6-17-20 paperless packet

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 9:00 AM Virtual Meeting The Board of Adjustment will hold a virtual meeting on WEDNESDAY, June 17, 2020 at 9:00 AM to review and comment on the following application. The Board of Adjustment Meeting for June 17, 2020 at 9:00AM will be held partly as a Virtual Meeting using WebEx. Members of the Board of Adjustment, as well as Representatives of each Variance Application will have the option to attend in person and will also receive a specific invitation to attend this meeting virtually if they so choose. In the interest of public health and safety, members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting via WebEx only. Public Participation Information To Attend City of Dover Board of Adjustment Meeting of June 17, 2020 Public Participation Information: Dial 1-408-418-9388 Event number/Access code: 129 028 1427 Event password: RWnMXi2P8h6 https://cityofdoverde.webex.com/cityofdoverde/onstage/g.php?MTID=e400c5858eb147d8 bbcef49d3a28af4f2 ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES of May 20, 2020 Meeting COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. Reminder: The next Board of Adjustment regular meeting date is July 15, 2020 at 9:00am. OLD BUSINESS Applicant #V-20-02 245 McKee Road. Delaware Department of Corrections has requested a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to permitted sign height and sign area for Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts along an Urban Minor Arterial. Specifically, to increase the height from 7 ft. to 8 ft. tall for a monument sign with an electronic message center and to increase the total area of the sign face from 32 SF. to 42.5 SF. at the entrance to their facility on McKee Road. Subject property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-067.00-02-16.00-000. The owner of record is National Cup Co. Consideration of this Application began at the May 20, 2020 Board of Adjustment Meeting; however, the Public Hearing and Action was deferred. NEW BUSINESS

