|
Town of Emerald
Isle Board of Adjustment
Minutes of Regular
Meeting
Wednesday,
February 13, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by Michael
Johnson, Chairman. Members present
were Joseph Quigley, Jackie Getsinger, Michael Johnson, Jim Woolard and John
McEnaney.
Winton Smithwick, regular member, was out of town being
replaced by Mr. McEnaney.
Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 10, 2002 – Motion
was made by Joseph Quigley to approve the minutes, as written.
Second by Jackie Getsinger with unanimous approval in favor of the
motion.
Case 02-08 Lyle and Brenda Holland, 108 Bayberry
Drive, Block 37, Lot 22, to erect a freestanding roof over an existing mobile
home that would encroach in the required 30’ front setback.
Secretary Angus swore in Mr. Holland and Sam Alden, conractor,
to allow both parties to give testimony.
Mr. Holland addressed the board: He and his wife purchased
the property in 1999 at 108 Bayberry. It is strictly for the use of family and
friends, it is not rented. He had a place on Block Drive. When he purchased this
place he realized there were a lot of things he would like to do. He has
upgraded and renovated the inside of the mobile home. He is recently retired from Dupont in Kinston and plans to
spend a lot of time here. The
existing floor of the decking, what Mr. Sam Alden and Mr. William O’Neal refer
to as a widow’s walk, is in need of repair. The roof does have several places
that leak, he has had some mobile home folks to come in and try to repair the
roof.
Mr. Holland said that he had a screen porch on his mobile
home on Block Drive and would like to have a screen porch at this property.
It has taken since 1999 to get to this point. As he got to looking at
what he wanted to do to the outside, as far as repair of decking, resolving the
roof leaks and putting the screen porch inside the exisiting footprint, it
became apparent that all of this could be accomplished and if he could do like
other places and use one roofline. Also, to bring the widow walk up to code.
He asked for a variance
to grant a freestanding roof over the entire mobile home and screen
porch, to add on that portion of the deck which is not in the setback.
He submitted additional sketches other than what was provided in the
submission. He wanted to point out that there are13 exisiting mobile homes that
have full free standing roofs and
10 with a partial roof . He is not
asking for something that has never been done here.
He submitted a list of properties that he rode around and noted on
Mangrove Dr., Myrtle, Bayberry, East and West Seaview, and Sea Oats that have
what he was talking about. He felt
that the roofline he wants would be in conjunction with the adjacent dwellings,
to correct leaks and safety concerns. Also, to provide him with a screen porch.
Mr. Holland then sumbitted an isometic sketch of what he is proposing.
It was passed through the board.
Secretary Angus addressed Chairman Johnson to advise that
Mr. Holland has not yet referred to the issues to be addressed on the
application to get them entered into evidence in the minutes.
Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Holland to go back to the application
and make his comments.
Mr. Holland said as the property owner he is requesting a
2-year variance to the setback requirements, as set forth in Section 19-103.
The two years would allow him time to complete the project. There are
parts of the mobile home, deck and widow walk that are in need of repair. In the
letter that was written, (from Carol Angus, Zoning Official) it did talk about
non-conforming uses being eventually brought into compliance. If this structure
is allowed, it would enable the home to remain on site for a considerably longer
period of time. He reiterated that there were already 23 mobile homes in that
area that have this already done to them, and they blend into the area.
He went on to advise that it is a pre existing dwelling
(mobile home), stating, “I won’t say there’s any hardship that would be
suffered if this is not allowed” but, what he was trying to do is to upgrade
the property and make it blend with the existing area.
He found the original permit from 1972 when the mobile home we moved on
the lot. He stated that building setbacks were not in effect then, and the
mobile home does encroach on three sides.
Mr. Holland further stated the proposed project will
represent no additional encroachment except for an additional one-foot of roof
overhang on the three sides.
Chairman Johnson advised Mr. Holland that a two year
variance is not possible. Mr.
Holland replied that he needed that much time to finish the project.
Mr. Johnson said that is a building permit issue more than a variance
consideration. The variance will
last as long as the mobile home remains on the lot.
