UNAPPROVED
Town of Emerald Isle
Board of Adjustment Minutes of Regular Meeting
Wednesday, November 13, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by Chairman, Michael Johnson.

Factors Relevant to the Issuance of a Variance

1. 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 existing 1969 mobile home on the lot does not comply with the provision and never has.  The home is old and would like permission to replace it.  It cannot be replaced with any structure at all that would comply with the provision.

(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.

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

This lot was not platted wide enough to meet this provision.

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

A variance to allow a deviation of just 6’ would give the 60’ width at setback and allow the old mobile home to be replaced with a new structure, either mobile home or house whichever owner wants.  This is a reasonable use of the land and would be an improvement to the neighborhood.

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

   If the variance is denied, the old mobile home will detract from the neighborhood and prevent improvement of the area. Chairman Johnson noted that according to the plat the width is 53.8’. 

   Mr. Quigley stated that the Town considered all of this back in 1984 when they made the decision that after 1984 the width would be 75’ with the exception that anything prior to 1984 would be 60’. 
   Chairman Johnson noted that the lot was platted in 1974. 
   Mr. Quigley questioned whether the oceanfront lots across the street had ever had a variance granted because there the width was less than 60’ also. 
   Mr. Taylor said that there had been no building permit activity on oceanfront lots that were 53’ wide since he came to work for the Town in 1996.
   Chairman Johnson said he didn’t think that since he had been serving on the Board of Adjustment he could  remember hearing a variance on any of those surrounding lots. 
   Chairman Johnson said that this would be a variance from the 60’ requirement.  There are existing setbacks specified in the Ordinances.  The setbacks would be 20’ side street, 30’ front and 10’ side and 10’ rear.  This variance if granted would just revise the 60’ width at setback requirement to allow 53.8’ width at setback. 
   Ms. Shingleton stated that they are not looking for anything more than the variance to allow the 53.8’ width at setback.  They are not in compliance now.  The lot is totally useless because they can’t comply with the ordinance as it is now.
   Chairman Johnson said that a case like this was one of the few that actually meet the letter and the spirit of the state law governing variances.  It’s strictly a land related issue.  At some point in time back in 1974 the lots were platted and trailers or houses were put on them.
   Mr. Quigley said that his point was, the Board of Commissioners when considering this,  knew there were lots like this.  Why didn’t they make the widths 50’?  They knew by using 60’ they would be excluding lots like this. 
   Mr. Brennesholtz stated that there were just a small number of these lots, 7 or so, and they would have to be addressed  by the Board of Adjustment. 
   Mr. Taylor said that this is where the Board of Adjustment comes into play.  This is truly a hardship on the land.  This is not something the applicant has created, so it does meet the intent and the spirit of why this meeting is called today. 
   Mr. Quigley said that when the Town Board decided that they were only going to make an exception for 60’, they knew there were lots like this and they could have said 54’ or 50’, but they didn’t, they said 60’. 
   Chairman Johnson said that what they need to look at is whether the setbacks are clearly maintained for fire safety between structures, etc. he couldn’t see the problem with granting a variance, he mentioned pie shaped lots as an example of a similar situation where a variance had been granted allowing a smaller lot width at setback.
   Mr. Smithwick questioned how the owners of the other lots in this area with less than a 60’ setback would renovate their houses.  He stated that they looked fairly new. 
   Chairman Johnson and Mr. Taylor stated that they could maintain their existing homes without getting a permit as long as they aren’t replacing them. 
   Mr. Brennesholtz stated that he felt that this one was fairly clear cut except for one issue.  It’s fortunate that there appears to be about 12’ of right-of-way between the pavement on Mangrove and the lot line and 17’ of right-of-way between Oceanview Drive and their lot line.  So there is a lot of space around the corner.  The exception he would propose because the setback is 10’ in the back and the lot behind is slightly narrower at 53’ wide, would be to make the setback in the back 15’ instead of 10’.  His concern was that there would be potentially two 3-level houses where the eaves would overlap.  He felt this would cause a high density appearance problem. 
   Mr. Taylor said that there are minimum building setbacks that are established in the Ordinance.  You have to maintain those setbacks and may encroach 3’ with an overhang in the setbacks.  The Ordinance allows for that. 
   Mr. Quigley asked whether the applicant owned any of the adjoining properties.  His question concerned whether they had the opportunity to try and combine lots. 
   Mr. Smithwick asked that since the rear setback required in the rear of lot is 10’ for mobile homes and that this would probably eventually be a regular house so why could they not require the 15’ in the rear? 
   Discussion followed concerning the zoning and setback issues related to this property. 
   Mr. Brennesholtz would like to grant a variance with the condition that they stay 15’ from the rear of lot.  This would still give the applicant a 24’ x 70’ area to build a dwelling.
   Mr. Smithwick agreed with Mr. Brennesholtz that a 15’ rear setback should be a part of this deal.  
   Chairman Johnson then noted the language of the variance to be voted on would be as follows:
   The variance will be to vary the minimum lot width at setback to 53.8’ on Lot 7, Block 37E, Emerald Isle, North Carolina, with the condition that the setback on the north boundary of the lot be 15’. 
   Chairman Johnson then asked for ballots to be passed out for decision and signature of each member.
   Chairman Johnson advised that the variance was granted by a 4-1 vote as amended.

   Rationale for the decision as follows:

               Mr. McEnaney said that he appreciated the 15’ setback issue.  After looking at the
               mobile home it is in conformance with section 19-103 as it sits right now except
               for the 54’ width.  As the applicant had indicated this would improve the general
               area.  He would like to support the applicants ability to do something with their
               property. 
               Mr. Smithwick voted to grant the variance with the stipulation of the 15’ setback in
               the rear.  He felt this would upgrade the neighborhood. 
    
               Chairman Johnson felt this was one of the few cases that actually fit the state laws
               of  variances.  This is entirely land related and not due to anything having been done
               by the current homeowners.  This came about by lots being platted too small and not
               being caught when exceptions were being made in the zoning. 
    
               Mr. Brennesholtz felt that this would definitely upgrade the neighborhood which
               seemed to be the trend.  They need to be able to do something with the land and
               with the condition included in the variance this would help.  The other lots in
               this neighborhood will face the same issue and by having added the condition of
               the 15’ north boundary setback this will give a little separation.
    
               Mr. Quigley thought it was a good result, however, he voted against it because he felt
               that the Commissioners were going through the Ordinances and this is the sort of
               thing that they should take a look at , just as in past cases with pie shaped lots.  He
               felt that this is something that the Town Board or Planning Board should take a look
               at in the future rather than have the Board of Adjustment do piecemeal. 
    
   Chairman Johnson made comment that issues such as this had been brought before previous Town Boards with no action taken. 
   There being no further business before the board Joseph Quigley made motion to adjourn at 9:40 A.M.

   Respectfully submitted:

   Carol Angus, Secretary
   Town of Emerald Isle
   Board of Adjustment