Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impervious Surfaces Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homeowner asks for impervious-surface variance for East Maple driveway; board agrees to postpone
Summary
A homeowner seeking an 11.3% variance to front-yard impervious-surface limits at 1511 East Maple asked the Board of Zoning Appeals to delay a decision until a fuller board can hear the case; the board voted to postpone to the next regular meeting.
A homeowner asked the Board of Zoning Appeals on an unspecified date to allow existing pavers that pushed the front-yard impervious surface to 53.7%, citing safety and family needs.
The matter matters because the zoning ordinance requires at least 65% of front open space in a single-family district to be free of pavement; the applicant says the recent work created an 11.3% overage (about 492.22 square feet) and seeks a variance. The case was continued to the board's next regular meeting so the applicant can propose mitigation or be heard by a larger panel.
Jeff Silke, a city staff presenter, described the ordinance requirement and the numeric overage, saying the proposed front open space would be 53.7% rather than the required 65%. Appellant Jason Hurst told the board a contractor had installed pavers he had been told were “permeable,” and that the added paved border and reconfigured sidewalk increased impervious area. Hurst said the wider paved area improves safety when exiting his driveway onto busy Maple and helps when multiple family vehicles are present. “We were told it was okay if pavers are, quote unquote, permeable,” Hurst said.
Board members questioned whether portions of the decorative border could be removed to achieve the needed functionality with less impervious surface, and noted it was already installed when the property closed out its building permit. Several members asked whether the homeowner could pursue contractor remedies, and whether a phased compliance tied to seasonal work would be acceptable.
After discussion of mitigation options and the practical difficulty of removing the installed pavers in winter, the appellant asked for a postponement to the next regular meeting so he can either propose a smaller variance or seek other remedies. The board approved a motion to adjourn consideration of the case to the next meeting.
The case will return on the board's agenda at the next regularly scheduled meeting, at which the applicant is expected to present either a revised plan showing removed pavement or proceed with the original request when a larger panel may be present.
Votes at the meeting on this agenda item: board voted to postpone consideration to the next regular meeting (motion carried).
