ZBA denies variance for one‑story orientation on irregular flag lot at Heather Pointe Drive

The Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals voted 4–2 to deny a variance that would have allowed construction of an 8,017‑square‑foot single‑family home on a nonconforming flag lot at 208 Heather Pointe Drive with the primary entrance oriented toward the interior of the lot rather than the primary street.

The application, Variance 24‑023, was filed by owner Andrew Bridal and presented by his son, Graham Bendel. Bendel told the board the family bought the lot about two years earlier and sought a single‑story design to preserve privacy for neighbors and to accommodate aging‑in‑place needs. "We put together a brief design line... prioritizing this property wheel to keep it a single story," Bendel said.

Philip Scarce, executive planner with Community and Economic Development, said the lot is a half‑acre flag lot platted in 1984 and would not meet current subdivision rules if proposed today. Scarce explained the relevant code language for entrance features — Article 3, subsection 3.5.G.1 and 3.5.G.2 — which generally requires the primary entrance for single‑family buildings to be located on the primary street or at the corner. Scarce said staff considered the lot shape a legitimate hardship not created by the applicant and recommended approval, noting no written objections were received from adjoining property owners.

Two adjoining neighbors, Kristen Kellen of 202 Heather Pointe Drive and Eric Hisley of 216 Heather Pointe Drive, spoke in opposition at the hearing. Kellen said the proposed house would be very close to her lot, expressed concern about tree removal and moving existing sprinkler systems, and questioned whether the PUD lot coverage rules applied. "My biggest concern would be the conforming use of not just how close it is to my lot," Kellen said. Hisley said he and his family were concerned about proximity and the size of the proposed home near play areas for his children.

Board discussion focused narrowly on the orientation of the front entrance. Scarce and the applicant argued that orienting the entrance toward the interior of the lot reduced visual impacts because the neighboring lots to both sides are two‑story houses and the proposed single‑story design would avoid overlooking. Opponents said the proposal departs from the neighborhood pattern in which front doors face the street and that the closeness to neighbors raised practical concerns.

After a motion to approve, the roll call was: Missus Hatfield — yes; Missus Tessmer — yes; Missus Farrell — no; Mr. Sherritt — no; Mr. Brodner — yes; Chair — yes. The chair noted that five votes are required to grant a variance; with four yes and two no votes the motion failed and the variance was denied. A subsequent motion to reconsider did not receive support from board members who voted no.