03:14The primary focus of the meeting was the variance request to reduce the required interior side yard setback from five feet to 1.2 feet. This reduction was necessary for the applicant’s plan to build a two-car garage, replacing the existing one-car structure. The property in question is located in the UN3 Urban Neighborhood District and the BFC3 Door Overlay District. Staff from the Department of Community and Economic Development had recommended denying the variance, citing concerns about compliance with established zoning regulations and potential negative impacts on public health, safety, and welfare.

13:38Staff argued that the variance would alter the character of the locality and could impede emergency response access, as adequate space between developments is important for facilitating emergency services, especially in areas without alley access. Despite these recommendations, the board ultimately sided with the applicant, who presented a detailed case emphasizing the unique conditions of their property. The applicant argued that the wedge shape of the lot and the absence of alley access precluded compliance with standard zoning requirements. They noted that the existing one-car garage was built in 1947, when vehicle ownership was typically limited to one per household, and that current needs necessitated a two-car garage.

They provided photographs and documentation to illustrate their property’s similarities with others that had received variances, asserting that the construction would not hinder emergency access. They pointed out that their property, like their neighbor’s, included gates that facilitated access for emergency responders.

09:51A board member questioned the staff’s assertion that alternative designs could meet the required setbacks, arguing that a functional two-car garage requires a width of at least 20 feet, which could not be achieved without the variance. The applicant maintained that any design less than 20 feet would not serve as a viable two-car garage, rendering the investment financially impractical.

Another board member acknowledged the detailed presentation by the applicant and expressed agreement that the applicant had made a case. This board member emphasized the uniqueness of the property, including its shape, lack of alley access, and historical positioning of the house. They concluded that the proposal aligned with the spirit and intent of the zoning regulations and would not adversely affect the neighborhood’s character.

26:37Ultimately, a motion was made to approve the variance request, citing findings that underscored the uniqueness of the applicant’s circumstances and arguing that the variance would not impede safety considerations or the interests of neighboring properties. The motion received a second, and the board proceeded to a vote.

The board members expressed unanimous support for the variance, with four votes in favor and none against. The chair, whose role is to vote only in the event of a tie, did not cast a vote. With the approval of the variance, the applicant was granted permission to move forward with the construction of the proposed two-car garage.

32:16The meeting concluded with no additional matters to address, and the next meeting was scheduled for May 8. A motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and the meeting was closed by consensus.