Case #1David Nicolai

March 3, 2010

PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to allow 1,076.66 square feet in accessory structures instead of 500 square feet in accessory structures as allowed (Existing Detached Garage and Shed) LOCATION: 5157 Providence Road Woodlawn Farms Kempsville District #2 GPIN: 1466-63-5810 ZONING: R-10, RMA YEAR BUILT: City records indicate that the home was built in 1945 AICUZ: Less than 65 dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The two-story detached accessory structure that previously existed on this site was destroyed by a large tree during a storm. Pictures of the former shed show that it was barn style with a mansard roof. There were no windows on the second floor. The applicant was approved by Zoning to construct a one-story, 16’ by 31’ shed. There was some confusion and the insurance adjuster approved construction of a two-story structure. A replacement two-story detached garage was built on the site with a complete second story with windows. There is also a second 8.3’ by 10.2’ or 84.66 square foot shed on the property for a total of 1,076.66 square feet of detached accessory buildings, rather than 500 square feet as allowed. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the new detached two-story garage and the small shed to remain on the site. Staff notes that the second floor of the new garage appears to have more finished space than the previous shed. It should also be noted that the lot is large; containing over 18,000 square feet. The building materials used on the new garage and the architectural style match the existing older home. The purpose of the limitation on the size of a detached structure is to help ensure that they are not converted into an illegal dwelling unit and that illegal home occupations do not operate from large, detached structures. The applicant has no intent to use this detached building for either purpose. If approved, the following conditions should be required:

1. Approval is for the existing two-story detached garage and the small shed only. 2. The new detached garage shall not be used as a dwelling unit and it may not be

used for a home occupation unless approved by City Council.

Case #2James & Faye Bryson

March 3, 2010

PREPARED BY: BETTY HARRIS DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to allow 43.5% lot coverage instead of 40% in lot coverage as allowed (Proposed Covered Front Porch) LOCATION: 803 Cathedral Drive Lot 9, Pembroke Shores Bayside District #4 GPIN: 1478-62-5510 ZONING: A-12, RMA SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: YEAR BUILT: 1972 AICUZ: noise zone less than dB ldn SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant would like to construct a 5-foot x 6-foot covered front porch. The dwelling was constructed in 1972 without a covered front porch. With this proposal, the lot coverage will increase from 40% in lot coverage to 43.5% in lot coverage; however, the covered front porch will comply with all applicable setbacks. The proposed covered front porch is modest in size and provides the homeowners with protection from inclement weather while entering and exiting the dwelling. If appears that when the Pembroke Shores Townhomes were originally developed, the homes were developed without covered front porches. However, over the years, many of the residences have constructed new covered front porches. *Letters of support from the adjacent property owners have been provided. If approved, the following condition is suggested:

1. The covered front porch shall remain unenclosed.

Case #3Kenneth Watson

March 3, 2010

PREPARED BY: BETTY HARRIS DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to an 18 foot setback for side yards adjacent to a street (Dickinson Way) instead of 30 feet as required (Proposed 2nd Floor Addition) LOCATION: 6360 Drew Drive Lot 40, College Park Centerville District #1 GPIN: 1455-27-9964 ZONING: R-7.5, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1972 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB ldn SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 23-foot x 26-foot second-story addition above a garage of an existing two-story dwelling. Currently the home is 18-feet from the property line adjacent to Dickinson Way. The proposed addition will align with the footprint of the existing dwelling as well as match the architectural design of the dwelling. This dwelling was built in 1972, at which time, the required setback adjacent to a street was 15-feet. The proposed addition will extend the existing second-story over the one-story portion of this existing two-story dwelling. At this time, the applicant is requesting a variance to an 18-foot setback from Dickinson Way, instead of 30-feet as required for side yards adjacent to a street. At present, this two-story home contains 2,101 square feet of living space. A 598 square foot addition is proposed. Approximately 132 square feet of the proposed addition will encroach into the required 30-foot side yard setback. The proposed addition will maintain the same setback as the existing dwelling from the property line adjacent to Dickinson Way. *Building elevations can be found in the file. If approved, the following conditions are suggested:

1. The proposed second-story addition shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the site plan and building elevations.

