Holiday City staff recommends Wheatley setback variance after stamping error; hearing officer takes matter under advisement

Holiday City’s administrative appeals hearing on March 17, 2025 also considered a side-setback variance request from Camille Wheatley for 1876 East Osage Orange Avenue.

Justice Tufour explained staff’s chronology: the applicant submitted noncompliant plans in January 2024 that included a cantilevered upper-floor projection; zoning requested revised plans, and the applicant submitted a revised, compliant site plan on March 7, 2024. During later processing the building-division set of stamped plans inadvertently included the original January (noncompliant) drawing. Construction proceeded consistent with the stamped (noncompliant) plans, and a routine inspection in early 2025 identified the encroachment.

Staff described the relevant provisions as site-setback rules in City code (summarized in the record as sections including 13.14 0.056 and related implementation guidance 13.14 0.050/0.056 b). The noncompliant plan placed part of the cantilevered portion as close as 5 feet 8 inches from the property line — 1 foot 6 inches beyond the ordinance’s "no point closer than" limit — and reduced the average west-side setback to about 7 feet 4 inches (1 foot inside the permitted 8 feet 4 inches average). Technical Review Committee analysis found the constructed design still met graduated height requirements intended to limit massing impacts.

Because the stamping error originated in the city’s plan-processing and the house is substantially complete (roof, windows, doors installed; interior finish work underway), city staff concluded the hardship was not purely self-imposed and that allowing the 1 foot 6 inch encroachment would be the least intrusive remedy. Staff also cited nearby homes on Osage Orange Avenue with historically closer setbacks (some as close as 2–3.5 feet) as a neighborhood context supporting the variance.

Camille Wheatley, the architect and owner, said construction is substantially complete — "there's a roof on, all the windows are in, all the doors are in, drywall is mudded and primed" — and that redesigning the upper floor at this stage would require tearing out framing, plumbing and electrical and impose significant additional cost and delay. Wheatley said she and the contractor followed the stamped plans and were not aware of the error until the inspection.

Hearing Officer Frank Nakamura asked whether the applicant had informed the city after the revised March plans were issued; Wheatley said she did not proactively notify the city after receiving the revised plans and instead proceeded on the stamped set. Nakamura reiterated his limited role — assessing whether strict enforcement would create an unreasonable, non-economic hardship tied to the property — and took the matter under advisement. A written ruling is expected within five business days.