|
Town of Emerald
Isle
Minutes of Board
of Adjustment Meeting
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by Chairman
Michael Johnson. Members present:
Michael Johnson, Jackie Getsinger, Jim Woolard, Joseph Quigley, and Mark
Brennesholtz.
Carol Angus, Secretary, introduced Rhonda Ferebee to the
members and informed them that Rhonda will be taking over as Secretary over the
next several months.
Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 10, 2001 were
approved as written. Motion to approve was made by Jackie Getsinger, second by
Joseph Quigley unanimous approval in favor of the motion.
New members John McEnaney and Mark Brennesholtz were sworn
in by Town Clerk, Carolyn Custy.
NEW BUSINESS:
Case #-02-07 Sheppard
A. McKenzie, Jr. 7601 Ocean Drive, Block 33, Parcel 1 (formerly Lot 4 and
portion of lots 2 and 3) Surfside Subdivision, to erect a single-family dwelling
within the 15’ East side setback.
Mr. Victor McKenzie, son of the
applicant, represented the applicant and was sworn in by Secretary, Carol Angus.
Mr. McKenzie read from his written statement.
A. There are practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict
letter of the ordinance. The courts have developed three rules to determine
whether in a particular situation “practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships” exist. State facts and arguments in support of each of the
following:
(1)
If he complies with the provisions of the ordinance, the property
owner can secure no reasonable return from or make no reasonable use of his
property. Adherence to the ordinance would create a very unbalanced
situation where the subject property would appear to be uncomfortably close to a
new beach house on the west side, while remaining widely separated from the
existing beach house on the east side beyond the adjacent 25’ walkway.
(2) The hardship of which the applicant complains
results from unique circumstances
related to the applicant’s land. (Note: Hardships suffered by the applicant in
common with his neighbors do not justify a variance. Also, unique personal or
family hardships are irrelevant, since a variance, if granted, runs with the
land. Almost all other properties in the neighborhood are allowed to do
what I cannot do under the existing ordinance.
(3)
The hardship is not
the result of the applicant’s own actions: The subject property was
subdivided by a previous owner, unconnected to the present owner.
B. The variance is in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and preserves its spirit. (State
facts and arguments to show that the variance requested represents the least
possible deviation from the letter of the ordinance that will allow a reasonable
use of the land and that use of the property, if the variance is granted, will
not substantially detract from the character of the neighborhood.
Not only will the proposed variance not detract from the character
of the neighborhood, it will improve it by following the spirit of the ordinance
by increasing the separation between adjacent houses where it is needed the
most. Also, it will not result in a larger house because it preserves the
combined 30’ of setbacks.
C. The granting of the variance
secures the public safety and welfare and does substantial justice.
(State facts and arguments to show that, on balance, if the
variance is denied, the benefit to the public will be substantially outweighed
by the harm suffered by the applicant: The proposed variance preserves the
public safety while potentially improving the public’s enjoyment of ocean
vistas between adjoining houses. It does substantial justice because it follows
the intent of the existing ordinance to create separation between houses at a
location where it is most needed while still preserving the stricter 30’
combined setbacks.
Mr. McKenzie referred to the 25’ developed beach access to the East of
the property to illustrate the wide separation between this property and the
next residence to the East. He said
the adjoining properties do have a 10’ side setback and only became a 15’
side setback when the previous owner, in 1999, subdivided what was four 25’
wide lots into two lots.
Ms. Angus advised that Mr. McKenzie is correct that the property was
subdivided in 1999 and that the neighboring properties do enjoy a 10’ side
setback. Also, had the property
remained as one large parcel, it could possibly have qualified for a quadaplex
with the current Residential/Motel-Hotel zoning.
Mr. Quigley asked Mr. McKenzie if there were going to be any stairways on
the East side that might further encroach into the 10’ side setback.
Mr. McKenzie said he did not believe, but if this were approved, he
believed he could encroach 3’ into the side setback.
Mr. Jim Taylor, Building Inspector, agreed with this statement, so long
as it is uncovered deck or stairs. No covered roof can encroach into the
setback.
Mr. Quigley asked if that is a concern for the town considering the
right-of-way ? Mr. Taylor said this
is not a concern, a 3’ encroachment is permitted through out all zoning.
Mr. Brennesholtz asked if this access is wider than other accesses. Ms.
Angus said they run from 10’ to 12.5’ to 15’ and 25’.
It depends on how it was developed and when. He went on to ask whether this access might be considered for
further development? Ms. Angus said
it has been expanded to it’s fullest because of the width of the property.
There is a wider sitting area on the south end.
Due to lack of parking, Ms. Angus knows of no further expansion of this
property by the Town and should remain as it exists.
(Statement was made that it is a public access; however, further research
has proven that it is a public access.)
Mr. James Woolard asked if Mr. McKenzie’s house was to be built toward
the street and another lot would be more oceanward.
He wanted to be sure where the aesthetics was the issue. It was pointed
out by Mr. Jim Taylor that the offset between the proposed structure and a
possible future structure on parcel 2 would be 15’ on each side. This would be a 30’ separation between the structures, then
with the variance, and additional 5’ separation..
The possible future structure on the adjoining property would be more
oceanward due to the key lot configuration of the properties.
Mr. Taylor also advised that the adjoining property, at this time, does
not meet the required Coastal Area Management Agency (CAMA) 60’ setback from
the first stable line of vegetation due to erosion.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Johnson asked for ballots to
be distributed. Members were advised to write case number, name and whether they
were granting or denying the variance request.
Chairman Johnson advised that the ballots reflected a unanimous decision
to GRANT the variance. He then
asked for the rationale for each member’s vote.
Jackie Getsinger said she did not see where
it would endanger public health or safety. It would enhance the property.
Joseph Quigley agreed, but
the keyhole configuration was set up in 1999 and people should live by those
setbacks; but because it is right next to the walkway so it does not deteriorate
from the intent of the setbacks. The
other lot should be required to abide by the 15’ setback because there is no
walkway there. The use of keyhole lots could create some problems in the future
with setbacks.
Michael Johnson agreed with
Mr. Quigley, maybe giving a 5’ variance to the West would improve the
situation. It would increase
separation between the two structures. He is not a fan of keyhole lots.
Some discussion took place between
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Quigley regarding the possible beach
renourishment plan. Mr. Taylor
advised that even if the plan does go forward, that it would require several
years for stable vegetation to be established before the CAMA line could be
brought oceanward.
James Woolard agreed with
the previous statements, but if it hadn’t been for the walkway he would not
have voted for the variance. He
felt the offset situation on houses must follow the strict criteria given in the
ordinance.
Mark Brennesholtz agreed
that if it had not been for the walkway, he would not have voted for the
variance. That is why he was so
interested in what could and couldn’t be done, in the future, to the walkway.
Being as wide as it is, there will be a huge gap between the houses on
the east. He wanted it stated in
the minutes that this variance was granted only because the walkway was there.
Mr. McEnaney, alternate member
observing from the audience, asked if parcel 2 was also part of this
request. Mr. Taylor advised
that it is only for parcel 1. He
also was concerned that there may be artificial growth there and fill and where
the 40’ building height limit will be taken.
Mr. Taylor said it will be measured from the lowest grade immediately
adjacent to the building itself.
There was no other business before
the board.
Motion to adjourn was made by
Joseph Quigley, second by Mark Brennesholtz, with unanimous approval in favor of
the motion.
Submitted by: Carol Angus,
Secretary
Town of Emerald Isle Board of
Adjustment
|