2. All building materials and colors used shall be compatible with the existing dwelling.

3. Documentation from a licensed engineer, architect or certified design professional verifying the structural worthiness of the first floor to support the proposed second-story addition must be provided to the Zoning Office, prior to obtaining a building permit.

Case #4Caryn Galderisi

March 3, 2010

PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 10 foot rear yard setback (East side) instead of 20 feet as required (Proposed Sunroom) LOCATION: 2585 Piney Bark Drive Lot 87, Hunt Club Forest Princess Anne District #7 GPIN: 2404-68-5216 ZONING: R-5D YEAR BUILT: 1986 AICUZ: noise zone less than 75dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 13’ x 16’ sunroom addition on the north east corner of an existing one and a half story single –family dwelling. The sunroom addition is proposed at a 10-foot rear yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required. The dwelling is presently 10-feet from the rear property line. At the time this dwelling was constructed, the required minimum rear yard setback was 10-feet. The existing deck will be demolished and the proposed sunroom addition will be constructed (approximately) in the footprint of the deck. A second existing ground level deck is installed north of the proposed room addition. This deck will remain in place with this proposal. This deck located on a 10’ drainage easement, however, the City of Virginia Beach Office of Real Estate has granted an encroachment for it to remain in the easement. *Building elevations of the proposed sunroom have been provided in the file. If approved, the following condition is recommended:

1. The proposed sunroom addition shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevation.

Case #5Gary & Alice Koziol

March 3, 2010

PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to an 18 foot side yard setback (South side) instead of 20 feet as required (Proposed Room Addition) LOCATION: 1230 E. Bay Shore Drive Bay Colony Lynnhaven District #5 GPIN: 2418-58-5864 ZONING: R-40, RMA/RPA YEAR BUILT: 1976 AICUZ: noise zone 65-70dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants would like to construct a 16’ x 20’ one-story room addition 18-feet from the south side property line, instead of 20-feet as required. This addition will enlarge an existing bedroom as well as include some handicapped accessible improvements to the closest, doorway and shower. In addition, the proposed master bedroom will have exterior access on the south side of the addition. A portion of this lot is located in the Resource Protection Area (RPA); however the area of construction for the proposed room addition is located in the Resource Management Area (RMA). Therefore, the more restrictive requirements associated with RPA) will not impact this proposal. After reviewing this request, it appears a room addition could be constructed without encroaching onto any of the required setbacks. Staff was not able to identify a hardship associated with this lot that would justify this variance request. It is recommended the applicants consider slightly reducing the south side and/or extend the proposed addition to the north. These minor modifications to the proposed addition would allow for a substantial size room addition as well as accommodate the minimum 20-foot side yard setback.

Case #6Arthur & Vicki Dockery

March 3, 2010

PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to a 6 foot side yard setback (Northeast side) instead of 10 feet as required (Proposed Carport Enclosure) LOCATION: 1644 Janke Road Lot 12, Diamond Springs Bayside District #4 GPIN: 1469-34-7822 ZONING: R-10, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1955 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing to enclose an existing 16’ x 26’ carport and convert it into a garage. The carport is presently 6-feet from the northwest property line, instead of 10-feet as required. When this dwelling was constructed 1955, the minimum side yard setback was 6-feet. Therefore, this dwelling is legally nonconforming in regards to the required northeast side yard setback. The proposed garage will align with the footprint of the existing carport and the setback encroachment will not increase with this proposal. The carports of many other homes in this community have been enclosed and either converted to living space or a garage. Therefore, this proposal is not expected to have a detrimental impact of the adjoining property owners or community. If approved, the following condition is recommended:

1. The proposed garage shall be constructed in substantially adherence to the submitted site plan and with colors and building materials compatible with the existing dwelling.