Board of Adjustment Agenda June 17, 2020 Page 2 of 2 Applicant #V-20-04 5 Pine Street. Rev. G. Derrick Hodge has requested an area variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1.31 pertaining to the corner visibility with regards to fences in a residential zone, and Article 5 §1.55 pertaining to fence height in the front yard area of a residential zone. Specifically, the applicant proposes to increase the height of a fence within the area designated as a setback for corner visibility from 3 feet to 5 feet, and to increase the maximum height of the fence allowed in the front yard from the 4 feet to 5 feet. Subject property is zoned R-8 (One-family Residence Zone). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-077.17-04-02.00-000. The owner of record is Rev. G. Derrick Hodge. ADJOURN 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(2) THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VIRTUAL MEETING MINUTES May 20, 2020 A Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held virtually using a telephone and video conferencing platform system (WebEx) on Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 9:00 A.M. with Chairman Sheth presiding. Members present were Chairman Sheth, Mr. Keller, Mr. Senato, Colonel Ericson and Mr. Hufnal. Staff members present were Mr. Swierczek, Mr. Hugg, Mrs. Bulkilvish, City Solicitor Mr. Rodriguez, and Mrs. Savage-Purnell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Senato moved to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2020 Mr. Keller moved to approve the meeting minutes of January 15, 2020 with the necessary corrections. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 5-0. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING APPLICATIONS Mr. Dave Hugg, Planning Director stated that the meeting today will be conducted in accordance with the Agenda. There is one new (1) application on the agenda under New Business. The Application file will be read, and the floor will be opened for questions of the applicant by the Board and for public testimony. If the Board needs to consult the City Solicitor, they will recess to discuss legal matters. If the applicant must leave, they can contact the Planning Office at 736- 7196 to learn of the Board’s decision. A formal notice of the decision will be mailed to the applicants. Approved variances expire after one year if the approved project has not commenced. All public notice for the new application on this agenda was completed in accordance with Code requirements. The meeting agenda was posted in accordance with Freedom of Information Act requirements. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS The next Board of Adjustment regular meeting is scheduled for June 17, 2020 at 9:00am. NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-20-02 245 McKee Road. Delaware Department of Corrections has requested a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 pertaining to permitted sign height and sign area for Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts along an Urban Minor Arterial. Specifically, to increase the height from 7 ft. to 8 ft. tall for a monument sign with an electronic message center and to increase the total area of the sign face from 32 SF. to 42.5 SF. at the entrance to their facility on McKee Road. Subject property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2020 Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-067.00-02-16.00-000. The owner of record is National Cup Co. Mrs. Bulkilvish gave a summary presentation of the Variance Application Request for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 pertaining to permitted sign height and sign area for Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts along an Urban Minor Arterial. Exhibits for the Record: Staff Report, Zoning Exhibit, and statement and photos submitted by the applicant. Legal Notice was published in the Delaware State News on May 10, 2020. The public was notified in accordance with regulations. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest. Mr. Senato commented that he had worked for over 15 years as the Correctional Sergeant with the Department and 10 years in Headquarters in various positions is and currently on the Governor’s Board of Adjustment which is the Advisory Board to the Commissioners and Bureau Chiefs. City Solicitor stated that after hearing Mr. Senato comments that he would not be disqualified from voting on the application. Representative: Ms. Colleen Michelle Allen, Rogers Sign Company Inc. Ms. Colleen Michelle Allen was sworn in by City Solicitor Mr. Rodriguez. PowerPoint Presentation Ms. Allen testified that they are applying for a LED message center for the Department of Corrections with brick base and column. The proposed sign is only 10 square feet higher than what is allowed in this district. However, it is more than 10 square feet less than what they currently have. The property across the street is protected from view by a berm and vegetation and you really cannot see anything. The neighboring homes to the right of the property are blocked by a fence and trees. She did not think that the sign would be a distraction by anyone in the neighborhood. Chairman Sheth asked the Applicant if she was aware that Staff did not recommend approval of the variance to permit an 8ft. tall sign. Ms. Allen replied yes, the height pertains to the aesthetic. If you look at Exhibit D which is the sketch of the sign, the base of the sign is only 18 inches. The LED portion is 50 inches in height and the header panel is 25 inches. Most of this is related to the LED header panel size and the LED having to be 70 percent. If we reduce the base or the header panel that means that we would be reducing the LED which is really the focal point. The more we reduce the height, the more we would have to reduce everything else to be in line with the Code. 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2020 Mr. Hufnal mentioned that he did not have a problem with the increased size because it is smaller than the existing sign. Mr. Hufnal asked the applicant if they had considered rather than reducing any of the brickwork which is the basic aesthetic value of that sign, but instead reduce the height of the actual sign and increasing the width. In other words, you currently have 6.3 feet high, perhaps consider reducing that to 5.3 feet high and extending the width from 6.7 feet to 8 feet. Ms. Allen replied it could be a consideration. The reason we went with the current numbers is because when programming the LED when it is more square than horizontal, it is easier to read and program. You also get better graphing/photos. She stated that the Department of Correction also wanted to put photos on the sign. When you have a horizontal sign, it is nearly impossible to program. Mr. Hufnal asked if it was easier to operate the LED sign in its current configuration than it would to change the structure of the actual sign. Ms. Allen replied correct. We can somewhat reduce the brick somewhat, but she did not know if it would make it enough. Mr. Hufnal mentioned that aesthetically the way that you have the brick design in the L-shaped with the 18 inches of brick all the way around makes it look great. If you did reduce the brick, it would be a deterrent to the actual sign itself. Ms. Allen replied right. We wanted the sign to match the building, so it looks like it is part of it. Mr. Hufnal said right, and he agreed. It is a L-shaped sign with the LED electronic work added into it. Is that right? Ms. Allen replied yes, it is sitting on top. Mr. Hufnal asked for confirmation that there was no second side going up along the Corrections name, it is the actual part of the LED sign. Ms. Allen replied correct. Chairman Sheth stated that he was concerned about establishing a precedent if the second variance was approved to increase the height and that they had denied similar variances requests in the past. Mr. Hufnal commented that aesthetically the sign looks great as it is. You are only talking about a 1-foot difference in a matter of a ½ mile to the next sign which is near Westminster. Then you will need to go another ½ mile the other way to get to the Hamlet before you see another sign. He did not think that the 1-foot variance in that neighborhood with the way the berm is set up and the buffer areas that anyone is ever going to notice the difference of that height. Mr. Keller commented on the comments in the City’s Report under “Project Description” that it is a legal non-conforming sign according to the Zoning Ordinance. He asked if it was legal non- conforming or non-conforming. Mrs. Bulkilvish replied that she did the Report months ago and does not recall whether the sign is legal non-conforming or non-conforming. Mr. Keller mentioned that it is currently noted as a non-conforming sign. Mrs. Bulkilvish replied right. Mr. Keller commented as he referred to Exhibit I drawing and asked if the new proposed sign would be lower in height than the existing sign? He asked if it was a true representation of what will happen. Ms. Allen replied that it was not a true scale, it was her hand drawing. It is not 100% accurate, but to the best of her knowledge it is close. She believes the existing sign is 10-feet tall from the bottom of the post to the top of the post. It may even be shorter than that. 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2020 Mr. Keller mentioned if the existing sign is a non-conforming sign under the current zoning regulations and if it is a legal non-conforming sign, then the new proposed sign when constructed (if the depiction is correct and Ms. Allen’s statement is correct) there would not be an increase if agreed upon permitted of the existing sign if approved as presented. The sign would be a smaller area and there would be an increase and decrease in the square footage from the existing sign. The new sign would be lower in height than the existing non-conforming sign. It would be 1-foot higher than the minimum required under the current zoning. If it is some legal question in the past and it is a legal non-conforming sign, then the new sign would not increase but would in fact decrease the matter of non-conformity. For that reason, he would not have any dilemma or objection to an approval of both the square footage question as well as the height of the sign question to the degree of non-conformity. Mr. Hufnal mentioned that he agreed with Mr. Keller because the even though the sign shows an increase in height, it is still shorter and smaller than what currently exists. Mr. Senato questioned whether the sign is legal non-conforming or non-conforming. He asked Mr. Keller if he was referencing in his comments the current sign and what was his main point. Mr. Keller replied that he was referring to the existing sign that is non-conforming. It does not comply with the existing Zoning Ordinance dimensions. Mr. Keller replied that his main point was that the newly proposed sign would differ 12 inches in height. From the existing Zoning Ordinance dimensions, it will be none the less smaller in the square footage area as well as shorter in height than the existing non-conforming sign. If the existing sign is a legal non-conforming, then the proposed sign would be less dimensionally in both area and height than the existing sign. For that reason, he would not have any dilemma or objection to an approval of both the square footage question as well as the height of the sign question to the degree of non-conformity. Mr. Senato asked with the extra foot. Mr. Keller replied yes, no objection to an approval. Colonel Ericson mentioned that we should not be comparing this sign to the old sign. We are comparing this against what the Code states now. He has not heard any rationale that is going to be a hardship if they stayed within the Code. Why can’t the applicant conform to the Code? Ms. Allen replied that the reason they selected this size is because they started with the size of LED. It is something that would be visible to everyone driving down the street and it would make sense to the client. The Code states that you need to have a header panel which is a certain percentage of the LED. This is what we came up with and with the brick face of 18 inches it is pretty minimal in height. If we reduce the size of the sign it would be smaller and the Department of Correction would not be able to announce their applications for State events, training and hiring, etc. effectively. Colonel Ericson mentioned that if it was approved, it would be setting a precedent and the Board did not want to set a precedent if they could help it. He did not see where it was mandatory to make it this size. Ms. Allen replied that if it was made smaller (32 square feet), we would end up losing so much LED to compensate for the header panel that it would not be sensible. You would not be able to read it. 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2020 Mr. Hufnal mentioned that his comments were rather than reduce the height to the LED and make it wider there would be to much distortion in the lettering to do it that way. This was the applicant’s way of making the sign readable and understandable from a distance as the vehicles go by. Mr. Hufnal asked the applicant if this was correct. Ms. Allen replied yes, that is correct. Colonel Ericson mentioned that with every application the Board has for a sign, the applicant says the same thing. The applicant likes the sign and want it for their own personal requirement when in fact it does not meet Code. You start out with a Code and if it requests an exception you have to meet all of those requirements. He does not believe the applicant have stated their position adequately to vote yes. Chairman Sheth mentioned that the statement is on the sign twice (logo) and “Delaware Department of Correction.” Ms. Allen replied that the top panel statement will always remain the same. The bottom panel wording can change and state anything that the Delaware Department of Correction wants to add to the sign. It was just a quick mock up. The sign may not look like that at all. Mr. Senato asked as he referred to the proposed sign and Ms. Allen comments that the “the bottom panel wording can change and state anything that the Delaware Department of Correction want to add to the sign. It was just a quick mock up. The sign may not look like that at all.” The top panel is the permanent sign and the bottom panel would be the electronic signage and that they really cannot go any smaller. If you took away the top sign panel, would it give you what you needed on the entire sign? Chairman Sheth asked since the Board was having difficulties understanding the comments from everyone, they could table the application until the next meeting in hopes that the next meeting would not be virtual. Ms. Bulkilvish commented on Mr. Senato’s question about, if the top panel had been removed, it would resolve the sign area issue that we are having. Ms. Bulkilvish replied that it would; however, the Code states that a sign cannot be strictly in an electronic message center. It can be a portion of the sign face and not to exceed 70% of the sign face. This is what the applicant has shown that the top panel does meet Code. The complete sign face is not completely LED but is less than 70% LED. Mr. Hufnal asked if we have to keep top panel and the bottom panel as the LED sign, could the applicant go into the brick area and compromise to reduce the sign 6 inches into the brick so that you would have 1-foot of brick level at the bottom and 18 inches on the left side. Chairman Sheth agreed with Mr. Hufnal. Mr. Hufnal asked if it were a compromise that the applicant would be acceptable with. Ms. Allen mentioned that she did not hear what was previously asked due to her computer died, but she asked if Mr. Hufnal asked to shrink the brick face by 6 inches so that it is 12 inches. Mrs. Bulkilvish replied correct. Ms. Allen replied that the only reason they do not recommend that is because if you go out and look at the brick face it is short and looks as if the sign is sitting on the ground. 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2020 Chairman Sheth mentioned if the applicant is not in agreement, he suggested postponing the application until the next meeting. Colonel Ericson suggested tabling the application until the next meeting and perhaps the meeting will be in person. Mr. Senato mentioned that he agreed with Colonel Ericson. Colonel Ericson suggested to table the application and start at the beginning at the meeting because the Board has not had a good chance to talk with the applicant and this would be fair to the applicant. This would give the applicant more time in case she had more ideas or options for the next meeting in order to meet the standards or compromise. Ms. Allen mentioned that she would also like to talk with the contact person at the Department of Corrections for his thoughts and propose a few things as compromises to see what they would like to do. At the end, this is their sign and she is going to have to bring back to the Board what they would like for her to do. There was brief discussion between the Board members regarding the public hearing and tabling the meeting. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the Board could table the meeting. He asked the Board if they wanted to open the public hearing now and then they would not need to have a public hearing at the next meeting. Colonel Ericson mentioned that he wanted to make sure Ms. Allen would be able to speak at the next meeting in person. Ms. Allen mentioned that she did not hear a lot of the conversation due to computer issues. Mr. Senato moved to table variance application V-20-02 until the next Board of Adjustment meeting. The motion was seconded by Colonel Ericson. Roll Call Mr. Keller – yes Mr. Senato – yes Mr. Hufnal – yes Colonel Ericson – yes Chairman Sheth - yes The motion unanimously carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned by Mr. Senato and seconded by Colonel Ericson at 10:21 A.M. Sincerely, 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2020 Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 4

