Case #2016-BZA-00028Eric Hodeen

June 1, 2016

PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 6 foot side yard setback (west) instead of 8 feet as required for proposed additions to an existing single family dwelling, 205 50TH ST Zoning: R5R (NE) GPIN: 2418883709 YEAR BUILT: 1964 AICUZ: noise zone 65-70dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eric Hodeen, Homeowner SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a one-story/ basement rear building addition 6-feet from the west side property line, instead of 8-feet as required. The proposed addition will expand the existing first floor living space as well as the basement level area; which includes adding a one car garage. It will align with the existing dwelling where it parallel with the east and west side property lines and it will be constructed in place of an existing enclosed rear porch and deck. A rear portion the existing decking will be removed; however, the new addition will not extend over the portion of the decking to be removed. CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed addition will align with the existing dwelling on the west

sides; therefore, the setback from the west side property will not decrease with this proposal

In efforts of preserving the existing 30” live oak tree; the proposed addition

will not extend further into the rear yard than the existing enclosed porch and decking

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:

1. The proposed addition shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevations.

2. Prior to commencing with any construction activity; including demolition

or evacuation, tree protection must be install around the existing 30” live oak tree located in the rear yard.

Case #2016-BZA-00029Dennis & Catherine Houghton

June 1, 2016

PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to 43 feet in building height instead of 37 feet as allowed for a proposed single family dwelling, 1269 HEBDEN CV Zoning: GPIN: 1488365129 YEAR BUILT: New construction AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Jackson Andrews SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 2 ½ story single-family dwelling 43-feet in building height, instead of 37-feet in building height as allowed in this zoning district. As measured within 6-foot of the foundation of proposed dwelling; the lot elevation differential from the lowest to the highest points of the lot grading is approximately 6.3-feet. Therefore, the height variance requested is consistent with the lot grading differential. CONSIDERATIONS: The lot grading elevation differential is consistent with the 6-foot building

height variance sought with this proposal This proposal is not expected to create a detriment to the adjoining

property owners or surrounding community RECOMMENDED CONDITION:

1. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevations

Case #2016-BZA-00030Allen Poulter

June 1, 2016

PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to allow 878 square feet of accessory structure instead of 500 square feet as allowed for an addition to an existing detached garage; and to a 9.7 foot side yard setback (south) instead of 10 feet as required for an existing detached garage, 989 SUNNYSIDE DR Zoning: R10 GPIN: 1456466762 YEAR BUILT: 1964 (garage 1972) AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Allen Poulter, Homeowner BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY:

On December 6, 1972, a variance to a 19-foot front yard setback instead of 30-feet and a variance to a 6-foot north side yard setback was Granted for building addition on the north side of the existing dwelling

*This variance was granted subject to subsequent approval of a subdivision plat that vacates the north side property line

On May 21, 1980, a variance to allow 2-feet in fence height to a 6-foot fence instead of a 4-feet fence as allowed in a front yard setback

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant would like to retain a recently constructed detached (209.74 ±sf) garage addition. Variances to allow a total of 878 square feet of accessory structure floor area instead of 500 square feet as allowed; and a variance to a 9.7-foot south side yard setback, instead of 10-feet as required are sought with this proposal. After received a citizen concern regarding the addition, on March 10, 2016 a stop work order was issued by the Permit and Inspection Office for not obtaining a building permit. It was later determined by zoning staff the existing detached garage exceeds the allowable 500 sq ft floor area for accessory structures. As noted above, the garage was built 1972; at which time, the city zoning ordinance did not restrict the size of accessory structures. Therefore, prior to the addition to the detached garage it was 668sq ft in floor area and considered nonconforming. CONSIDERATIONS: The addition is minor in nature and is not expected to create a detriment to the

adjoining property owners The required building permits was not obtained before beginning construction

The additions aligns with the existing nonconforming garage and all of the

required setbacks will be met

A petition signed by the adjoining neighbors supporting this request has been submitted and provided in the file

RECOMMNEDED CONDITIONS:

1. The addition shall be completed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and with building materials compatible in type and color of the existing garage and dwelling

2. The existing detached garage shall not be expanded or enlarged to increase the

floor area without further consideration for the Board of Zoning Appeals

Case #2016-BZA-00031Mediterranean Villas Condo Assoc

June 1, 2016

PREPARED BY: Karen Lasley DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 0 foot rear yard setback (west) instead of 10 feet as required for an existing stairway and the reconstruction of existing access decking; and to a 7 foot rear yard setback (west) instead of 10 feet as required and to a 6.8 foot side yard setback (north) instead of 8 feet as required for an existing multifamily dwelling, 910 MEDITERRANEAN AVE Zoning: RT-3 GPIN: 2427044095 YEAR BUILT: 1984 AICUZ: Noise Zone 65-70 dB Ldn REPRESENTATIVE: Jonathan Speight of Beach Building Group Inc SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The existing three story multiple-family dwelling, building #910, was constructed in 1984 when the site was zoned B-4 Mixed Use District. The B-4 District required 10’ front and rear setbacks for multiple-family dwellings and 8’ side yard setbacks. The site is currently zoned RT-3 Resort Tourist District which requires the following setbacks for multiple family dwellings:

Minimum setback for any yard adjacent to a street is zero feet. Maximum setback for any yard adjacent to a street is 20’. Minimum side yard setback except when adjacent to a street is 8’. Minimum rear yard setback except when adjacent to a street is 10’.

The applicant desires to reconstruct a deteriorating fire escape access deck located at the rear of building #910, which has a 4’ rear yard setback. The access deck is connected to a spiral staircase, which has a zero rear yard setback. These improvement do not meet the 1984 setback requirements and it appears that no variance was granted, therefore, a setback variance is required to allow the staircase to remain in place with a zero rear yard setback and to rebuild the access deck with a 4’ rear yard setback on the west side, rather than 10’ each as currently required for multiple-family dwellings in the RT-3 Resort Tourist District. In addition, variances have been advertised for building #910 to allow the structure to remain in place with a 7’ rear yard setback on the west side, rather than 10’ as required and for a 6.8’ side yard setback on the north side, rather than 8’ as required. Staff can find no variances or other justification for the existing setbacks, which did not meet requirements in 1984 and do not meet the setbacks currently required for the RT-3 District. CONSIDERATIONS:

The applicant has provided a certified physical survey showing that all improvements have been in place since 1984.

The deck is in a deteriorating condition, as shown in the pictures taken by staff.

The applicant indicates that the fire escape access deck and staircase are needed for the safety of residents.

CONDITIONS:

1. Approval is for the replacement of the fire escape access deck and for existing building #910. The improvements may not be enlarged, further covered or further enclosed.

Case #2016-BZA-00032B & K Homes, LLC

June 1, 2016

PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 12 foot side yard setback adjacent to Bonney Rd and to a 15.4 foot front yard setback adjacent to S. Gum Ave. instead of 20 feet each as required for a proposed duplex; and to a 13 foot side yard setback adjacent to Bonney Rd. instead of 15 feet as required for proposed HVAC units, 150 & 152 S Gum Ave Zoning: R5D GPIN: 1477832008 YEAR BUILT: New construction AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eddie Bourdon of Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 2 ½ story duplex 12-feet from the property line adjacent to Bonney Rd and 15.4 from the property line, instead of 20-feet each as required. In addition, the applicant is seeking a variance to a 13-foot setback from the property line adjacent to Bonney Rd, instead of 15-feet as required for HVAC units. According to the applicant as well as city’s records, a significant right-of –way take along Bonney Rd occurred in 1979. The right-of-way take reduced the lot area and has contributed to this lot being nonconforming in regards to the minimum lot area. A portion of the existing single-family dwelling located on the adjoining lot (148) to the north is encroaching on the subject lot; however, this dwelling will be demolished in anticipation of constructing single-family dwellings respectively on each of the two contiguous lots. Each of these two contiguous lots previously received side yard setback variances to construct the proposed single-family dwellings. CONSIDERATIONS: The lot is nonconforming in regards to the required lot area for duplex

development in this zoning district The triangular shape of this corner lot presents some difficulty

constructing a duplex dwelling and comply with the minimum setbacks from the property lines adjacent to the streets