Case #7Barry & Patricia Koval

March 3, 2010

PREPARED BY: BETTY HARRIS DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to an 11.8 foot rear yard setback (South side) instead of 20 feet as required (Proposed Screened Porch) LOCATION: 210 76th Street Lots 22, 23 & part of 24 Beach District #6 GPIN: 2419-67-0003 ZONING: R-5R YEAR BUILT: 1989 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB ldn BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: On August 20, 2008 a variance to a 2 foot side yard setback (west side) and to an 8 foot side yard setback (east side) instead of 10 feet each as required and to a ‘0’ foot rear yard setback (south side) instead of 20 feet as required and to allow 42% in lot coverage instead of 35% in lot coverage as allowed was granted as a cleanup variance for the existing duplex with the following condition: The variances granted shall only apply to the existing duplex dwelling. Any additions or alterations that do not comply with the zoning requirements must obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. PUBLIC WORKS/REAL ESTATE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT HISTORY: On April 3, 2009 the applicant was granted an encroachment to maintain an existing section of their house, frame shed, wood fence and an existing 5.1’ section of a wooden walkway. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: On August 20, 2008 the applicant was granted a cleanup variance for the existing nonconforming duplex dwelling, no improvements were made to the property at that time. At this time, the owner would like to screen a rear porch that is currently open and roofed. The proposed screened porch will extend the existing screened porch westward and will be slightly further from the rear lot line than the open porch. A set of stairs located to the rear of the open porch will be removed. The stairs are currently located 10-feet from the rear property line. A variance to an 11.8-foot rear yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required is being sought with this request. It appears that the stairs located to the rear of the open porch have been removed and a portion of the 10.7’ x 17’ open porch was enclosed and converted to living space. A building permit was not obtained. With this proposal, the setbacks and lot coverage will not increase and the improvements will not exceed the 200% maximum floor area ratio. If approved, the following conditions are suggested:

1. The proposed improvements shall substantially adhere to the submitted site plan. 2. The proposed screened porch shall not be enclosed.

Case #8Randall Winsinger

March 3, 2010

PREPARED BY: BETTY HARRIS DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 5.2 foot side yard setback (Southeast side) instead of 8 feet as required (Proposed Covered Enclosure) LOCATION: 1821 Gettysburg Road Lot 589, Alexandria, Centerville District #1 GPIN: 1454-69-9874 ZONING: R-5D YEAR BUILT: 1989 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65 dB ldn SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct an 11-foot x 12.9-foot covered rear porch and 11-foot x 12-foot deck 5-feet from the property line (southeast side) instead of 8-feet as required. This lot was originally developed under the ‘zero lot line’ concept. As a zero lot line development, the minimum side yard setbacks were 0-feet & 10-feet. The zero lot line option was removed from the City Zoning Ordinance in 1987. Therefore, the minimum side yard (8-foot) setback requirements for the R5D zoning district applies to all development after 1987. At this time, the applicant is requesting a variance to a 5-foot side yard setback (southeast side) instead of 8-feet as required. The proposed 11-foot x 12-foot deck will comply with the required setbacks. Currently the dwelling is 3.7-feet from the southeast property line. The proposed 11-foot x 12.9-foot covered rear porch will be recessed to maintain a 5-foot side yard setback southeast side. With this request, setbacks will not increase. *Letters of support from the adjacent property owner have been provided. If approved, the following condition is suggested:

1. The proposed additions shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan.

Case #9Julie NeelyMarch 3, 2010

PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 7.4 foot side yard setback (East side) and to a 7 foot side yard setback (West side) instead of 10 feet each as required and to a 16 foot rear yard setback (South side) instead of 20 feet as required (Proposed 2nd Floor Deck) LOCATION: 216-A 58th Street Lot 11, Ubermeer Lynnhaven District #5 GPIN: 2419-70-4975-3710 ZONING: R-5R YEAR BUILT: 1985 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: on November 7, 1984 a variance to a 7.4-foot side yard setback (east side), instead of 8-feet as required was Granted for two-story room addition. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant would like to remove a flat/roof top deck presently installed on a one-story portion of an existing three-story duplex. Both the existing duplex as well as the one-story portion is presently 7.4-feet from the east side and 7-feet from the west side, instead of 10-feet each as required. A variance to a 16-foot rear yard setback instead of 20-feet as required is also sought with this request. An existing attached storage shed is also presently 2.5-feet from the east side property line, instead of 10-feet as required. This shed was not included with this variance request and staff suspects it is not legally nonconforming. The two sheds shown on the site plan have been removed. At the time this duplex was constructed, the required minimum side yard setback was 8-feet and the required minimum rear yard setback was 10-feet for this zoning district. As noted above, a variance to a 7.4-foot east side yard setback rather than 8-feet as required was granted for a two-story addition. However, only a one-story addition with a roof top deck was built versus the two-story addition originally approved. Due to water damage caused by the leaking flat/roof top deck, the applicant would like replace it with a hip roof. The proposed roof will have a 2-foot overhang and the deck and external staircase will be removed with this proposal. Though the applicants have not submitted building elevations of the proposed roof addition, staff believes the new roof will improve the appearance of the existing one-story room addition. If approved, the following conditions are recommended:

