Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues contested Penny Lane garage variance after large public turnout
Summary
Neighbors and preservation advocates urged the Board to uphold a zoning denial for a proposed garage/deck at 47 Sussex Street that would face Penny Lane; supporters argued parking need and typical local garage pattern. Commissioners voted 4–0 to continue the appeal to Jan. 13 so parties can explore alternative designs and Planning can advise.
A lengthy Nov. 18 hearing over a proposed rear-yard garage and roof deck at 47 Sussex Street produced strong, divided public comment and a Board decision to continue the matter to Jan. 13, 2010 to allow time for alternative designs and Planning review.
Planning staff Scott Sanchez told the Board the zoning administrator had denied the variance because the applicant had not established the required exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and had not shown that granting the variance would avoid harm to the neighborhood. "The department doesn't feel that the potential benefits to the appellant in providing the parking are outweighed by the negative impacts on Penny Lane," Sanchez said.
Appellants' counsel argued the lot's topography and pattern of garages in the lane create a special circumstance and that a garage with a deck would increase usable rear-yard space. Architect Jim Westover said the proposed plan would add about 348 square feet of usable open space atop the garage and proposed bollards and plantings to protect neighbors' fences.
Neighbors and a community group called Friends of Penny Lane testified in force, describing Penny Lane as a narrow unaccepted street and green public amenity whose character and safety would be harmed by a new garage and rooftop deck. "Penny Lane is a unique green oasis in the city," a neighbor said. Several residents said the lane is used safely for children, pets and gardens and that adding regular vehicle access and a rooftop deck would degrade the open space.
Commissioners debated whether a smaller design or screening could address privacy and scale concerns and whether the appellant should be expected to explore alternatives. Vice President Tanya Peterson moved to continue to Jan. 13 to allow Planning to review alternative proposals and for the parties to pursue a community compromise; the motion carried 4–0.
