Delaware Board of Zoning Appeals denies variance for exterior materials at 34 Prospect Street

The City of Delaware Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 8 denied a variance request from Randall Runyon, the owner and general contractor, to waive a requirement that at least 25% of the front façade of a new house at 34 Prospect Street be finished with natural materials such as stone, brick or hardy board. The board voted 5-1 to deny the variance.

The variance sought relief from Schedule 11.20.06 (residential structure minimum exterior standards) after city staff determined the finished house was clad entirely in vinyl board-and-batten rather than the natural-material treatment shown on the approved elevation. John White, representing city staff, told the board the case is being reviewed under the code in effect when the permit was issued; that code requires 25% natural materials on the front façade and excludes vinyl and aluminum siding.

The applicant, Randall Runyon, said he purchased standard house drawings and asked his architect to mark brick as “optional” to preserve a farmhouse look. “It said optional here,” Runyon said, describing how the note was visible in small print on the submitted elevation and that he was not told the optional note would be treated as a mandatory zoning standard during inspections. Runyon said the house is under contract for $528,000 and that removing siding and installing a natural-material wainscot now would cost an estimated $5,000 to $7,000.

City staff recommended denial, saying Runyon did not demonstrate the code-defined hardship required for a variance. Staff also noted that the city’s current zoning code now requires 50% natural materials on front facades, but because the permit was reviewed under the prior code the 25% threshold applied to this application.

Board members debated the applicant’s knowledge and professional experience. Several members noted Runyon’s history as a local contractor and his prior work in the city, and some said that experience weakened his claim of an unexpected oversight. One board member said the only infill lot on Prospect Street made this case site-specific and stressed that the board’s decision would not set a binding precedent for other properties. Another member observed that the estimated cost of adding compliant materials was small relative to the contract price and moved to deny the petition.

After the denial the board encouraged Runyon to work with city staff to bring the site into compliance and clarified that the 25% standard applies to this permit because the application was reviewed under the older code. Staff said appeal options may be limited and typically go to a court rather than City Council for quasi‑judicial decisions.

The board’s formal action was recorded as a motion to deny application B25-3; the roll call on the motion produced five votes in favor of denial and one vote against (Member Fisher).