BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, AUGUST
2, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a front yard building setback variance for a fence at 950 Paisley Court in the Melrose Subdivision.
Mr. Schultz stated that there being no zoning history. Proposed Use: The subject house is located on a corner lot, which by code requires two front yards. The owner is proposing to build a 6-ft high opaque wood fence that would encompass the backyard to protect a proposed in-ground pool. A portion of the fence encroaches into the 35-ft front yard setback along Paisley Place. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback from approximately 35-ft to 19-ft along Paisley Place. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.15 – Fences In Front Yards – No fence shall be located in the required front yard: In a R-4 district the front yard setback is 35-ft. The fence encroachment ranges from 16-ft along the northern portion of the fence to achieving compliance when the southern portion of the fence abuts the house. Therefore, the average encroachment would be 8-ft or 22% of the required 35-ft setback. The fence would be required to enclose the proposed in-ground pool. 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 fence variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because it would protrude from zero to 45% with an average of 22% (from 0 to16-ft with an average of 8-ft) into the required 35-ft front yard setback. The setback variance decreases as the fence extends towards the house (south along Paisley Place). 3. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." The subject property is a corner lot and the proposed fence would be located a minimum of 19-ft from the property line (20-ft from the sidewalk). Therefore, it would likely cause minimal obstruction of views of property owners along Paisley Place and Paisley Court. 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 any knowledge of this information. 6. Whether the problem can be solved by some manner other than the granting of a variance. Not likely. If the variance were not granted, the result would just be the amount of land enclosed within the fence in back yard would be reduced. 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 variance request approval would likely preserve the spirit and intent of the front yard setback because it would be reduced minimally. There are a lot of shallow lots in the City and it only makes practical sense to allow homeowners utilize their yards when the requests are not extreme. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the front yard setback variance request for the fence with the following condition: That the front yard setback for the fence shall be reduced from 35-ft to 19-ft per the submitted plan.
Laurin Fix, after being duly sworn, stated she is the property owner and the placement of the fence is to enclose a pool and to utilize the backyard as much as possible.
Mr. Wells moved to approve with the following condition; that the front yard setback for the fence shall be reduced from 35-ft to 19-ft per the submitted plan. Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Linek voted “Yea”. Motion carried 3-0
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a screened porch at 504 Sheryl Drive in the Manor House Estates Subdivision.
Mr. Schultz stated that there being no zoning history. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a screened porch that is approximately 12-ft x 16-ft (192 square feet) and would protrude 4-ft into the setback. The porch materials would match the existing house and have a pitched roof. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.09 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a R-4 district the rear yard setback is 35-ft. The house was built in 1977 and appears the front yard setback for the R4 zoning district back then was 30-ft. The proposed porch would be located approximately 26-ft from the rear property line to the east. It protrudes approximately 4-ft into the rear setback. The property is surrounded by residential properties and would likely have a minimal impact on the adjacent residents. 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 porch variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because the porch would protrude approximately 13% (approximately 4-ft) into the required 30-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 is surrounded by single-family homes. The porch 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 porch would protrude only 4-ft into the 30-ft setback (approximately 13%). The BZA has approved several similar requests where decks/porches 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 screened porch with the following condition: That the rear setback for the porch shall be reduced from 30-ft to 26-ft.
Jeff Borovetz, after being duly sworn, stated he is the contractor and that the homeowner would like to build a screened porch which would be placed in the setback area due to the placement of the home.
Mr. Cline moved to approve with the following condition; that the rear setback for the porch shall be reduced from 30-ft to 26-ft. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Linek voted “Yea”. Motion carried 3-0
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a deck at 751 Manchester Drive in the Manchester Subdivision.
Mr. Schultz stated that there being no zoning history. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct an approximate 16-ft x 20-ft (320 square feet) wood deck that would protrude approximately eleven feet 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 24-ft from the rear property line to the south. It protrudes approximately 11-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 relatively minor because it would protrude approximately 31% (approximately 11-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 all four sides. 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 11-ft into the 35-ft setback (approximately 31%). 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 this subdivision and 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 24-ft.
Jeff Borovetz, after being duly sworn, stated he is the contractor and that the homeowner would like to build a deck which would be placed in the setback area due to the placement of the home.
Mr. Linek moved to approve with the following condition; that the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 24-ft. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Linek voted “Yea”. Motion carried 3-0
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning