Janice Anderson Secretary · Janice Anderson, Secretary James Oglesby, Myles Pocta, Harry Purkey, Jr., Robert Thornton Alternates: Jan Hall, Elizabeth Kovner City Staff: Chris Langaster,

David Whitley, Chairman Thomas Holland, Vice Chairman

Janice Anderson, Secretary

James Oglesby, Myles Pocta, Harry Purkey, Jr., Robert Thornton Alternates: Jan Hall, Elizabeth Kovner

City Staff: Chris Langaster, Planner III

Kevin Kemp, Zoning Administrator Victoria Eisenberg, City Attorney

Board of Zoning Appeals July 1, 2020

Page 2

JULY 1, 2020 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA

A. COMMENTS BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND CHAIRMAN

B. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEARING CASES

C. STAFF BRIEFINGS

• Update on Planning Department reopening status. Kevin Kemp, Zoning Administrator The Board of Zoning Appeals will conduct a Public Hearing on Wednesday, July 1st, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall Building, Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Board members’ staff briefing, which is open to the public, will be held at 1:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers in the City Hall Building. The following applications will appear on the agenda. Please Note: Please Note: IF NO ONE APPEARS BEFORE THE BOARD TO REPRESENT THE APPLICATION, THE VARIANCE MAY BY DENIED.


Page 3

2:00 P.M. – PUBLIC HEARING Case: 2019-BZA-00094 Applicant: John Richardson Representative: Les Watson Address: 206 77th Street Zoning District: R-5R (NE) Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Proposed room addition Requests:

• Allow 45% in lot coverage, instead of 35% in lot coverage as allowed; and

• Allow 74.4% in impervious area instead of 60% in impervious area as allowed.

Case: 2020-BZA-00010 Applicant: Christopher Dobzyniak Address: 4010 Richardson Road Zoning District: R-40 Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Proposed detached garage Requests:

• Eight-foot east side yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required.


Page 4

Case: 2020-BZA-00011 Applicant: Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Representative: Claude Lyn, P.E. Address: 4520 & 4522 Ocean View Avenue Zoning District: R-10 Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Existing Duplex Requests:

• 18.5-foot front yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required; and

• 9.7-foot east side yard and 9.3-foot west side yard setbacks, instead of ten-feet each as required.

Case: 2020-BZA-00012 Applicant: Susan Lebrato Address: 208 67th Street Zoning District: R-5R

Project: Existing duplex and proposed additions Requests:

• A 14.62-foot front yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required home);

• 10.62-foot front yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required (porch);

• Five-foot west side setback, instead of ten-feet as required (additions);

• Allow 39% lot coverage, instead of 35% permitted; • Allow 5,659 square feet in floor area, instead of

5,250 square feet as allowed; and • Permit three off-street parking spaces, instead of

four as required.

Case: 2020-BZA-00013 Applicant: Wei Chen Representative: Billy Garrington Address: 1501 Quail Point Road Zoning District: R-40 Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Proposed single-family dwelling Requests:

• 40.61-foot front yard setback, instead of 50-feet as required; and

• 12.62-foot southwest side yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required.

DEFERRED INDEFINITELY


Page 5

Case: 2020-BZA-00014 Applicant: Edgewater East, LLC Representative: R. Edward Bourdon, Esq. Address: 4604 Ocean Front Avenue Zoning District: R-7.5 Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Proposed Trellis Requests:

• 6.1-foot setback adjacent to unimproved Atlantic Avenue, instead of 30-feet as required.

Case: 2020-BZA-00015 Applicant: Peter Ryan Representative: Billy Garrington Address: 2344 Bayville Road Zoning District: R-10 Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Proposed covered deck/Single-family dwelling Requests:

• 15.37-foot rear yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required.

Case: 2020-BZA-00016 Applicant: Mark Rorrer Representative: Billy Garrington Address: 3616 Lockhaven Cres. Zoning District: R-5D Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Proposed deck expansions Requests:

• 18-foot front yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required.


Page 6

Case: 2020-BZA-00017 Applicant: Adriane McCardell III Address: 109 73rd Street Zoning District: R-5R NE Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Proposed room addition Requests:

• Five-foot west side yard setback, instead of eight-feet as required.

Case: 2020-BZA-00018 Applicant: Gordon Roughton Lr. Address: 2301 Purple Martin Lane Zoning District: R-2.5 Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Proposed in-ground swimming pool Requests:

• A ten-foot side-corner setback adjacent to Aeries Way, instead of 30-feet as required.

Case: 2020-BZA-00019 Applicant: Van Nguyen Address: 753 S. Lynnhaven Zoning District: R-7.5 Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Proposed deck addition and existing roof canopy/unenclosed porch attached to detached garage Requests:

• A 24.7-foot side-corner setback from the property line adjacent to Bow Creek Boulevard, instead of 30-feet as required; and

• A two-foot rear yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required.


Page 7

Case: 2020-BZA-00020 Applicant: Dereck Duford Address: 313 Ruddy Crescent Zoning District: R-7.5 Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Proposed private pier, boathouse, wharf, roof and boatlift Requests:

• A zero-foot rear yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required.

Case: 2020-BZA-00021 Applicant: William Murray Representative: R. Edward Bourdon Address: 3212 Lorton Court Zoning District: R-7.5 Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Proposed and Existing Accessory Structures (detached enclosed screened deck and sheds) Requests:

• A 2.5-foot west side yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required for existing shed;

• A 6.3-foot north side yard setback and a 6.7-foot east side yard setback, instead of ten-feet each as required for existing shed;

• A 9.3-foot north side yard setback, instead ten-foot as required for a proposed detached enclosed screened deck/ gazebo; and

• Allow a total of 597.12 square feet in accessory structure square footage, instead of a maximum 500 square feet in accessory structure square footage for existing sheds and proposed detached enclosed screened deck/gazebo.

Case: 2020-BZA-00022 Applicant: Kenneth Chrisman Address: 2237 Roanoke Avenue Zoning District: R-5R Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Proposed 3rd and 4th floor decks Requests:

• An eight-foot west side yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required.


Page 8

Case: 2020-BZA-00023 Applicant: Dale Young Revocable Trust Representative: R. Edward Bourdon Address: 5714 Ocean Front Avenue Zoning District: R-5R Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Existing duplex and proposed improvements and roof over existing 3rd floor deck, enclosure and open porch Requests:

• 7.3-foot south side yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required for proposed enclosure and open porch;

• 4.61-foot north side yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required and to a 30-foot setback from Atlantic Blvd, instead of 30-feet as required for proposed roof above 3rd floor deck;

• 39.65% in lot coverage, instead of 35% in lot coverage as allowed for existing and proposed improvements;

• 246.8% in floor area, instead of 200% in floor area as allowed for existing and proposed improvements; and

• 62% in impervious cover, instead of 60% in impervious cover for existing and proposed improvements.

Case: 2020-BZA-00024 Applicant: Michael Yoder Jr Address: 3003 Lynnhaven Drive Zoning District: R-10 Staff: Chris Langaster

Project: Existing elevated dwelling and proposed covered unenclosed porch Requests:

• 15-foot front yard and a 21-foot side-corner yard setback from the property line adjacent to Lynnhaven Drive, instead of 30-feet each as required.

John Richardson Case Number 2019-BZA-00094

Page 1

Case # 2019-BZA-00094 Property Owner John Richardson Representative Les Watson Public Hearing July 1, 2020 Deferred from the April 1, 2020 Hearing, COVID-19 pandemic

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 206 77th Street GPIN 2419-67-0450-1700 Zoning District R-5R Residential Site Size 7,500 square-feet Year Constructed 1987 Previous BZA Actions On November 6, 2019, this request was deferred indefinitely to allow the applicant the opportunity to work with the civic league in respects to the plan design for the proposed room addition.

Project: Proposed Room Addition Variances Requested:

1. Allow 45% in lot coverage, instead of 35% in lot coverage as allowed; and 2. Allow 74.4% in impervious area instead of 60% in impervious area as allowed.


Page 2

Existing Site Conditions


Page 3

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a room addition above an existing deck area located between two existing duplex units. Variances to allow 45-percent in lot coverage, instead of 35-percent as allowed and to allow 74.4-percent in impervious area instead of 60-percent are required and requested with this proposal. The existing duplex and associated improvements exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage and impervious area. The lot coverage is presently exceeded by approximately 654 square feet; the proposed room addition will increase the overage by 129 square feet, for a total of 783 square feet. The existing dwelling and associated improvements also exceed the maximum impervious area. The impervious area will only be reduced slightly (0.01%) with this proposal. The proposed room addition will be recessed in from the west wall of the existing duplex in an effort to meet the required 10-foot side yard setback. Steps will be installed to provide exterior excess to addition. Only two steps will be installed within the required 10-foot side yard setback; however, the two steps will be no higher than 16-inches in height from the finished lot grading. They will not be required to meet the side yard setback. Staff does not expect this request to create a detriment to the adjoining property owner or surrounding community. The proposed addition will be constructed within the footprint of an existing deck and the setback encroachment will not be increases from the side property line with this proposal.

Permits Required / Obtained: Permits will be required by the Development Services Center and the Permits and Inspections Division.

Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED LOT COVERAGE 35% 45%

IMPREVIOUS AREA

60% 74.4%


Page 5

• The existing impervious cover area will only slightly decrease with this proposal.

• The lot coverage will slightly increase with this proposal; however, it will be constructed within the same footprint of

an existing deck and comply with the side yard setback. • The encroachment into the existing side yard setback will not be increased with this proposal. • This request is not expected to create a detriment to the adjacent property owners or surrounding community.

1. The proposed one-story room addition shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and

building elevations.

2. The proposed steps shall comply with the required side yard setback.

Considerations

Recommended Conditions


Page 6

Applicant’s Hardship Statement


Page 7

Applicant’s Hardship Statement (cont.)


Page 8

Existing Site Layout


Page 9

Proposed Site Layout


Page 10

Proposed Building Elevations


Page 11

Existing First Floor Plan


Page 12

Disclosure Statement


Page 13



Page 14



Page 15



Page 16



Page 17



Page 18


Applicant Case Number 2020-BZA-00010

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00010 Property Owner CHRISTOPHER DOBZYNIAK Representative : Applicant Public Hearing July 1, 2020

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 4010 RICHARDSON RD GPIN 1488-06-6894 Zoning District R-40 Residential Site Size 46,098 square feet Year Constructed 2015

Project: Proposed detached garage Variances Requested:

1. Variance to an 8-foot east side yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required.


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicants are proposing to install an 18-foot by 24-foot detached garage with covered patio at an 8-foot east side yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required. An open cell concrete paver driveway leading from the existing driveway will also be installed along the eastern property line. A subdivision variance was approved on the lot to the required minimum lot width on January 27, 1998. In 2008, a subdivision plat was recorded consisting of the subject lot and two adjoining lots. Each of the three lots do not meet the minimum lot width and are impacted by the features of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area located on the northern portion of the lots.


Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK

20’ 8’


Page 5

• The existing lot is impacted by the Chesapeake Bay Perseveration Area regulations and limits the placement of the

detached garage on the lot.

• The proposed detached garage will about the pole of the adjoining flag lot. Therefore, this proposal is not expected to create a detriment to the adjoining property owner.

• The proposed detached garage will be constructed of building materials and colors compatible with the existing

dwelling.

1. The proposed one-story detached garage shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan

and building elevations provided in the file. 2. The proposed attached covered patio will not ever be enclosed without further considerations from the Board of

Zoning Appeals.

Considerations



Page 6



Page 7

Applicant’s Hardship Statement (con’t)


Page 8



Page 9



Page 10



Page 11



Page 12



Page 13



Page 14



Page 15


Home Associates of Virginia, Inc. Case Number 2020-BZA-00011

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00011 Property Owner HOME ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA INC Representative Claude Lym, P.E. Public Hearing July 1, 2020 Deferred from April 1, 2020 Hearing, COVID-19 pandemic

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 4520 & 4522 Ocean View Avenue GPIN 1570-62-9153 Zoning District R-10 Residential Site Size 15,808 square feet Year Constructed 2019

Project: Existing duplex Variances Requested:

1. Variances to an 18.5-foot front yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required; and to a 9.7-foot east side yard setback and to a 9.3-foot west side yard setback, instead of 10-feet each as required.


