Board of Adjustment Meeting Packet 10-20-2021

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 9:00 AM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA MEETING NOTICE The Board of Adjustment Meeting will be held both IN-PERSON in the City Hall Council Chambers and as a Virtual Meeting using WebEx. Members of the Board of Adjustment as well as Representatives of each Variance Application and anyone from the public will have the option to attend in-person or virtually using the login information below. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION To Attend City of Dover Board of Adjustment Meeting of October 20, 2021 Public Participation Information: Dial 1-408-418-9388 Event number/Access Code: 2348 418 4647 Event Password: DoverBOA Event Address: https://bit.ly/BOA10202021 Written comments are accepted via mail to City of Dover – Board of Adjustment, P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 and via email at CompPlan@dover.de.us. If you are new to WebEx get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. For problems accessing the meeting, please call the Planning Office at (302) 736-7196. WELCOME ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes of April 21, 2021 COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Meeting Reminder: The next Board of Adjustment Meeting date is Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 9:00 AM. 1

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - October 20, 2021 PAGE 2 OLD BUSINESS 2. Update on V-21-01 Lands of William E. Ardito at 4 Lakeview Drive - William E. Ardito has requested a variance from the requirements of Article 5 §1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the relation of accessory buildings to streets. Specifically, a request is to allow a proposed accessory building (detached garage) to be located closer to the street than the principal building (house). Subject property is zoned R-7 (One-Family Residence Zone). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-068.13-01-08.00-000. The owner of record is William E. Ardito. This application was heard at the April 21, 2021 Meeting of the Board of Adjustment where it was tabled. NEW BUSINESS 3. Applicant #V-21-02 515 S. Dupont Highway. Kent Del Properties, LLC has requested a variance from the requirements of Article 5 §4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the bulk standards for signs. Specifically, to allow a proposed pylon sign to be placed 10 feet from the right-of-way instead of the required 15 feet, a reduction of 5 feet. Subject property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-077.00-01-12.00-000. The owner of record is Kent Del Properties, LLC. 4. Applicant #V-21-03 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street. Victor Giangrant has requested variances from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.15 pertaining to the maximum lot coverage in the C-3 (Service Commercial) Zone, and Article 3 §27.67 pertaining to the lot coverage and the front, side and rear yard setback/landscaping requirements for the Corridor Overlay Zone (COZ-1). They are requesting the variances to be able to develop and utilize the existing two lots addressed as 815 Forest Street and 726 West Division Street for their expanded car wash facilities, namely twelve (12) new parking spaces with vacuum stations. Subject properties are zoned C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and are subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.08-01-40.00-000, ED-05-076.08-01- 38.00-000, ED-05-076.08-01-39.00-000. The owners of record are Clean Cars Inc. and Melinda F. Giangrant. ADJOURN Posted Agenda: October 8, 2021 THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING 2

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES April 21, 2021 A Regular/Virtual Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 9:00 A.M. using in person and the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx due to Delaware’s Declaration of the State of Emergency for COVID-19 with Chairman Sheth presiding. Member’s present were Chairman Sheth, Colonel Ericson, Mr. Keller, and Mr. Hufnal. Mr. Senato was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Swierczek, Mr. Hugg, City Solicitor Mr. Rodriguez, and Mrs. Savage-Purnell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hufnal moved to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded by Colonel Ericson and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2020 Mr. Keller moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 21, 2020 with the necessary corrections. The motion was seconded by Colonel Ericson and unanimously carried 4-0. 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. Each 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 May 19, 2021 at 9:00am in the City Council Chambers and within a virtual format. NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-21-01 V-21-01 Lands of William E. Ardito at 4 Lakeview Drive - William E. Ardito has requested a variance from the requirements of Article 5 §1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the relation of accessory buildings to streets. Specifically, a request is to allow a proposed accessory 3

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2021 building (detached garage) to be located closer to the street than the principal building (house). Subject property is zoned R-7 (One-Family Residence Zone). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-068.13- 01-08.00-000. The owner of record is William E. Ardito. Mr. Swierczek gave a summary presentation of the Application Request for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 § 1.2 pertaining to the relation of accessory buildings to streets. Specifically, a request to allow a proposed accessory building (detached garage) to be located closer to the street than the principal building (house). Exhibits for the Record: Staff Report, Zoning Exhibit, 2 Series of Photos (7 Photos each), 2 Site Plans (submitted prior to Applicant revising proposed Site to comply with 5-foot minimum Side Yard Setback), a 1-page excerpt of a document noting Appraised Value of home at purchase (2019) and after the Applicant has made improvements, and a supplemental statement noting improvements made to the subject property to-date, all submitted by the applicant. Legal Notice was published in the Delaware State News on October 9, 2021. The public was notified in accordance with regulations. Mr. Hufnal asked if there were any correspondence in favor or against the application. Mr. Swierczek replied no. Representative: Mr. William E. Ardito, Owner. Mr. Ardito was sworn in by City Solicitor Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Ardito mentioned how his property was structured. To the right of the house is a deck as well as only 2-feet to build a single garage. On the left side of the house, it would only be about a 15-feet buildable space but there would be several obstacles if in fact he was forced to do that. He mentioned that he would not do that because there is a slope. Mr. Swierczek has been helpful and great on all this stuff, but he did not recall Mr. Swierczek requesting any information about the percentage of the slope. He did send photos to Mr. Swierczek informing him that it was a sloped area. To get to the left side of the house if you are looking at the front of the house, he would have to take down about four (4) trees and build a driveway to get up to that area and take out the fence. It would be very unfeasible to do that. The circular driveway is currently there and right beyond where the vehicles are parked that is a natural spot to put the said structure (garage). Mr. Swierczek suggested that instead of on the left side of the house it could be put in front of the house. If it was put in front of the house, it would block his windows, bedroom and living room. This would not make much sense to do that. He understands that the Board wants to keep the integrity of the City of Dover and make things look good, but he is all about quality. This is the reason he presented his appraisal. He purchased the property for $235,000 and it now that he has added several approvals it is now appraising for $385,000. He mentioned he put real stone on the front and a metal roof. If he would be able to build the detached garage it would have the same format of a metal roof and real stone a stylish building for the garage. Directly across the street is a house that has a carport next to the house that is unsightly and does not look pretty. He does not understand the concept of why someone can have a carport next to the house that does not look pretty; and he is only trying to build a detached garage to improve the quality of his land and structure. He is at a disadvantage of not having a garage. There have been two (2) incidents 2 4

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2021 that his vehicles were broken into and items stolen. He loves the 27,443 square feet property and life living near the lake. The garage would add value to the property. He does not see the harm in having the garage although he was informed it is against the Code. Mr. Keller questioned where will the proposed building be placed? He was not able to discern with the information provided. Is the survey current that was dated May 2016 (Exhibit C)? Are the improvements shown on the lot are in fact as they exist today (five years later)? Mr. Ardito replied that the proposed structure would be (on the survey) near the circular driveway and if you look at it directly from the left side where the vehicles are parked and closer to the wood property line is where the structure would be located (approximately 42 feet from the house). Mr. Keller mentioned as he referred to a hand sketched figure (Exhibit D) for the proposed garage and stated that it did not depict the distance from the house. He asked the applicant if it was approximately 42 feet from the house? Mr. Ardito replied yes. Mr. Keller questioned what the dimension of 32 feet and 20.7 feet represents on Exhibit D? He asked if the dimensions represented the length and width of the proposed garage? Mr. Ardito replied, yes sir. From left to right would be 32 feet and the depth of driving into the garage would be 24 feet. The 24 feet would allow the 5-foot setback as per Code. Mr. Keller asked for clarification because the drawing indicated that the 24 feet would extend to the property line. Mr. Ardito replied that there was some confusion because it was not supposed to be submitted. The confusion came when someone in the Planning Office thought that the garage could not be in front of the house. Both Mrs. Melson-Williams and Mr. Swierczek clarified that the structure can in fact be in front of the house. Therefore, we would like the garage to be in front of the house. The structure will overlap the house approximately 4-5 feet and instead of it having a 20.7 feet depth it will have a 24 feet depth. The 20.7 depth would be too small. He apologized for the hand drawing and information that was not clear. Colonel Ericson mentioned that there was a similar situation when he visited Wild Quail on yesterday where the garage was detached from the house and there was a complaint because it did not meet the requirements. The owner installed a sidewalk from the garage to the house with a covering over it. The owner was informed that it met the Code, and he could keep it without taking the garage down. Is it possible in this case? Mr. Ardito replied that if his Request is denied then he could in fact do that. If you look at the Exhibits, there are three (3) evergreen trees that he does not want to cut down. If he was to do what was mentioned, he would have to cut down the trees and he does not want to do that. It would also be a legal structure because the garage would be attached the house. Putting a breezeway across there and taking out or blocking three (3) evergreen trees just to meet Code is sad. Given the location, he did not think that anyone would complain if in fact that this was done because it is an isolated area. Colonel Ericson mentioned that he did not see a caption on the photo where the house and vehicles are located and where the applicant want the proposed garage and the electrical station that would block out any ability to see the garage. He asked what was his opinion on the electrical station? Mr. Ardito replied that is an unsightly City of Dover station and he has tried to inquire to have fence installed around it. He stated that in Ocean City he has a condo, and they 3 5

