Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board deadlocks on requested setback reduction at 315 S. 56th Terrace
Summary
The Planning & Development Board tied 3–3 on a motion to deny a variance request to reduce combined side‑yard setbacks at 315 S. 56th Terrace, leaving the matter without action after public objections about drainage, privacy and rental use.
The Planning & Development Board on Thursday produced a 3–3 tie on a motion to deny a variance that would reduce the combined side‑yard setback for a single‑family property at 315 South 56th Terrace.
Staff planner Adrian Montoya told the board the applicant, Trevor Munalal, sought a 3‑foot‑9‑inch reduction that would yield a new combined side‑yard setback of 15 feet while maintaining a minimum 7.5‑foot side on each lot line; staff recommended approval after administrative review but the presence of protest letters made the matter ineligible for administrative approval and moved it to the board for consideration.
Neighbors and public speakers voiced concerns about crowding, drainage and privacy. Realtor Diana Pitarelli said enlarging a home could be appropriate but that side‑yard setbacks are crucial to neighborhood character. Adjacent owner Walesco Cuendo cited worries about runoff, impacts to shared septic/drain systems and reduced privacy. Kayla Ferguson told the board reduced setbacks could “create future setback reductions within the neighborhood” and asked that zoning rules be applied uniformly.
Board discussion focused on whether the applicant’s proposed enlargement was self‑imposed — a common factor in variance deliberations — and whether additional site plans or drawings would alter members’ views. One commissioner introduced a motion to deny the variance as self‑imposed; after confusion on roll call the board re‑ran the vote and the result was an evenly split roll call. Board counsel and staff explained that under the board’s rules a tie means the motion does not prevail and no action is recorded.
Acting Chair (on the dais) said counsel would confirm next steps; staff noted the applicant may seek to refile or appeal. The board did not reopen the matter for further discussion; the item stands without a board determination after the tie.
The next procedural step will be for the applicant to decide whether to revise plans, withdraw, appeal the non‑decision or return with additional materials that address neighbors’ concerns.