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicant is requesting to retain an existing duplex that was mistakenly constructed within the minimum front and side yard setbacks. Variances to an 18.5-foot front yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required, and to a 9.7-foot east side and 9.3-foot west side yard setbacks, instead of 10-feet each as required are requested. The existing lot width is very slightly nonconforming in respects to the minimum lot width (49.33-feet, instead of 50-feet as required) for duplex development in this zoning district. According to the applicant, an engineering error caused the newly constructed duplex to be situated on the lot slightly skewed. As a result, the duplex encroaches into the required front and side yard setbacks. The encroachments are minor in nature and are not noticeable to the naked eye. Each of the encroachments are so minor in nature that staff believes only the exterior building materials (siding & brick) are encroaching into the required setbacks. The northeastern and southwestern corners of the duplex will comply with the required 10-foot side yard setbacks. Only the northwestern and southeastern corners of the duplex require variances. In addition, approximately half of the duplex, where parallel with front property line, will also comply with the required 20-foot front yard setback.

Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED FRONT YARD SETBACK 20’ 18.8’

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK

10’ 9.7’

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK

10’ 9.3’


Page 5

• The front and side yard setback encroachments are minor in nature and are not expected to be readily noticeable.

• The encroachment occurred as a result of an engineer’s error. • The lot is slightly nonconforming in respects to the minimum lot width.

• Given the minor encroachments noted above, staff does not expect these requests to create a detriment to the

adjoining property owners or surrounding community.

1. If approved, the requested variance shall only apply to the duplex as it presently exists. 2. Any future alternates or improvements to the existing duplex that do not comply with the minimum setback

requirements will require further consideration from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Considerations



Page 6



Page 7



Page 8



Page 9



Page 10



Page 11



Page 12



Page 13



Page 14


Applicant Case Number 201X‐BZA‐XXXXX

Page 1

Case # 2020‐BZA‐00012

Property Owner Susan Lebrato Representative Self Public Hearing July 1, 2020

Staff Planner Chris Langaster

Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 208 67TH St

GPIN 2419‐63‐8983

Zoning District R‐5R Residential

Site Size 7,500 square feet

Year Constructed 1945

Project: Existing duplex and proposed additions Variances Requested:

1. A 14.62‐foot front yard setback, instead of 20‐feet as required home); 2. 10.62‐foot front yard setback, instead of 20‐feet as required (porch); 3. Five‐foot west side setback, instead of ten‐feet as required (additions); 4. Allow 39% lot coverage, instead of 35% permitted; 5. Allow 5,659 square feet in floor area, instead of 5,250 square feet as allowed; and 6. Permit three off‐street parking spaces, instead of four as required.

DEFERRED INDEFINITELY

Wei Chen Case Number 2020-BZA-00013

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00013 Property Owner WEI CHEN Representative Billy Garrington Public Hearing July 1, 2020 Deferred from April 1, 2020 Hearing, COVID-19 pandemic

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 1501 Quail Point Road GPIN 2418-04-0096 Zoning District R-40 Residential Site Size 61,085 square feet Year Constructed 1960 Previous Chesapeake Bay Preservation Board Actions: On January 27, 2020, a CBPA Variance was approved for the proposed improvements.

Project: Proposed single-family dwelling Variances Requested:

1. Variances to a 40.61-foot front yard setback, instead of 50- feet as required; and to a 12.62-foot southwest side yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required.


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story single-family dwelling on the site. The existing dwelling will be demolished. Variances to a 40.61-foot front yard setback, instead of 50-feet as required, and to a 12.62-foot southwestern side yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required are requested with this proposal. Current conditions show that the existing dwelling appears to be encroaching into the front yard setback; however, it complies with the minimum 20-foot southwest side yard setback. A variance was approved for the proposed single-family dwelling and associated improvements by Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board in January 2020. The Resource Protection Area and 50-foot landward and seaward buffer encapsulate almost the entire the lot. This lot is adjacent to the Linkhorn Bay on both the north and south sides of lot; therefore, the environmental planning staff has encouraged the proposed dwelling and all proposed improvements to be made on the northern portion of the lot, at as great a distance from the most environmentally sensitive areas. Moving the proposed improvements in a northern direction and the irregular shape of the lot have generated the need for setback variances requested.

Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED FRONT YARD SETBACK 50’ 20’

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED SOUTHWEST SIDE YARD SETBACK

20’ 12.62’


Page 5

• The lot is irregular in shape.

• The lot is heavily impacted by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area regulations and is directly adjacent to Linkhorn

Bay on two sides.

• The southwestern side property line elbows and makes it difficult to locate the dwelling on the lot where it is in compliance with the required side yard setback and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area regulations.

• Only a portion of lot fronts Quail Point Road, in which the front yard setback variance is requested.

1. The proposed two-story single -family dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site

plan.

2. When constructed, the elevations of the single-family dwelling shall be in substantial adherence to the submitted building elevations.

Considerations



Page 6



Page 7



Page 8

Proposed Building Elevation


Page 9



Page 10



Page 11



Page 12



Page 13



Page 14



Page 15


Edgewater East, LLC Case Number 2020-BZA-00014

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00014 Property Owner EDGEWATER EAST LLC Representative R. Edward Bourdon Public Hearing July 3, 2019 Deferred from the April 1, 2020 Hearing, COVID-19 pandemic

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 4604 Ocean Front Ave GPIN 2418-97-3756 Zoning District R-7.5 Residential Site Size 12,596 square feet Year Constructed 1941

Project: Proposed trellis Variances Requested:

1. Variance to a 6.1-foot setback from the property line adjacent to Atlantic Avenue, instead of 30-feet as required.


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to install a 13-foot by 25-foot 7-inch trellis at a 6.1-foot setback from the property line adjacent to Atlantic Avenue, instead of 30-feet as required. This portion of Atlantic Avenue is an unimproved street. The proposed trellis will be installed to the rear of the dwelling, approximately 37-feet from the existing retaining wall (seawall). It will be installed adjacent to a proposed inground swimming pool and it will align with the pool and parallel to Atlantic Avenue. Additionally, it will maintain the minimum 5-foot side yard setback from the south property line. Although, staff was unable to establish a legitimate hardship with this request, staff does not expect this request will create a detriment to the adjoining property owners. As previously noted, the trellis will be installed 37-feet from the retaining wall, and it will be adjacent to an unimproved street that will never be improved. Given the distance the trellis will be installed from the existing retaining wall, staff believes this request meets the intent and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Permits Required / Obtained: Permits will be required by the Development Services Center and the Permits and Inspections Division.

Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED SETBACK ADJACENT TO ATLANTIC OCEAN

30’ 6.1’


Page 5

• The proposed trellis, although located within the required rear yard setback, will be installed 37-feet from the

existing retaining wall.