Mr. Jim Taylor, Building Inspector, added that the comment
made the home was set in 1970’s before the setbacks were in effect, is in
error, setbacks were adopted in 1966; they were often not enforced; however,
they were in effect.
Mr. Alden added that the plat plan before the members shows
a note of a 12’ front setback that is in the covenants of the subdivision of
1968. Mr. Taylor advised that the Inspections Department does not enforce
covenants, that is not within the scope of the permitting activity.
Mr. Alden admitted that even with the 12’ setback the
home still encroaches into that setback.
Mr. Johnson said that one of the things about covenants, as
opposed to ordinances is, that once they are broken they don’t exist anymore.
Mr. Quigley asked Mr. Holland to explain what he meant by
“partial roof”. Mr. Holland
said that at other places he saw, they had a freestanding roof over a portion of
the mobile home, like one end had a roof over it. It was obvious what they had
done with the mobile home, it didn’t totally cover the roofline of the mobile
home.
Mr. Quigley asked if the portion of the deck he wants to
convert to a screen porch is outside the 30’ front setback requirement.
Mr. Taylor said, according the plan submitted this porch is within the
buildable area, not further encroaching. This portion is not part of the issue.
Mr. Quigley asked if he was correct that the roofed portion
under consideration is only the portion that extends into the 30’ setback.
Mr. Taylor agreed.
Mr. Quigley told Mr. Holland he would not be prohibited
from fixing the roof, but we’re talking about a free standing roof over the
mobile home.
Mr. Taylor said the way the ordinance reads is that no
additional structure can be added to a non conforming structure.
We cannot permit additions to a non-conformity.
The screen porch can easily be handled through the Inspections
Department.
Mr. Holland said he is trying to make it more aesthetically
pleasing, by tying the roof all in.
Mr. Quigley asked if the roof could still be repaired if it
were not tied in? Mr. Taylor
replied Mr. Holland evidently has tried to do that, but he cannot issue a permit
for the type of repair Mr. Holland wants to make.
The freestanding roof would have to meet town setbacks unless this board
determines otherwise.
Mr. Johnson said that everything forward of the 30’
setback is in violation, as well as the small deck on the north side that
encroaches into the side setback.
Mr. Taylor said Mr Holland can be permitted to repair the
side deck, but once it should reach 50%, he will have to meet the setback there
as well. It would be smaller to meet setbacks.
Mr. Quigley said the issue is whether there should be a
freestanding roof on the encroachment, as opposed to repairing it and having
it’s present look. Are you (Mr.
Holland) saying that if you are not allowed to have a freestanding roof that it
can’t be repaired? Mr. Holland
said that was not the case, just that he knows of other people who have the
entire roof over their mobile home to be replaced with a light roof.
One place the roof is leaking is over the door.
Mr. Alden said there are companies that specialize in
replacing, acturally shearing off and replacing, the roof of a mobile home.
This provides a completely new roof structure. Costwise, he did not know.
Mr. Quigley asked, if costwise, it might be prohibitive or
you might lose the use of that section?
Mr. Alden said he could not say, he is not familiar with
the process.
Mr. Taylor said there was a
mobile home that lost its
roof during the hurricanes. There was a contractor who came and peeled off the
old roof and relaid an entire new roof.
Mr. McEnaney then asked Mr. Holland to clarify the photos
that were submitted. He wanted to know if Mr. Holland wanted to keep the large
upper deck (widow walk) over the roof.
Mr. Holland said he did want to retain the deck, it would
have to be elevated above the new free standing roof.
Mr. Quigley said the issue is that we are already 19’
into the setback, and we’re talking about whether to approve a 19’ roof over
this with one more foot additional encroachment for the roof support on the
entire perimeter of the structure. Is there a concern with the 19’ roof,
that’s what he’s hearing? Does
he understand that town cannot permit this?
Mr. Taylor said that is correct, the 19’ cannot be
permitted by Town ordinance.
Mr. Quigley added that roof repair, as just suggested,
would be allowed. Mr. Taylor said
that would be allowed as it would not increase the encroachment, and it is
repair and maintenance.
Mr. Quigley said the alternative would be to run the new
roof from the 30’ mark and stay inside the building area.
Mr. Holland said he did not think that would look good and he did not
want to do that.
