victoria rideout and lorraine anderson, vs. the zoning administrator, 161-165 newman street, appealing the denial on march 15, 2011, of lot area, rear yard and usable open space variances, reconstruction of an existing stairway. variance case number 201 0.0467 v. we will start with the appellants. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. my name is vicki, and i am one

of the cone owners -- i'm one of the co-owners of 161-165 new main -- newman street. neither of these homes really stands out as being unusual or out of place in our neighborhood. the two homes are completely independent structures, with no shared access or open space. because of the corner location, each house has a lot of street frontage, plenty of parking, and a lot of light. our variance request does not involve any structural changes, other than moving and outside staircase about 2 feet to the left. so it will have absolutely no impact on the neighborhood, the open space or rear yard. nothing will change if the variances granted. when we applied for the lot split variants, we were told we needed to request a variance for open space and at the rear

yard, but 13 years ago the planning and building department reviewed and approved a permit request to build the new warehouse with no comments regarding rear yard or open space, possibly because this lot had historically been designated as a legal but nonconforming lot. in any case, the decision about open space in the rear yard of this property was made at that time. at a different decision then could have affected the amount of open space in the rear yard, but nothing in today's proceeding will affect either of those issues in any way. having said that, we could do a better job of meeting the open space requirement then they give us credit for. he did not factor in the large 180 square foot back off the kitchen of my home, which uc and this photo and the other photo of from above. he also discounted the courtyard at lorraine's house, which you will also see in the next photo because it does not meet the minimum size required, when in

fact it is 96 square feet, and the minimum required because it is one how to square feet. we feel there should be some leniency there. with regard to lot size, these properties are consistent with the vernal heights neighborhood. there are 22 lots that are small or smaller than ours within a quarter mile of our property, and in this photo you can see the two homes directly across the street from us, where there corner lot had been split into lots almost identical to what ours would be. the same is true of the next corner down from us on the same block. we believe it is not fair to deny us the same property rights as our neighbors to make independent decisions about how to maintain, finance, insurance, and transfer or two homes. in terms of our chip of homeowners, it is much harder to get a loan for or to sell the pic, and being tied together at financially is also a hardship.

one-and-a-half years ago, i was a victim of identity theft. every account that i had my name on was completely emptied out, including the joint account that i share with loraine for our insurance, taxes, and a mortgage on the house. also, year ago i lost the job that i had for 13 years, and i am sure it was not fun for the rain to be on the mortgage with me at that time. we could legally apply for turning it into a condo, but we don't think that is appropriate for these completely independent, non-condo-like structures. we feel they should be considered legally with that part in fact, separate properties. thank you. >> thank you. my name is lane anderson, co- owner of the property. at first, i would like to recognize the important work of the planning and building department. in our experience, we found the staff to be competent, well- informed, and helpful. we would have liked the initial

outcome to be different, but we appreciate the opportunity to present our case. we hope that we have demonstrated that our circumstances qualify for the approval of the variance request. when we began to look to the various procedures, there was a different zoning administrator, and we reviewed a number of the cases he approved, what splits in our neighborhood and other areas, and found them similar to our own and we decided to move forward. however, we spent some time with the building department to understand the ramifications of a lot split relating to fire reading requirements. when we return it to the planning department, mr. sanchez was in the position as the zoning administrator, the acting zoning administrator. we believe that mr. sanchez performing in this new capacity may have been more conservative in his determination of the extraordinary circumstances,

practical difficulty, and the hardship of the merits of the case. i believe mr. sanchez stated in the hearing is concerned that we had not won criteria to overcome, but we also cannot meet the requirements for rear yard and open space. we have submitted cases in our documents in which they interpreted the various elements within the code to allow for the split of properties which without exemptions for all three. as well as the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, similar as to ours. we feel this is just the type of appeal for which the board was created, which is to provide oversight of the decisions made within the city departments so of residents are given equal and fair treatment. we're not real-estate developers, we're just to residents that would like to own our properties equally. severna heights review committees have shown no

concern of our project. we don't believe this case would create any problems for larger development projects. that are ample requirements for code restrictions. as city departments are tasked with many competing and conflicting directives, the board spends a great deal of time and effort to reach a determination of the facts of the case. we know from watching archive broadcast that these proceedings, all of the cases are decided unanimously and understand that well-informed and good intentioned people working together do not always agree. we hope that i bring this to the board, we have taken it finished to have more than one good intentioned person to decide the case. we are asking the board to review our circumstances and determine if we have been given equal treatment as other cases. and i think that just made it. [bell] commissioner hwang: i have a

couple questions. how long have you owned the property? >> i originally owned 161 newman street since 1989. and then -- i am sorry, 1982. then in 2000, a house at 165 was constructed. and vicki bought the house. commissioner hwang: from you? >> from me. that is how we are together as partners. commissioner hwang: say you purchased the lot and property in 1989? >> 1982. commissioner hwang: in the additional submission, it you pointed out the different split lots on the maps.

are there any nearby, in these couple blocks of lots, but there any other properties with two homes on them were the lots are not actually split? >> directly across the street from us, there is a property that has to homes on it, and the next corner down there is a property with two homes on it. commissioner hwang: okay, and the other properties where the lot is not officially split? >> not that we know of. commissioner hwang: okay. president goh: and the one across the street, newman street, do you know when those buildings were constructed? >> i don't know. president goh: and do you know when the lot was split? >> i don't know. president goh: not within the time that the andersens were

living there? >> no. president goh: okay, thank you. commissioner fung: the building on the corner that was constructed in 2000, were there special entitlements related to that? >> no, there were not. commissioner fung: there was no planning? >> the planning department reviewed the drawings and signed off on them, with no comment. commissioner fung: thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good afternoon. scott sanchez, planning department. just some overview, it is 161- 165 newman street, located within rh-2, two-unit density zoning district, located within

the vernal heights special use district. i think this is the first variants appeal that the board has heard that i conducted the hearing since the start conducting hearings in june. this item was heard on september 22, 2010. the subject application seeks variances from the lot area, rear yard, and usable open space to allow the subdivision of the lot into separate, legal bahts, one approximately 25 by 46 and the other 25 by 50, but which are substandard in terms of the lot size, even though it is a corner lot. it still requires a variance. into the findings, the vernal heights special use district does have some smaller than normal lots, but they are still generally 25 by 80 feet. the subject lot as it exists is

generally larger than what we would typically find it in vernal heights. however, the property is excessively developed. in 1998, there was a building permit filed to allow the construction of the single- family dwelling at the front of the property, and that was completed in 2000. that maximizes the development potential of the lot as one lot. had there been a subdivision at that time, that front structure would have been smaller. i think that is the key issue. it was built to the proper zoning for the proper restrictions for the property of 25 by 107 feet lot. additionally, this is not dissimilar to another case that the board of appeals heard recently last year, v-10-004,

1120 19th street, a.k.a. 398 pennsylvania. the board upheld the previous owner administrator's denial, similar in the existing older building at the rear of the lot and had maximize the development potential and letter thought to subdivide them out. -- and later thought to subdivide them out. the project sponsors have been very agreeable to deal with and i know this is a difficult situation, but i have found them to be nothing but courteous during these times and we have paid to them the same respect to the department. that said, we felt the need to deny the application because we felt it was not consistent with the planning code. there is not a pattern of these smaller lots, a predominant pattern in the district. we found at less than 2% of the 1000 lots within 1,000 feet, 1868 lots within 1,000 feet of the property, that less than 2%

were smaller than 1100 square feet in size. also, as the product sponsor stated, their alternative is here. they can go through the condominium process. they have not exhausted all of their remedies to achieve the goals that have separate ownership, that means available to them. i am assuming they qualify for the condo, it would have on our occupancy for that time, sounds like approximately 10 years. that i think summarizes most of the points i want to make. some of the other sites that were pointed out by the product sponsor, many of them were nowhere within 1,000 feet of the property and were in different neighborhoods of the city. there were some that were close by, a few properties on cortland. however, those are very distinct and they are 3 lots. there is a different development

pattern. as we get closer to mission, one cortland, there are existing subdivided lots, front to rear, and having them divide it on a through lot. with that, i will conclude my presentation and be available for any questions the commissioners may have. commissioner hwang: from an applicant's perspective, what would be the difference between -- why would one be averse to going down the condo route vs splitting the lot? more fees, more time, more trouble? >> fees maybe -- well, i cannot say because you have to go through some of the process going to raise subdivision. or the condominium forces going to the public works. in terms of the requirement, the process, the time, i don't think

it is any more lifey, -- i don't think it is any more lengthy. given what i know about condo conversions, those are generally processed quickly and probably would've been a corker process, at least, than having to go through -- would have been a quicker process at least in having to go through the variance and then the subdivision. commissioner hwang: thank you. commissioner fung: mr. sanchez, the smaller building, what use to beat i guess a bungalow, runs pretty much to the rear property line? so the only setback with respect to the property line would be the portion of adjacent to the other building? >> rebuilding would have approximately 3-4 foot setback. i can put that on the plans, on the overhead.

so the yellow is the rear building you are refering to. the 9 foot yard, in which the stairs go around. there is 4 foot 6 inches at the rear, and this is probably 3-4 feet to the property line. it would be constructed. the building which was built, completed in 2000, occupies nearly the entire front lot and would leave a 5 foot rear set back. commissioner fung: okay, so when they did the new buildings and it satisfied the rear yard requirement so that the existing bungalow wound up being nonconforming use at that point? >> well, that building would have been non complying at that

time, as well, because of publication on the property. even if we were to have had the lot here, even if we had presumed that the frontage on newman, it would still be substandard if this was the rear property line. this was noncompliant at that time, existing, and they wanted to build this structure at the front, it met the rear yard requirements in that this is the front of the property, this is the rear, maintaining 45% of rear yard, which is the requirement in vernal. vernal does not allow averaging four rh-2 and rh-3, so it is more restrictive. had theythe bungalow is non-com,

but it is also illegal use. >> that is correct. >> therefore, there were no planning entitlements outside the project review done by your department. >> that is true. have there been a subdivision and a development, it would have required a very inferior -- have required its. goo>> are there any nsrs on the lot? >> i am not aware of any.

>> i am confused by the answer you gave. it seems the question was is the process as simple or difficult as the various processes they are now going through? i am understanding there is a lottery that is considerably longer. >> no. i am estimating in terms of cost and time, but in terms of the actual process -- this is not subject to a lottery, because it is exempt from the lottery. i believe they have requirements to be eligible to retire all they have to do is apply. there is no waiting list for this property. the various process is a much more cumbersome process to go

through in that you have to meet the findings of hardship. for the condo process, you are going through and just doing a separate lots. you are not subdividing and actually doing separate lots in that fashion. it is straight forward. had it command at the same time as this, it would have been completed by now. hopefully that clarifies my response triggered -- my response. >> if they were to do the sections of the code, it would not deter them? >> they would not needed. >> i have a couple of questions. if a lot were to be split, with

each new small-lot peace -- be rh2. >> that is correct. >> sometimes cases go down to the neighborhood design review boards. would they go there? >> i would think not, because those types of discussions only happen when there is construction. goowe did not find out there wod be a negative impact. however, we are looking at a plan overall and trying to protect those. >> the you know if the property is within the jurisdiction of the boards? >> i do not have that

information. >> thank you president -- thank you. president goh mention that the zoning would remain rh2. is any modification of zoning ever done? >> no, if it does not change. it will forever be until there is a zoning change, and it would otherwise allow two dwelling units. >> if it were to be split, would they still meet the requirements, or would they try to double it? would it continue to me that? >> the proposal would meet the parking requirements.

that is my understanding. the variance was not for parking. the variance was for the rear yard space. >> they said they have three parking spaces. >> i think it is the same as that case, the parking in the new building and not involve old building. the you know the dates of the place across the street? >> i do not know. i can take a look at my ipad and see if i can find it. >> it is different, because both buildings have sparking a. >> is there any public comment on this item? rebuttals comes after public comment.

>> i am an architect, but i am here as a friend and neighbor of the appellants, and before i speak about this appeal, i want to talk about the context stereo -- the context. it is a unique area. we have a specific planning code. we have small homes and small lots and narrow streets. the typical lot size where i live is 25 by 70. that is 1750 square feet, and that is the size of most floor plans in other neighborhoods, so we already have small lots, and

we have many substandard sell- offs -- lots in the neighborhood, so the map i want to show you is this one, and this is the property, and you can see the subject property. there is the property across the street, and there is another property here, so what is compelling to mae is this demonstrate they allowed the property owner to slip a lot, and it has been my observation -- to split the lot, and it has been my observation you grant the same rights to everyone equally, and i think this is compelling, that they are sandwiched between two

properties. the end result -- the other thing that is a difference is that all the neighbors support this. and i am running out of time, so i want to say, i do not know if you have a chance to look at this, and the appellant did not hire a consultant. they did not submit this, and i think this is very compelling, so i think it's got sanchez had a chance to review this, -- if scott sanchez had a chance to review this, maybe he would have a different opinion. there is going to be minor construction. all the neighbors support office, and i think this is a great example. you should give them the same property ricghts, so thank you

very much. >> next speaker. reaction my name is a and caesar, and i am a resident of hanover street. i am directly -- >> my name is anne caesar, and i am a resident of hanover street. i just want to present my voice to the board and say i have no objection to this, and the consensus within my household and with my other neighbors is also that we have no objection to the slot being split, and i would ask the board please -- to the lot being split, and i would ask the board to please grant

what they request. >> x speaker please. -- next speaker please. >> i live directly across from jack and vicki, and my lot is actually 23 by 70, and i am between a two other parcels that are actually double costs -- double loss, and i have no objection to having them split, and getting the conflict resolved in a timely manner. >> any other public comment spam of seeing none, we will move to revive phone -- any other public comments? seeing none, we will move to rebuttal. >> with regard to the option of