• Staff was not able to establishment a legitimate hardship with this request. • The portion of unimproved Atlantic Avenue adjacent to the site will never be improved. Due to the construction of

the seawall, the right-of-way functions, for all accounts, as part of the property owner’s rear yard.

1. If approved, the trellis will be installed and constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and

building elevations provided in the file.

Considerations

Recommended Condition


Page 6



Page 7



Page 8

Proposed Building Elevation


Page 9



Page 10



Page 11



Page 12



Page 13



Page 14


Peter Ryan Case Number 2020-BZA-00015

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00015 Property Owner Peter Ryan Representative Billy Garrington, Governmental Permitting Consultants Public Hearing July 1, 2020

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 2344 Bayville Rd GPIN 1570-90-2311 Zoning District R-10 Residential Site Size 16,042.68 square feet Year Constructed 1957

Project: Proposed Covered Deck/Single-Family Dwelling Variances Requested:

1. 15.37-foot rear yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required.


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing one-story single-family dwelling and redevelop the lot with a two-story dwelling. A variance to a 15.37-foot rear yard setback, instead of 20-feet is requested. The existing dwelling presently encroaches on the front yard setback adjacent to Bayville Rd; however, it complies with the rear yard setback. With the new dwelling, the distance from the front property line will increase by approximately 8-feet and comply with minimum 30-foot front yard setback. Consequently, the proposed rear screened porch will encroach 4.63-feet into the required 20-foot rear yard setback. Improvements such as a proposed patio, inground swimming pool, deck and spa will also be installed in the rear yard and will comply with the required setbacks. Staff agrees the rear property line is angled and the radius of the front property line, located on a cul-de-sac, creates somewhat of a challenge to construct the proposed dwelling in compliance with all required front yard setback. It is further acknowledged the front yard setback will increase with this proposal, whereas the existing dwelling to be demolished does not presently meet the front yard setback. While acknowledging the slight lot configuration irregularities, there appears to be some flexibility to comply with the required setback or increase the rear yard setback. Staff believes slightly reducing the footprint of the proposed screened porch; the minimum rear yard setback could be increased or potentially met.


Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED REAR YARD SETBACK 20’ 15.37’


Page 5

• The angle of the rear property line and the radius of the cul-de-sac create a challenge to comply with both the front

and rear yard setbacks.

• Staff believes there is some flexibility to the design the dwelling/screened porch to bring the proposal into compliance with the required setbacks or minimize the setback variance requested.

• The rear of the lot abuts Lake Joyce. • The front yard setback will increase approximately 8-feet with the new dwelling and meet the required setback,

whereas the existing dwelling currently encroaches on the front yard setback. • Apart from the rear proposed screened porch, the proposed dwelling will comply with the required setbacks. • If the rear proposed screened porch footprint were reduced, the rear setback yard could potentially be met or at

best increased.

1. If approved, the proposed dwelling and screened porch shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the

submitted site plan and building elevations prepared by Mayfield Designs Inc.

2. The rear proposed screened porch shall never be permanently enclosed with any building materials other than screening.

Considerations



Page 6



Page 7



Page 8

Demolition Plan


Page 9



Page 10

Proposed Building Elevation (Front)


Page 11

Proposed Building Elevations (Rear)


Page 12



Page 13



Page 14



Page 15



Page 16



Page 17



Page 18


Mark Rorrer Case Number 2020-BZA-00016

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00016 Property Owner Mark Rorrer Representative Billy Garrington, Governmental Permitting Consultants Public Hearing July 1, 2020

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 3616 Lockhaven Cres GPIN 1489-58-5005 Zoning District R-5D Residential Site Size Appr. 4,900 square feet Year Constructed 1994 Previous BZA Actions:

• On July 21, 1993, a variance to an 8-foot east side yard setback; instead of 10-feet as required was Granted for a proposed 3- story duplex.

• On June 1, 1994, a variance to a 6-foot east side yard setback instead of 8-feet as previously approved by the BZA on July 21, 1993 was Granted for a proposed 2nd story bay window.

• On June 1, 1994, a variance to a 6-foot west side yard setback instead of 8-feet as previously approved by the BZA on July 21, 1993 was Granted for proposed 2nd & 3rd story bay windows.

Project: Proposed Deck Expansions Variances Requested:

1. 18-foot front yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicants are proposing to extend existing their second and third story decks two feet towards the front yard setback. A variance to 18-foot front yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required is requested. The existing duplex lot is nonconforming in respects to the minimum lot area required for duplex development (10,000 square feet). As previously mentioned, two variances to the side yard setbacks were previously approved for both units by the BZA for the duplex and bay windows. Portions of this lot is in the (RPA) Resource Protection Area and are subject to the regulations of (CBPA) Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Fortunately, the proposed 2-foot extensions to the existing decks will be above the existing impervious area (driveway); and therefore, will not increase the impervious area with this proposal. An administrative variance was approved for the deck expansions by the CBPA staff provided no other improvements are included with this proposal. Staff agrees with the applicant that this duplex lot is nonconforming in respects to the minimum lot area for a duplex in this zoning district; however, staff disagrees with the applicant that a hardship has been created due to this nonconformity, and that numerous homes in the area do not meet setback because they were likely built prior to the adoption of the city Zoning Ordinance. With the exception of the side yard setbacks, this duplex was built under the same minimum setback requirements we have today for duplex development. Side yard setback variances were received from both the east and west side property lines for the duplex and bay windows. The duplex presently complies with the minimum 20-foot front yard setback. A hardship justifying encroaching in the required front yard setback for with this proposal was not identified by staff. It appears the decks are reasonable in size and no unique or extraordinary conditions or characteristics exist on this lot to support this request.


Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests



Page 5

• The lot is nonconforming in respects to the minimum lot area required today for duplex development in this zoning

district, 4,900 square feet, instead of 10,000 square feet as required.

• The lot is in the RPA and increasing the impervious area is discouraged. The proposed deck expansions will be made over existing (driveway) and the impervious area will not increase with this proposal.

• Two side yard variances have been previously approved by the BZA for the duplex and bay windows. Staff believes

minimum setback relief have been awarded to make reasonable improvements on this nonconforming lot. • The decks appear to be reasonable in size and staff was unable to identify a hardship to support this request. • If approved, the request is expected to encourage other variance requests of this nature without evidence of a

genuine hardship.

1. If approved, the second and third story deck expansions shall be made in substantial adherence to the submitted

site plan.

