Wilmington Board of Adjustments overturns city's finding on Longleaf Acres backstop

The Wilmington Board of Adjustments on April 16, 2026, voted to overturn a city zoning officer's determination that a structure at 646 Longleaf Acres Drive was a fence in violation of City Code 18-325, a decision that allows the homeowners to keep the lacrosse backstop.

The case began with city staff's presentation that a compliance inspection on Jan. 30 found a structure roughly 12 feet tall within the 20-foot front setback and that a notice of violation was issued on Feb. 6; the homeowners filed an appeal with the city clerk on March 2. Patrick, presenting for the city, said the Land Development Code (LDC) sets front-yard height limits (4 feet in the first 20 feet) and restricts certain materials in front setbacks, and that a permanently affixed structure could be considered a fence under the code.

Applicant Nicole Jones told the board she and her husband installed the structure to stop high-velocity lacrosse balls and to protect neighbors, and she argued the structure is a sports backstop, not a boundary fence. "It's not a fence. It's a lacrosse backstop," Jones said, describing prior temporary netting that failed to stop hard shots and saying the family's intent was safety and containment for athletic practice rather than privacy or security. She told the board the backstop had been present in various forms for about four to five years and that the family planned to remove it when it was no longer needed, estimating removal by 2032 if their daughter continued to play through college.

Several neighbors spoke in support. "Daryl put it up to protect the property, to keep the balls on the property better, and have a safe place for the kids to practice," neighbor Fred Pickler said. Julie Collins called the structure "professionally constructed, very thoughtfully planned, and tastefully painted" and asked the board to consider waiving fines if the board ruled for the family.

City staff acknowledged the LDC contains exceptions for recreation facilities such as tennis courts or ball fields but said those exceptions generally apply to recognized recreation facilities, parks or schools, not to a front-yard structure on a single-family lot. Staff also told the board a key administrative distinction was permanence: portable or temporary screens previously used by the family would not ordinarily be treated as fences, while the current structure is fixed to the ground.

During deliberation several members said the city's textual definition of a fence'"a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a boundary"'did not match the evidence of intent and use presented for the backstop. One board member stated they did not believe the structure met the fence definition; another asked whether the board could impose a time-limited condition to require removal by June 2032, but staff and counsel advised such conditions are generally inappropriate on a determination of this type.

A motion to overturn the zoning officer's determination was made by a board member (speaker 12) and seconded by another board member (speaker 3). The chair called the vote, members voiced "aye," and the board announced the violation was overturned. The board noted fines were pending but indicated the violation finding was reversed.

The Board of Adjustments hearing record shows the site is zoned R-15 with a single-family dwelling; the board relied on the record before it (site photos, staff measurements, testimony from the applicants and neighbors) in reaching its determination. The board adjourned after the ruling.