Board continues setback variance request at 3210 Twentieth Street after neighbor opposition

The Board of Zoning Adjustment continued a request for rear-yard setback variances at 3210 Twentieth Street and asked the applicant to return within 90 days with additional materials focused on parts of the variance test. The continuance was approved by unanimous vote (Sean Haney, Ben Doyle, Drew Eisenberg, Katie, and Nikki McCord voting yes).

Robbie Wyler, staff liaison, described the application as an after-the-fact permit review for replacements and additions: two attached covered patios and an attached single-car garage/carport. "The rear east setback variance request is for two attached covered patios and an attached single car garage slash carport," Wyler said, noting the closest point is approximately 20.2 feet from the east (rear) property line where 25 feet is required. Wyler said the lot is a corner parcel with three 25-foot front-yard setbacks, and that earlier aerial and permit records show an awning/carport built in the 1960s. He said an enforcement case opened in April 2024 for work without permits, which triggered the current after-the-fact building-permit review; the building permit cannot be approved until the board acts on the setback encroachments.

Staff reported it received five written correspondences from neighbors, all opposing the request, and that an anonymous submission could not be accepted for the record. Wyler explained this application technically qualified for an administrative variance (the encroachments are within the 20% threshold) but that administrative variances require written support from adjacent property owners; staff said the applicant did not have that written support, so the case is before the full Board.

Applicant representatives said the design is intended to replace an old carport with a more architecturally consistent structure and to add modest patio covers; the design team said the work would have been submitted and reviewed earlier had permit intake and communication been clearer. Architect Jeff Van Sandeek and designer Scott Robinson told the board they were not seeking "forgiveness" for work already done but rather a review of the proposal so the permit can be finalized. "We're we're looking for a review of the proposal," Robinson said. The applicants said they had attempted outreach to the immediately adjacent neighbor but had not received the written support required for administrative relief.

Neighbors, including Amina Simon (speaking on behalf of owner Joni) and the owner Joni (address 2320 Grape Avenue), spoke in opposition at the hearing. Amina said she and her mother were willing to cooperate but asked for clearer written communication from the applicants during outreach; she also told the board she believes the new roof and patio covers have increased sound impacts to the neighboring house. "The roof is the thing that changed, not people being outside and having fun," Amina said. The neighbor also raised concern about a concrete pad that appears to be in place for an additional detached structure and asked whether a future shed would need separate approvals. Wyler clarified detached sheds have setback requirements and would require a separate permit if proposed.

Board members discussed the variance criteria at length. Several members said the corner-lot geometry (three 25-foot setbacks and an angled house footprint) creates an unusual condition that can justify relief in some situations; others expressed concern that the application had not demonstrated the encroachments were the minimum relief necessary and that neighbors report a significant noise impact from the completed work. The board asked applicants to return with additional documentation that specifically addresses (1) how the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the code (criteria H1.c), (2) evidence and analysis showing the encroachment would not substantially or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment of adjacent property (criteria H5.b), and (3) that the proposal is the minimum variance necessary to afford relief (criteria H5.c).

A motion by Ben Doyle — "continue BOZ2025-00003 to allow the applicant 90 days to come back with more information on criteria H1.c, H5.b and H5.c" — was seconded by Katie and passed 5–0. The board and staff asked the applicants to engage with the adjacent neighbors in writing and to provide any alternate designs or analysis that could reduce the encroachments or demonstrate they are the minimum necessary. Wyler said staff will accept new materials and re-notify surrounding properties under the normal public-notice procedures if the applicants return to a future BOZA meeting.