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2021 will build a station like that and it will look like a small house. He would be willing to invest in making the station look better and asked for contact information regarding who he could make the proposal to. The electrical station would definitely block the look of the garage from the street. He realized that the electrical station is necessary; and he was not sure how they were able to put in the structure as it is located right on the property line. He mentioned that it is no big deal as it is a wooded area. It is an extension from the apartments that will never be built upon. Mr. Swierczek replied to Colonel Ericson’s question about the item of the breezeway that was noted. The breezeway would create sort of a structural attachment that would be more of a physical addition to the house as opposed to a separate structure being built. Mr. Swierczek wanted to clarify that the applicant would not have to build the structure entirely within the side or front; so, it would not have to block out 24 feet of the front of his house. The item with the “electrical substation” just to be clear is a station of the Department of Water & Wastewater for the City of Dover. The station has been there for quite some time in terms of the setbacks. Colonel Ericson mentioned if the applicant would put a solid fence on his property next to the station then it would pretty much block out the garage; it would not be an eyesore and it might even look attractive. Mr. Swierczek mentioned that there is a certain allotment in the Zoning Ordinance for the construction of a fence in the front yard of a property. The maximum height of the fence is 4-feet if it is in front of the main dwelling and can be built up to the property line. It would not accommodate the accessory building as part of the side or rear yard. Colonel Ericson mentioned the 12%-20% grade where the pine trees were located and there is a considerable grade. Do we have any idea what that is and if it meets the criteria? Mr. Swierczek replied that Staff did not receive anything from the applicant outside of that photo. By the angle of the fence, it does appear that there is some type of slope. The 12%-20% grade is an older provision of Code. It is a pretty steep grade, and we don’t know if it meets that or if that grade is present closer to the street than the front of the house. Mr. Ardito replied that he apologized, but he did not recall him requesting to get a percentage of what the grade was. He did not realize it was significant and that there was a number involved. Perhaps the information is in some of the paperwork that was sent to him. Mr. Swierczek replied it is a minor provision of Code. Mr. Ardito referred to the comments that the garage does not have to be in the front or the side but mentioned that it was kind of the only two choices. Building a garage in front of the house is unsightly and building a garage on the side making the one car garage as small as possible with the slope and taking out trees is very unfeasible. Mr. Swierczek communicated and shared from his screen the suggestion of building the garage to meet the house. Mr. Ardito mentioned that there was a bedroom to the far-right side of the house with a window. If there was a garage there, it would stop the light from coming into the bedroom. Mr. Hufnal mentioned that he did not get all the information for the right side. He asked what was the reason that part of the deck area could not be used to have the garage come out on the right side. Mr. Ardito replied that he just put deck tracking in all around. There is no room, and it would overlap the living room, no light and just would look unsightly to put it on the right side of the house. There is more on the left side. Mr. Keller asked the applicant if he was in agreement that if there were some attachments from 4 6

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2021 the proposed garage to the house itself, would that be a matter that would be considered an accessory building and okay from the applicant’s perspective? Mr. Swierczek asked for clarification from Mr. Keller, if he meant that it would constitute being part of the main structure as opposed to an accessory dwelling for the breezeway. Mr. Keller replied yes. Mr. Swierczek replied that if there is a shared structural component, whether it is a wall, roof or foundation, then yes. For example, if a breezeway was to be constructed or a shared roof from the main house to the garage with some type of sidewalk the Planning Office would consider that as an extension of the main dwelling. It would have to abide by the bulk standards of the R-7 as opposed to the standards specific to an accessory dwelling. Mr. Ardito mentioned if he was aware of that ahead of time, he could have built the breezeway and attached it. Yes, he knew officially that would be allowed, but putting that breezeway in would be very costly and he would have to take out a fence and three evergreen trees. Perhaps there could be an exception and be reasonable. Mr. Keller mentioned that the Board is obligated to consideration of “Exceptional Practical Difficulty.” When you talk about slopes and removal of trees, landscaping and routine matters or routine difficulties, but there is no construction which takes place. Mr. Ardito asked what would be non-routine matters or an exception where a detached building would be approved? Mr. Keller replied he envisions an enclosed walkway. He was not sure how it would be proposed, but an attachment from the dwelling house itself and then to this proposed garage. He does not visualize any necessity for removal of the fence or gate on the left side of the house. It could still be an attachment without removal of the fence on the left side of the house. He asked Mr. Ardito would it need to be removed? Mr. Ardito replied that he was not sure how deep the structure attached to the house is going to go, but the fence is at the very front of the building. He feels that this is a pretty reasonable request to have a detached building. What would be a situation where someone would be allowed to have a detached building in the City of Dover? What would be reasonable? Mr. Swierczek reiterated that accessory garages are permitted in the City of Dover in the side or rear yard. Colonel Ericson referenced the criteria for an Area Variance, item D: whether, if a restriction is not removed, the restriction would create an 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. He mentioned that he had not heard much from the applicant how this is a hardship or exceptional practical difficulty if it is not done. If you are living in the house now and the cars are parked in front of the house, then this is something additional that you want and you want the Board to ignore the Code for the request. The Board tends to follow the Code when we can, but we look hard to see if there is another opportunity for the applicant to find another solution to his problem or something unique about the problem. He asked the applicant if he could prove a hardship or exceptional practical difficulty, as then he might have more encouragement from the Board. Mr. Ardito replied that it is a “hardship” because if you have to take out three (3) evergreen trees and disturb the landscape for a breezeway, that does not provide any usage. There is a unique landscape on the property and he really cannot attach it to the left or right side of the house. He cannot put it in front of the house as it would overlap the windows to the bedroom and living room. He is not able to put a garage in the backyard. He has added a lot of value to the house and feels that as a property owner he has the right to put a detached garage on the property that will be located closer to the street than the house. He feels that it is disappointing that the Board feels differently. It would cost him several thousands of 5 7

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2021 dollars to put in a breezeway that you would not be able to see from the street or be able to use. This is a “hardship”. He felt like he was being punished. He understands that there are Codes you must abide by, but why is there a Code for not having a detached building in the front of the house. Colonel Ericson mentioned that what he was referencing when he stated “hardship” is the house was purchased without a garage and now you need one. What is the hardship or Exceptional Practical Difficulty if it is not approved? Why do you need a garage? Mr. Ardito replied that he has three (3) nice cars that he would like to not have deteriorated from weather, sap and being overlapped by pine trees. It nice to have a garage to protect the investment of the vehicles. In addition to that, there are people who wander around from the adjacent apartments who have stolen items from his vehicles and at one time his vehicle was damaged. He does not want to do work in the garage; he wants the garage to protect his vehicles. Mr. Hufnal asked if sloping of the lot that prevents putting the garage in certain areas. If the applicant came back with different information regarding the sloping would that give the Board a better chance of approving the request with the Exceptional Practical Difficulty? Mr. Swierczek replied that it is an old provision of the Code that were a slope of at least that grade to be recorded that would prevent the construction of a garage otherwise in the front of the property. Then that would be an option for the Board of Adjustment to then allow for a garage structure to be added. It does not necessarily specify whether the grading would have to be present in its entirety on the front of the property. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Swierczek if he was aware of any provisions of the Code whereby if there is an existing stated slope that there is prohibition against altering that slope simply by grading or re-grading the area. That is not a designated wetland area that would preclude that, is there? Mr. Swierczek replied correct. It is his understanding that there is no wetlands or floodplains recorded specifically to that area where the slope may or may not be present on the property. To his knowledge, the only circumstances in which the City of Dover may restrict altering the grading of any type of slope on the property maybe when it could impact rainwater management or may overlap something that DNREC might have otherwise judication over in terms of rainwater management or floodplains, etc. Mr. Keller readdressed the matter that Colonel Ericson previously mentioned regarding a means by which there could be an attachment to the house structure and building the garage. This would perhaps bring about a solution to Mr. Ardito’s concern for construction of the garage. He does not envision a walkway or whatever as an enclosed structure or simply attachment to the house or as a covering for the walkway or whatever and then attached to the proposed garage. It could still be considered as an extension of the house structure itself and rather simple matter where they would design an overhead covering to the walkway. We have no proposal of this, and he is still not convinced by the discussion that the matter rises to an agreement that this is an Exceptional Practical Difficulty. Mr. Swierczek replied in terms of the Zoning Ordinance and how it is applied it would not have to be basically rising to the level of another room to the house. If it was a shared roof covering and a paved walkway, then to some degree there is an attachment of the structure. Roof and/or wall or foundation that could be considered as an extension of the main building as opposed to a decorative feature. 6 8