2. The second-story deck shall not be enclosed beneath the third-story deck and the third story deck shall not ever be covered.

Considerations



Page 6



Page 7



Page 8

Existing Elevation (Condominium Plat)


Page 9



Page 10



Page 11



Page 12



Page 13



Page 14



Page 15


Adriane McCardell III Case Number 2020-BZA-00017

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00017 Property Owner Adriane McCardell III Representative Self Public Hearing July 1, 2020

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 109 73rd St GPIN 2419-66-8541 Zoning District R-5R Residential Site Size 7,434 square feet Year Constructed 1945 Previous Board of Zoning Appeals Actions On February 5, 2003, a variance to a 5-foot west side yard setback instead of 8-feet was Granted for proposed 2nd story room addition.

Project: Proposed Room Addition Variances Requested:

1. 5-foot west side yard setback, instead of 8-foot as required.


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicant would like to construct a 4.17-foot by 7.67-foot room addition in the same place as an existing porch and steps presently located at a five-foot setback, instead of eight-feet as required. The existing single-family home was built in the 1945; however, the applicant could not substantiate when the covered porch and steps were installed in the required side yard setback. Building permits has been obtained for several improvements to the existing single-family dwelling. It appears all the renovations will comply with the required setbacks, with exception of the proposed room addition intended to be used as a powder room. Staff acknowledges the existing dwelling was built in the mid-1940’s, prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance; however, the existing dwelling complies with required setbacks apart from the porch that is encroaching of the west side yard setback. Since it appears the existing porch is not nonconforming, staff believes there is an opportunity to bring the existing dwelling in compliance with the required setback. Staff was not able to identify a hardship associated with this request. This rectangular shaped lot conforms with the minimum dimensional lot requirements for this zoning district and no other extraordinary or unique characteristics or conditions were found to support this request. Renovations and an all-season room addition have been made to the existing dwelling; each of these improvements meet current zoning ordinance requirements. Allowing this request without a justifiable hardship is expected to encourage others to seek requests of this nature. Permits Required / Obtained: Permits will be required by the Development Services Center and the Permits and Inspections Division.

Summary


Page 4

Variance Request


8’ 5’


Page 5

• The existing dwelling was built in 1945, prior to the adoption of the City Zoning Ordinance.

• The existing porch to be enclosed and converted to “powder room” is presently encroaching into the required west

side yard setback. The porch appears that it is not nonconforming. • Staff was unable to identify a hardship to support this request. • This rectangular shaped lot complies with the minimum lot dimensions for this zoning district. • No extraordinary or exceptional characteristics were found to support this request.

1. If approved, the proposed “powder “room addition shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted

and building elevations found in the file.

Considerations

Recommended Condition


Page 6



Page 7



Page 8

Proposed Building Elevation / Floor Plan


Page 9



Page 10



Page 11



Page 12



Page 13



Page 14



Page 15


Gordon Roughton Jr Case Number 2020-BZA-00018

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00018 Property Owner Gordon Roughton Jr Representative Self Public Hearing July 1, 2020

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 2301 Purple Martin Ln GPIN 1489-09-7953 Zoning District R-2.5 Residential Site Size 4,143.42 square feet Subdivision Plat Recordation 1984 Year Constructed 1985

Project: Proposed inground Swimming Pool Variances Requested:

1. A ten-foot side corner setback from the property line adjacent to Aeries Way, instead of 30-feet as required.


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct an inground swimming pool at a 10-foot side corner setback, instead of 30-feet as required. At the time this townhouse was built (1985), the required side-corner setback was only ten-feet in this zoning district. Therefore, the existing dwelling is nonconforming in respects to the side-corner setback per the requirements in this zoning district today. The existing townhouse lot was created by subdivision plat in 1984 and presently meets the minimum dimensional requirements for an end unit townhouse lot. Consequently, the width of this corner townhouse lot is only 30-feet and the minimum setback from a property line adjacent to a street is 30-feet in this zoning district. The proposed inground swimming pool will align with the existing townhouse unit, where it is parallel with the property line adjacent to Aeries Way. Although, the existing lot complies with the minimum lot area and lot width for this zoning district for townhouse (attached units) development, it is not possible to comply with the minimum required side corner setback. As mentioned above, the dwelling is nonconforming in respects to the side-corner side setback, as the lot is only 30-feet in width. Given the proposed swimming pool will align with the nonconforming existing townhouse unit where it is parallel with the street, this request is not expected to create a detrimental to the adjoining property owners or surrounding community. It is impossible to an install inground swimming pool or other improvements on this exterior corner lot in compliance with the minimum 30-foot setback from the property line adjacent to a street. Staff believes the strict application of the zoning ordinance presents a hardship that is not generally shared by others in the same vicinity or district.


Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED SIDE CORNER SETBACK 30’ 10’


Page 5

• At the time this townhouse unit was built, the required minimum side corner setback was only 10-feet. The existing

townhouse unit is presently nonconforming in respects to the minimum 30-foot side corner setback. • This width of the exterior unit townhouse lot is only 30-foot in width. • The existing lot presently meets the minimum lot dimensional required for townhouse development in this zoning

district. • A hardship exists that is not generally shared by others in the same vicinity or district.

1. The proposed inground swimming pool shall be installed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan found

in the file. 2. All building codes and zoning requirements relative to the fencing requirements shall be met upon installing the

proposed inground swimming pool. All necessary permits shall be obtained prior to construction of the fence.

Considerations



Page 6



Page 7



Page 8



Page 9



Page 10



Page 11



Page 12


Van Nguyen Case Number 2020-BZA-00019

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00019 Property Owner Van Nguyen Representative Self Public Hearing July 1, 2020

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 753 S Lynnhaven Rd GPIN 1496-24-9834 Zoning District R-7.5 Residential Site Size 9,068 square feet Year Constructed 1965

Project: Proposed deck addition and existing roof canopy/ unenclosed porch attached to detached garage Variances Requested:

1. 24.7-foot side-corner setback from the property line adjacent to Bow Creek Boulevard, instead of 30-feet as require; and

2. two-foot rear yard detback, instead of ten-feet as required.


