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

Members in attendance: Michael Johnson, Winton Smithwick, Mark Brennesholtz, John McEnaney and Russell Adams. Also attending, Carol Angus, Planning Director and James Taylor, Building Inspector.

Minutes of Regular Meeting, February 12, 2003 were approved as written. Motion to approve was made by Mark Brennesholtz.

Case #03-17 John F. Henrickson requests a variance to allow encroachment of 2-1/2’ to 3’ into the 15’ side setback requirement at 105 Indigo Drive, Block 29, Lot 5B, Bluewater Bay Subdivision for additional living space and elevator.

John F. Henrickson presented the request and was sworn in by Carol Angus.

I, John F. Henrickson, 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 19-102(7)):

Minimum side yard width – Ten (10) feet for a single-family or two-family residence, for structures three (3) stories or less on lots of record as of June 11, 1977; fifteen (15) feet on lots recorded after June 11, 1977.

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:

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.

The orientation of the original house on the lot, the location of the existing septic system and the interior arrangement of the house limit the practical options for an addition. The most practical option in terms of environmental impact, utility and cost is to expand on the right corner of the ocean facing side.

(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.

The existing structure is situated at an angle relative to the lot lines.
There is little room between the corners and the minimum building setback line. (3) The hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions.

The applicant has not taken any action relative to construction and is requesting the advice of the Board of Adjustment prior to further planning.

The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance and preserves its spirit.

The requested variance is a very small impact; approximately 15 square feet of building will be within the sideline setback area and less than 10 square feet of uncovered deck will be within the frontage setback area. The proposed addition will be of a style and construction in harmony with the other homes in the area, most of which are suited for year round residence. Disruption to existing natural vegetation on the ocean facing side will be minimal.

The granting of the variance secures the public safety and welfare and does Substantial justice.

The proposed addition does not intensify the use of the property and will not have adverse public impact. Denial of the variance will limit the owners’ practical options provide additional living space. If the owner were to build in the rear of the lot, there would be potential environmental impacts from disruption and relocation of an existing working septic system and the destruction of natural woodlands to allow septic relocation.

Chairman Johnson asked if there were any questions from Board members.

Mr. Smithwick asked Mr. Henrickson if he had received the same letter that the Board had received from Mr. Jones.

Ms. Angus stated that he had not as the letter had just been received the previous afternoon.

It was determined that the proposed encroachment would be on the side facing 103 Indigo and not 107 Indigo which was the concern of the letter from the Jones.

Mr. Taylor stated that in looking at the proposed drawing that it appeared that the elevator addition could actually meet the setbacks, it was the corner of the workshop and closet that would cause the encroachment.

Mr. Henrickson agreed and said that the reason they chose that configuration was to avoid having architectural monstrosity.

Mr. Taylor asked if they had considered cutting the addition down a couple feet to meet the setbacks. Mr. Taylor understood that it was the elevator that was the issue. He asked if they could not eliminate the encroachment by cutting back.

Mr. Henrickson said that if you look at the size of the rooms it would make them so small that it would not be practical.

Mr. Brennesholtz stated that there are a number of homes being built as non-90 degree walls. In fact that this was quite popular now. That could be a possible solution rather than pulling the entire wall back by 3 feet, just cut off the corner.

Fortunately the house is virtually invisible from the street.

Chairman Johnson asked if the existing deck to the street side was uncovered.

Mr. Henrickson said that as it is built right now it is partially covered. The center portion has a roof over it but it is not enclosed. The addition will allow a continuous roof line to extend over to the existing roof over existing deck.

Mr. Johnson added that the remaining front portion of the deck to the street is uncovered so that he is in compliance with the ordinance in the front of the property.

Mr. Brennesholtz asked if it was possible that since you are dealing with such a smaller square footage of deck that the whole dining room and elevator could be moved forward by four feet toward the front of the house.

Mr. Henrickson said that they had tried to do that but it posed problems with the construction. He stated that it also affects the aesthetics.

Chairman Johnson then commented on the letter from the adjoining property owner. He stated that while they certainly had a right to oppose the variance the State Law variances was not a popularity contest. He did not feel that a whole lot of consideration should be given to the letter.

As there were no other questions or comments, Chairman Johnson asked for the ballots to be distributed for a written vote.

Chairman Johnson advised the members to enter their vote to grant or deny a variance not to exceed 3’ on the south property line setback at the rear corner.

Variance was granted by a 4-1 vote.

Rationale for the decision as follows:

Mr. Brennesholtz said if you view the property there is certainly no sense of the houses being crowded together. The fact that this encroachment is in the back rather than in the front makes it even less obvious. Therefore he voted in favor of it and did not see any problem.

Mr. Smithwick voted in favor of the variance especially because this was in the rear of the property.

Chairman Johnson felt it would aesthetically improve the property and it would not be visible from the street.

Mr. McEnaney agreed with the others and also did not feel that the encroachment would be deleterious or harmful.

Mr. Adams voted to deny the variance. He agreed with the others members there is no problem but his understanding of the variance was that it must be a hardship related to the property. He felt as a designer there was not a hardship.

There being no further business before the board motion was made by John McEnaney, second by Winton Smithwick to adjourn at 9:25 AM.

Respectfully Submitted:

Carol Angus,Secretary
Board of Adjustment