Weddington Town Board of Adjustment fails to approve requested setback variance for shallow cul'de'sac lot

WEDDINGTON TOWN

The Weddington Town Board of Adjustment on June 8 declined to grant a homeowner's request for a setback variance after members could not agree that all four legal findings required under the town's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) had been met.

The applicant sought relief from the R60 setback standard (60-foot front/rear) to allow a deeper home design on a shallow, cul'de'sac lot. An applicant representative told the board the neighborhood HOA had provided a letter of support and that Mel Graham, owner of the adjacent Long View golf course, emailed his support. The representative said evergreen trees along the rear property line "are 25 to 30 feet tall," limiting visual impact and that the requested variance would permit a home "in keeping with the caliber of the neighborhood."

Board members and planning staff focused their questioning on whether the hardship resulted from the town's zoning standard or from private restrictive covenants imposed by the HOA. Planning staff explained that to grant a variance the board must affirmatively find: (A) a hardship results from strict application of the UDO; (B) the lot is unique or peculiar; (C) the hardship was not self'created by the applicant; and (D) the variance is consistent with the spirit and purpose of the ordinance and secures public safety. Staff also noted any individual variance must be less than half the allowable variance (i.e., under 30 feet for a 60-foot requirement).

At the hearing the applicant's team cited precedents in the neighborhood and said they had explored multiple design alternatives with their architect to avoid a variance. The representative said a smaller 12-foot reduction might be sufficient but that the application requested up to a 20-foot reduction to ensure the design could be built as intended. "We still are not done with the HOA there," the resident who testified said after being sworn, adding that denials could prevent them from building the home they had planned: "it will be a hardship for me and my wife to dream of this house and to work for the last year and a half and now question if we can build it the way we can." That testimony was entered on the record.

Several board members pushed back that the primary constraint appeared to come from the HOA's private 100-foot front-yard requirement rather than the town's R60 regulation. One member said the hardship appears to be driven by "private restriction" and not municipal zoning; another noted that changing the outdoor living configuration or elongating the plan could allow compliance without relief. The board discussed specific nearby lots (cited by addresses during the meeting) but members said GIS measurements were imperfect and could not substitute for formal precedent documentation.

The board voted on the required findings individually. A motion that strict application of the UDO created a hardship failed with a recorded 2'in'favor, 3'opposed vote. A subsequent motion that the property is unique or peculiar passed (tally not explicitly recorded in the transcript). A vote on whether the hardship was self'created produced confusion during tallying and, based on the record, did not produce the full set of affirmative findings the board needs to grant a variance.

Because not all required findings received affirmative votes, the board did not grant the variance. Planning staff explained that the board must make each finding and that all findings must pass for a variance to be approved; the meeting record shows the board failed to reach that threshold. The applicant and a representative acknowledged the HOA had not granted the front-yard relief the applicant had sought separately and that HOA relief remains a separate matter between the homeowner and the HOA.

The hearing closed without approval of the requested variance. The board moved to adjourn after the votes; the transcript shows the applicant was given the option to seek a reduced request (for example a 12-foot reduction) or to pursue HOA relief outside the municipal process.

What happens next: The applicant may revise the application to request a smaller variance or pursue relief from the HOA; the Board of Adjustment noted any revised request could be considered in a new application.