Unapproved
Town of Emerald Isle
Board of Adjustment Minutes of Regular Meeting
Wednesday, February 12, 2003 Chairman, Michael Johnson, called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M.

Members in attendance: Michael Johnson, Winton Smithwick, Joseph Quigley, Mark Brennesholtz and John McEnaney. Also attending, Rhonda Ferebee as acting Secretary, Carol Angus, Planning Director and James Taylor, Building Inspector.

Minutes of Regular Meeting, November 13, 2002 were approved as written. Motion to approve was made by John McEnaney, second by Joseph Quigley.

Case #03-15 Kendall/Janie Overman requests a variance to allow a swimming pool to be placed within the Ocean Erodible Area, at 3107 Ocean Drive, Block 15, Lot 4.

Kendall Overman and Jane Overman presented the request and were both sworn in by Rhonda Ferebee.

I , Kendall Overman hereby petition the Board of Adjustment for a VARIANCE from the literal provisions of the TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, NC Zoning Ordinance because, under the interpretation given to me by the Zoning Enforcement Officer, I am prohibited from using the parcel of land described in the attached form (General Application Form) in a manner shown by the plot plan attached to that form. I request a variance from the following provisions of the ordinance (Section 19-101(9)):

Accessory building/swimming pool location – No accessory building shall be erected in any setback or required side yards. No swimming pool shall be placed or constructed within the Coastal Area Management Agency (CAMA. Coastal Resources Commission) Ocean Erodible Setback area.

So that the above mentioned property can be used in a manner indicated by the plot plan attached to the General Application form or, if the plot plan does not adequately reveal the nature of the variance, as more fully described herein: (If a variance is requested for a limited time only, specify duration requested.

For duration of residence.

Factors Relevant to the Issuance of a Variance

There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the ordinance.

(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.

My wife and I decided to purchase and build a house for our family in the summer of 2001. For eighteen months, we have been dreaming, planning, and designing our home. The inclusion of a swimming pool has been at the center of these plans. Our family is very large, we have seven children, and because of that we want to be able to enjoy the outdoors and the water while little ones may be sleeping inside. Our difficulty lies in the fact that in the offer to purchase our lot we noted with some clarity that the purchase was dependent on the ability to have a pool. We worked with our agent at Emerald Isle Realty, Ms. Emma Lee Singleton, to develop an application for a CAMA permit that would allow for the construction of our pool. Please find enclosed a copy of the offer to purchase and CAMA application. Upon acceptance of the CAMA permit, we believed that we had thirty-six months in which to construct our home and swimming pool. We were shocked to learn in the letter we received from the Town of Emerald Isle in December of 2002 that we would not be able to receive the necessary pool permit due to a change in ordinances. At no time were we aware of any town ordinance dealing with swimming pools, or even the requirement to obtain a pool permit in conjunction with a building permit. For eighteen months we have felt that all of our papers were in order, and we have been moving forward with house plans based on the information that we had since 2001.

(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.

There is no possibility of locating a pool on any other part of our property due to septic field considerations and limited site space of the lot.

(3) The hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions.

As we started in part A.1, we believed we had filed and received all of the necessary permits to allow a pool to be constructed on the lot. The permit that we received was good for a term of thirty-six months, set to expire in December of 2004. We had absolutely no knowledge that a town permit could be an issue.

The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the

Ordinance and preserves its spirit.

We believe that the inclusion of a swimming pool will be consistent

with the homes immediately next door and will not detract from the

neighborhood. We would take great care to disturb the least amount

of normal vegetation as noted in the CAMA permit. We have been

looking forward to the beach re-nourishment as a way to protect our

natural surroundings, and we intend to add vegetation to insure

stabilization of this re-nourishment.

The granting of the variance secures the public safety and welfare and does

Substantial justice.

We believe that we are only asking for what we had initially

contracted for and purchased months ago; an opportunity to build

our home with a pool as others have done in our immediate

neighborhood.

