Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconformity Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies expansion that would increase multiple nonconformities at 719 Larchley
Summary
The Board denied a request to widen and reconfigure an attached garage and add an attached front projection at 719 Larchley after members concluded the proposal expanded several existing nonconformities and could set an undesirable precedent.
The Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny the requested variances for 719 Larchley (appeal 25-09). The applicant sought three variances tied to a proposed garage expansion and modest front projection: combined side-yard setback reduction to 11.73 feet where 22.5 feet is required, a reduced distance between principal residential buildings on adjacent lots (proposed 15.23 feet where 22.5 feet is required), and a front-setback exception for a private attached garage that would leave the garage 2 feet ahead of the principal facade (a requested 7-foot variance).
City staff said the house is an existing nonconforming structure built in 1946; every element of the proposal increased the degree of nonconformity. The owner’s architect and representative said the change would convert a one-car garage into a two-car garage and that the request represented a minimal enlargement to meet household needs; they submitted neighbor support letters.
Board discussion and outcome: Several members said they sympathized with the homeowner’s wish for a two-car garage but expressed concern the proposal would broaden nonconformities (side-yard and building separation) and could set precedent for future expansions that reduce spacing between homes. A motion to approve the full package failed for lack of a second; the board then voted to deny the request. The motion to deny passed on roll call and the denial was recorded.
Effect for owner: The denial closes the application as submitted; the owner may return with a substantially modified proposal but the board emphasized that small adjustments (for example, removing the two-foot front projection) would need to constitute a substantial change to be reconsidered at a future hearing.
