Anexo

AGENDA CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY – July 15, 2009 9:00 AM – CITY HALL ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 17, 2009 MEETING NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-09-05 1404 Forrest Avenue, Kent Eight Plaza: Henry Mast has applied to the City of Dover Board of Adjustment requesting a variance from the requirements of Article 5 §4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the size of signage. Subject property is zoned SC-1 (Shopping Center Zone) and is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The Tax Parcel ID # is ED05-076.10-02-12.00. The owner of record is the Stoltzfus-Mast Partnership. Applicant #V-09-06 545 South State Street: Adam Perza has applied to the City of Dover Board of Adjustment requesting a variance from the requirements of Article 4 §4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the rear-yard setback and lot coverage. Subject property is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District) Zone. The Tax Parcel ID # is ED05-077.09-05-71.01. The owner of record is Adam and Kasey Perza. ADJOURN 29 Del.C. § 10004(e)(2)

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 17, 2009 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 9:00 AM with Chairman Sheth presiding. Members present were, Mr. Sheth, Colonel Ericson, Mr. Senato, Mr. Hufnal and Dr. Goate’. Staff members present were Mr. Albert, Ms. Cornwell, Ms. Metsch and Mr. Rodriguez. Also present was Mr. Wayne Sharp. Speaking from the public was Mr. Shaun Sokolowski. NOTE: These minutes were prepared using the “Action Minutes” format. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Colonel Ericson moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and the motion was unanimously carried. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2009 Mr. Senato moved to approve the regular Board of Adjustment meeting minutes of May 20, 2009 as submitted, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and the motion was unanimously carried. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Ms. Cornwell presented to the audience the policies and procedures that would be followed during these hearings. NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-09-04 955 South State Street, South Dover Elementary School: The Dover Special School District has applied to the City of Dover Board of Adjustment requesting a variance from the requirements of Article 5 §4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the size of signage. Subject property is zoned IO (Institutional/Office Zone). The Tax Parcel ID # is ED-05-077.13- 02-69.00. The owner of record is the Dover Special School District. Representative: Mr. Wayne Sharp, Becker Morgan Group, Inc. Ms. Cornwell presented an overview of the application. Mr. Sharp presented the application and at that time handed out additional drawings of the project. Colonel Ericson stated that it would seem to him that the applicant should go through the Planning Commission if this is going to be a standard sign for all of the schools and accepted throughout the communities. We are apparently not talking about just this sign it would be all future signage. Responding to Colonel Ericson, Mr. Sharp stated that currently we are

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2009 addressing this sign in terms of variance requirements for this location. If any of the other schools were to come in for a sign permit, the size of the sign may vary depending on where they are located and in what zoning district. Some schools may have to come back for variances and some may not. If you are adopting a standard and you recommend proceeding with that standard and that goes forward to the Planning Commission, we could arrange to have that presented. Also responding to Colonel Ericson, Ms. Cornwell stated that the reason that this sign is before the Board is because it is located adjacent to a residential neighborhood which permits a smaller sign per the Sign Ordinance Regulations. In other districts where schools are located they might not be directly adjacent to a residential use or district; like Dover High School where there is commercial zoning located on the sides and are therefore permitted by code a larger sign. Not every sign would have to come before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hufnal questioned if this reader board sign was the same size as Dover High Schools? Responding to Mr. Hufnal, Mr. Sharp stated that it is very similar as the electronic sign is proposed to be the same size; however, the letter sign at South Dover Elementary School is larger. Dr. Goate’ inquired if they had received any inquiries from persons from outside of the district? Responding to Dr. Goate’, Mr. Sharp stated that he had not. Ms. Cornwell stated that as a part of the sign changes that were discussed at last month’s meeting, the placement of the sign is something that the Planning Commission would be able to determine; however, sign area is not. Staff believes that they should either come into compliance or provide the reason why they need a variance for square footage. Colonel Ericson asked Staff to explain the Staff comments and/or recommendations. It was stated that the physical conditions and the size of the lot is cause for the reason that this sign is to be larger. He does not see in this case where that is relevant. Responding to Colonel Ericson, Ms. Cornwell stated that in this area of the City, there are a lot of smaller residential lots located across the street and to the north and south on this side there are also smaller lots. They have a lot of road frontage on State Street with several hundred feet of road frontage. Placing a sixteen (16) square foot sign somewhere in the large open space is going to be difficult to view especially since the building is located so far back from the road. Also responding to Colonel Ericson, Mr. Sharp stated that the building is set back so far that you pretty much do not see the building so the sign is very important to announce the building and entrance. We want to make sure the text is large enough for exposure to the building as you approach it. We are further back on the street than most of the signs along this roadway, because we have more setback and the further you get away from the street, in terms of the safe viewing for the lettering size, we want to make sure that we have the letter size large enough so that you don’t have to try and read once you are upon it. Mr. Senato questioned if the sign was going to be more of an informational sign similar to Dover High School’s? Responding to Mr. Senato, Mr. Sharp stated that it will be a combination. It will have the school name on it on the top and the rest of it will be an informational sign for announcements for the school district. 2