It was determined after discussion from Board Members, Carol Angus, Planning Director, Jim Taylor, Building Inspector and Applicants (Kendall and Jane Overman) to suspend decision of this case to allow for revisitation and further study of the subject property. Note: After revisitation of the site to reassess the situation it was determined that there would be no need for a request for a variance from the Board of Adjustment and that no further action was necessary.

Case #03-16 Larry T. Watson requests a variance to allow a roof overhang encroachment into the required setbacks regulations in the commercial district at 8201 Emerald Drive and Bogue Inlet Drive.

Larry T. Watson presented the request and was sworn in by Rhonda Ferebee.

I , Larry T. Watson hereby petition the Board of Adjustment for a VARIANCE from the literal provisions of the TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, NC Zoning Ordinance because, under the interpretation given to me by the Zoning Enforcement Officer, I am prohibited from using the parcel of land described in the attached form (General Application Form) in a manner shown by the plot plan attached to that form. I request a variance from the following provisions of the ordinance (Section 19-107(1)

Minimum required building setback—Every building shall be set back forty (40) feet from the right-of-way upon which the lot fronts. Every building shall be set back thirty (30) feet from the right-of-way of any adjoining side street, except for Highway 58 (Emerald Drive). Every building or property which has Highway 58 (Emerald Drive) as its adjoining side street, shall have a five-foot side setback, plus ten (10) feet for each additional story over two (2). Buildings existing prior to January 1, 1980, will be exempt from the provisions of this chapter; further any enlargement or addition must meet current requirements. For through or double frontage lots, every building shall be located not less than 40 feet from each street right-of-way line.

Factors Relevant to the Issuance of a Variance

There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the ordinance.

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.

If I comply with the ordinance I will not be able to put a facelift on the front of the buildings.

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.

When I purchased the land as you can see by the survey the buildings were already in place.

3) The hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions.

Buildings were built by previous owners.

The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the

Ordinance and preserves its spirit.

Plans for the new facelift will only help the looks of the building for

myself, tenants and the Town.

The granting of the variance secures the public safety and welfare and does

Substantial justice.

If I am not allowed to do what I have proposed it will limit what I can

do to change the appearance of the buildings.

Mr. Watson made the comment that the footprint of the building will not change.

Chairman Johnson said that this is superficial to the building. The structure of the building will not change. If the overhang was 2’ or less they wouldn’t need to be here. The ordinance allows a 2’ overhang into setbacks.

Mr. Watson stated that the overhang would be self supported there would not be posts or columns. Just an overhang to give protection from the weather and give it a good look.

Ms. Angus clarified that this would include the Bogue Inlet Drive side of the property as well as the Highway 58 side in order to be uniform.

Chairman Johnson made the motion that the variance if granted would allow a 4’ awning overhang on the Bogue Inlet Drive side and allow the overhang equal to the existing on the Highway 58 Drive side of the building. The structure of the building will remain the same all the way around. Supports to be to the ground.

Chairman Johnson asked for ballots to be passed out for decision and signature of each member.

Chairman Johnson advised that the variance was granted as written by a vote of 4-1.

Rationale for the decision as follows:

Mr. Brennesholtz felt that if buildings 40 years old were not allowed to improve their appearance it would be against the spirit of the law. Since this does not change the footprint of the building it effectively doesn’t create much more encroachment than what currently exists and it will be an improvement.

Mr. Quigley felt that it was good to have an overhang. It improves safety.

Chairman Johnson concurred that the overhang would be over an already impervious paved surface so stormwater runoff was not affected.

Mr. Brennesholtz added that the overhangs would also encourage pedestrian traffic which supports the strategic goal of the Town and the Highway 58 Committee.

Mr. McEnaney agreed with the other comments and also added that he was happy to approve this because he appreciated developers trying to improve the island.

Mr. Smithwick stated that he voted to deny it. Mr. Smithwick felt that it would have been a good opportunity to have the applicant make drastic improvements to fit within the ordinances of the town.

Mr. Watson stated that he felt that what he was doing would be a nice improvement for the town.

There being no further business before the board Joe Quigley made motion to adjourn second by Winton Smithwick at 10:30 AM.

Respectfully Submitted:

Rhonda Ferebee
Acting Secretary
Board of Adjustment