Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Housing Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants variance to replace failing deck cantilevers with vertical posts, with condition barring enclosure
Summary
Homeowners on North Ocean Shore received a variance allowing vertical support posts to replace failed cantilevered deck supports, after applicants and neighbors debated safety, view impacts and whether the need was self‑created. The board approved the variance with a condition that the deck and area above and beneath it not be enclosed.
The board approved a variance allowing property owners on several lots along North Ocean Shore Boulevard to replace failing cantilevered deck supports with vertical in‑ground posts, but it attached a condition intended to protect views and prevent future enclosure of the deck area.
Applicant Sid Silhan and his wife told the board they bought their house in October 2024 and discovered structural rot in the cantilever supports that led engineers and contractors to recommend vertical posts as the safer long‑term repair. "The existing cantilevers … had gathered enough rain and saltwater to allow for those metal buckets to corrode and the wood inside to rot away," Silhan said, adding the change is a safety measure to prevent deck failure and interior water intrusion.
Nearby residents opposed the request largely on view and precedent grounds. Sandy Mueller, who lives adjacent to the Silhans, said she had obtained all permits when she built and asked the county to preserve the neighborhood’s views: "All we are asking is to receive the same consideration and respect we have given," she told the board. Charles Muller and others said cantilevers are common in the area and that the applicant had purchased the property with existing cantilevers, a point they argued could undercut a hardship claim.
Board members and staff discussed the technical distinction between diagonal (cantilever) supports and vertical posts and whether the request constituted the minimum relief necessary. Staff noted the application was a before‑the‑fact variance triggered by a notice of unpermitted work and recommended limiting relief to the minimum necessary. The applicant withdrew a prior request to expand the deck and narrowed the petition to replacement of the existing supports.
After deliberation the board approved the variance and added a condition that the deck and the space above and beneath it may not be enclosed in the future. The board also discussed alignment of the new posts with the deck above; the applicant said posts would be installed beneath the existing support points. The board's approval is a before‑the‑fact variance conditional on the applicant obtaining required permits and, if necessary, any coastal construction permits.