City of Dover Board of Adjustment March 18, 2020 V-20-02 Location: 245 McKee Road Applicants: State of Delaware Department of Corrections Philip Hughes c/o National Cup Co. Colleen Allen c/o Rogers Sign Co., Inc. Owner: National Cup Co. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.00-02-16.00-000 Application Date: February 14, 2020 Present Zoning: IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone – 1) Present Use: State of Delaware Department of Corrections Administration Building Reviewed By: Samantha Bulkilvish, Planner I Variance Type: Area Variance Variance Requested: To permit a 42.5 SF sign, an addition of 10.5 SF above the maximum 32 SF sign and to permit an excess of one (1) ft. above the maximum 7 ft. height.

V-20-02 DE Department of Corrections Sign, 245 McKee Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 9 Project Description The property is the location of the State of Delaware Department of Corrections Administrative Building. There is an existing post and panel sign that is in need of repair or replacement (Exhibit F). The applicant proposes to install one (1) 42.5 SF monument sign with an electronic message center. The existing sign is a nonconforming sign according to the Zoning Ordinance, based on the property’s frontage on McKee Road (an “Urban Minor Arterial” street). However, the new proposed monument sign is not permitted, because it exceeds the maximum area of 32 SF for a Nonresidential Sign adjacent to a Residential District along an Urban Minor Arterial. The applicant is requesting an area variance from the Supplementary Sign Regulations given in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 in order to allow an additional 10.5 SF of sign area and an additional one (1) foot of height. The use of the property as an administrative building is a permitted use in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The property’s location in the Corridor Overlay Zone (COZ-1) does not have any impact on sign regulations. The sign and its proposed location in front of the building are shown in Exhibit D and Exhibit I. Adjacent Land Uses This property located at 245 McKee Road is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The proposed location of the sign on the northeast side of McKee Road is along the frontage to the north of the entrance to the property (Exhibit E). Southeast of the site, immediately adjacent to it is the Northwest Dover Heights Subdivision made up of single family lots zoned R-7 (One- Family Residence Zone). Across McKee Road to the west and southwest of the site is the Hamlet Subdivision comprised of single family detached house lots zoned R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone) and townhomes zoned RG-3 (Group Housing Zone). To the northeast the property is bordered by the railroad. The parcel directly adjacent on the northwest side is owned by National Cup Co. as well and is vacant aside from a driveway to access the rear of the building being utilized by the Department of Corrections. This parcel is also zoned IPM (Industrial Manufacturing Park Zone). There are additional residential developments, personal service establishments, medical and professional offices as well as commercial retail within the vicinity of the site along McKee Road. A map of the property and surrounding area may be found in Exhibit A. Code Citations The City of Dover sign regulations found in Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4 determine the allowable number, type and dimensional characteristics of signage on a property according to: ● The type of use ● Proximity to residential uses ● Classification of roads on which the property has frontage The administrative building is considered a permitted, non-residential use located adjacent to a residential use, as specified in Article 5 §4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The City of Dover sign regulations distinguish three (3) types of roads for purposes of determining allowable signage. McKee Road is an “Urban Minor Arterial” as defined by Article 5 §4.3.

V-20-02 DE Department of Corrections Sign, 245 McKee Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 9 The entire “Sign Table” from Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4.7 is presented in Exhibit B. The section pertaining to this project is highlighted in the middle of the table. This section is what applies to “Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts or Uses” as shown in the vertical text on the left; and it shows the sign types, maximum number of signs, sign area, sign height, and minimum required setbacks and exclusion zones for signs on properties fronting on “Urban Minor Arterial” streets. For this property, a 7 ft. high monument sign with a sign area of 32 SF is permitted. The proposed sign, if granted a variance, would be one (1) ft. taller and 10.5 SF larger than the size limitations specified in the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Adjustment in choosing to grant a variance may accept the sign as proposed or impose a different height and/or area limitation. Any future sign that replaces the sign permitted by this variance would be limited in height and area compliant with Code provisions or would be subject to another variance approved by the Board of Adjustment if the dimensions were to exceed those permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The Table below compares what is permitted under Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 to the applicant’s proposed signage: Table 1 Allowed and Requested Signage, 245 McKee Road Sign # Description Location Max size Max height % of Wall Area Setback (ROW) Exclusion Zone McKee Permitted 32 SF 7 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. 1 Monument N/A frontage Requested 42.5 SF 8 ft. 5 ft. N/A Measuring the Size of the Sign The applicant took this sign through a few iterations and was assisted by Planning Staff in understanding the definitions given in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.3. These definitions are as follows: Changeable sign: A sign with the capability of content change by means of manual or remote input, includes the following types: (1) Manually activated: Changeable sign whose messages, copy or content can be changed manually on a display surface. (2) Electrically activated: Changeable sign whose message copy or content can be changed by means of remote electrically energized on-off switching combinations of alphabetic or pictographic components arranged on a display surface. Illumination may be integral to the components, such as characterized by lamps or other light-emitting devices; or it may be from an external light source designed to reflect off the changeable component display. See also "Electronic message center." Sign area: The area of the smallest geometric figure, or the sum of the combination of regular geometric figures, which comprise the sign face. The area of any double-sided or "V" shaped sign shall be the area of the largest single face only. The area of a sphere shall be computed as the area of a circle. The area of all other multiple-sided signs shall be computed as 50 percent of the sum of the area of all faces of the sign. Sign face: The surface upon, against or through which the sign copy is displayed or illustrated, not including structural supports, architectural features of a building or sign structure, nonstructural thematic or decorative trim, or any areas that are separated from the background surface upon which the sign copy

V-20-02 DE Department of Corrections Sign, 245 McKee Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 9 is displayed by a distinct delineation, such as a reveal or border. Sign height: The height of a sign shall be the vertical distance from normal grade to the highest point of the sign. Any berming, filling or excavating solely for the purpose of locating the sign shall be computed as a part of the sign height. The sign also features an electronic message center so Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4.4 (E) Changeable signs was also taken into consideration. Article 5 §4.4 (E) Changeable signs E.1. Changeable signs may be incorporated into a sign face when the changeable component of the sign face occupies less than 70 percent of the total area of that sign face. E.2. Changeable sign area shall be integrated into the sign face and shall be enclosed by a border or similar enclosure so as to form one sign panel. The changeable area of the proposed sign is less than 70 percent of the total sign area. The Total sign area is 42.5 SF and the area of the electronic message center is 28.35 SF. approximately 66 percent of the total sign area. Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Zoning Ordinance Article 9 §2 dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. Specifically, the Board must determine: 2.1 Variance – The board shall have the authority to authorize variances from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not contrary to public interest where the board determines that a literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant. In granting variances, the board shall determine that the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. 2.11 Area Variance. A variance shall be considered an area variance if it relates to bulk standards, signage regulations, and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that address lot layout, buffers, and dimensions. In considering a request for an area variance, the board shall evaluate the following criteria and document them in their findings of fact: (a) the nature of the zone in which the property lies; (b) the character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; (c) whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; and (d) whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Review of Application As a part of the application, the applicant was asked to state how the requested variance relates to the above four criteria. The applicant’s responses are provided below, along with a staff assessment of the application in accordance with the required criteria. The applicant’s responses are also provided in Exhibit C. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies.

V-20-02 DE Department of Corrections Sign, 245 McKee Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 9 Applicant Response: “IPM: Industrial Park / Manufacturing Zoning Use: Non-Residential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts Road Type: Urban Local Collector” Staff Response: As explained in the “Code Citations” section above, the signage regulations on this property come from its position on an Urban Minor Arterial, and its adjacency to a residential district, not from the IPM zoning. Despite the applicant giving the incorrect road type, the sign dimensions along an Urban Local Collector and an Urban Minor Arterial are the same. Monument signs are to be measured from grade to the top of the sign and the area is calculated by measuring the height and width of the sign face only. In this case, the sign face includes the static sign at the top as well as the changeable sign portion located directly beneath. Monument signs for properties on Urban Minor Arterials may be up to 32 SF and 7 ft. in height. The IPM zone permits a wide variety of businesses, including administrative offices. The building is a large single story building with a brick façade set further back from McKee Road than the neighboring residential dwellings. The parcel to the northwest is also zoned IPM but is vacant except for a chain link fence along its frontage and driveway that leads to the rear of the building at 245 McKee Road. The property is also located within the Corridor Overlay Zone which has no impact on the sign regulations. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Response: “Vicinity is mixed use – residential / industrial / commercial– with shopping centers containing retail, banks, and restaurant, medical approximately .5 miles in either direction.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with the applicant regarding the mixed uses of the immediate area. Most of the surrounding uses are residential including single family lots, townhouses, and an assisted living facility. Other uses include a church, medical and professional offices, restaurants and small retail establishments (The Shoppes at the Hamlet). 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Response: “The surrounding residential area(s) will not be affected as the sign will not be in anyone’s direct line of sight. The development across the street is protected from view by a berm and line of mature trees. The berm is 14’ high with fully mature trees 40’ to 60’ high (Exhibit H). The neighboring homes to the right of the property are blocked from view of signage by a fence and trees on the applicant’s property (Exhibit M). Currently there is a DOT portable electronic message center along the roadway in front of the applicant’s property that is 8’tall x 12’wide– the proposed signage would not be

V-20-02 DE Department of Corrections Sign, 245 McKee Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 9 offensive or distracting to anyone. The DOT Sign is over twice the size of what we are proposing that is placed on site (Exhibit J). Please see attached photographs.” Staff Response: When property owners seek to exceed the sign regulations, Staff concern is typically with whether the additional signage is excessive in nature, such that it may distract passing drivers or spark competition for larger signs from neighboring businesses. While there will not be any competition for larger neighboring signs because the surrounding uses are residential in nature, there is concern that the sign may be excessive and may distract passing drivers. There are other signs with smaller Electronic Message Center in the vicinity. However, the applicant has demonstrated that removing the restrictions will not seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. They clearly have shown in Exhibit H that directly across the street the sign would not be visible from the residences. Although the applicant says that the sign will be blocked from the adjacent property to the right by a fence and trees, they do not clearly demonstrate this (Staff has submitted Exhibit M to show the existing fence). Lastly, I would also suggest to the applicant that the landscaping around the sign be minimal to not block the sign from view in the future. Care should be taken to maintain the existing vegetation on the property to keep a clear line of site to the sign from passing motorists. 4. Whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant Response: “If not granted this Variance it will be a serious hardship to the State of Delaware Department of Corrections. Presently the Department of Corrections has a sign that is in need of replacing. The existing sign is weathered and rotten, it has become a safety concern. It is much larger in size than we are requesting. It is 55 square feet, larger than the 32 square feet allowed by the City. The State of Delaware is requesting a smaller sign of 42 square feet. Our request for the Electronic Message Center is desperately needed for Recruitment of New Corrections Officers, Department of Corrections Information to the General Public, Public Meetings & Hearings Notices, times of Classes & Special State of Delaware Events that take place at this facility. If not granted the Variance for the square footage requested, it will not benefit anyone with such a small sign. It will not be visible to be effective and not be spending the tax payers’ money wisely. The frontage of the property is so wide and the building so massive, any sign at 32 square feet will not be large enough to be visible and effective for the traveling public at the

V-20-02 DE Department of Corrections Sign, 245 McKee Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 9 speeds they travel. It will appear as would a small real estate sign in front of a huge building. The State of Delaware Department of Corrections is in dire need to get the message out to the public for Correction Officers Recruitment with the serious shortage that exists. Electronic Message Centers have proven to increase inquiries up to 45% and foot traffic over 60% coming into the offices. Again, this will be a serious hardship if not to be granted the Variance for the requested square footage.” Staff Response: Staff agrees that the current nonconforming Department of Corrections sign needs repair or replacement. The applicant is asking to replace the sign with a sign that is more compliant than the existing sign. The hardship that the applicant is claiming is that the State of Delaware Department of Corrections would be left without a way to increase the visibility of the program and to recruit new officers. One option the applicant has is to put up a sign with a smaller electronic message center. A 32 SF sign in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance can have an Electronic Message Center (EMC) that is less than 70% of the total sign area which would work out to be anything less than 22.4 SF. The area of the EMC that the Department of Corrections is asking for is 28.35 SF, only slightly larger than what is permitted by Code. It is questionable whether the quantity and type of messaging that the Department of Corrections would like to share would be clearly visible to passing motorists on a sign that measures less than 22.4 SF. The applicant could forego the Electronic Message Center and just put up a new 32 SF sign to identify the business name in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, but this would not address their hardship for the need to advertise upcoming classes, recruiting events and public meetings. In order to advertise for events under the current Zoning Ordinance the applicant could apply for a Temporary Sign Permit for events. A Temporary Sign Permit is only valid for 90 calendar days within a calendar year for the entirety of the property. The applicant would exceed this timeframe very quickly and would have to request a variance from Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.9 regarding Temporary signs. Variance Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a variance to permit a 42.5 SF sign at 245 McKee Road along its frontage, as shown in the applicant’s sign package, for the following reasons: • The size of this requested sign is not excessive and would be a decrease in square footage from the existing sign. • The sign would not have a negative impact on adjacent residential properties as they are shielded from view by a fence, berm and vegetation. • An electronic message center would allow the applicant to advertise upcoming events and activity needs without exceeding the 90-day per calendar year limit on Temporary Signs.

V-20-02 DE Department of Corrections Sign, 245 McKee Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 8 of 9 Staff does not recommend approval of a variance to permit an 8 ft. tall sign at 245 McKee Road, as shown on the applicant’s rendering, for the following reasons: • The proposed sign can be amended to be 7 ft. by adjusting the height of the base without decreasing the area of the sign face. • The applicant has not demonstrated that the additional height would benefit the advertisement of events in any way. Advisory Comments to the Applicant • If granted, variances become null and void if work has not commenced within one (1) year of the date the variance was granted. At present there is no provision for extension. • A Sign Permit application must be filed for review prior to installation of the sign if the variance is approved.

V-20-02 DE Department of Corrections Sign, 245 McKee Road Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Exhibit Map 1 (Staff) B Sign Table from Zoning Ordinance Article 5 1 Section 4.7 (Staff) C Applicant Responses to Criteria 2 D Proposed Sign Rendering (applicant) 1 E Sign Location on Aerial (applicant) 1 F Photo of Existing Sign (applicant) 1 G Photo of Existing Sign on Google Street View 1 (applicant) H Photo of Neighboring property across McKee 1 Road from Sign (applicant) I Proposed New Sign Location Overlaid on Current 1 Sign (applicant) J DelDOT Electronic Message Center in front of 1 DOC (applicant) K Surrounding Zoning (applicant) 1 L Property Information (applicant) 4 M Street View of Fence Along Neighboring Property 1 (Staff)

City of Dover Exhibit A Application No.: V-20-02 Department of Planning & Inspections R-20 R-20 ROS Wes tm in s terD RG-5 r M IO IPM Site IO RG-3 Fo re st Cr ee ve k Dr o A nn A nz A lo RG-3 r Old M Dr For cK ge ee R-7 ROS D Rd R-7 R-8 R-8 Qu a il H ollo r Dr w Dr ylo ROS R-8 Ta R-7 R-8 Title: Delaware Department of Corrections EMC Sign Address: 245 McKee Road Parcel IDs: ED-05-067.00-02-16.00-000 Legend Zoning: IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) Owner: National Cup Subject Property Date: 03/04/2020 Dover Parcels Zoning 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 150 300 600 Feet Dover Boundary

Exhibit B Zoning Ordinance , Article 5 §4.7 SIGN TABLE Use Road Type Permitted Signs Specific Sign Type Number Max. Size Max. % of Total Setback Exclusion Permitted Height Wall Area (R.O.W.) Zone Single-Family Detached Residential Uses and All Streets Signs permitted in § 4.5 only Semi-Detached Post or 1/entrance 12 S.F. 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet Nonresidential Uses in Professional Office All Streets Monument Wall 1/frontage 16 S.F. N/A < = 15% N/A N/A Wall & 1/frontage 32 S.F. N/A < = 15% N/A N/A Residential Districts Subdivisions Multi-Family Residential Uses All Streets Mobile Home Parks Monument or 2/entrance 32 S.F. 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet Post and Panel Places of Worship Wall & 2/frontage 32 S.F. N/A < = 15% N/A N/A Monument or 1/entrance 32 S.F. 7 feet N/A 10 feet 20 feet Daycare Centers Post and Panel Urban Principal OR Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Arterial Approved Conditional Uses Post** & 1/frontage 16 S.F. 7 feet N/A 5 feet 5 feet Educational/ Institutional Pylon* 1/frontage 32 S.F. 30 feet N/A 30 feet 50 feet Wall & 2/frontage 32 S.F. N/A < = 15% N/A N/A Monument or 1/entrance 32 S.F. 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet Urban Minor Post and Panel All Other Approved Arterial OR Residential Districts or Uses Nonresidential Uses Post** 1/frontage 16 S.F. 7 feet N/A 5 feet 10 feet Wall & 2/frontage 32 S.F. N/A < = 15% N/A N/A Urban Local/ Monument or 1/entrance 32 S.F. 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet Collector Post and Panel OR Post** 1/frontage 16 S.F. 7 feet N/A 5 feet 10 feet Wall & 2/frontage No max N/A < = 15% N/A N/A Monument or 1/entrance 100 S.F. 10 feet N/A 10 feet 20 feet Urban Principal Post and Panel Arterial & Pylon OR * 1/frontage 100 S.F. 30 feet N/A 15 feet 50 feet Nonresidential Uses in Pylon* 1/frontage 150 S.F. 30 feet N/A 31 feet 50 feet Wall & 2/frontage 64 S.F. N/A < =15% N/A N/A Monument or 1/entrance 64 S.F. 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet Urban Minor Nonresidential Uses Post and Panel Arterial OR Nonresidential Districts Post** 1/frontage 16 S.F. 7 feet N/A 5 feet 10 feet Wall & 2/frontage 32 S.F. N/A < = 15% N/A N/A Urban Local/ Monument or 1/entrance 32 S.F. 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet Collector Post and Panel OR Post** 1/frontage 16 S.F. 7 feet N/A 5 feet 10 feet * Denotes that an additional wall sign may be permitted/added in lieu of a freestanding pylon sign. ** Post sign would be in lieu of a monument sign or post and panel sign.

Page 1 of 2 Rogers Sign Co., Inc. - Delaware Department of Corrections 245 McKee Road City of Dover Board of Adjustment Application Criteria: 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies; IPM: Industrial Park / Manufacturing Zoning Use: Non-Residential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts Road Type: Urban Local Collector 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; Vicinity is mixed use – residential / industrial / commercial– with shopping centers containing retail, banks, and restaurant, medical approximately .5 miles in either direction. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; and The surrounding residential area(s) will not be affected as the sign will not be in anyone’s direct line of sight. The development across the street is protected from view by a berm and line of mature trees. The berm is 14’ high with fully mature trees 40’ to 60’ high. The neighboring homes to the right of the property are blocked from view of signage by a fence and trees on the applicant’s property. Currently there is a DOT portable electronic message center along the roadway in front of the applicant’s property that is 8’tall X 12’wide– the proposed signage would not be offensive or distracting to anyone. The DOT Sign is over twice the size of what we are proposing that is placed on site. Please see attached photographs. 4. Whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is permitted uses under the provisions of the zoning ordinance. If not granted this Variance it will be a serious hardship to the State of Delaware Department of Corrections. Presently the Department of Corrections has a sign that is in need of replacing. The existing sign is weathered and rotten, it has become a safety concern. It is much larger in size

Page 2 of 2 Rogers Sign Co., Inc. - Delaware Department of Corrections 245 McKee Road City of Dover Board of Adjustment Application Criteria: Continued… than we are requesting. It is 55 square feet, larger than the 32 square feet allowed by the City. The State of Delaware is requesting a smaller sign of 42 square feet. Our request for the Electronic Message Center is desperately needed for Recruitment of New Corrections Officers, Department of Corrections Information to the General Public, Public Meetings & Hearings Notices, times of Classes & Special State of Delaware Events that take place at this facility. If not granted the Variance for the square footage requested it will not benefit anyone with such a small sign. It will not be visible to be effective and not be spending the tax payers’ money wisely. The frontage of the property is so wide and the building so massive, any sign at 32 square feet will not be large enough to be visible and effective for the traveling public at the speeds they travel. It will appear as would a small real estate sign in front of a huge building. The State of Delaware Department of Corrections is in dire need to get the message out to the public for Correction Officers Recruitment with the serious shortage that exists. Electronic Message Centers have proven to increase inquiries up to 45% and foot traffic over 60% coming into the offices. Again, this will be a serious hardship if not to be granted the Variance for the requested square footage.

City of Dover Board of Adjustment June 17, 2020 V-20-04 Location: 5 Pine Street Applicant/Owner: G. Derrick Hodge Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.17-04-02.00-000 Application Date: May 12, 2020 Present Zoning: R-8 (One-Family Residential Zone) Present Use: Residential (One-Family detached dwelling unit) Reviewed By: Julian Swierczek, Planner I Variance Type: Area Variance Variances Requested: Increase the permitted height of a fence within the area designated as a setback for corner visibility from 3 feet to 5 feet, and to increase the permitted maximum height of the fence allowed in the front yard from 4 feet to 5 feet. Project Description The Applicant is requesting variances from the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1.31 pertaining to the corner visibility with regards to fences in a residential zone, and Article 5 §1.55 pertaining to fence height in the front yard area of a residential zone. These are being requested as the Applicant is planning to increase the height of a fence within the area designated as a setback for corner visibility from 3 feet to 5 feet, and to increase the maximum height of the fence allowed in the front yard from 4 feet to 5 feet. The Applicant has submitted an associated Fence Permit (#20-491) that shows that they plan to fence in the entirety of their property, along property lines, with a 5-foot high wooden picket fence. A plot plan of the proposed fence was submitted by the Applicant via their Fence Permit application, which is provided as Exhibit B. The Applicant has also submitted a series of photos showing the property and identifying its property boundaries, submitted as Exhibit C. A plot plan illustrating corner visibility requirements and permitted maximum fence heights per the Zoning Ordinance as related to subject property is submitted by Staff as Exhibit D

V-20-04 Lands of G. Derrick Hodge at 5 Pine Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 9 Adjacent Zoning and Land Use A Zoning Map Exhibit (Exhibit A) prepared by Staff is attached to this Report. It shows the subject property location and surrounding zoning. The property is located on the east side of South State Street, immediately north of Pine Street. The subject property is zoned R-8 (One- Family Residential Zone) and the use as a detached one-family dwelling unit is a permitted use. The properties immediately adjacent to the north, east and south are all also zoned R-8 (One- Family Residential Zone) and contains one-family detached dwelling units (single-family homes). The properties across South State Street to the west are zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) and contain a Child Daycare center Facility, a single-family dwelling, and a Doctor’s Office respectively. Code Citations R-8 (One-Family Residential Zone) Table 1 below lists the Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations for the R-8 zoning district which are found in Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.1. R-8 Minimum required: Lot area (sq. ft.) 8,000 Lot width (ft.) 70 Lot depth (ft.) 100 Front yard (ft.) 25 Minimum side yard (ft.) 10 Total both side yards (ft.) 20 Rear yard (ft.) 30 Livable floor area/DU (sq.ft.) 1,200 Off-street parking spaces/ dwelling units 2 Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 2½ Feet 35 Lot coverage 35% Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1 lists Supplementary Regulations applying to Residential Zones within the City. The following guidelines and definitions relate to the construction of a fence on a corner lot. Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1.31 gives the following guidelines for maintaining Corner Visibility:

V-20-04 Lands of G. Derrick Hodge at 5 Pine Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 9 Corner visibility. In all zones within the city, no structure, fence, wall, landscaping, earthen berm, sign or any other form of obstruction to visibility, in excess of three feet in height above the adjacent street grade, shall be erected, placed or maintained on any corner lot within the triangular area formed by intersecting right-of-way lines. Two sides of the triangular area shall be 20 feet in length and measured from the point of intersection of the right-of-way lines as further illustrated in figure 5-1 Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1.33 gives the following guidelines for Fences on a Corner Lot: Fences. A fence on a corner lot shall comply with the front yard requirement for height along the street upon which the principal structure fronts. A fence on a corner lot shall comply with the side yard requirement for height along the street adjacent to the side of the principal structure. Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1.55 provides the following guidelines for Fences: Fences. Fences or walls shall be limited to a maximum height of four feet above the ground when situated within front yard areas, and shall be limited to a maximum height of six and one-half feet above ground when situated within side and rear yard areas. Fences situated on corner lots shall be subject to the provisions of article 5, section 1.3. For the purposes of this provision, on lots with dual street frontage that are not corner lots, a fence situated to the rear of the principal structure shall be limited to a maximum height of six and one-half feet above ground. Fences or walls with a height in excess of six and one-half feet above ground shall conform to the setback requirements for dwelling buildings as set forth in article 4 of this appendix. Fence material commonly referred to as "barbed wire" and/or "razor wire," or any similar material, shall be prohibited in residential zones. Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 defines Front Yard as follows: Yard, front: An unoccupied ground area fully open to the sky between the street line and the setback line. The minimum width of the front yard is equal to the setback. Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 defines Side Yard as follows:

V-20-04 Lands of G. Derrick Hodge at 5 Pine Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 9 Yard, side: An unoccupied ground area fully open to the sky between any property line other than a street or rear lot line, and a line drawn parallel thereto, and between the front and rear yards. Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Zoning Ordinance Article 9 §2 dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. Specifically the Board must determine: 2.1 Variance – The board shall have the authority to authorize variances from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not contrary to public interest where the board determines that a literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant. In granting variances, the board shall determine that the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. 2.11 Area Variance. A variance shall be considered an area variance if it relates to bulk standards, signage regulations, and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that address lot layout, buffers, and dimensions. In considering a request for an area variance, the board shall evaluate the following criteria and document them in their findings of fact: (a) the nature of the zone in which the property lies; (b) the character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; (c) whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; and (d) whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Review of Application As part of the application, the applicant was asked to summarize how the requested variance relates to the above criteria. The applicant’s response is provided below along with a staff assessment of the application in accordance with the required criteria. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Response: “Pine Street is three blocks long, beginning at the east side of State, and ending with a dead-end. Pine is entirely residential on both sides. The property is on the northeast corner of Pine and State. Just north is South Dover Elementary School, and three blocks north is Bayhealth Hospital. Across the street is a daycare center. Thus, though the property fronts a quiet, residential, dead-end street, the side faces a busy, mixed-use State.” Staff Response: The subject parcel is zoned R-8 (One-Family Residential Zone), and the use as a one- family detached dwelling unit (single-family home) is a permitted use. Staff agrees with the general characterization that the neighboring properties immediately to the north, east and south are zoned the same and are of a similar use.

V-20-04 Lands of G. Derrick Hodge at 5 Pine Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 9 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Response: “The long side of the yard, 170 feet, is on Pine. The shorter side yard, along State, is only 60 feet. Thus, the house has an unusual orientation, different than the house next to it, which faces State. The rear of 5 Pine is adjacent to the side of 977 South State, with only a few yards between the two houses. The proposed picket fence would therefore provide a clear demarcation between the two houses. Because the proposed fence will be picket, it will cause no barrier to clear vision for cars driving south on State and turning left onto Pine. The fence will cause no visual obstruction on any side or in any direction.” Staff Response: Staff agrees with the assessment of the neighboring uses as provided by the applicant. The subject property is somewhat uniquely situated as a corner lot. The property immediately to the north is similarly zoned and contains the same use, and the dwelling is oriented to face west toward State Street. On the subject property, the dwelling is oriented to face south toward Pine Street, meaning the rear property line of the subject property forms the side yard property line of the property to the north at 977 South State Street. The properties to the east and south are also zoned R-8 and are similarly used as one- family detached houses. Continuing east along Pine street, past the alley immediately adjacent to the subject property’s east property line, the dwellings also face south (oriented toward Pine Street). The dwelling at the opposite corner (southeast corner of Pine street and South State Street) faces west towards South State Street. None of these nearby properties include fences between the dwellings and the street. Staff also noted that the properties across South State Street to the west face South State Street and are also served by an alley along their rear (west) property lines. These properties are a mix of uses and are zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and RGO) (General Residence and Office Zone). Specifically, they contain a Daycare Center, one- family dwelling unit, and a Doctors Office. Staff however disagrees with the assertion that the proposed fence will not cause any impediment to line of sight for traffic. Pine street meets south State Street at a T- intersection with the stop condition on Pine Street. Drivers must look north across the corner of the subject property to observe traffic on South State Street before entering the roadway. It is exactly for this reason that in order to maintain corner visibility the maximum fence height permitted is 3 feet. The proposed 5-foot fence is significantly more intrusive than Code permits. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses.

V-20-04 Lands of G. Derrick Hodge at 5 Pine Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 9 Applicant Response: “The proposed fence will indeed seriously affect neighboring properties, but only in a positive way. The picket fence will be extremely visually appealing. It will make the street more appealing to any cars passing on State. Because it will be made of wood rather than chain link, the fence will only improve the appearance of the neighborhood. The removal of the height restriction will further benefit neighbors, for the reason articulated below [Applicant response to Question #4].” Staff Response: While Staff agrees the proposed fence being a wooden picket fence is far more visually appealing than other fence types such as a chain link fence, staff strongly disagrees with any assertion of it not being a detraction to the neighboring properties and uses. Height restrictions for corner visibility are a matter for public safety, as there should be no obstructions to the line of sight at a corner. The 3-foot height restriction for a fence within the corner setback is so that any car turning from one street on to another may have the widest possible line of sight to best ensure the safe movement of traffic. There is no traffic signal at the intersection of Pine Street and South State Street, so the need for a wide line of sight is all the more imperative. Furthermore, all neighboring residential properties, including those of anyone who may be a dog or other pet owner, are equally subject to the front yard height restrictions on fences. To grant the increase in the maximum permitted height of a fence in the front yard to the subject property, would unfairly impact neighboring residential properties, as they are subject to the same height restrictions for fences. 4. Whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant Response: “If the restriction were not removed, it would cause an unnecessary hardship on the owner’s ability to use the yard. Reverend Hodge owns a large, gentle Golden Retriever, who might be able to jump a four-foot fence. If this were to happen, it could cause an inconvenience to neighbors or even a danger to cars driving State Street. A five-foot fence would ensure that the dog could not jump out of the yard. This would allow the dog to run free in the yard, and greatly improve the owner’s ability to relax and enjoy the property without fear of losing the dog. Removing the height restriction would be in the best interests of the entire street as well as of Rev. Hodge.” Staff Response: Staff recognizes the desire of the applicant to provide a safe and secure enclosure for his dog to be securely contained and not cause an inconvenience to either his neighbors, a safety hazard to the dog or nearby traffic, as well as the ability to maximize the use of his yard.