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2021 Chairman Sheth mentioned for clarification to the applicant that the Board does not create Code. The Board of Adjustment simply does interpretation of the Code and recognizes whether there is a hardship or not. If the applicant has any questions about the Code requirements, it can be addressed with the City Council. Mr. Ardito replied that he was trying to get an interpretation of the Code as to why detached buildings cannot be in front of the building if it was off to the side. He did not think this request would deter the look of something. He was just trying to get the rationale. Colonel Ericson mentioned that one of the problems is setting a precedent. The Code is there, and the Board tries to follow the Code as much as possible. The Board likes to find whether the property is unique or there is an Exceptional Practical Difficulty; and not just because a person desires it. Once you establish a precedent then you pretty much change the Code. Other people come in in different developments and point to our case and ask the question that you did it at one place, why not here, then the Code becomes superfluous. Mr. Ardito replied he understood. He was just wondering if the Board has ever approved a detached building and if so, what would be more different than this case. If there has not been any detached building(s) approved, then he wonders why we go through the process. This seems to be a unique case in his opinion because he cannot build a garage on the left or right side of the house and make it a usable garage. He cannot drive to the backyard. If you look at the way the driveway is, the most natural location on the property would be off to the left of it. The Board continues to talk about the slope, but there is only about 20-feet of buildable space in that area which is not a whole lot for a garage. If we don’t want to break the Code, then we should not be having these meetings and charging an applicant $300. He did not think that the Board acknowledged his case as unique. Chairman Sheth mentioned that the Board hears his case but there was nothing else to add on to it. If there is an alternative, the Board can decide to table the application. He understands the slope, stormwater system with DNREC and other issues. Mr. Swierczek replied that there are circumstances in which the City may issue a variance to someone considering the slope of a property. He noted that those do not appear to apply to this property. Colonel Ericson mentioned that he had not heard if the applicant wanted to take advantage of tabling the motion/application to give the applicant more time to strengthen his position. Mr. Ardito replied of course, he would definitely get a survey to see if the 12% to 20% slope (exists) and to see if it falls in that criteria and if it is contingent upon getting approved or not. Chairman Sheth mentioned that there is no contingency. Colonel Ericson stated that anything that can make your case as well as make the City feel comfortable, that will give you time if the Board approves to table this case until the next meeting. Mr. Hufnal stated that he agreed with Colonel Ericson’s suggestion to table the application and give the applicant time to possibly come up with a different survey showing the slopes which would then give him more creditability to having a detached garage. Chairman Sheth agreed but it is up to the applicant to take advantage of the suggestion. 7 9

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2021 Mr. Swierczek wanted to point out that with the provisions for the grading of the slope, it would have to be demonstrated to prohibit any type of attachment or extension of the main structure. To identify if you wanted it to apply to the side of the house or to any portion of the house that could otherwise be connected by some type of extension such as a breezeway or what have you. Mr. Keller mentioned that the Board’s responsibility is not necessarily to bring about solutions to the matter brought before the Board but act upon the application as submitted. We have historically often times suggested alternatives to perhaps an applicant’s request and allow them to make the decision for a follow-up in some manner. As he referenced the top photo on Exhibit B-2, he did not see where the sloping would require any extensive regrading or prohibition against putting any kind of structure in that area. Mr. Swierczek mentioned in his testimony that in order to build some structure or accessory structure, addition to the dwelling or what have you, is not precluded from being regraded to accommodate the foundation, footer, etc. He did not like to see any applicant be led to believe that he/she could make additional expenditures for landscapers or what have you to establish the slope of that area in the hopes that it would bring about some Exceptional Practical Difficulty, which in his mind as of today at least it appears a matter that is going to be met as such an Exceptional Practical Difficulty. In looking at that top photograph, the proposed structure would have to adhere to the 5-foot offset from the property line in any event. It seems that a somewhat practical solution in his mind would be for an enclosed walkway with a simple roof over the pathway leading to the swing gate to the rear yard, etc. His suggestion would be for the owner to consider that. That would seem to be a solution whereby an issue with the current zoning matters would not have to be overcome otherwise. Mr. Ardito replied that it would not be a solution. That is an option that he has had all along to build a breezeway and attach it at both ends. He is well aware of that. He was trying not to be forced to build a breezeway because he thinks it would take away from the natural look of the property and also have to remove three beautiful evergreen trees. He was still questionable and would like more information regarding the number for the slope from the Code. He was not aware he needed to have that information and that is why it was not included. Mr. Swierczek replied that he did not back track; he was merely pointing out the fact that the slope would need to be present not only on the side but in any location that would prohibit you attaching the garage to the main structure. Chairman Sheth opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak. Chairman Sheth closed the public hearing. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any additional correspondence for the record. There was none. Colonel Ericson moved to table variance application V-21-01 based upon the testimony given and the Documents and Recommendations received from Staff and to give the applicant additional time to present additional information regarding the slope. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hufnal. The motion unanimously carried 3-1. 8 10

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2021 Roll Call 1. Chairman Sheth - yes 2. Mr. Hufnal - yes 3. Colonel Ericson - yes 4. Mr. Keller - no 5. Mr. Senato – was absent Chairman Sheth asked if there were any questions and there was none. The Board members would like to have the next meeting in person. Mr. Swierczek mentioned that the main reason that this meeting had to be held virtually is because the State is still requiring public participation to be available virtually. The City has very limited capabilities to host a both in-person and virtual events. We will continue with this format as long as it is an order by the State. This will also include the Planning Commission, City Council, and Historic District Commission meetings. The meeting was adjourned by Mr. Keller and seconded by Mr. Hufnal at 10:37 A.M. Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 9 11

Item 3. City of Dover Board of Adjustment October 20, 2021 V-21-02 Location: 515 S. Dupont Highway Applicant/Owner: Kent Del Properties, LLC. c/o Jigar Patel Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.00-01-12.00-000 Application Date: September 15, 2021 Present Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) Present Use: Vacant Property Proposed Use: 5 Unit Retail Building Reviewed By: Samantha Bulkilvish, Planner II Variance Type: Area Variance Variance Requested: Variance to permit a pylon sign 10 feet from the right-of-way along an Urban Principal Arterial where the Zoning Ordinance requires a 15-foot setback, a difference of 5 feet. 12

Item 3. V-21-02 Kent Del Properties, LLC Pylon Sign Setback Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 8 Project Description The property located at 515 S. Dupont Highway is a smaller commercial parcel along the east side of South Dupont Highway. It is the subject of Site Plan S-19-07 Retail Facility at 515 S. Dupont Highway which was given Conditional Approval by Planning Commission on April 15, 2019 and was given Final Site Plan Approval on November 12, 2020. The project is a single story, 8,500 SF, five-unit retail building with parking and associated improvements. There is an existing sidewalk in the right-of-way along the frontage of this parcel. A permit to begin construction was approved on June 29, 2021. The applicant is requesting an area variance from the requirements of the sign regulations in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 to allow a pylon sign for a nonresidential use in a nonresidential district fronting on an Urban Principal Arterial, to have a reduced setback. The minimum setback in this area for a pylon sign is 15 feet from the right-of-way. The applicant is requesting a reduction of 5 feet for a setback of 10 feet from the right-of-way. The use of the property as a multi-unit retail center is a permitted use within the C-4 (Highway Commercial) Zone. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use The subject property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). The immediately adjacent properties to the north and south are also zoned C-4. The parcel to the north is occupied by a car service center and the parcel to the south contains a lumber yard for which the entrance is shared with the property in question. To the east, directly behind the parcel is a portion of the neighboring parcel containing the lumber yard. Behind that are some parcels zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone). To the west, directly across Dupont Highway is the intersection of E. Water Street and S. Dupont Highway. The properties in the vicinity of this intersection have a mix of commercial and institutional (office) uses. A Zoning Map exhibit (Exhibit A) prepared by staff is attached to this report showing the subject property location and surrounding zoning. Code Citations Signage 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 subject property is considered a permitted, non-residential use located in a nonresidential district as defined by Article 3 §16.1 and 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. South Dupont Highway is an “Urban Principal Arterial” as defined by Article 5 §4.3. 13

