Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BOZA continues Walnut Street setback variance, asks applicants to better justify minimal relief
Summary
The board voted to continue BOZ2026-00006 (2013 Walnut Street) for up to 180 days so the applicants can provide more detailed evidence that converting an existing detached accessory building to a principal dwelling is the minimum necessary alternative and that hardship criteria H1C and H1D are satisfied.
The Board of Zoning Adjustment continued consideration of BOZ2026-00006, an application seeking multiple setback variances for converting a detached accessory building into a principal dwelling at 2013 Walnut Street. Staff identified four separate setback variances needed (a rear alley setback of roughly 1.8 feet where 25 feet is required; interior side setbacks of about 0.25 ft and 3.7 ft where 10 ft is required; and a combined side-yard deficit of approximately 3.9 ft where 20 ft is required).
Robbie, speaking for staff, told the board that while H1A (unusual physical circumstances) and several H5 findings appeared met, staff remained uncertain whether H1C (that the property "cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter") and H1D (that any hardship was not created by the applicant) were satisfied: "Our stance on H1C and H1D is still there," he said, asking whether reasonable alternative development could occur within the conventional building envelope.
Owners Greg Ekram and architect Kristen described the site as a reverse-flag lot with a long alley and an existing brick foundation; they argued reusing the existing footprint preserves open space, has lower carbon impacts and avoids costly new foundations. Greg said the existing garage had become a public-safety concern and that neighbors welcomed reuse of the structure. Kristen emphasized the unusual lot geometry and said rebuilding on the existing footprint would preserve the historic front house and the backyard between the principal structures.
Because several board members remained unconvinced H1C and H1D were fully demonstrated, the board voted to continue the item for up to 180 days and asked the applicants to return with targeted materials showing why alternatives within the by-right envelope are infeasible or more costly than reusing the existing footprint, and to document outreach about acquiring any required maintenance easement from the west neighbor. The motion to continue was made by Jill and seconded by the chair; the board voted in favor.
