Town of Emerald Isle
Minutes of Board of Adjustment Meeting
Wednesday, July 10, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 9:10 AM at the Town Hall by Chairman, Michael Johnson.

Members attending:  Michael Johnson, Mark Brennesholz, James Woolard and John McEnaney.  Regular members Winton Smithwick and Joseph Quigley were out of town.

Minutes of the last regular meeting of the board of adjustment, March 13, 2002 were approved as written.

Case # 02-11 Pressley Barrett, Jr. variance request to encroach 6’ into the side setback

                        at 301 Bogue Inlet Drive, Block 35, lot 1 and portion of lot 2 to allow

                        construction of a ramp for an electric wheelchair.

Mr. Pressley Barrett, Jr. was sworn in my Secretary, Carol Angus.  He advised the board of his previous war injuries that resulted in his dependency on a wheelchair.

He advised that he had checked into an elevator, but the cost was exorbitant.

He then read his responses to the requirements for a variance:

“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 19-103(5):which requires a 10’ side setback, 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.)

Factors Relevant to the Issuance of a Variance

A. 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.

Add ramp for elect(ric) wheelchair. No gain/no loss of property value. Only (to) assist owner in using ramp in/out of home.

(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.

Build ramp north side of home.  VA disability 100%, as steps are a hardship on (the) member.

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

No, caused by hardship (being) received in service (Army).  Hardship is the result of service in airborne and VietNam.  One back operation and both knees replaced.

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.

On North side of home, steps will be removed and ramp installed, stained same color as other wood on home.  Adding trees and bushes to break up ramp effect.

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

I do not wish to sell my property. If denied, variance will cause great harm and suffering on property owner causing relocation of individual.

            There was a question whether there was any objection from any of the property owners.  Mr. Barrett advised he had spoken with the neighbors and they had no objection; and, none received as a result of the advertising done by the town prior to the meeting.

            The members asked Mr. Barrett some specific questions regarding the construction of the ramp and the placement of the ramp.  Chairman Johnson was able to answer the issues regarding handicap facilities being a 1” to 12’ slope.

The platform where the chair would turn is the area of the most encroachment.

            Mr. Brennesholz was concerned about the encroachment into a side setback that is next to a very narrow lot.  This could effect that owner at some point in time.

            Mr. Barrett said he could not put the ramp on the other side because it would detract from the view of the home from Canal Drive.  Also, the septic tank is on that side and cannot be compromised.

            Mr. Brennesholz asked if it is possible to grant the variance with a stipulation the ramp be removed when Mr. Barrett no longer owns the property.  Ms. Angus replied that such conditions can be placed on a variance.

Chairman Johnson asked for a vote by written ballot.  The vote to be taken on the variance  to be granted with the condition that for the period of time that  Mr. Pressley Barrett, Jr owns the property the ramp may encroach three feet into the side property line.

At such time Mr. Barrett sells or transfers the property, the ramp must be removed.

Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion to grant the variance.

Rationale for each vote is as follows:

Mark Brennesholz said he is concerned about the narrow adjoining lot and the variance will defeat the spirit of the ordinance.  However, since there are no plans to develop the house next door, since there are trees where the ramp will be that will break up the view from the street, and the condition that the ramp is removed when the property sells, he then voted for the request.

Chairman Johnson, said that like many variances that they grant, they do not meet the letter of the law for variances.  There is a definite need on Barrett’s part for the ramp and the north side of the property is the best place; also, that the variance  expires with the change of ownership of the property.

John McEnaney agreed with the previous members.

James Woolard said this is something Mr. Barrett needs to continue in the home and he does a wonderful job maintaining the home. With no objection from the neighbors, and the condition to remove the ramp when ownership changes, he saw no problem.

Motion to adjourn was made by Jim Woolard, second by John McEnaney with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

Respectfully submitted:

Carol Angus, Secretary