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:

1. The proposed 2 ½ story duplex shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan.

2. A minimum 4-foot high enclosure shall be installed around the proposed

(south side) HVAC units in efforts of screening it from view

Case #2016-BZA-00033Neel & Neha Desai

June 1, 2016

PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a maximum total building floor area of 209% (5,144 sq.ft) instead of 200% (4,910 sq.ft) as allowed for a proposed single family dwelling; and to a 5 foot side yard setback (east) instead of 8 feet as required for a proposed generator, 2238 ROANOKE AVE Zoning: R5R(SD) GPIN: 1489495522 YEAR BUILT: 1978 AICUZ: noise less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: WPL/Eric Garner / Billy Garrington BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: On March 2, 2016, a variance to allow 218% (5,358sf) in building floor area instead of 200% (4,910sf) in building floor area; and a variance to a 4.5-foot east side yard instead of 5-feet as required for a proposed HVAC units was voluntarily deferred indefinitely by the applicant. CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA ACTION: On January 6, 2016, CBPA staff administratively determined no further CBPA action was required for the proposed single-family dwelling SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are seeking variances to allow 209% (5,144sf) in building floor area instead of 200% (4,910sf) in building floor area as allowed for a proposed three-story single-family dwelling; and a variance to a 5-foot east side yard setback, instead of 8-foot as required for a proposed standby generator. As mentioned above, the applicant deferred a variance request for 218% in building floor area. The applicant is now seeking a variance request that will be 9% (214sf) less in building floor area than the previous request. The setback variance request for HVAC has been eliminated; however, the applicant is now seeking a setback variance for a proposed generator. The proposed generator will produce sound emissions of 61 decibels during normal operation as measured at a distance of 23-feet. CONSIDERATIONS: The existing lot presently exceeds the minimum lot area (5,000sf) and minimum lot

width (50’) required for single-family development in this zoning district Staff was unable to identify an hardship with this request; a substantial size home

(4,910sf) could be constructed on this lot and comply will with all of the required zoning ordinances

Staff has received both written and verbal opposition to this request

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:

1. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevation

2. The proposed 22kW Generac standby generator shall be installed in substantial

adherence to the submitted site plan and manufacturer’s specifications

3. The proposed generator shall only be operated during emergency power outages or for the purpose of maintenance as prescribed in the manufacturer’s specifications

4. A minimum 4-foot high wall or fence enclosure shall be installed around the

proposed generator

Case #2016-BZA-00034Janice & Glenn Tuckman

June 1, 2016

PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 10 foot side yard setback (west) instead of 15 feet as required for a proposed two story building addition; and to a 4 foot rear yard setback (south) instead of 20 feet as required for an existing deck, 2437 WINDWARD SHORE DR Zoning: R20 GPIN: 1499888374 YEAR BUILT: 1972 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Janice & Glenn Tuckman, Homeowners SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing to construct a 22’ x 45’ second-story addition on the west portion of an existing one-story single-family dwelling. Variances to a 10-foot west side yard setback instead of 15-feet as required for second-story building addition; and to a 4-foor rear yard setback south side instead of 20-feet as required for an existing deck. The proposed second story addition will extend 10-feet north of the existing footprint of the dwelling and a portion of the northwest corner will encroach on the required side yard setback. A structural engineer has verified the existing foundation and one-story portion of the dwelling are capable of supporting the proposed second-story addition. CONSIDERATIONS: The west side property line is angled and only a minor corner of the

proposed addition will encroach onto the required setback It appears the proposed two-story addition could be reduced to comply

with the required setback This proposal is not expected to create a detriment to the adjacent property

owners Letters of support have been provided in the file

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:

