33:15Central to the meeting was case number BOA25002, concerning the property on Street, owned by Jonathan Dulo. Initially, there was some debate about whether to address the case without Dulo present; however, the board opted to proceed. City Attorney Jack Morgans advised the board to rely on six key factors from the land development code for their decision-making. The board unanimously agreed to approve the case based on these factors.

14:57When Dulo joined the meeting, he explained the property’s background, having purchased it from his grandfather with the aim of building a home. His application for a building permit in April was denied due to insufficient site area, prompting his request for a lot area variance. The property’s zoning, R2, requires a minimum of 7,500 square feet for a single-family dwelling, yet Dulo’s lot measures only 6,250 square feet.

25:19Stephanie Straer, a senior planner, detailed that the lot’s split was completed via a warranty deed in 2022, but without adhering to the city’s formal process for lot division. This oversight contributed to the staff’s recommendation against approving the variance. Despite this, the board considered the broader context, discussing the presence of two adjacent single-family homes and the potential complexities of meeting zoning requirements if the variance was denied.

The board delved into the implications of the non-conforming status and whether similar lots existed nearby, though it was noted that deliberations should focus solely on the current application. Dulo highlighted a precedent where a nearby non-conforming property received a similar variance, arguing his case held merit. He expressed frustration over the denial recommendation, emphasizing his lack of involvement in creating the property’s dimensional hardship.

30:41Further discussion addressed Dulo’s family connections to nearby properties, as his mother owns an adjacent lot. Board members pondered whether rejoining the two lots could facilitate compliance with zoning requirements, potentially allowing for a dwelling that met the necessary setbacks. It was noted that the R2 zoning could accommodate a duplex or an accessory dwelling unit, contingent on meeting set standards.

21:14No public comments were received regarding Dulo’s case, and a reference to a comment by a Mr. Hoover was clarified as unrelated. Dulo asserted that he had not split the lot and emphasized his investment in the property, expressing frustration over paying taxes on a property where he could not build.

The board’s deliberations revolved around the six factors guiding their decision-making, weighing the property’s potential impact on both Dulo’s quality of life and the surrounding neighborhood. Ultimately, a motion was made to approve the variance, aligning with the land development code’s six factors. After some consideration of the lot split’s implications, the motion was seconded and passed, granting Dulo the sought-after variance.