1. The proposed hip roof shall only be installed over the one-story portion of the duplex and the roof overhang shall not extend over 2-feet.

2. Building elevations acceptable to the Zoning Administrator or her designee must be submitted to the Zoning Office prior to obtaining a building permit.

3. The attached storage shed located on the east side of the duplex shall be removed prior to receiving a final inspection from Permits & Inspection’s Office for the proposed roof.

Case #10David & Elyse Cardon

March 3, 2010

PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to a 46.1 foot front yard setback instead of 50 feet as required and to a 13 foot rear yard setback instead of 20 feet as required (Proposed Additions) LOCATION: 1348 Harris Road Lot 9, Eagles Nest Lynnhaven District #5 GPIN: 1489-90-7185 ZONING: R-40, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1930 AICUZ: Less than 65 dB DNL SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The existing home was originally a farm house built in 1885 with additions in1930. A residential neighborhood was subdivided around this older home and the house was left oddly situated on a new lot. The new lot is unusually shaped and although the lot is large and contains over one acre, the home sits on the very northern portion of the site. The front porch has a 48.1’ front yard setback and does not meet the required 50’ setback. At this time, the property owners would like to put two additions on the home. A small garage addition containing 326.7 square feet is proposed on the west side with a 46.1’ front yard setback, rather than 50’ as required. The larger addition, proposed on the east side, requires a variance to allow a 13’ rear yard setback, rather than 20’ as required. The larger addition will contain a modern kitchen and breakfast nook on the first floor and a master bedroom suite on the second floor. Staff notes that the age of the existing home makes this site unique and that the lot is oddly shaped. The applicants have tried to minimize encroachment into the setbacks by designing the additions to follow the angled property line. Architectural elevations of the proposed additions will be shown at the public hearing by the representative. If approved, the following condition should be required:

The additions shall substantially adhere to the submitted site plan and architectural elevations.

Case #D-1Richard & Eileen Seeley

March 3, 2010

PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to a 2 foot side yard setback (Southeast Side) instead of 20 feet as required (Proposed Carport) LOCATION: 3737 Lynnfield Drive Lot 1, Little Neck Lynnhaven District #5 GPIN: 1489-40-0521 ZONING: R-40, RPA YEAR BUILT: 1964 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY:

• On May 16, 1984 a variance to a 16-foot side yard (north side) instead of 20-feet as required was Granted for a residential addition.

• On March 17, 1999 a variance to a 5-foot setback (south side) instead of 20-feet as required was Granted for a proposed attached garage.

• On January 6, 2010 this variance request was Deferred with a new fee. The applicant nor the representative attended the hearing.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL(January 6, 2010): The applicants would like to construct a 20’ x 24’ attached carport on the south east side of an existing single-family dwelling 2-foot from the side property line, instead of 20-feet as required. The proposed carport will be constructed over an existing concrete slab that the applicant plans to replace with a new slab. Though the staff has administratively approved carports to be placed over the existing slab; further approval maybe required to replace the slab. As mentioned above, a variance was previously granted for an attached garage at a 5-foot setback from south side property line. Staff does not believe allowing a proposed carport to be placed 2-feet from the property line is feasible. It is understood this lot is impacted by the requirements of the CBPA, however a reasonable size carport could be constructed without further infringing on the required side yard setback. Staff is not opposed to allowing a carport to be placed at a 5-foot side yard setback as previously approved. If approved as suggested, the following conditions are recommended:

1. The proposed carport must be constructed with building materials and colors compatible with the existing dwelling.

2. The existing vegetation (hedgerow) installed along the south property line must remain in place. In the event the vegetation is damaged or removed, Category I landscaping screening must be installed.