Item 3. V-21-02 Kent Del Properties, LLC Pylon Sign Setback Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 8 The entire “Sign Table” from Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4.7 is presented in Exhibit B. The section pertaining to this project is highlighted towards the bottom of the table. This section is what applies to “Nonresidential Uses in Nonresidential Districts” as shown in the vertical text on the left. 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 “Urban Principal Arterial” streets. A Pylon sign is defined in Article 5 §4.3 as “A tall freestanding sign that is held up by a pole or poles. The supporting structure must be equal to or narrower than the sign itself.” Pylon signs are permitted in this area and have two different sets of criteria based on the maximum size area. The sign in question is under 100 SF; and therefore, would follow those criteria which include a maximum permitted height of thirty (30) feet, a minimum setback from the right-of-way of fifteen (15) feet, and an exclusion zone of 50 feet. Proposed Signage The applicant has submitted renderings of the proposed sign (Exhibit C) as well as an image showing neighboring signs and the proposed location of the new sign on the Site Plan (Exhibit D). The sign is 20 feet 6 inches tall, and the sign face is 6 feet wide by 11 feet tall and is made up of 5 tenant panels. The sign is topped with a portion that reads Shoppes at 515. The height of the supporting structure under the sign face is 8 feet. The total height of sign is less than the maximum height of 30 feet and the sign area measures 63.33 SF (the name “Shoppes at 515” and the 5 tenant panels) which is far less than the maximum 100 SF permitted (see Exhibit B). The sign would be located at the southern end of the property to the north of the exit lane to S. Dupont Highway and to the south of the first row of parking (Exhibit D). 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 14

Item 3. V-21-02 Kent Del Properties, LLC Pylon Sign Setback Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 8 (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 criteria. (Exhibit E) 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Responses: “The property at 515 S. Dupont Hwy is zoned C4. It is on Rt 13 which is classified by the City as an Urban Principal Arterial and is defined as a non-residential use in a non- residential district. This classification allows for a 100 square foot ground sign with a maximum of 30 in height and a minimum of a 15’ setback.” Staff Response: The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial) which has permitted uses such as retail stores, offices, restaurants, service establishments, motor vehicle sales or service, and mini-storage facilities. The approved retail facility is permitted in this zoning district. The property is located on Route 13 (S. Dupont Highway) where there are many commercial properties in the vicinity. The speed limit drops from 50 to 35 for traffic traveling north in front of this property. The nature of the zone is to provide commercial opportunities along heavily traveled areas, especially along an Urban Principal Arterial. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Responses: “The property is surrounded by other commercial properties. We have an auto repair shop to our North and a lumber supply yard to our south. There are also businesses across the street in the south bound lanes of Rt 13. We are constructing a new commercial building which will house a maximum of 5 tenants and will fit into this area very nicely.” Staff Response: The properties in the immediate vicinity are very commercial oriented. There are several long-established businesses to the north and south of the property including a car service center to the north and a lumber yard, electric supply store and car dealership to the south, all of which have their own pylon signs. The properties across S. Dupont Highway along the southbound lane are both commercial and institutional with a fast-food restaurant and a liquor store to the north and two large State-owned office buildings to the south. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. 15

Item 3. V-21-02 Kent Del Properties, LLC Pylon Sign Setback Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 8 Applicant Responses: “We do not feel the removal of the restriction will have any adverse effects on the neighboring properties. If the 5’ variance were granted, and the proposed ground sign was placed at a 10’ setback instead of the required 15’ the leading edge of the sign would still be 48’ from the curb line at the edge of the roadway. We have attached photos of two other existing signs in the immediate vicinity of our proposed sign with very similar setbacks from the curb line. Due to the DelDOT right of way at this property the distance from the edge of the existing travel lane to our property line is 55’” Staff Response: Staff agrees with the applicant that if the restrictions were removed there would be no serious effect on neighboring properties and uses. At a 10-foot setback, the proposed sign would not block the view of any vehicle entering or exiting the highway due to the large right-of-way that adds additional space (lawn area with sidewalk) between the edge of pavement and the property line. Given that the distance from the curb line to the leading edge of the proposed sign would be approximately 48 feet, it is still further away from the curb than some of the signs on neighboring properties as seen in Exhibit D. 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 Responses: “If this restriction is not removed, we would have no place to install the sign on the property. A sign is imperative to a successful business, and we do not feel we would be able to obtain tenants without offering them a section of the proposed road sign. The proposed sign will be under both the height and size allowed by code. If we were to place the sign at the required 15’ setback the pole would be in the travel lane of the parking lot. We are bound by DelDOT requirements on the entrance so it would not be able to be relocated to a different location on the property. Even if we were to use a parking spot the back edge of the sign would protrude into the parking lot and run the risk of being hit by delivery trucks. If the sign is placed at the 10’ setback it would be 48’ from the curb and 65’ from the edge of the travel lane. This will be in no danger of blocking anyone’s view from the travel lanes or pulling out from the property.” After asking for further clarification on the DelDOT requirements on the entrance, the applicant responded with these points and additional drawings of the entrance plan for clarification (Exhibit G and Exhibit H). “Here are some reasons that the entrance is designed a particular way. 1. The shared entrance/curbing were existing on the property 2. The drive aisle aligns with the adjacent property’s drive aisle in order to create a safe “T” intersection. If the drive aisle was reduced to 24’, we’d run into a situation where you’d have the opposing traffic lining up with each other which could end up being an unsafe condition. 16

Item 3. V-21-02 Kent Del Properties, LLC Pylon Sign Setback Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 8 3. See attached pictures which show both sides of shared entrance and parking line up to alleviate safety issue.” Staff Response: As noted by the applicant if the restriction was not removed the placement of the sign would cause unsafe travel to occur internally to the site and between the neighboring site (84 Lumber) since there is a shared entrance that has been previously established by DelDOT entrance plan approval. If the sign were to be placed to comply with the 15-foot setback anywhere along the frontage of the property, a portion of the sign would be in the drive aisle as the parking area extends across the entirety of the property frontage. The drive aisle cannot be altered as it is in alignment with the drive aisle in the 84 Lumber parking lot and creates a “T” intersection for traffic coming on and off S. Dupont Highway and entering either the site in question or the 84 Lumber. It may alter the ability for the applicant to attract tenants if they cannot offer a freestanding sign along a busy road like S. Dupont Highway. While the tenant could pursue another type of sign like a monument sign which requires just a 10-foot setback from the right-of-way, the tenant feels the overall visibility of the pylon sign is better for the property’s location on S. Dupont Highway. The pylon sign would also allow for the height to be significant enough for traffic to pass under it if it were to hang over the parking area/drive aisle. In addition, the placement of the sign is also restricted by the Exclusion Zone around the 84 Lumber Pylon Sign. The Exclusion Zone is the area adjacent to an existing or proposed freestanding sign within which no other freestanding sign of a similar type shall exist or be placed. The exclusion zone in this case is 50 feet and eliminates the area at the south west corner of the building from being a potential location for the pylon sign (Exhibit I). The site design for this property has already been completed and approved as part of Site Plan application S-19-07 Retail Facility. The applicants have applied for a Building Permit and are preparing to break ground. If the restrictions are not removed the applicant would be faced with exceptional practical difficulty as their Site Design and the location of existing pylon signs on neighboring properties limits the location of where a freestanding sign can be placed. Variance Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the variance for the reduced setback from fifteen (15) feet to ten (10) feet for a proposed pylon sign located at 515 S. Dupont Highway for reasons as follows: ● The proposed sign does not maximize the height and sign area for a pylon sign permitted in this location. ● The proposed pylon sign is not anticipated to seriously impact surrounding properties or uses. ● The proposed location of the pylon sign is limited by the existing shared entrance established by DelDOT Entrance Plan approval. ● The placement of the pylon sign at the 15-foot setback could potentially cause dangerous driving conditions on site. 17

Item 3. V-21-02 Kent Del Properties, LLC Pylon Sign Setback Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 8 ● However, Staff will also note that if the sign was redesigned to be a monument sign, the tenant panels would have to be slightly smaller, but the sign would be able to meet the 10-foot required setback. Advisory Comments to Applicant: ● 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 of variance approvals. ● The construction of any sign is subject to the approval of a Sign Permit. 18

Item 3. V-21-02 Kent Del Properties, LLC Pylon Sign Setback Board of Adjustment Report Page 8 of 8 GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Exhibit Map 1 (Staff) B “Sign Table” reproduced from Zoning Ordinance 1 Article 5 §4.7 (Staff) C Rendering of proposed sign 1 (Applicant) D Site Plan noting location of proposed sign and 1 distance of neighboring signs from the edge of pavement (Applicant) E Applicant Responses 1 (Applicant) F Email from Jigar Patel (Applicant) 1 G Drawing of Shared Entrance Easement (Applicant) 1 H Drawing of Entrance Alignment with 84 Lumber 1 (Applicant) I Final Site Plan S-19-07 Retail Facility (Landscape 1 Plan) (Staff) 19

City of Dover Exhibit A Application No.: V-21-02 Item 3. Department of Planning & Inspections RG-1 ve C-4 New RG-1 Cas t le A Kent Av C-4 e St RG-1 C-4 rtin Ma RG-1 d rR lle RG-1 Mi ill wg Co St RG-1 Water St RG-3 wy Dup ont H Site RG-1 IO C-4 Title: Kent Del Properties, LLC. Sign Address: 515 S. Dupont Highway Parcel IDs: ED-05-077.00-01-12.00-000 Legend Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) Owner: Kent Del Properties, LLC Subject Property Date: 10/5/2021 Dover Parcels Zoning 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 100 200 400 Feet Dover Boundary 20

Item 3. 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. SIGN TABLE Use Road Type Permitted Signs Specific Sign Type Number Max. Max. Percentage Setback Exclusion Permitted Size Height of Total (R.O.W.) Zone Wall Area Single-Family Detached/ All Streets Signs permitted in § 4.5 only Residential Uses and Nonresidential Semi-Detached Professional Office All Streets Post or Monument 1/entrance 12 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet S.F. Wall 1/frontage 16 N/A ≤ 15% N/A N/A S.F. U i R id ti l Di t i t Subdivisions All Streets Wall 1/frontage 32 N/A ≤ 15% N/A N/A Multi-Family Residential S.F. Uses Monument or Post and 2/entrance 32 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet Manufactured Housing Panel S.F. Communities Places of Worship Urban Wall 2/frontage 32 N/A ≤ 15% N/A N/A Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Daycare Centers Principal S.F. Approved Conditional Uses Arterial Monument or Post and 1/entrance 32 7 feet N/A 10 feet 20 feet Educational/Institutional Panel OR S.F. All Other Approved Post** 1/frontage 16 7 feet N/A 5 feet 5 feet Nonresidential Uses S.F. R id ti l Di t i t U Pylon* 1/frontage 32 30 N/A 30 feet 50 feet S.F. feet Urban Wall 2/frontage 32 N/A ≤ 15% N/A N/A Minor S.F. Arterial Monument or Post and 1/entrance 32 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet Panel OR S.F. Created: 2021-06-28 21:17:38 [EST] (Supp. No. 34, Update 2) Page 1 of 2 21

Item 3. Post** 1/frontage 16 7 feet N/A 5 feet 10 feet S.F. Urban Wall 2/frontage 32 N/A ≤ 15% N/A N/A Local/ S.F. Collector Monument or Post and 1/entrance 32 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet Panel OR S.F. Post** 1/frontage 16 7 feet N/A 5 feet 10 feet S.F. Nonresidential Uses Urban Wall 2/frontage No N/A ≤ 15% N/A N/A Principal max Arterial Monument or Post and 1/entrance 100 10 N/A 10 feet 20 feet Nonresidential Uses in Nonresidential Districts Panel S.F. feet Pylon OR * 1/frontage 100 30 N/A 15 feet 50 feet S.F. feet Pylon* 1/frontage 150 30 N/A 31 feet 50 feet S.F. feet Urban Wall 2/frontage 64 N/A ≤15% NA N/A Minor S.F. Arterial Monument or Post and 1/entrance 64 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet Panel OR S.F. Post** 1/frontage 16 7 feet N/A 5 feet 10 feet S.F. Urban Wall 2/frontage 32 N/A ≤ 15% N/A N/A Local/ S.F. Collector Monument or Post and 1/entrance 32 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet Panel OR S.F. Post** 1/frontage 16 7 feet N/A 5 feet 10 feet S.F. *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. Created: 2021-06-28 21:17:38 [EST] (Supp. No. 34, Update 2) Page 2 of 2 22

Item 3. 23

Item 3. 24

Item 3. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION AREA VARIANCE TO PLACE A SIGN 10’ FROM THE PROPERTY LINE 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies; The property at 515 S. Dupont Hwy is zoned C4. It is on Rt 13 which is classified by the City as an Urban Principal Arterial and is defined as a non-residential use in a non-residential district. This classification allows for a 100 square foot ground sign with a maximum of 30 in height and a minimum of a 15’ setback. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; The property is surrounded by other commercial properties. We have an auto repair shop to our North and a lumber supply yard to our south. There are also businesses across the street in the south bound lanes of Rt 13. We are constructing a new commercial building which will house a maximum of 5 tenants and will fit into this area very nicely. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; We do not feel the removal of the restriction will have any adverse effects on the neighboring properties. If the 5’ variance were granted, and the proposed ground sign was placed at a 10’ setback instead of the required 15’ the leading edge of the sign would still be 48’ from the curb line at the edge of the roadway. We have attached photos of two other existing signs in the immediate vicinity of our proposed sign with very similar setbacks from the curb line. Due to the DelDot right of way at this property the distance from the edge of the existing travel lane to our property line is 55’ 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 this restriction is not removed, we would have no place to install the sign on the property. A sign is imperative to a successful business, and we do not feel we would be able to obtain tenants without offering them a section of the proposed road sign. The proposed sign will be under both the height and size allowed by code. If we were to place the sign at the required 15’ setback the pole would be in the travel lane of the parking lot. We are bound by DelDot requirements on the entrance so it would not be able to be relocated to a different location on the property. Even if we were to use a parking spot the back edge of the sign would protrude into the parking lot and run the risk of being hit by delivery trucks. If the sign is placed at the 10’ setback it would be 48’ from the curb and 65’ from the edge of the travel lane. This will be in no danger of blocking anyone’s view from the travel lanes or pulling out from the property. 25

Item 3. From: Jigar Patel To: Bulkilvish, Samantha J; Kim Diehl Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Board of Adjustment Application for 515 S Dupont Hwy Date: Friday, October 8, 2021 4:24:22 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Samantha, Here are some reasons that the entrance is designed a particular way. 1. The shared entrance/curbing were existing on the property 2. The drive aisle aligns with the adjacent property’s drive aisle in order to create a safe “T” intersection. If the drive aisle was reduced to 24’, we’d run into a situation where you’d have the opposing traffic lining up with each other which could end up being an unsafe condition. 3. see attached pictures which show both sides of shared entrance and parking line up to alleviate safety issue. Kent Del Properties, LLC Jigar Patel 302-462-0466 From: Bulkilvish, Samantha J <sbulkilvish@dover.de.us> Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 3:54 PM To: jigarpatel@hotmail.com <jigarpatel@hotmail.com>; Kim Diehl <Kim@kentsigns.net> Subject: Board of Adjustment Application for 515 S Dupont Hwy Good Afternoon, I was writing up my report for your Board of Adjustment Application and taking a closer look at the Site Plan for your project. Since you are not constrained by the physical location of things on the site yet I was wondering on the plans why the drive aisle was 30’ wide and if it could be reduced? If the drive aisle width could be reduced to 24’ (which is what is required by the Fire Marshal) and the parking to the west could be slid back towards the front of the store and the peninsula for the parking area where the proposed sign is to be located was extended could you meet the required 15’ setback? Or if you did not want to reduced the 30’ drive aisle in the front would you consider reducing it at the rear of the building and sliding the building and front parking back in order to increase the setback for the sign? Just looking for clarification as to why the drive aisles are this width and if 26

Item 3. anything on the Site Plan can be adjusted to further accommodate the sign. I know you all went around and around with the sign, but I don’t know why I didn’t look at this more wholistically in the past. Thank you, Samantha Samantha Bulkilvish, AICP Planner II City of Dover Planning & Inspections 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, DE 19904 (302)736-7196 27

Item 3. 28

Item 3. 29

LEGEND: PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE BENCHMARK CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND CAPPED REBAR FOUND IRON PIPE FOUND EASEMENT LINE FENCES SIGNS ON-SITE CURB OFF-SITE CONCRETE OFF-SITE SOLID STRIPING OFF-SITE DASHED STRIPING NATURAL GAS LINE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE ELECTRIC POLE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE SANITARY SEWER LINE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM DRAIN LINE STORM MANHOLE STORM DRAIN INLET WATER MAIN WATER VALVE LG-Lnd-12000CA FIRE HYDRANT PR. BUILDING SETBACK LINE PR. PAVING SETBACK LINE 68 0.00 PR. BUILDINGS PR. SIGNS PR. ON-SITE CURB PR. ON-SITE CONCRETE PR. ON-SITE STRIPING G G NATURAL GAS LINE OE OE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE ELECTRIC POLE LIGHT POLES SS SS SANITARY SEWER LINE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER FLOW ARROW SD SD STORM DRAIN LINE STORM MANHOLE STORM DRAIN FLOW ARROW STORM DRAIN INLET W W WATER MAIN WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT PR. MONUMENT PR. CANOPY TREE PR. EVERGREEN TREE PR. SHRUB BULK TABLE TP ED-05-077.00-01-12.00-000 (ZONE C-4) ITEM REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROVIDED PLANT/TYPE ON LOT 1 TREE/3,000 SQUARE FEET 14 CANOPY TREES LANDSCAPE PLAN 19 39,523 SF (0.91 ACRES)/3,000 = 14 TREES 5 PINE TREES PLANT LIST TREES AND SHRUBS KEY QUAN. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT COMMENTS TYPE TREES ARA 10 ACER RUBRUM 'ARMSTRONG' ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE 2.5-3" CAL. B&B ZS 4 ZELKOVA SERRATA 'VILLAGE GREEN' VILLAGE GREEN ZELKOVA 2.5-3" CAL. B&B CANOPY PS 5 PINUS STROBUS WHITE PINE 5'-6' CAL B&B 15' O.C. SCREENING SHRUBS ICC 22 ILEX CRENATA 'COMPACTA' COMPACT JAPANESE HOLLY 18-24" HT. 3 GAL. 3' O.C. SHRUB IG 14 ILEX GLABRA INKBERRY 24-30" HT. 5 GAL. 5' O.C. SHRUB MP 18 MYRICA PENSYLVANICA NORTHERN BAYBERRY 30-36" HT. 5 GAL. 5' O.C. SHRUB DATE: MARCH 1, 2019 NOTE: ALL TREES SHALL HAVE A ONE YEAR REPLACEMENT GUARANTEE. SCALE: 1" = 20' 20' 0 20' 40' PROJECT NO. 12000.CA DRAWING SCALE 1" = 20' SHEET: L-101 APPLICATION NO. S-19-07

Item 4. City of Dover Board of Adjustment October 20, 2021 V-21-03 Location: 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street Applicant/Owner: Victor Giangrant/ Clean Cars Inc. and Melinda F. Giangrant Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.08-01-40.00-000, ED-05-076.08-01-38.00-000, ED-05- 076.08-01-39.00-000 Application Date: September 17, 2021 (Resubmitted revised submission) Present Zoning: C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Present Use: Vacant (2 one-family structures have been demolished) Proposed Use: Expansion of West Side Car Wash (drive aisles and additional parking/ service spaces) Reviewed By: Julian Swierczek, Planner II Variance Type: Area Variance Variances Requested: - Increase the maximum Impervious Lot Coverage in the C-3 Zone; - Increase Impervious Lot coverage in the COZ-1 Overlay Zone; - Decrease minimum open space/ buffer requirements along street frontages in the COZ-1 Previous Application A similar application was submitted for review by the Board of Adjustment as V-19-07 at their August 2019 meeting. This previous application had similarly sought variances from requirements of both the C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) bulk standards, as well as some of the design requirements for the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). However, this previous application had additionally sought a Variance from the COZ-1 requirement to provide a 5-foot landscape buffer along the western property boundaries, and also to allow for the impervious lot coverage 31

V-21-03 West Side Car Wash at 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street Item 4. Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 11 to be increased to 100% for both of the western properties, as well as the site overall once it was to be consolidated. Application V-19-07 was however tabled by the Board as the applicant had stated they would revise their site design to better address some of the site design requirements. The current application V-21-03 is the revised submission and supersedes the previous V-19-07. Project Description V-21-03 The applicant is requesting variances from the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.15 pertaining to the maximum lot coverage allowed in the C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and from Article 3 §27.67 pertaining to open space and landscaping requirements, lot coverage, and frontage requirements of the COZ-1 zone. These are being requested as the applicant has demolished the two (2) previous one-family detached dwelling unit structures (single-family homes) on the properties addressed as 726 West Division Street and 815 Forest Street. The Applicant is proposing to consolidate all three (3) parcels into one (1) property. The two subject properties would be redeveloped to allow for a new drive aisle and twelve (12) new parking spaces to each accommodate one (1) umbrella-like structure and vacuum equipment. A plot plan of the now demolished structures and proposed site improvements is provided by the applicant in Exhibit B. The applicant has also submitted a series of renderings and images showing the features and equipment proposed for the site as Exhibit C. This project has not yet been reviewed by the Planning Commission. The submission and approval of a Site Development Plan application would be needed before the proposed site improvements could be implemented. The three parcels currently addressed as 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street would be consolidated as part of the Site Development Plan. * It is additionally noted by Planning Staff that the improvements proposed to the Site are subject to a separate review and approval by a number of regulatory agencies including the Delaware Department of Transportation. The City Planning Staff cannot issue any Final Approval to a Site Development Plan without it first obtaining the approval of these agencies. Both Forrest Street and Division Street are maintained by DelDOT and therefore, DelDOT regulates Entrance/ Exit locations to the roadway. As the use of the two currently vacant properties is to be changed, it is advised that the Applicant contact DelDOT to discuss the proposed development as early as possible, and to learn of the required review process. Should DelDOT require significant changes to the proposed traffic circulation (site access and egress) or other items within their purview, a potentially significant redesign of the site layout may be necessary. The revised Plans must be compliant with either City Code or any potentially approved variances. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use A Zoning Map Exhibit (Exhibit A) prepared by staff is attached to this report showing the properties and surrounding zoning. The applicant has also provided Exhibit B showing the boundary of the property and surrounding properties. The properties are located on the south side of West Division Street, north of Forest Street and east of Weston Drive. The subject parcels are zoned C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The adjacent properties have a mix of various commercial and 32

V-21-03 West Side Car Wash at 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street Item 4. Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 11 institutional uses distributed among three (3) different zoning designations, as well as residential uses. The properties to the east of the subject property, addressed as 630 and 650 West Division Street, are zoned C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) as well; these properties contain a Church with associated offices and a mini-storage facility. Immediately adjacent to the west of the site is a property zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) which contains a service establishment (Laundromat and Cleaners). To the north across Division Street are properties zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) containing a Funeral Home and IO (Institutional and Office Zone) containing an emergency shelter. The properties to the south, across Forest Street from the site, are zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and are occupied by a series of detached one-family residences. Code Citations It is the interpretation of the Planning Office that the use of a Car Wash is considered a “service establishment” which is listed as a permitted use according to Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §15. It should further be noted that C-3 also lists as a permitted use “Motor vehicle, boat, or farm equipment sales or service” subject to regulations. The use as a Car Wash is therefore a permitted use. *Planning Staff notes that the eastern portion of the overall site, namely the parcel currently containing the existing Westside Carwash is not subject to these Variance Requests. The eastern property is considered as existing development and any existing site conditions that may not be compliant with current Code may be considered legal non-conforming or may have been previously approved through other application review processes. The proposed expansion of the business pertains to the western two properties only, and the variances requested pertain to those properties only. C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) Table 1 below lists the Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations for the C-3 zoning district which are found in Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.15. The Bulk Standards pertaining to the Variance Application are highlighted. C-3 Minimum required: Lot area Lot width (ft.) 100 Lot depth (ft.) 100 Front yard (ft.) 20 Side yard (ft.) 15 Rear yard (ft.) 10 Side or rear yards which adjoin a 30 residence zone (ft.) Off-street parking 33

V-21-03 West Side Car Wash at 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street Item 4. Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 11 Per 300 sq. ft. floor area or 1 Per employee (whichever is greater) 1 Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 6 Feet 75 Floor area ratio 4.0 Lot coverage 80% COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) The subject properties and surrounding properties are also within the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). This overlay zone includes additional provisions related to building design, open space, landscaping, parking layout, and height among other criteria. The COZ-1 lists lot coverage limitations and a series of requirements for Open Space and Landscaping from which the applicant is requesting variances as found in Article 3 §27.67. The Requirements subject to the Variance Requests are highlighted: (a) Lot coverage. Each lot shall have a minimum of 25 percent of the lot area dedicated to be landscaped open space. A lesser amount of landscaped open space may be permitted when it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning commission, through the site plan review process, that, due to lot configuration and existing built conditions, the required minimum is impractical. (b) Frontage. Each lot shall have a landscaped open space of at least 25 feet in width, measured from the back of curb along the entire frontage of the lot, except at points of site access. Trees shall be provided along the frontage perimeter at a minimum rate of one tree for each 50 linear feet of frontage. (c) Side and rear yards. A minimum of 15 feet of landscaped open space shall be provided along all side and rear lot lines when abutting a residential use and a minimum of five feet when abutting a nonresidential use. Tree plantings shall be provided along all nonfrontage perimeters at a minimum rate of one tree for each 75 linear feet. As with parking regulations, there are instances where bulk standards or other dimensional criteria (such as setbacks) are stated in various sections within the Zoning Ordinance, such as in the base zoning, overlays, or supplemental regulations. In cases where multiple standards are given, the more stringent standard applies. 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 34

V-21-03 West Side Car Wash at 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street Item 4. Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 11 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: “All three properties are existing C-3 zoned. The dwellings on 815 Forest St. and 726 W. Division St. have been demolished and all three parcels will be consolidated into one property.” Staff Response: The existing and proposed Car Wash use of the properties is a permitted use in the C-3 zone. Both Service Establishments and Motor Vehicle Services are listed as permitted, and all proposed site improvements are in line with the permitted uses. The site is also subject to the requirements of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) which adds further bulk standards, landscaping and architectural requirements in an effort to promote a more visually appealing street frontage with the development of the property. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Response: “The character of the immediate vicinity is predominately commercially zoned. The parcels in question are flanked to the west by the Emerald City Laundromat, E&J Liquors to the south, Bennie Smith Funeral Home, 806 Hair Salon, and El Nopal restaurant are all on the north and a mini storage, self-service carwash and Kingdom Church sit directly to the east. 731 and 801 W. Division Street on the north side are currently zoned C-2A. There are two residential properties on the south side adjacent to the property. 35

V-21-03 West Side Car Wash at 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street Item 4. Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 11 Subsequent rezoning will complement existing business in the immediate vicinity as well as the west gateway to Downtown Dover. We would like to offer our customers the option of vacuuming out their own vehicles. By expanding our facility, we will be installing 12 new self-service vacuum stations complete with trashcan and mat holders. Each station will also be softly illuminated. The vacuum stations are only operable during business hours. It will have two centrally located vacuums. The new lane and 12 vacuum stations will help alleviate traffic congestion on Forest St.” Staff Response: Staff agrees with the assessment of the neighboring uses as provided by the applicants but notes that the properties at 731 and 801 W. Division Street were subject to Rezoning application Z-19-06 which was approved by City Council in June 2019, and are in fact now zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). Staff additionally notes, that a majority of the southern frontage faces residential properties zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and containing primarily one-family, detached dwelling units. This general area was developed prior to the inclusion of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) provisions which were adopted into the Zoning Ordinance in 1992. New development and redevelopment along corridors subject to the COZ-1 must conform to the provisions which address character defining design items related to landscaping, building and parking placements, and architectural design. This area is also the subject to two studies related to redeveloping and improving the west side of Downtown Dover. The first is the 2000 Strategic Development Plan for the West Side, which lays out additional guidelines and goals for this site and the surrounding area with the aim of improving the overall quality of the area and better integrating it into the overall downtown fabric of the City of Dover. Secondly, is the Division Street/ Forest Street Dover Capital Gateway Plan which similarly sets up guidelines for improving the physical quality of the west end of both Forest Street and Division Street as a gateway into the Downtown Dover area from the west. Staff believes that requested variances do not respect the integrity of the goals as laid out in both studies. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Response: “If the restriction is removed it would not negatively affect the neighboring properties and their uses in any way. Since our area is primarily commercial, we would be complementing the neighborhood. The vacuum station will be a beautiful addition to our primarily commercialized area. Due to increased labor cost the full-service carwash will no longer be affordable for many people. We would like to offer our customers an alternative option; an exterior carwash where the outside is washed only and then they are able to pull into the vacuum lanes and vacuum it out themselves. This will allow our customers to still receive a quality wash while saving money. This type of service has 36

V-21-03 West Side Car Wash at 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street Item 4. Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 11 become the carwash industry standard. We must stay competitive in our industry to offer our customers the quality they’ve come to expect from us.” Staff Response: The two western properties are changing from a residential use to a commercial use, which is more in keeping with the largely commercial uses at adjacent properties in this block area between Division Street and Forest Street. The COZ-1 sets limitations on lot coverage and requires open space and landscaping which are seen as an opportunity to address the aesthetics of a property and are applicable for the redevelopment of any such property within the COZ-1 Overlay Zone. The variances requested by the applicant, with the exception of providing a 5-foot landscape buffer along property lines abutting a non- residential use, do not follow the guidelines set out in the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). In addition, it does not address the maximum lot coverage limitations of the C-3 zone at 80%. While Planning Staff notes the efforts of the Applicant to address some of the previous concerns in terms of meeting these requirements, there remains concern as to whether these variances are the least necessary to accommodate the applicant’s business needs while still coming as close as possible to being compliant with Code requirements. Finally, while traffic stacking on Forest Street may be reduced, the overall traffic circulation on-site and entry/exit points are of concern to Staff. Traffic circulation is an issue that impacts neighboring properties. Staff also notes that the neighborhood was subject of a corridor planning study in 2015 which resulted in the Division Street/ Forest Street: Dover Capital Gateway Plan and Design Book. This plan includes various recommendations for revitalizing the Division Street corridor, including ones related to urban design and land use. On page 12 of the Plan, one of the Guiding Principles and Objectives laid out states: Create an aesthetically pleasing, welcoming, and vibrant gateway to the Capitol District that has a defined sense of place and attracts positive activity. To achieve this objective, a series of action items are proposed: -Increase habitable, inhabited properties and reduce dilapidated, vacant properties -Increase community and economic activity in the area -Improve comfort and safety of visitors and residents -Expand and improve greenspace / recreational facilities that provide opportunities during and outside of daylight hours -Create visually attractive streetscapes through landscaping, utilities, signage, and other infrastructure -Provide a visual landmark/monument 37

V-21-03 West Side Car Wash at 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street Item 4. Board of Adjustment Report Page 8 of 11 Staff notes that the Applicant had originally submitted a proposal (August 2019) that included a plan to pave the entirety of the two parcels for redevelopment and expansion of the Car Wash facilities. Planning Staff had concerns that this plan was not doing enough to consider impact of redevelopment on the residential properties immediately across the street to the south nor the Area Studies which include objectives focusing on the aesthetic improvements and landscaping. Planning Staff had therefore originally not recommended approval of the variances. In response, the Applicant had withdrawn the Application so as to revise the Plan. A Revised Plan (dating to September 2019) reduced the total number of parking spaces and removed one proposed drive aisle, in order to accommodate the required 5-foot landscape buffer along the west property line. Staff feels the current Plan for V-21-03, while still not fully compliant with Code requirements and the intent of the Area Studies, is attempting to better balance these requirements and goals with the needs of the business owners to expand and improve their business. 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 restrictions are not removed it will restrict us from maintaining a profitable organization which will jeopardize our entire company. It will not be feasible to proceed with our proposed additions. Without the modernization of the newest technology which is rapidly taking the carwash industry by storm our business most certainly faces failure. Not only for the Giangrant family, who owns and operates Westside Carwash, but also the 120+ employees we employ annually and their families. Without these variances lifted we will not be able to operate a modern facility for our customers. We need every foot of the property to add a new lane and the 12 vacuum stations to make it operable in a safe and orderly fashion. Westside Carwash has been a family owned and operated local business for 40 years and through four generations. We employ 120+ local employees per year and we would like to continue this trend. With the addition of the vacuum stations we will be creating additional jobs in the community. Without this modernization our full-service carwash will become obsolete in the face of both new and current competition creating not only a hardship for us, but also current employees, their families and any future employees we hope to have. These proposed changes will keep our facility updated. We would like to maintain our competitive edge in the carwash industry as it is always changing. The vacuum station is the newest innovation in car washing technology and it will help move our business into the future.” Staff Response: Staff recognizes the desire of the applicant to accommodate an ambitious scheme of site improvements so as to remain competitive, noting that not having the ability to improve and expand their business may lead to hardship on the part of the applicant. Staff also acknowledges that the Westside Carwash opened for business at this location prior to the implementation of the COZ-1 overlay, the regulations from which are the primary reason they are requesting these variances. 38