Mr. Jim Woolard asked if it was not the case that
non-conforming uses were grandfathered
because they were pre existing before an ordinance was passed or
enforced, that it could stand as it
exists. The whole idea of having the ordinance is not to encourage and continue
non-conforming use by allowing any work done in the non conformity. Is
he correct?
Mr. Taylor agreed.
Mr. McEnaney asked if this board has the authority to allow
this roof to be put up? Now we are
talking about 20’ with the additional foot for the roof.
Mr. Woolard said the other like situations in the
neighborhood, he isn’t sure how many were encroaching on the 30’ setback
that have a roof built over them. None
of those have been permitted since the enforcement of the ordinance.
Mr. Johnson said it would make no difference, variances do
not set a precedent to justify others.
Mr. Taylor agreed and asked that the board deal with the
issue at hand, and not to consider what appears throughout the area.
Mr. Woolard said he only made that point so that Mr.
Holland would be aware of it.
Ms. Angus also informed the board that if the variance were
to be granted, you would have to make a stipulation that in the event that it
was 50% or more destroyed, that it must come back in conformance.
The variance stays with the land, unless otherwise specified, and the
next person to buys the property could replace the home again at the 19’
encroachment.
Mr. Johnson agreed that this should be noted, or it would
be life long.
Mr. McEnaney said if the variance were not granted, what
would be the aesthetics that would effect the neighborhood?
Mr. Holland said it would remain like it is, with the
exception of a screen porch added. He
would have to do something about the leaks, but the odds are he would look into
a situation where an entire roof be done like was previously mentioned.
He had a friend that did have the new roof replaced on his mobile home by
removing the entire roof and replacing it with the new product.
He would have to look into doing that.
Mr. Quigley said he could have a freestanding roof over the
section that has no encroachment. Mr.
Holland said that aesthetically he would not like that.
One of the leaks on the north side door has to be repaired, that is
within the 19’ encroachment.
Mr. Alden added that building the roof over the allowable
portion would not solve all the leaking issues. Aesthetically, it would be
detracting.
Mr. Quigley said his concern is of safety and habitability
of that section. Is this type of
roof you want the most cost effective? Or
is the other procedure more difficult or expensive?
Mr. Holland replied that the other procedure is less
expensive. His guess is about
$3,000.00 based on his friend who did one.
Mr. Johnson asked what the aesthetic problem is if the deck
were not covered, on the north side of the mobile home.
Mr. Holland replied it was no problem.
But, when you open that door in bad weather it comes in and he would like
to have some sort of shelter there. So
he would like to cover that area as well and give more storage space.
Mr. Alden referred to this as Mr. Holland’s ‘wish
list’ of things to do to cover the small side deck that also encroaches into
the side 10’ setback.
Mr. Quigley asked if you are now talking about covering the
small deck on the side? He was
informed that is correct.
Mr. Taylor said that this portion could be worked out.
He could cover a portion of the deck to protect the door, as long as what
he did was not encroaching into the 10’ setback.
It appears from the survey that there is about a 8’ deck there, without
scaling it, about half of it could be covered with a roof and still meet the
setback. So he could have about a four foot covered roof, but not all
the way into the exisiting deck at 8 feet unless the variance is granted.
(Mr. McEnaney made some comments that could not be
discerned regarding roof leaks)
Mr. McEnaney said that as a homeowner he would be
concerned about the cost of one over the other. Does that become an
issue? Mr. Taylor advised him that
cost is not a factor for a variance.
Mr. Holland said the total cost for everything is about
$17,000, to include the decking over the new roof. It is unsafe at this time.
The decking would need elevation and repaired. The pilings are sound, the horizontal material is what is in
disrepair.
Mr. Woolard asked if he can get a permit just to take off
the old roof and put on a new one? Mr.
Taylor said yes, that would not be an additional encroachment, it is contained
within the original footprint. We
are talking, here, about another roof, known as a ramada, to extend another foot
encroachment on all three sides.
Mr. Holland said the easy way out would be to do that, (to
take off old roof and replace in present footprint). The screen porch we would
like could be there. He felt it would be better to do it with a the freestanding
roof.
