BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, JULY 20,
2006
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a deck at 83 Knights Bridge Drive (Sheffield Subdivision).
Mr. Henderson stated there is not any zoning history. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a 18-ft x 28-ft (504 square feet) wood deck that would be protrude 13.4-ft into the rear yard setback. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.09 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a R-4 district the rear yard setback is 35-ft. The proposed deck would be located approximately 21.6-ft from the rear property line to the west. It protrudes approximately 13.4-ft into the rear setback. Seven Practical Difficulties Standards for Area Variances – the Board of Zoning Appeals should examine the following standards when deciding whether to grant a landowner an area variance. 1) Whether the property will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. The beneficial use of the property would not likely be compromised without the deck variance. 2) Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because it would protrude approximately 38% (approximately 13.4-ft) into the required 35-ft rear yard setback. 3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." The property has residential subdivision properties on three sides of it with the rear yard abutting a large lot single family house with a dense wooded area. The deck would likely impact the property behind it the most but not likely to substantial detriment. 4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. The health, safety and general welfare of the subject property and adjoining properties would not likely be impacted. 5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Staff would not have knowledge of this information. 6) Whether the problem can be solved by some manner other than the granting of a variance. Not likely. 7) Whether the variance preserves the "spirit and intent" of the zoning requirement and whether "substantial justice" would be done by granting the variance. The spirit and intent of the rear yard setback would be preserved because the deck would protrude only 13.4-ft into the 35-ft setback (approximately 38%). The BZA has approved several similar requests where decks protruded less than 50% into the rear yard setback. There are a lot of shallow lots in the City and it only makes practical sense to allow homeowners utilize their rear yards when the requests are not extreme. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for the deck with the following condition: That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 21-ft. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.
Rob Bruno, after being duly sworn, stated that he is the builder for the property owner and indicated that they are doing upgrades to the home and that there are several other homes in the neighborhood that have decks. Mr. Wells verified that all properties owners where notified.
Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve, that the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 21-ft. Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
5. ADJOURNMENT There being nothing further. Mr. Wells moved to adjourn; Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7:10 P.M., July 20, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning