PROJECT NO. 2006-059 VARIANCE AND SECOND DWELLING UNIT

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is for the City Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to deny Project No. 2006-059 variance and second dwelling unit. The appeal was received from the applicant, Vincent Yanniello, who resides at the subject property. Mr. Yanniello states that he meets all of the requirements for second dwelling units except for the additional parking space and that the findings can be made for the variance.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Project Description and History:

The applicant has requested approval to construct a new 500 square foot second dwelling unit (Exhibit 1).  The side setback on the south is 4� (as the lot is 45� wide), the proposed setback is 7�-9�, and a 15� rear setback is proposed. All proposed setbacks meet the requirements for a second dwelling unit. The applicant requests a variance to not provide the additional car parking space, as the existing garage is constructed 6� from the existing home, which does not allow room for a car to maneuver between the buildings and into the rear yard. The applicant states that he utilizes the existing garage for his vehicle and the proposed second dwelling unit will be for his son, who will also use the garage to park his vehicle.

The Planning Board denied the project because the applicant could not meet the parking requirement for second dwelling units nor could two of the four findings required for a variance from this requirement be made. On September 28, 2006, the applicant appealed this decision.

Planning Board Deliberations and Decision:

On September 11, 2006, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider a request by the applicant to build a 500 square foot second dwelling unit attached to the rear of the existing detached garage. The applicant meets all of the setback requirements, but does not meet the requirement for an additional parking space for the second dwelling unit. As such, this request requires the approval of a variance application. The Board voted 5-0 to deny the variance application (Exhibits 2 and 3). The Board did not find any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances with the project that did not apply to other properties within the vicinity and zone. Additionally, the Board believed the applicant�s hardship to be self-imposed and that approving the request could set a precedent for other similar properties requesting a second dwelling unit.

There were four people who spoke during the hearing. One person was in favor of the project and said there is not a parking issue on the subject street. There were three people who opposed the project stating there are other illegal second dwelling units near the subject site and that parking is an issue on the subject street.

Issues Raised by the Appellant:

The appellant explained in the appeal form (Exhibit 4) that the only requirement he cannot meet for the construction of the second dwelling unit is the parking requirement and that previous cases presented before the Board were approved with additional requirements that were not met. Additionally, the appellant states that the previous cases were illegally converted into second dwelling units and that he is trying to be honest and apply for the variance and second dwelling unit prior to any construction. The appellant further states that parking is not an issue on his block and he is therefore requesting that the Council reject the Planning Board�s decision and approve the variance and second dwelling unit request.

Without approval of the variance, the second dwelling unit application must be denied.  Code requires an additional parking space for SDUs and the applicant requests that the two (2) existing parking spaces be considered adequate for both the main residence and the second dwelling unit.  Staff believes that the standards required to approve the second dwelling unit could be made if the variance was to be approved.  Staff, however, is in agreement with the Planning Board that two of the four required variance findings (findings 1 and 2 cannot be made).

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Board decision to deny Project No. 2006-059 variance and second dwelling unit.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit 1           Planning Board staff report dated September 11, 2006 including all exhibits

Exhibit 2           Planning Board Resolution #3038 dated September 11, 2006

Exhibit 3           Planning Board minutes from the September 11, 2006 public hearing

Exhibit 4           Appeal form and letter submitted by Vincent Yanniello

go to the top