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a second-story deck at a 24.7-foot setback from the property line adjacent to Bow Creek Boulevard, instead of 30-feet as required, and to retain an existing eight-foot by 20-foot roof canopy/ unenclosed porch currently at a two-foot rear yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required. The proposed rear deck will be constructed above an existing concrete patio and it will align with the existing dwelling where it is parallel with Bow Creek Boulevard. The encroachment in to the side corner-setback will not increase with this proposal and the deck will maintain the same setback from the property line adjacent to Bow Creek Boulevard as the existing dwelling. The existing 16.1-foot by 20.3-foot detached shed presently complies with the required rear and side yard setbacks. A roof canopy/unenclosed porch was recently constructed two-feet from the rear property line. According to the applicant, the contractor that was hired to construct the roof canopy/unenclosed porch to the existing detached shed advised the applicant that a building permit would not be required because the shed already exists. Additionally, the applicant states the canopy was added to provide easier access to gardens tools and equipment for her elder parents while providing shelter from the weather. At the time the existing dwelling was built, the minimum side corner setback was only 15-foot from the property line adjacent to Bow Creek Boulevard. Therefore, the existing dwelling is currently nonconforming in respects to the minimum 30-foot side corner setback required today. Aligning the proposed second-story rear deck with dwelling where it parallel to Bow Creek Boulevard is not expected to create a detriment to the adjoining property owners or community. Staff was unable to identify a hardship to support the two-foot rear yard setback for the recently added roof canopy/ unenclosed porch currently attached to an existing detached shed. Several major renovations have been made to the existing dwelling over the past year and permits (i.e. building, plumping, electrical, etc.) have been obtained for those improvements. It is unfortunate the applicant’s contractor misled the applicant by advising her that no building permit was required prior installing the roof canopy/unenclosed porch. Permits Required / Obtained: No building permit was obtained for the recently constructed canopy/unenclosed porch. On January 13, 2020, a compliant was received by the P& I office regarding a canopy being added to the existing shed without a building permit. A building inspector responded to the compliant the same day and issued a stop work order.

Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED SIDE CORNER SETBACK (Bow Creek Blvd)

30’ 24.7’

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED REAR YARD SETBACK 10’ 2’


Page 5

• The existing dwelling is nonconforming in respects to the side-corner setback from the property line adjacent to Bow

Creek Boulevard.

• A building permit was not obtained prior to adding the roof canopy/ unenclosed porch to the existing detached shed currently located only two-feet from the rear property line. The applicant attests that the contractor told them no permit was required.

• A compliant from was received by the Planning Department regarding the canopy being added without a building

permit. • Due to the closeness of the roof canopy in relation to the rear property line, this request is expected to create a

detriment to the adjoining property owner. • Allowing the roof canopy/ unenclosed porch to remain is not keeping with the intent and spirit of the shed

ordinance designed to provide adequate separation between adjoining properties.

1. If approved, the proposed second-story rear deck shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site

plan and computer-generated rendering provided in the file.

2. The proposed second-story deck shall not be covered or enclosed beneath it. 3. The existing roof canopy/ unenclosed porch shall be removed from the detached shed.

Considerations



Page 6

Applicant’s Hardship Statement (page 1)


Page 7



Page 8



Page 9



Page 10

Proposed Deck Rendering


Page 11

Existing Canopy Hand-Drawing


Page 12



Page 13



Page 14



Page 15



Page 16


Dereck Duford Case Number 2020-BZA-00020

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00020 Property Owner Dereck Duford Representative Self Public Hearing July 1, 2020

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 313 Ruddy Crescent GPIN 2433-24-4061 Zoning District R-7.5 Residential Site Size 22,875 square feet Year Constructed 1977

Project: Proposed Private Pier, Boathouse, Wharf, Roof and Boatlift Variances Requested:

1. A zero rear yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required.


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a private pier, boathouse, wharf, roof, and boatlift at a zero-foot rear yard setback, instead of 10-feet as required. A small pier and dock will be removed and replaced with the proposed private pier, boathouse, wharf and boatlift. The rear of lot is flanked on both the south and west sides by waterways, creating a peninsula. The proposed private pier is depicted on the site plan five-feet in width. At the recommendation of the Board of Zoning Appeals and staff, a Zoning Ordinance amendment was introduced and approved by City Council to allow uncovered piers no greater than four-feet in width to encroach into the required rear yard setback. Due to the high volume of reoccurring variance requests of this nature, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow pier no greater than four-feet in width as a matter of right. After thoroughly researching piers and engaging with the waterfront contactor’s community, it was concluded by City Council and staff that uncovered pier no greater than four-feet in width would be adequate in size to satisfy and serve waterfront property owners. For the reasons mentioned above, staff cannot support this request as submitted. Increasing the width of the proposed pier to five-feet in width, rather than four-feet in width as permitted by right, is not in keeping with the intent and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Allowing the variance as proposed is expected to be reoccurring in nature and encourage others to apply for variance requests without demonstrating a genuine hardship.


Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED REAR YARD SETBACK 10’ 0’


Page 5

• The existing lot is flanked by waterways from both the south and west sides of the lot.

• The proposed pier could be reduced to four-feet in width, provide the necessary functionality, and be installed

without requiring a variance. • This request is may be reoccurring in nature and promote others to apply for variances without a justifiable

hardship.

1. The proposed wharf, boatlift, boathouse and roof shall be constructed substantial adherence to the submitted site

plan.

2. The proposed private pier shall be no greater than four-feet in width.

Considerations



Page 6



Page 7

Statement



Page 8



Page 9



Page 10



Page 11



Page 12


William Murray Case Number 2020-BZA-00021

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00021 Property Owner William Murray Representative Eddie Bourdon Public Hearing July 1, 2020

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 3212 Lorton Ct GPIN 1497-08-1847 Zoning District R-10 Residential Site Size 21,012 square feet Year Constructed 1961

Project: Proposed and Existing Accessory Structures (Detached Enclosed Screened Deck & Sheds) Variances Requested:

1. A 2.5-foot west side yard setback; instead of ten-feet as required for existing shed; 2. A 6.3-foot north side yard setback and a 6.7-foot east side yard setback, instead of ten-feet each as required

for existing shed; 3. A 9.3-foot north side yard setback, instead ten-foot as required for a proposed detached enclosed screened

deck/ gazebo; and 4. Allow a total of 597.12 square feet in accessory structure square footage, instead of a maximum 500 square

feet in accessory structure square footage for existing sheds and proposed detached enclosed screened deck/gazebo.


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicant would like to retain a recently constructed detached enclosed screened deck/gazebo and two existing storage sheds. The following variances are requested:

1. A 2.5-foot west side yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required for existing shed. 2. A 6.3-foot north side yard setback and a 6.7-foot east side yard setback, instead of ten-feet each as required for

existing shed. 3. A 9.3-foot north side yard setback; instead 10-foot as required for a proposed detached enclosed screened

deck/ gazebo. 4. Allow a total of 597.12 square feet in accessory structure square footage; instead of a maximum 500 square feet

in accessory structure square footage for existing sheds and proposed detached enclosed screened deck/gazebo.

The proposed detached enclosed screened deck/gazebo which, is driving the above-mentioned variance requests is about 90%-95% complete. A building permit was not obtained prior to construction of enclosed screened deck/gazebo. Presently, the detached enclosed screened deck/gazebo slightly encroaches on the required north side yard setback. On January 21, 2020, the Zoning Office received a compliant regarding the screened deck and two sheds that are encroaching on the required setbacks. After obtaining an updated physical survey and subsequent inspection by a zoning inspector, it was confirmed the recently constructed screened deck/gazebo and existing sheds are encroaching on the required setbacks and exceed the maximum allowable square feet permitted for accessory structures on the lot. Staff was unable to determine when the two existing storage sheds were installed on this lot. Each of the storage sheds are encroaching on the required side yard setbacks, as well as contributing to overall accessory structure square footage on the lot. Since the storage sheds are not nonconforming and were installed in the required setbacks, it is recommended by staff that the shed(s) either be removed or relocated in compliance with the required setbacks. Removing at least one of the storage sheds and relocating the remaining shed would eliminate four of the five variance requests. Only inches of a portion of the enclosed screened deck/gazebo encroach into the required side yard setback. If the changes are made as recommended by staff, this minor encroachment is not expected to create detriment to the adjacent property owners. Staff was unable to establish a hardship to support these variance requests. The variances requested are not in keeping with the intent and spirit of the zoning ordinance intended to minimize the number of accessory structures on a single-family lot. Minor changes to the existing structures (sheds) would eliminate most of the variances requested.

Permits Required / Obtained: No building permit was obtained for the recently constructed detached enclosed screened deck/gazebo. Building permits for the two existing storage sheds are not required because they do not exceed 256 square feet. If this variance request is approved; a building permit will have to be obtained from the Permits & Inspections Division for the screened deck/ gazebo.

Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK

10’ 9.3’

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED NORTH & EAST SIDE YARD SETBACKS

10’ 6.7’N & 6.5E


10’ 2.5’


Page 5

• The screened deck/ gazebo was constructed prior to obtaining a building permit.

• The applicant has provided a letter from a physician describing a medical condition, as it relates to sun and outdoor

exposure. • A compliant was received by the Planning Department regarding the existing screened deck/gazebo and sheds

encroaching on the required setbacks and exceeding the accessory structure square footage. • Allowing the variances as requested are expected to create a detriment to the adjoining neighbors and encourage

other similar variance requests of this nature without a justifiable hardship. The variances requested are not in keeping with intent and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to minimizing size and number of accessory structures on a single-family lot.

• The existing storage sheds can be removed and/or relocated to comply with the required setbacks to meeting the

eliminate most of the variances requested. • Only inches of a portion of the enclosed screened deck/gazebo encroaches on the required side yard setback;

therefore, the majority will comply with the 10-foot setback.

1. The existing detached enclosed screened deck/ gazebo will be completed in substantial adherence to the submitted

site plan and hand drawn drawings provided in the file.

2. The detached enclosed screened deck/ gazebo shall only be enclosed with a knee wall and screening materials. 3. The existing storage shed(s) shall be relocated in compliance with the required setbacks. 4. The total sum of all accessory structures (enclosed screened deck/gazebo, shed, etc.) floor area shall not exceed

five-hundred (500) square feet of floor area.

Considerations



Page 6



Page 7



Page 8



Page 9



Page 10

Building Drawings (Enclosed Sun Deck)


Page 11

Deck Foundation/ Framing


Page 12



Page 13



Page 14



Page 15



Page 16


Kenneth Chrisman Case Number 2020-BZA-00022

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00022 Property Owner Kenneth Chrisman Representative Self Public Hearing July 1, 2020

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 2237 Roanoke Ave GPIN 1497-08-1847 Zoning District R-5R Residential Site Size 3,400 square feet Year Constructed 1961

Project: Proposed 3rd and 4th Floor Decks Variance Requested:

1. An eight-foot west side yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicant would like to replace existing 3rd and 4th floor decks on the rear of an existing duplex dwelling unit. A variance to an eight-foot west side yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required is sought with this request. The existing decks are presently encroaching on the required west side yard setback (10’) and are considered nonconforming. According to the applicant, the decks were installed circa 1982 along with the dwelling and are currently in disrepair. It is the applicant’s intentions to replace the existing decks with upgraded building materials (5/4 Trex) and use the existing steel support beams within the same footprint of the existing decking. This irregular shaped duplex lot is nonconforming in respects to the minimum lot area (10, 000 square feet) required for duplex development in this zoning district. Approaching the rear lot, it narrows significantly restricting the ability of the deck to comply with the minimum ten-foot side yard setback. At the time the deck was built, the west side of the deck was slightly angled to accommodate required eight-foot side yard setback. Only a portion of the new decking will encroach into the required setback and it will be replaced in the same footprint as the existing decking. As a result, this request is not expected to create a detriment to the adjoining property owners or surrounding community.


Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED 10’ 8’


Page 5

• The lot is irregular in shape and the replacement decking will be replaced in the same footprint.

• At the time the decks were constructed, the minimum side yard setback was eight-feet. The existing decking is

presently nonconforming in respects to the minimum ten-foot side yard required today. • The encroachment into the side yard setback will not be increased with this proposal.

1. The proposed 3rd and 4th replacement decks shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan

and building elevations provided in the file.

2. The proposed 4th floor deck shall not be covered and 3rd floor shall not be enclosed beneath it.

Considerations



Page 6



Page 7



Page 8



Page 9



Page 10



Page 11



Page 12



Page 13


Dale Young Revocable Trust Case Number 2020-BZA-00023

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00023 Property Owner Dale Young Revocable Trust Representative Eddie Bourdon Public Hearing July 1, 2020

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 5712 Ocean Front Avenue GPIN 2419-81-3352 Zoning District R-5R Residential Site Size 6,409 square feet Year Constructed 1980

Project: Existing Duplex and Proposed improvements and roof over existing 3rd floor deck, enclosure and open porch Variances Requested:

1. 7.3-foot south side yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required for proposed enclosure and open porch; 2. 4.61-foot north side yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required and to a 30-foot setback from Atlantic Blvd,

instead of 30-feet as required for proposed roof above 3rd floor deck; 3. 39.65% in lot coverage, instead of 35% in lot coverage as allowed for existing and proposed improvements; 4. 246.8% in floor area, instead of 200% in floor area as allowed for existing and proposed improvements; and 5. 62% in impervious cover, instead of 60% in impervious cover for existing and proposed improvements.


