Town of Emerald Isle
Board of Adjustment Minutes of Regular Meeting
Wednesday, August 21, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by Chairman, Michael Johnson.

Case #02-12 Robert L. Clemmer requests a variance from Section 19-103 to rebuild the existing front deck which currently encroaches 10’4” into the required 30’ front setback at 118 W. Seaview Dr, Blk 36, Lot 27.

Mr. Scott Williamson represented Mr. Clemmer for this request and was sworn in by Ms. Ferebee.

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.

No gain or loss of said property, but for use of front entrance of said property. 

(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. Replace deck for safety reasons. Deck to be built according to NC codes.

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

The granting of the variance secures the public safety and welfare and does substantial justice.  This property was bought in the last couple of years. It will not be sold anytime in the future. To be retirement home.

Mr. Smithwick asked why the deck cannot be moved to the left.  Mr. Williamson replied that there is only three feet between the building and the driveway.  Mr. Williamson said he did not feel there is the 4.9’ there, but actually only about 3 feet.  He advised the members that the front door to the addition is about in line with the 1 in the figure 10 on the addition. So some sort of egress needs to be there.

Mr. Quigley, Mr. Smithwick, Mr. Brennesholtz, Mr. Johnson  and Mr. Williamson discussed several scenarios on the most advantageous method to accommodate the applicant.  Mr. Williamson asked if the applicant would be permitted to put the steps off the back  corner toward the driveway.  A portion of the driveway could be sacrificed. If the steps were on the driveway side it would accommodate the owners by allowing them to use the steps on that side of the drive instead of coming to the front of the home.

Chairman Johnson said to put the steps toward the street furthers the encroachment into the front setback. He would be in favor of reducing that encroachment by putting the steps on the driveway side of the deck. 

Mr. Taylor asked the dimensions asked the dimensions of the existing deck.  It was determined by the survey to be 14.9’ long and approximately 8’ deep.  Mr. Taylor then asked if it might be considered to exit the addition to a 3’ walkway and the run the deck along the side of the addition.  This would move the front porch to the side entirely. The steps could be a permitted encroachment and the project would be in compliance.

Mr. Williamson replied that if the applicant wanted to do that he would not be before this board today.  Mr. Taylor replied that according to the survey there is 8’ on the side to give ample room for a deck, but Mr. Williamson said it is more like 5 or 6 feet. The survey is not accurate in its placement of the driveway.

Mr. Taylor doubted that the survey is incorrect, because of the seal placed by the surveyor.

Mr. Williamson went on to say that the owners want the front deck so they can sit on the front porch and look at the street not the drive and parked cars.

Chairman Johnson said he thought the best compromise is to pull the  west side of the deck even with the mobile home and put the steps on the driveway side or to the east.  That would minimize the encroachment.

Mr. Williamson said that should be acceptable, and the steps should not interfere with the driveway or emergency vehicles.

Chairman Johnson then worded the variance request to allow the applicant to replace the deck at the same dimensions as existing, providing the stairs be moved to the Northeast side of the deck toward the driveway.

Written ballots were then passed out for decision and signature of each member.

Chairman Johnson advised that the variance was granted by a vote of 4 to 1.

Rationale for the decision as follows:

Mr. Quigley voted to grant the variance and stated houses/mobile homes that are already in violation of the code and have encroachments already.  There is already a substantial structure that is encroaching into the setbacks.  To lessen the encroachment seems to be the better compromise.

Mr. Brennesholtz said he  reluctantly  granted this request, it still encroaches and there are other encroachments on the lot.  It is not an attractive lot with the shelter.

If the steps are to the side it is a 3’ improvement over what it is today.

Mr. Johnson voted to grant the variance and agreed that it is an improvement over the encroachment now existing.  Most of the dwellings on the street encroach to the same, or greater, degree.  Alternative would be to deny the variance and create a safety hazard.

Mr. James Woolard voted to grant the variance and agreed with all previous members and that it could only improve the looks and lessens the encroachment. He agreed with Mr. Williamson that the deck on the side would not provide the same enjoyment as it would from the front.

Mr. Winton Smithwick voted to deny the variance because he felt there is room on the side of the mobile home.  It would then conform to the code.

Mr. Williamson made the statement that this was built before there were setbacks. Mr. Johnson said there have always been setbacks, they weren’t enforced as they are today.

Mr. Taylor said when the subdivision was developed, the setbacks were established. It was possibly done without a permit, so setbacks weren’t obeyed. 

Mr. Smithwick went on to advise that should the town allow offstreet parking in order to fall in with FEMA requirements we need to preserve the 30’ setback.

There was further discussion on the fact that if and when new mobile homes or a single family dwelling were to be placed on the sites with non conformity, they would have to conform to existing setback requirements.

There being no further business before the board Joseph Quigley made motion to adjourn at 9:25 A.M.

Respectfully submitted:

Carol Angus, Secretary
Town of Emerald Isle
Board of Adjustment