Fisher said there is "close to 3 feet of difference" in elevation between the back and front of the existing building and that the site contains solid rock under the slab, which he said complicates construction. He also argued the narrow proposed building footprint (24 feet wide in one staff example) would not produce usable retail space and that building out to the street would disrupt deliveries and reduce the property—s parking from about two dozen spaces to roughly six or seven, as presented by the applicants.

Elijah Fisher presented architectural renderings and described the applicants' plan to expand retail and storage space. He said bringing the building forward would reduce usable parking and remove a required street tree and grassy area. On questioning from board members, both applicants acknowledged alternative layouts the city had proposed might be feasible but said they were not optimal for their business operations.

During deliberations, board members discussed the statutory variance criteria. Chair Ure said he was "wrestling" with whether the applicants had shown that they had no reasonable options to comply with the ordinance. Ure and staff emphasized that hardships caused by building configuration, common conditions in the CBD (including similar corner lots), or personal preference are not sufficient under the statute.

A motion to disapprove the variance application was made and seconded. The board called the question and voted to deny the variance. In announcing the result, the chair said the record did not demonstrate an unnecessary hardship peculiar to the property, that the hardship was self-created or common to the neighborhood, and that alternatives existed to bring the site into compliance with the CBD standards. The board then adjourned.

Votes at a glance: the board voted to deny the variance request for Case No. 02-25 (variance to allow a 64-foot front setback in the CBD).