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicant is proposing several renovations to an existing duplex dwelling. Several variance requests are sought with this proposal. The following variances are requested with this proposal:

1. A variance to a 7.3-foot south side yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required for proposed enclosure and open porch.

2. Variances to a 4.61-foot north side yard setback, instead of ten-feet as required and to a 30-foot setback from Atlantic Blvd, instead of 30-feet as required for proposed roof above 3rd floor deck.

3. A variance to allow 39.65% in lot coverage, instead of 35% in lot coverage as allowed for existing and proposed improvements.

4. A variance to allow 246.8% in floor area, instead of 200% in floor area as allowed for existing and proposed improvements.

5. A variance to allow 62% in impervious cover, instead of 60% in impervious cover for existing and proposed improvements.

The existing lot is nonconforming in respects to the minimum lot area (10,000 square feet) and minimum lot width (60-feet) required for duplex development in this zoning district under current requirements. Currently, the existing duplex is nonconforming in respects to the required impervious cover, lot coverage, and side and rear yard setbacks. At the time the duplex was constructed, the minimum setbacks were less than they are today and there were no maximum impervious cover requirements. According to the applicant, many of the improvements are intended to repair existing elements that were damaged by a previous fire. It is also the applicant’s intentions to install interior stairs and an elevator to make the duplex unit ADA compliant. A letter from a physician describing the applicant’s medical condition, as it pertains to sun exposure has been provided in the file. The physician is encouraging improvements such as the open porch and roof above the 3rd floor deck to minimize sun exposure. All the proposed improvements will be made within the footprint of the existing duplex and rear decking. The rear of the lot abuts an unimproved street (Atlantic Blvd) that is not expected to ever be developed. A seawall is installed approximately 38-feet from the rear property line, and is located approximately 57.86-feet from the proposed roof above the 3rd floor deck. As a result of the reasons above, this request is not expected to create a detriment to the adjoining property owners or surrounding community.


Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK

10’ 4.61’

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED REAR (EAST SIDE) YARD SETBACK

30’ 19.86’

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK

10’ 7.3’


Page 5

• The existing lot and duplex are nonconforming to the current Zoning Ordinance requirements, as they relate to

duplex development in this zoning district today.

• All the proposed improvements will be made within the existing footprint of the existing duplex. • The existing encroachment into the required setback will not increase with this proposal; therefore, this request is

not expected to create a detriment to the adjoining property owners or surrounding community. • The rear of the lot abuts an unimproved street (Atlantic Blvd) that is not expected to ever be developed. • The adjacent seawall is located 38± feet from the rear property line and 57.86± feet from the proposed roof above

the 3rd floor deck. • The North Virginia Beach Civic League (NVBCL) is opposed to any further expansion of the structure as the existing

structure (duplex) currently exceeds floor area, encroaches in the required setbacks, and exceeds the maximum allowable impervious cover.

1. All proposed improvements shall be made in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building

elevations provided in the file.

2. The third-floor deck shall not be enclosed.

Considerations



Page 6



Page 7



Page 8



Page 9


REAR (EASTELEVATION) FRONT (WEST ELEVATION)


Page 10


NORTH SIDE ELEVATION SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION


Page 11

Proposed Ground Floor Plan


Page 12



Page 13



Page 14



Page 15



Page 16



Page 17



Page 18


Michael Yoder Jr Case Number 2020-BZA-00024

Page 1

Case # 2020-BZA-00024 Property Owner Michael Yoder Jr Representative Self Public Hearing July 1, 2020

Staff Planner Chris Langaster Variance initiated by: Applicant Inquiry Location 3003 Lynnhaven Dr GPIN 1499-18-7469 Zoning District R-10 Residential Site Size 16,423 square feet Year Constructed 1961

Project: Existing Elevated Dwelling and Proposed Covered Unenclosed Porch Variances Requested:

1. 15-foot front yard and to a 21-foot side corner setback from the property line adjacent to Lynnhaven Drive, instead of 30-feet each as required


Page 2



Page 3

Proposal: The applicant would like to retain a recently elevated single-family dwelling and covered unenclosed front porch. Variances to a 15-foot front yard setback and to a 21-foot side corner setback from the north property line adjacent to Lynnhaven Drive, instead 30-feet each as required is sought with this request. The existing dwelling was recently elevated to meet the FEMA /Flood Plain regulations. It was elevated within the same footprint; therefore, the existing dwelling and front porch are nonconforming in respects to the front yard setback from the property line adjacent to Lynnhaven Drive. According to the applicant, the proposed covered unenclosed front porch will essentially be rebuilt in the same footprint as the previous porch.

Permits Required / Obtained: A building permit was obtained on July 17, 2019 to elevation the existing single-family dwelling.

Summary


Page 4

Variance Requests

REQUIREMENT REQUESETED SIDE CORNER ADJACENT TO LYNNHAVEN DR

30’ 21’



Page 5

• The existing dwelling recently raised to meet FEMA and flood plain requirements remained in the same footprint.

Therefore, the present setbacks did not decrease with this proposal.

• Though the new front porch is slightly larger than the previous porch, it was essentially constructed in the same footprint as the previous porch.

• Elevating the dwelling caused the covered unenclosed front porch and stairway to be elevated to access the

entryway.

1. The existing covered unenclosed front porch shall be completed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan

and building elevation.

2. The existing covered unenclosed front porch shall remain unenclosed. 3. If approved, this variance shall only apply to the existing dwelling and covered unenclosed front porch as they

presently exist. Future improvements that do not comply with the required setbacks and/or zoning requirements shall require further considerations from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Considerations



Page 6



Page 7



Page 8



Page 9



Page 10



Page 11



Page 12


Documents

Janice Anderson Secretary · Janice Anderson, Secretary James Oglesby, Myles Pocta, Harry Purkey, Jr., Robert Thornton Alternates: Jan Hall, Elizabeth Kovner City Staff: Chris Langaster,