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2009 Mr. Senato stated that the difference between the sign for South Dover Elementary and Dover High School is that during the day at Dover High School, traffic can be backed up and the reading of that sign is in a stopped position whereas with South State Street, traffic is at a continual run and this is a concern for him for safety reasons. Responding to Mr. Senato, Mr. Sharp stated that again, this is why we are having larger text so people can easily read it. Colonel Ericson questioned if the sign would have flashing letters which would be a safety concern for the children in this area? Responding to Colonel Ericson, Ms. Cornwell stated that the sign can only change once every thirty (30) seconds. It cannot flash, have any animation, or slide in. If it slides in, when the message changes, it has to occur in less than five (5) seconds and then stay still for thirty (30) seconds before it can then change again. It is usually stable for most of the day because usually they are advertising some type of meeting or school event. Mr. Hufnal stated that this type of sign is basically the sign of the future because he knows of two organizations that have signs that are permanent signs and they have considered going to a changeable index rather than to physically go out and change it. You are going to try and keep this sign consistent with future signage that the school district does? Responding to Mr. Hufnal, Mr. Sharp stated that the intention is to at least keep the signage piece consistent; however, the support around it and the change of the design itself would depend on the school itself. Mr. Sheth questioned if there was any board member with a conflict of interest and there was none. Mr. Sheth questioned if there was any correspondence received for this application and there was. Ms. Cornwell stated that a letter was received concerning signage at South Dover Elementary School Applicant #V-09-04 “I am unable to attend the public meeting on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 so I am writing this letter as my input as a notified property owner within 200 feet of the property, please make this a part of the record. I am against any sign whatever the size that is lighted from within and changes message on State Street in the heart of Dover. I do not believe that an elementary school needs such an aggressive sign. Sincerely, Rose Bryan.” Mr. Sheth opened a public hearing. Mr. Shaun Sokolowski – Business Manager for Capital School District – Stated that no one has made any comments regarding the sign variance or any comments regarding the existing sign located at Dover High School. We hope you will obviously approve the sign as we do have important messages that we need to get out to the public. We are a public entity so we will have public meetings in the school. It is very important to get our messages across to the public when it is necessary on whether the school will be closed, PTA meetings, or if there is a board meeting. Mr. Sheth closed the public hearing after seeing no one else wishing to speak. Colonel Ericson stated that he could understand why the person who sent in the letter would be concerned with having this type of sign in a residential area. Responding to Colonel Ericson, 3

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2009 Ms. Cornwell stated that this type of sign is permitted by right. They are permitted to have a changeable copy sign; however, the entire sign just needs to be smaller and what they are asking for is an additional eight (8) square feet. The primary and secondary letter height of signs, there is a code requirement that they are trying to meet if not exceed. Dr. Goate’ moved to approve application V-09-04; 955 South State Street, South Dover Elementary School proposed signage based upon presentation by Staff and the Engineering Company and is supported strongly by the question of the people, Staff, and parents, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and the motion was unanimously carried. Mr. Senato moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and the motion was unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:38 AM Sincerely, Diane Metsch Secretary 4

City of Dover Board of Adjustment July 15, 2009 V-09-05 Location: 1404 Forrest Avenue Applicant/Owner: Stoltzfus-Mast Partnership Application Date: June 12, 2009 Present Zoning: SC-1 (Neighborhood Shopping Center Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Present Use: Shopping Center Reviewed By: Janelle M. Cornwell, AICP Project Description: The applicant is requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5, Section 4.7 Permitted Signs. Specifically, they are requesting a variance from the square footage permitted. Permitted by Request Code Number of All Signs 1 1 Square Footage Permitted 32 SF unknown The applicant has stated that “what we are proposing is the same size of lettering as the sign that was previously on the same marquis at the same location. We are simply replacing one sign with another of the same size, and therefore, we are not changing or increasing anything. We are simply asking for the same signage and lettering that existing previously. All (except one) of the other signs in the shopping center are the same size (and always have been) requiring Halpern Eye Associates to use smaller lettering for out sign causes an undue hardship by imposing a distinct competitive disadvantage” Adjacent Land Uses The adjacent properties are a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The property to the west is zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property to the east is zoned C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The properties to the north across Forrest Avenue are

V-09-05 Kent Eight Plaza Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 4 zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and SC-2 (Community Shopping Center Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property to the northwest across Forrest Avenue is zoned RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The properties to the south are zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). Code Citations 4.7 Permitted signs. Signs are permitted in all zones in accordance with the following table, which is a list of permitted sign types by use, proximity to residential uses and road classification. Use Road Type Sign Type Number Max Size Max % of Wall Setback Permitted Height (R.O.W.) Non- Minor Wall Sign 1 per 32 SF 30 ft Less than N/A Residential Arterial frontage 15% uses adjacent Monument 1 per 32 SF 10 ft. N/A 10 ft. to Sign entrance Residential District or uses Hardship/Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Article 9, §2 dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. In order to grant a variance the Board must determine in that a hardship/exceptional practical difficulties exists. Specifically the Board must determine: (a) That there are physical conditions, fully described in the findings of the board, applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought, which conditions are peculiar to such land or building, and have not resulted from any act of the applicant or any predecessor in title; and (b) That, for reasons fully set forth in the findings of the board, the aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of all reasonable use of such land or building and the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or building, and that the variance as granted by the board is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose; and (c) That the granting of the variance under such conditions as the board may deem necessary or desirable to apply thereto will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, will not represent a radical departure there from, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, will not change the character thereof and will not be otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. In assessing the potential hardships/exceptional practical difficulties the Board must consider responses to four questions provided by the applicants in their completion of the application. 1. Are there physical conditions of the property (size, shape, location) peculiar to the land or building that would justify a variance? 2. Is the applicant responsible for the physical conditions listed above?

V-09-05 Kent Eight Plaza Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 4 3. Do the zoning requirements for which the variance is sought otherwise deprive the applicant of all reasonable use of the subject property? 4. Would the requested variance be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood? The applicant’s answers to the above four questions are included in the application below. The applicant provided a survey map of the site and location of the building to document the circumstances. Applicant Responses: 1. Physical Conditions: Yes. The Halpern Eye Associates space is one of the anchors for this plaza and therefore has a large marquis area. Consequently, a significantly smaller sign than what we are proposing would be out of balance with the signage of the opposite anchor (Talbots) thereby visually detracting from the shopping plaza and the neighborhood. 2. Applicant’s responsibility for conditions: No. 3. Deprivation of all reasonable use of the property: No. 4. Character of the neighborhood: Yes! This section of Forrest Avenue/Route 8 is all commercial, and as stated before, all (except one) of the other signs in the shopping center are the same size (and always have been). In fact, to require a significantly smaller sign would be out of character for the neighborhood and would look out of proportion for the marquis size. Staff comments and recommendations: 1. Physical Conditions: No. The site is located within an existing shopping center that meets the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Applicant’s responsibility for conditions: No. The site is an existing site in which the new tenant is occupying an existing tenant space. The former wall sign that has been removed was considered legal non-conforming with regards to sign area. 3. Deprivation of all reasonable use of the property: No. Denial of the variance would not deprive the applicant of all reasonable use of his property. A sign meeting the Sign Regulations would still be visible to the traffic along Forrest Avenue. Most of the other tenants in the shopping center have signs that meet the Sign Regulations. 4. Character of the neighborhood: Approval of the variance would negatively impact the long term character of the area; staff believes that a 32 SF sign would be compatible with other signs in the area. The proposed sign would be out of place when the legal non-conforming signs eventually

V-09-05 Kent Eight Plaza Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 4 come into compliance with the Sign Regulations. The proposed sign would be the largest sign in the shopping center and would not be in keeping the character of the other signs. Most of the other signs in the shopping center do meet the Sign Regulations. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variance as follows: The reasons for these recommendations are as follows: The physical attributes of the property, including size, shape, do not create an exceptional practical difficulty in providing signage for the site that is legible from the right-of-way. The scale of the site compared to the size of the sign the permitted sign would be in scale with the site. A permitted 32 SF sign would fit. The proposed sign would be in keeping with the character of the area. There are a number of signs that have a sign area of 32 SF or less. The Great Clips sign shown as a part of the exhibit is 29 SF in sign area. The Talbots and the Dairy Queen signs are considered legal non-conforming. The other signs shown are legal signs meeting the sign regulations. Some of the other signs that the applicant has mentioned are considered legal non- conforming signs. When there is a change of use, renovation of more than 75% of the exterior, an addition of more than 20% of the floor area or other item as identified in Article 5 Section 4.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, those sign shall come onto compliance with the existing sign regulations. The purpose of the section of the Sign Regulations is to achieve compliance over time. Staff notes that several of the tenants have signs that conform to the existing sign regulations. The tenant may have the potential to have additional signage on the pylon sign for the shopping center. The ability to have signage on the pylon sign would be determined by the lease for the tenant space. If the variance is granted, when the other signs over time come into compliance with the Sign Regulations this sign would not be in keeping with the character of other signs in the neighborhood. This could set a precedent for other legal non-conforming signs. The needs or desires of a particular owner or tenant or of a particular prospective owner or tenant shall not, either alone or in conjunction with other factors, afford any basis for the granting of a variance. The fact that the improvements already existing at the time of the application are old, obsolete, outmoded or in disrepair, or the fact that the property is then unimproved, shall not be deemed to make the plight of the property unique or to contribute thereto.

City of Dover Board of Adjustment July 15, 2009 V-09-06 Lands of Perza at 545 South State Street Location: 545 South State Street Applicant/Owner: Adam and Kasey Perza. Application Date: June 22, 2009 Present Zoning: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) H (Historic District) Present Use: Residence Reviewed By: Michael J. Albert, AICP Project Description: The applicant is seeking a variance from Article 4, Section 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the bulk standard requirements of the R-8 zoning, specifically as those requirements relate to the rear- yard setback and to impervious coverage. The applicant seeks to construct an addition on to the rear portion of the existing structure. The requested variance would allow for a 10 foot rear- yard setback and permitting the property to exceed the 35% lot coverage regulation by 3.7% for a total of 38.7% lot coverage. The property is located at 545 South State Street in Dover’s Historic District. Adjacent Land Uses The lands to the north and east are all similarly zoned R-8 and are residential uses. The lands to the south and west are zoned IO (Institutional/Office). These properties are used as part of the Bayhealth operations.

V-09-06 Lands of Perza at 545 South State Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 4 Code Citations Section 4.1. [One-family residence zones.] Bulk and parking regulations for one-family residence, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7 zones [are as follows] (see also article 12, definitions; article 5, supplementary regulations; and article 6, off- street parking, driveways and loading facilities): TABLE INSET: For Dwellings In: R-20 R-15 R-10 R-8 R-7 Minimum required: Lot area (sq. ft.) 20,000 15,000 10,000 8,000 7,000 Lot width (ft.) 120 100 80 70 50 Lot depth (ft.) 150 125 110 100 100 Front yard (ft.) 30 30 25 25 20 Minimum side yard (ft.) 25 20 15 10 5 Total both side yards (ft.) 50 40 30 20 10 Rear yard (ft.) 40 40 30 30 30 Livable floor area/DU (sq. ft.) 1,200 1,200 Off-street parking spaces/dwelling units 3 3 2 2 2 Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 2 1/2 2 1/2 2 1/2 2 1/2 2 1/2 Feet 35 35 35 35 35 Lot coverage 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% (Ord. of 12-14-1992) Hardship/Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Article 9, §2 dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. In order to grant a variance the Board must determine in that a hardship/exceptional practical difficulties exists. Specifically the Board must determine: (a) That there are physical conditions, fully described in the findings of the board, applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought, which conditions are peculiar to such land or building, and have not resulted from any act of the applicant or any predecessor in title; and

V-09-06 Lands of Perza at 545 South State Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 4 (b) That, for reasons fully set forth in the findings of the board, the aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of all reasonable use of such land or building and the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or building, and that the variance as granted by the board is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose; and (c) That the granting of the variance under such conditions as the board may deem necessary or desirable to apply thereto will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, will not represent a radical departure there from, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, will not change the character thereof and will not be otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. In assessing the potential hardships/exceptional practical difficulties the Board must consider responses to four questions provided by the applicants in their completion of the application. 1. Are there physical conditions of the property (size, shape, location) peculiar to the land or building that would justify a variance? 2. Is the applicant responsible for the physical conditions listed above? 3. Do the zoning requirements for which the variance is sought otherwise deprive the applicant of all reasonable use of the subject property? 4. Would the requested variance be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood? The applicant’s answers to the above four questions are included in the application below. The applicant provided a survey map of the site and location of the building to document the circumstances. Applicant Responses: 1. Physical Conditions: Please reference the attached document for the Applicant’s answers. 2. Applicant’s responsibility for conditions: Please reference the attached document for the Applicant’s answers. 3. Deprivation of all reasonable use of the property: Please reference the attached document for the Applicant’s answers. 4. Character of the neighborhood: Please reference the attached document for the Applicant’s answers. Staff comments and recommendations: 1. Physical Conditions: The property is 5,877 S.F. in size. It is below the minimum lot size prescribed for the R-8 zoning. The prescribed size in square feet of a R-8 zoned property is 8,000 S.F.

V-09-06 Lands of Perza at 545 South State Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 4 The property is approximately 91 feet deep. It is below the minimum prescribed lot depth of 100 feet. The property is also below the minimum prescribed lot width of 70 feet. 2. Applicant’s responsibility for conditions: No. The Applicant is not responsible for the size or shape of the lot. 3. Deprivation of all reasonable use of the property: No. The Applicant will not be deprived of all reasonable use of the property should the variance be denied. 4. Character of the neighborhood: The requested variance would not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood in regards to the construction and placement of an addition. The Applicant is advised that the proposed addition, should a variance be granted, will be subject to Architectural Review Certification by the City Planner via the building permit process, as it is located within the H (Historic) zone. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance. The reasons for this recommendation are specific to the existing lot size and failure of the lot to meet minimum bulk standard requirements: Staff finds that there is compelling reason for granting the variance as the lot does not meet the minimum width, length, or area of the current and intended zoning (R-8). Variances which are particular to the size and dimension of a property should be evaluated primarily on those reasons of dimension alone. The variance as proposed would have no effect on the existing neighborhood character.