Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rebuild Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variances for rebuild at 1845 Humphrey, citing alternatives to comply
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request for small front-yard and side-yard variances for 1845 Humphrey after members concluded the applicant could meet ordinance requirements by altering the design or fully rebuilding to current setbacks.
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied two requested variances for a proposed rebuild and addition at 1845 Humphrey, finding the applicant had not shown the special conditions or unnecessary hardship required to grant relief.
The homeowner sought a reduced front-yard setback and a one-foot combined side-yard variance tied to reconstructing an existing, nonconforming house: the applicant initially identified a 1.96-foot front-yard variance and a 1-foot combined side-yard variance; the city later clarified the front-yard request is effectively about a 1.02-foot variance after recalculating the block averages.
Jeff Zocchi, city staff presenter, explained the ordinance procedure for averaging front-yard setbacks and described the corrected front-yard variance as roughly 1.02 feet. Architect Joe Levitsky and the property representative described plans to remove the house walls to the deck, reuse the existing foundation, and add new first-floor and back additions; the design team argued the existing foundation is structurally sound and that rebuilding on it is more sustainable than full demolition.
Board discussion focused on whether the project presented the four-factor test for a variance: (1) special conditions applicable to the property, (2) literal enforcement creating unnecessary hardship, (3) grant not being contrary to the ordinance's purpose, and (4) resulting in substantial justice. Members said the applicant could build a conforming house by demolishing and rebuilding on a new foundation or by removing specific elements (for example, a front bump-out), and that cost or preference for a larger room did not establish the required hardship.
A motion to deny both variance requests was made and seconded; the board called the roll and the motion carried. The denial was tied to the board's finding that the applicant had feasible alternatives to achieve a compliant design and that the record did not show the hardships required by the ordinance.
Votes: Motion to deny both variances passed by roll call (motion carried).