1. The proposed second story/floor additions shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan

2. The proposed additions shall be constructed with building materials and

colors compatible with the existing dwelling

Case #2016-BZA-00035Jon Carlson

June 1, 2016

PREPARED BY: Karen Lasley DESCRIPTION: A variance to allow parking spaces within a proposed parking structure to be 8’4” wide instead of 8’9”wide as required (proposed parking for proposed multi-family dwelling), 304 27TH ST Zoning: OR GPIN: 2428005620 REPRESENTATIVE: Thomas Beverly of TM Beverly & Associates SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant intends to construct three residential units on this 4,550 square foot parcel zoned OR- Oceanfront Resort District. The applicant has Optional Form of Development approval to construct a 42’ tall building with first floor parking and three stories above. The approved architectural elevation shows that high quality cement fiberboard siding will be used and that the building will have an attractive lobby area on the first floor. Two parking spaces are required per residential unit for a total of six spaces. The City Zoning Ordinance allows a parking space to have a minimum width of 8’ 9” within a parking structure, as proposed for this multiple-family project. Width of a standard surface parking space is 9’. The applicant has been working with staff on this project for several years prior to obtaining Optional Form of Development approval. During building plan review, a second emergency exit was required unexpectedly. This requirement uses space on the first floor, reducing area needed to meet the parking space width requirements. At this time, the applicant is asking for a variance to allow the six parking spaces to have a width of 8’ 4”, rather than 8’ 9” as required. Although one space shown on the submitted site plan has a width of only 8’, the applicant has committed that each space will have a width of at least 8’4”. CONSIDERATIONS:

The applicant indicates that the smaller parking space width will reduce the area devoted to the automobile and improve environmental quality in keeping with the vision for the resort area.

Compact parking spaces are allowed to have a width of 8’.

The parking spaces meet the standard 18’ minimum length for a parking space. Compact spaces have a minimum length of 17’.

Although staff is concerned about the tight parking situation for this development, Traffic Engineering is not objecting to the proposal since the development is for private residential use, rather than a commercial or office use.

CONDITION: Six parking spaces are required with a minimum width of 8’4”.

Case #2016-BZA-00036Buchberg / Towler

June 1, 2016

PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to 77.88% (5,841 square feet) of impervious coverage instead of 60% (4,500 square feet) as allowed (proposed removal and reconstruction of a deck); and to a 7.8 foot side yard setback (east) instead of 10 feet as required for an existing duplex and proposed doorway landing; and to a 7.8 foot side yard setback (west) instead of 10 feet as required for an existing duplex and decking; and to an 18.5 foot front yard setback (north) instead of 20 feet as required for an existing duplex; and to a 0 foot front yard setback instead of 20 feet as required for an existing fence over 4 feet in height, 206 85TH ST Zoning: R5R (NE) GPIN: 2510503301 YEAR BUILT: 1987 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: John Bowes of Outdoor Designers BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: On September 16, 1987, a variance to a 3-foot rear yard setback instead of 10-feet as required and to a 4-foot east side setback instead of 8-feet as required for an inground swimming pool SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are seeking variances for both proposed and existing improvements. The following variances are sought with this request:

A variance to allow 77.88% (5,841sf) in impervious coverage, instead of 60% (4,500sf) as allowed in this zoning district

A variance to a 7.8-ft east side yard setback, instead of 10-ft as required for existing duplex and proposed doorway landing

A variance to a 7.8-ft west side yard setback, instead of 10-ft as required for existing duplex and decking

A variance to a 18.5ft front yard setback, instead of 20-ft as required for an existing duplex

A variance to a 0-ft front yard setback, instead of 20-ft as required for a 5-ft fence located on the east side

The majority of the above variance requests are intended to “clean up” unexplained encroachments. At the time this duplex was built, the side setbacks were 8-feet and the front yard setback was 20-feet. A 1987 condominium plat depicts the duplex at an 8-foot side yard setback and the front yard setback at 20-feet. However, it appears the cantilevered front portion of the duplex was not accounted for during site plan review and now encroaches on the required front yard setback. It’s the applicant’s desire to remove and reconstruct a rear deck presently 7.8-feet from the east side property line, instead of 10-feet as required. According to the applicant’s contractor, the new deck will be 16” or less in height from the finished grade; lowering the deck may create a need for a landing leading from the rear door to be raised. If the decking is 16” or less in height from the finished grade, it will not have to comply with the required setbacks. CONSIDERATIONS: The deck and other improvements will not be enlarged or expanded with

this proposal; therefore, the current setback will be maintained The side yard setback variance requests are minor in nature

