The Zoning Hearing Officer continued Case 24086 — identified in the hearing as the Beerman petition — after the property owner’s representative and contractor described an existing, unpermitted addition and the need for foundation work.

Contractor David Ansani said the addition was present when the current owners bought the property and that a home-inspector’s report (entered as an exhibit) indicated the addition had been built without a foundation. Ansani said the work the owners seek would replace wooden decks, add a foundation under the existing structure and support the roof with temporary columns while the foundation is installed. He described the lot as irregularly shaped and said complying with a full 25-foot rear-yard setback would be "almost impossible." Ansani requested relief to allow the foundation work without demolishing the addition.

Zoning Hearing Officer Robert Cartel said the addition’s prior existence may indicate a preexisting nonconforming use but cautioned that removing more than 50% of the structure can negate that status and require the petitioner to prove the variance criteria anew. Cartel told the owners they must put evidence on the record addressing the ordinance criteria for variations (a, b and c in the packet) and asked them to confirm neighbors’ positions and whether landscaping could mitigate impacts.

The applicant — identified on the record as Miss Spearman — said she had received only a one-page notice in the mail and had relied on her contractor and design consultant, Arianne Rios of AR Designs, to prepare materials. Cartel encouraged the parties to consult staff and to be prepared to testify to the required variance criteria at the continued hearing.

Cartel continued the hearing to Feb. 5 at 2:30 p.m. and said he expected a brief (about 10-minute) return hearing if the required materials and witness testimony are submitted. He said it is “highly likely” his recommendation will be to approve but that he needs specific findings in the record before issuing one. No vote or final decision was recorded on Jan. 15.

Why it matters: The petition involves retroactive approval of an unpermitted addition and a request to legalize setback encroachments; the outcome will determine whether the addition can be stabilized in place with a foundation or will require demolition or reconfiguration to meet setback rules.

The hearing will resume Feb. 5 at 2:30 p.m.; parties were advised to submit the required supporting materials and be prepared to address the variance criteria in the hearing packet.