Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA Splits Decision on EEN Lot: Grants Two Setback Variances, Denies Porch Exception
Summary
For BZA250075 the board approved two advertised variances (garage side setback and front‑setback adjustment) based on lot shape but denied a variance to allow an enclosed porch, concluding the porch could remain unenclosed or the plan could be reconfigured.
The City Board of Zoning Appeals considered three advertised variances for a single‑family dwelling in an EEN zoning district and took split action: the board approved the requests tied to the garage side setback and the increased front setback but denied the request related to the porch.
Planning staff told the board the application was originally advertised with four variance requests but one was withdrawn; three remained for consideration, including two interior side‑setback reductions and a larger front setback. Staff asked the applicant to confirm whether other plans were explored that might reduce the need for variances.
Applicant Joshua Hahn said the lots are previously recorded and currently nonconforming; he described efforts to meet the neighborhood design requirements without introducing a multi‑level structure and said the submitted plan reflected the least‑request approach he could bring. "We’ve submitted this with what we believe the least request for variance that we can come up with," Hahn said.
Board members questioned whether the front porch could remain unenclosed to avoid a setback variance and whether the garage or house footprint could be repositioned by inches to meet the existing 2.5‑foot interior side setback. Chair Amy Sherrill expressed skepticism that the porch variance was necessary and noted small dimensional adjustments might resolve the issue; other board members said the lot’s odd shape provided a basis for considering some variances.
Following debate, a board member moved to approve items 1 and 3 on BZA250075 on the basis of the lot’s shape; the motion passed. The board then voted to deny item 2, the porch‑related variance, on the stated grounds that it was unnecessary because an unenclosed porch would not require the variance.
The decisions are limited to the advertised requests; any substantial redesign that would require variances not advertised to the public would require new notice and review.