This proposal is not expected to create a detriment to the adjoining

property owners The existing impervious coverage is believed to have been installed prior

to the adoption of the impervious coverage restrictions RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:

1. The proposed deck shall be reconstructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan

2. The duplex, deck and fence shall not be expanded or enlarged

Case #2016-BZA-00037Edmund & Alice Ruffin

June 1, 2016

PREPARED BY: Karen Lasley DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 26.7 foot front yard setback (east) instead of 50 feet as required for a proposed multi-story addition to an existing accessory structure; and to 3,177 square feet (60.2%) of accessory structure instead of 1,583 square feet (30%) as allowed for a proposed 2 story addition to an accessory structure, 1133 S BAY SHORE DR Zoning: R-40, RPA, GPIN: 2418177629 Representative: R.J. Nutter, Esquire Year Built: 1845 AICUZ: 65-70 dB Ldn Variance History: On March 2, 2016 the Board of Zoning Appeals denied an application by the Ruffins for the variances stated in the Description above, plus a variance to a zero side yard setback from an internal lot line. In accordance with the Board’s Rules of Procedure, the applicant requested Reconsideration of the application, volunteering to vacate the internal lot line. The BZA found that this new information warranted reconsideration and on April 6th they voted to Reconsider the case. Description of Request: This 2.05 acre waterfront parcel was originally platted as four and a half lots on the North Linkhorn Park subdivision plat recorded in 1926. Current City records show the property as two legal lots. The site contains an historic principal single family dwelling built in 1845 as the original Bay Colony Fox Club, a 786 square foot detached garage, and a detached servant’s quarters with 1,294 square feet which was also built in 1845. The detached garage and the detached servant’s quarters equal approximately 2,080 square feet of detached accessory structures. The principal dwelling has 5,278 square feet of living space. The City Zoning Ordinance allows 30% of the size of the principal structure or 1,583 square feet in detached accessory structures for this site. The applicants desire to construct a two-story addition onto the detached servant’s quarters to allow for garage space on the first level and additional living space on the second level. The addition will add approximately 1,097 square feet to the servant’s quarters for a total of 3,177 square feet of detached structures. Architectural elevations of the proposed servant’s quarters with the addition show that the improvements will be high quality and blend well with the existing historic structures. The following variances are required to accommodate the proposed addition:

1. A variance to allow 3,177 square feet in accessory structures, rather than the maximum of 1,583 square feet permitted for the R-40 Residential District.

2. A variance to allow a 26.7’ front yard setback from South Bay Shore Drive, rather than 50’ as required for the R-40 District. The existing servant’s quarters has a 44’ setback from South Bay Shore Drive. The detached garage has a 108’ setback and the principal home has a setback of 123’.

Considerations

This waterfront site on Linkhorn Bay is heavily impacted by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area regulations. The vast majority of the site is located in the environmentally sensitive Resource Protection Area. Constructing the improvements as far from the Bay as possible reduces the impact to the watershed.

The existing servant’s quarters was built over the interior lot line. The

applicant has volunteered to vacate the internal lot line.

The garage addition will align with existing paved driveway improvements, minimizing the amount of new impervious cover needed.

Although the square footage of detached structures appears high, the site

is unique in that the principal dwelling was constructed in 1845. It is preferable to have improvements, such as additional garage space, to be constructed as detached structures rather than compromising the architectural integrity of the principal historic dwelling.

Recommended Conditions

1. The proposed two-story addition to the servant’s quarters shall substantially adhere to the submitted site plan and architectural elevations.

2. As volunteered by the applicants, the internal property line shall be vacated prior to approval of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new additions.