Mr. Johnson said he felt that they could come up with some
language for a variance proposal, to vote on something to minimize the
encroachment. That would be to
grant a variance to 9.15’ on the west side for a covered roof structure that
would last for the life of the mobile home.
Once that structure is removed, the variance will go out of exisitance.
He was not inclined to approve a variance for the north side (over the door). We
can definitely do it, but, to approve the encroachment on the north side we are
making it worse. On the front it is
only worse by one foot.with the roof overhang. We have to limit with what we
vote on, so we don’t blanket approve something that will last forever and
ever.
Mr. Quigley asked Mr. Taylor if the repair or replacement
had to meet current code? Mr.
Taylor said it does..
Mr. Quigley asked they
would have to tear down the widow walk to elevate it over the roof?
Mr. Alden said it will be disassembled.
Mr. Taylor said when it is disassembled it will disappear. It will then
be replaced, not repaired. That is
what is required by code. It would
have to meet setbacks unless I’m told otherwise.
Mr. Quigley said if the variance request is granted you
could lose your widow walk. Mr.
Alden replied that is part of the variance request, in the last section of the
application. Ms. Angus commented
that this is an example of why is so imperative to have the applicant read the
entire application to be entered as evidence and Mr. Holland has not yet read
the entire application.
Mr. Quigley said if we allowed the widow walk we are
definitely extending a non conforming use. He is asking for the widow walk as
part of the variance.
Mr. Johnson said he felt the deck is inside the same
encroachment as the roof it would be reasonable to include the deck.
Ms. Getsinger asked if this would be granting him a special
use? Mr. Johnson said it would be a
limited variance for life of the mobile home.
Mr. Quigley
made the motion to grant the variance to the extent not to be exceeded by one
foot in each dimension and limited to the life of the existing mobile home and
to include a roof over the non-conforming portion to within 9.15’ of the west
side and within 6.17’ on the east side and to include the observation
deck/widow’s walk.
The ballots were then distributed to the members for their
written vote as Chairman Johnson reminded the applicant that a 4/5 majority is
required to grant a variance.
Chairman Johnson advised the applicant that by a vote of 4
to grant the variance and 1 to deny, the variance was granted.
He then asked for each member to give his/her rationale for the vote.
Joseph Quigley: Voted to Grant: We are talking about
replacing a roof of the existing structure not expanding upon the non-conforming
use but replacing a roof. He will
be limited to the overhang amount and the widow’s walk not to be expanded any
more, other than what exists, and for the life of the mobile home that it is not
the intent to be passed on to someone else to expand upon this.
He thinks non-conforming use should not be expanded; he takes that to
mean that it shouldn’t be expanded beyond its footprint.
A roof for safety reasons should be permitted.
Aesthetically it will blend in. In
that regard he thinks it fits within the requirements.
Jackie Getsinger: Voted to Grant: She felt
that back when the beach was kind of new that people came in and everybody did
according to what they wanted to do. It
became non-conforming and the codes weren’t enforced. It’s a hard job for
the board to decide to bring these things up to standard. She wants him to be able to utilize his property.
Chairman Johnson: Voted to Grant: Based
on the same issues, it is not going to make the non conformity any worse or
unnecessarily extending the life of the structure when something could be done
to the roof to make it limp along. It
will improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
Jim Woolard: Voted to Deny: He felt he had
to vote against the variance because the applicant had an alternative to make
the home leak proof and safe. According to the strict letter of the law, to
encroach another foot on a non conforming use, is in his opinion,
not the way to go when there was another alternative that would be
equally as satisfactory, and even less expensive.
John McEnaney: Voted to Grant: In many respects, he
agreed with Mr. Woolard, and he had a question about bituminous sheeting and why
it was not brought it out. At any rate, from what he saw at the site, he feels
what is proposed will be a big improvement. He would be very concerned about the
widow walk and the steep narrow set of stairs. As they are, will probably not
get approved. He was disturbed that a person buys a piece of property and it’s
already non-conforming before you get it.
There being no further business before the board, the
Chairman asked for a motion to adjourn.
Jackie Getsinger made a motion to adjourn, second by Joe
Quigley, with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.
Carol Angus, Secretary
|