V-20-04 Lands of G. Derrick Hodge at 5 Pine Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 9 However, Staff believes that the applicant has not demonstrated an exceptional practical difficulty or economic hardship. The applicant has proposed to build a fence around the entirety of his property. He is currently able to do that in accordance with Zoning Ordinance regulations, as the Code allows him a 3-foot high fence in the corner setback, a 4-foot high fence in his front yard, and a 6.5-foot high fence in his side and rear yards. Accordingly, if the applicant is concerned that a minimum 5-foot high fence is required to most safely contain his dog, the Code currently permits him to do so within his side and rear-yards. Therefore, a 5-foot fence can be achieved with changes to placement and configuration of the proposed fence. Staff again is most strongly concerned about the Applicant’s request to increase the height of a fence on the street corner from 3-feet to 5-feet. Maintaining an obstruction- free line-of-sight is crucial for public safety. Staff strongly believes this should not be waived for the owner to be able to build a 5-foot high fence. If a 5-foot high fence is desired, then placement can occur outside of the corner visibility area. Variance Recommendations As noted previously, the Applicant has already submitted an associated Fence Permit (#20-491) that reflects the requested variances. If the requested variances were approved, the review of that Permit could commence. If the requested variances are denied, the Applicant would have to submit a revised Fence Permit application to be compliant with the Code. As referenced previously, Staff has created a map (Exhibit D) that demonstrates the maximum height fencing permitted by Code that the applicant can construct on his property and where. Staff recommends denial of the variances for reasons as follows: • The maximum height of 3-feet established by Code in the setbacks for corner visibility is specifically created to best ensure that the public has no impediment to visibility around street corners. As this is considered for public safety, Staff believes the maximum permitted height of a fence at a street corner (in the corner visibility area) should not be increased. • If the applicant is most concerned to be able to fence in the entirety of his property, The Zoning Ordinance currently permits him to do so, but with the maximum heights as demonstrated in Exhibit D. • If the applicant is more concerned with building a fence to 5-feet in height to best ensure the safe containment of his pet, again the Code currently allows him to do so. The fence placement would simply have to comply with the Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §1. • Finally, based on the above referenced reasons, staff does not believe the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated an economic hardship or exceptional practical difficulty.

V-20-04 Lands of G. Derrick Hodge at 5 Pine Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 8 of 9 Advisory Comments to the Applicant • If granted, variances become null and void if work has not commenced within one (1) year of the date the variance was granted. At present there is no provision for extension. • If the requested variances are granted, the Applicant must still obtain the Fence Permit (#20-491) before construction of the fence can commence. • If either or both of the requested variances are denied, the Applicant must submit a new Fence Permit application that is compliant with the Zoning Ordinance. • The Applicant should be aware that whenever the Board of Adjustment denies an application for a variance, such application for a variance, or an application on the same property which is substantially similar, shall not be accepted for reconsideration by the Board of Adjustment sooner than one year from the date of denial (Zoning Ordinance, Article 9 §3.8).

V-20-04 Lands of G. Derrick Hodge at 5 Pine Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 9 of 9 GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Map Exhibit 1 (Staff) B Plot Plan of Proposed Fence via Permit #20-491 1 dated 6/3/2020 (Applicant/ Staff) C Series of photos showing proposed features and 1 boundaries (Applicant) D Plot Plan illustrating corner visibility 1 requirements and permitted maximum fence heights as related to subject property (Staff) E Applicant Responses 1 (Applicant)

City of Dover Exhibit A Application No.: V-20-04 Department of Planning & Inspections R-8 R-8 R-8 IO RGO RGO RGO Gooden Ave R-8 RGO R-8 State St R-8 Bradford St Site R-8 St C-1A Pine R-8 RGO R-8 R-8 R-8 Waples Ave R-8 Ave Park R-8 R-8 RGO R- 8 R-8 s St Lotu R-8 R-8 RGO C-1A R-8 C-1 IO Title: Lands of G. Derrick Hodge Address: 5 Pine Street Parcel IDs: ED-05-077.17-04-02.00-000 Legend Zoning: R-8 (One-Family Residential Zone) Owner: G. Derrick Hodge Subject Property Date: 06/09/2020 Dover Parcels Zoning 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 100 200 400 Feet Dover Boundary

Exhibit B

EXHtBff# C From Pine Street, looking northwest. South State is on the left. From South State Street, looking east. The neighbor's property (977 South State), is immediately to the left. From South State Street, looking south east. Because :g.[' the fence will be picket, there will no visual obstruction for cars traveling south on State.

5P ineS tre etP erm itte dFe nceH eig hts Exhibit: D Rear Yard Side Side Yard Yard Front Yard 6 /8/2 020 ,12 :02 :39P M 1 :56 4 Z on gB in u ona d in ryL e 25 Ft. front yard in the R-8 0 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 i 2m Zoning District 0 0 .01 0 .01 0 .03k m P arc e lsO uts ideD over D overP arc e ls S o u rce:E s ri, D igita lGlo be,Ge oE y e ,Ea rth s tarG eogra phic s,CN ES / A irb usD S,U SD A,U SGS,AeroGRID, IGN,an d theG ISUs e r Community C ityo fDo ver,D ela w a la re-P nn ingD e p artme nt Sta teofDe laware ,M ic ro s o ft|

Hodge - 5 Pine-Area Variance Criteria '1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Pine Street is three blocks long, beginning of the east side of State, and ending with Cl dead- end. Pine is entirely residential on both sides. The property is on the northeast corner of Pine and Store. Just north is South Elementary School, and three blocks north is Boyhealth Hospital. Across the street is Cl day care center. Thus, though the property fronts O quiet, residential, dead-end s'treet, the side faces busy, mixed-use State. 2. The chorocter of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. The long side of the yard, l 70 feet, is on Pine. The shorter side yord, along State, is only 60 feet. Thus, the house has an unusual orientation, different than the house next to it, which faces State. The rear of 5 Pine is adjacent to the side of 977 South State, with only O few yards between the two houses. The proposed picket Fence would therefore provide a clear demarcation between the two houses. Because the proposed fence will be picket, it will cause no barrier to clear vision for cars driving south on State and turning left onto Pine. The fence will cause no visual obstruction on any side orin any direction. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant's property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. The proposed fence will indeed seriously affect neighboring properties, but only in 0 positive way. The picket fence will be extremely visually appealing. If will make the street more appealing to any cars passing on State. Because if will be made of wood rather than chain link, t.he fence will only improve the appearance of the neighborhood. The removal oT the height restriction will further benefit neighbors, for the reason articulated below. 4. Whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner. If the restriction were not removed, it would cause an unnecessary hardship on the owner's obili'fy to use the yard. Reverend Hodge owns a large, gentle Golden Retriever, who might be able to jump o Four-foot Fence. If this were to happen, it could cause on inconvenience to neighbors or even o danger to cars driving on State Street. A five-foot fence would ensure that the dog could not jump out of the yard. This would allow the dog to run free in the yard, and greatly improve the owner's ability to relax and enjoy the property without fear of losing the dog. Removing the height restriction would be in the best interests of the entire street as well as of Rev. Hodge.