Case #D-2Eli Sweiry

March 3, 2010

PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 3.2 foot side yard setback (West side) instead of 10 feet as required and to a 10 foot setback for side yards adjacent to a street (Walke Street) instead of 20 feet as required and to allow 38.5% lot coverage instead of 35% in lot coverage as allowed and to allow 66% impervious coverage instead of 60% impervious coverage as allowed (Proposed 2nd & 3rd Story Additions and Garage Additions) LOCATION: 2624 A&B Ocean Shore Ave Lot 5, Cape Henry Lynnhaven District #5 GPIN: 1590-62-0099 ZONING: R-5R, RMA/RPA YEAR BUILT: 1983 AICUZ: Less than 65 dB DNL This request was deferred by the BZA on December 2, 2009 due to an error in the advertising. This request was also deferred on January 6, 2010 to allow the applicant time to work with the staff to improve the request. VARIANCE HISTORY: On January 19, 1983, the BZA approved a variance for this site to allow a 2.5’ side yard setback for side yards adjacent to a street, instead of 18’ as required and to allow a 3.5’ side yard setback on the west side instead of 8’ as required for a second story addition and enclosed steps. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The existing Bayfront duplex has a one-story unit on the west side and a two-story unit on the east side. The owner of the western unit desires to add a full second story over the existing foot print and a partial third story. Both duplex owners also desire to construct one garage per unit, detached from the main dwellings and fronting on Ocean Shore Avenue. Each garage will contain 330 square feet. There is a letter in the file from a structural engineer verifying that the existing foundation and walls can support the two additional stories. The following variances are being requested to accommodate the proposed improvements:

1. A variance to allow a 3.21’ side yard setback on the west side instead of 10’ as required. The western dwelling unit currently has a 3.21’ side yard setback on the west side. A variance was granted by the BZA on January 19, 1983 to allow a 3.5’ side yard setback, rather than 10’, on the west side. The applicant desires to build over the existing foot print. The proposed detached garage will meet the required 10’ setback.

2. A variance to allow a 10’ side yard setback for side yards adjacent to a street. This variance is needed to accommodate the proposed garage.

3. A variance to allow 38.5% lot coverage, rather than the maximum 35% lot coverage permitted. The proposed new garages increase lot coverage above the maximum allowed.

4. A variance to allow 66% impervious cover, rather than the maximum of 60%. The four new paved parking spaces, in addition to the new garages, increase the lot coverage above the maximum.

The applicant concludes that these variances are justified due to the substandard size of the lot, which contains 7,036 square feet, rather than the 10,000 square feet needed for a new duplex lot. Architectural elevations have been submitted. Since the January deferral, the applicant met with staff to discuss improving the appearance of the proposed addition and the new detached garages. Staff suggested eliminating the third story and keeping the duplex symmetrical, but the applicant has a strong desire to retain the proposed third floor space. As an alternative, staff requested that the third story be redesigned to minimize its appearance and blend it better with the adjoining unit. The applicant submitted a revised elevation that is an improvement, but staff recommends that the pitch of the roof be angled to directly come off the existing peak. Staff will have a diagram showing the desired roof pitch at the public hearing. In addition, the applicant has agreed to add a “green roof” to the garages and soften the front of the building with a trellis and plant material. Only one pot of plant material is shown in the elevation and staff recommends that two more pots of climbing vine plants be added, one on each side of the garage. If approved, the following conditions should be required:

1. The duplex additions and garages shall be substantially in keeping with the submitted site plan.

2. The architectural elevation for the third story addition shall be modified to change the roof pitch to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator, in keeping with the staff sketch shown at the public hearing.

3. The detached garage shall be in keeping with the revised architectural elevation showing a green roof and a trellis. Two more pots of climbing vine plants shall be added, one on each side of the garage.