The applicant claims the existing garage already sits 5 feet into the rear setback, therefore, if the variance was granted, the new structure would encroach an additional 2 feet 6 inches into the rear yard. Strict application of the regulations would not deprive the owner of reasonable use of the existing garage and residence.

5

b) The Zoning Regulations establish setbacks to maintain an appropriate amount of light and air between structures and to ensure compatible development of properties within the district in which they are zoned. The proposed location of the new garage and bedroom addition increase the degree of non-conformity in the rear yard from 5 feet to 7 feet 6 inches (an additional 2 feet 6 inches) closer to the neighboring property to the north. The east wall of the addition will be located 3 inches closer to the neighboring property to the east. c) Granting the 3 inch variance would not likely impair an adequate supply of light and air on the east side given its insignificant size. Given the smaller size of these lots in this neighborhood, a 7-foot 6-inch encroachment into the rear yard with a two-story structure could be viewed as significant, however, the surrounding property owners have lived with the existing 5-foot, single story encroachment for some time, without known negative impacts. _____________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC COMMENT:

DAVID GULICK (DG) – 8144 Kingsbury – Neighbor to the north – my wife is a registered architect so it’s something we understand well. I want to make a very pointed remark that we sympathize with the Kweskins because we’ve been here before and we were denied that. We don’t chase variances because the character of the neighborhood is important to us. We looked to the design to solve our problem and not a variance. I know you got a letter from me so I’m not going to be too duplicative…

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Marking the letter from Mr. Gulick as Neighbors Exhibit 1. Do you, Ken, or you the applicant, have any objections to this being added to the record.

BOTH KEN AND THE APPLICANTS – No.

DG – We told them to not attempt a variance, so we viewed their plans this week when Karen went to look at them. This came out of left field to us, we knew there was a project but no we didn’t know what the plans were or anything until Karen went to look. It’s not the existing structure that is an issue, it’s that it’s getting even closer to us and the fence. If you stand at the fence line from Forsyth and look down, you’ll see the principal building is sitting closer to 35’ from the setback. This would be visible from Pershing. It gets over looked because everyone built to the max lines but we really can’t due to the detached garage. If we changed the shape we could have gone 5’ more. If you look at 8132 Kingsbury, they had to kill the house and build a new one because it wouldn’t pass the impervious coverage regulation. So while I’m sympathetic to wanting a bigger garage, I too want a bigger garage but if we start granting variances because of whims and wants, the integrity of the neighborhood will decline.

RICK BLISS – If I understood what you just said, if Sasha and Blair were to propose a second story addition without moving further north from where they currently are you would be supportive?

DG – Correct.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Would you consider withdrawing your requests before we vote?

BK – No, why would we do that?

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Would you consider withdrawing your requests before we vote? BK – No, why would we do that?

6

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Based on the discussion we’ve had today and that 4 votes in favor are required to approve any variance. You’ve requested two separate variances and that’s how it will be voted on. Would you like to take a few minutes to consider this, would you like to withdraw your appeal? You can do this before we take a vote.

BK – No, we wouldn’t.

AIDEN MCAULEY – Would you like to take a few minutes outside to make sure you’re in agreement with each other and want to continue with the requested variances?

*BK and SK leave to go talk about this and come back*

SK – We would like to proceed with this vote.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman Soule called for a motion.

RICK BLISS – I move that we approve an area variance to allow for a 3.00-inch variance from the required east side yard setback of 5.00 feet, Section 405.1900.A.3

MARY DEBENEDETTI AND ANNE BISHOP - SECOND

RICK BLISS – Aye AIDEN MCAULEY – Aye MARY DEBENEDETTI – Aye ANNE BISHOP – Aye CHAIRMAN SOULE – Aye

MOTION PASSES 5-0. APPEAL GRANTED

CHAIRMAN SOULE – I move that we approve an area variance to allow for a 7.6-foot variance from the required rear yard setback of 30.00 feet, Section 405.1900.A.2

MARY DEBENEDETTI – Second

RICK BLISS – Nay AIDEN MCAULEY – Nay MARY DEBENEDETTI – Nay ANNE BISHOP – Nay CHAIRMAN SOULE – Nay

MOTION FAILS 0-5. APPEAL DENIED ______________________________________________________________________________

Being no further business for this Board of Adjustment this evening, the meeting adjourned at