V-21-03 West Side Car Wash at 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street Item 4. Board of Adjustment Report Page 9 of 11 As such, Staff acknowledges that the Applicant has tried to respect the integrity of the zoning as well as previous Area Studies with the aim of improving the physical quality of this area with their proposal. There is limited space for improvements and the nature of the business requires significant area to accommodate the needed renovations/ expansion. Variance Recommendations The variances requested by the applicants pertain to the two properties currently addressed as 726 West Division Street and 815 Forest Street, not the main parcel containing West Side Car Wash at 805 West Division Street. The applicant would have to go through the Site Plan Application process to redevelop the two parcels. They are seeking variances regarding the following bulk standards and COZ-1 provisions: C-3 COZ-1 Existing Proposed requirements requirements 726 W. Division Street Lot coverage 80% 75% 48% 91.2% Open Space along street frontage - 25 feet unknown 5 feet 815 Forest Street Lot coverage 80% 75% 62% 92.2% Open Space along street frontage - 25 feet unknown 5 feet Staff recommends denial of the variance request for the reduction of the open space landscaped area along street frontages from 25 feet to 5 feet but would be supportive of an increase in maximum permitted lot coverage for the reasons as follows: • Staff believes that the Applicant has made a case for potentially increasing the maximum Lot Coverage requirements for the C-3 (80%), and the COZ-1 (75%). However, if the Applicant were to provide the required 25-foot Landscape Buffers along both the Division Street and Forrest Street frontages, the increase in Lot Coverage would not need to be to 91.2% for 726 W Division Street, or the noted 92.3% for 815 Forest Street, as the additional landscaped open space would not count towards any impervious surface area. • Planning Staff does not believe sufficient evidence has been provided that demonstrates the applicant’s inability to comply with the minimum 25 ft. open space/ landscape requirement on the Division Street frontage (726 W Division Street), or the Forest Street frontage (815 Forest Street). Were the applicant to provide these open space landscaped areas on each frontage, there would still be area available to provide parking spaces for the installation of the vacuum equipment, just not the twelve (12) spaces noted. It is also possible that Site Design revisions due to Traffic Circulation/ Site Access may be necessary that limit curb cuts and consequently Site Access. This would potentially allow for further accommodation of the open space requirements. 39

V-21-03 West Side Car Wash at 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street Item 4. Board of Adjustment Report Page 10 of 11 • Previous Area Studies for the west end of Downtown Dover emphasize the importance of landscaping and providing a tree canopy. With relatively limited space, the Applicant has shown they intend to comply at least with the 5-foot landscape buffer along the western property lines. Staff acknowledges that an outright denial of the variances and the obligation to be fully compliant with Code would make it difficult to implement any of the needed improvements and hinder the business’s ability to remain competitive. However, providing the 25-foot landscape buffer on each of the road frontages would bring the redevelopment of the site into greater conformity with the stated intent of the Area Studies. Staff does not feel this prohibits the Applicant from providing some parking area for the proposed vacuum service. The properties would continue to have some open space areas similar to the areas of the houses that previously occupied these two western properties and provide areas for tree plantings and rainwater infiltration. • The establishment of the business at this location pre-dates the adoption of the COZ-1 Overlay Zone, as well as any of the referenced Area Studies. As such, Staff believes it would be a hardship on the Applicant to be made to be fully compliant with both the landscaped open space as well the lot coverage requirements, were the variances not to be lifted. 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. • Improvements to, and consolidation of the properties are subject to Site Development Plan approval processes through the Planning Commission, and appropriate permits from the City of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections and other agencies. • Both West Division Street and Forest Street are state maintained roads and plan submission will have to receive approval from the Delaware Department of Transportation regarding site entrance location and/ or right of way improvements (removal of curb cuts, sidewalk improvements, etc.). 40

V-21-03 West Side Car Wash at 805 and 815 Forest Street, and 726 West Division Street Item 4. Board of Adjustment Report Page 11 of 11 GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Map Exhibit 1 (Staff) B Revised Site Plan of Proposed improvements 1 October 2019 (Applicant) C Series of photos showing proposed features 3 (Applicant) D Applicant Responses 4 (Applicant) 41

City of Dover Exhibit A Application No.: V-21-03 Item 4. Department of Planning & Inspections IPM M C-3 C-3 C-3 Ridg M t ely S Dr ton Wes C-2A IO IO C-2A ion S t Divis Site C-3 C-1A Fore st St C-1 C-1A RG-1 RG-1 IO C-3 Lincoln St IO Davis Cir Cher ry St RG-1 C-3 R-8 RG-1 R-8 Title: Westside Car Wash Expansion Addresses: 805, 815 Forest St and 26 W Division St Parcel IDs: ED-05-076.08-01-40.00-000, ED-05-076.08-01-38.00-000, ED-05-076.08-01-39.00-000 Zoning: C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Legend Owner: Clean Cars Inc. & Melinda F. Giangrant Subject Property Date: 10/13/2021 Dover Parcels Zoning 2012 Buildings « 0 100 200 400 Feet Kent County Parcels Dover Boundary 42

Item 4. PAVED AREA Surveying SURVEYOR ED-05-076.08-01-37.00-000 1 STORY BLOCK BU LANDS NOW OR LATE OF ILDING ROBIN J. HOLT -- D/R 372-32 -- ZONED: C-1A -- E CONCR IN CURBL L TE WA E K WETLANDS MAP LOCATION MAP N (SCALE : 1"=500') N N (SCALE : 1"=500') N SURVEYOR CONTACT INFORMATION GENERAL NOTES: 1. IMPROVEMENTS ARE LOCATED AS SHOWN. IMPROVEMENT DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN FOR CONFORMITY PURPOSES ONLY; ANY OTHER USE OF SAID DIMENSIONS SHALL BE AT THE RISK OF THE USER(S). ELLIOTT SURVEYING, CORP. SHALL BEAR NO LIABILITY OF MISUSE OF SAID DIMENSIONS. 2. LOT SHOWN IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. ELLIOTT SuRVEYING, CORP. 3. ALL CERTIFICATIONS HEREON ARE VALID FOR THIS PLAN AND COPIES THEREOF, ONLY IF SAID PLAN AND COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSION SEAL AND SIGNATURE, IN RED INK, OF THE LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR WHOSE NAME APPEARS HEREON. THIS PLAN IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED/COPIED/TRANSMITTED OFFICE LOCATION: FOR ANY REASON WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF ELLIOTT SURVEYING, CORP. FURTHERMORE, ELLIOTT SURVEYING, CORP. SHALL BEAR NO LIABILITY FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THIS MAP. 490 N. DuPONT HIGHWAY, DOVER, DE 19901 PAVED AREA 4. WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NOTED BELOW, NO RESPONSIBILITY IS IMPLIED AND/OR ASSUMED BY THE EET SURVEYOR TO ANY FUTURE LAND OWNER OR OCCUPANT. 5. THIS PLAN IS BASED UPON THE RECORD PLAN(S) NOTED AND/OR DEED RECORDS SHOWN THUS (D/R), AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOUND. MAILING ADDRESS: 6. NO CERTIFICATION AS TO TITLE TO THE SUBJECT LOT IS EXTENDED, AND/OR ASSUMED BY, THE PREPARER HEREOF. 332 AuDREY LANE, SMYRNA, DE 19977 0.5'± N 01°59'31" E 64.75' STR E -- X X X X X X PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: ' WID X X X X X X X X X X N 01°59'31" E 100.00' PHONE: (302) 678-8115 FAX:(302) 678-8255 X X X PARCEL 38.00 = 6,121 SQ. FT. +/- (91.2%) X X X X 0.5'± X X X PARCEL 39.00 = 4,996 SQ. FT. +/- (92.2%) EST X X - - 60 X X X X X PROPOSED FENCE BARRIER X X PARCEL 40.00 = 32,626 SQ. FT. +/- (100%) - TYPICAL 0.8'± 5.0' PLANTED SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION FOR TOTAL COMBINED FOR ALL THREE (3) PARCELS: LANDSCAPE BUFFER PROPOSED - 3' WIDE CONCRETE WALK 43,743 SQ. FT. +/- (97.7%) D/R 4364-73 I, WILLIAM A. ELLIOTT, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A 01-40.01-000 ED-05-076.08- REGISTERED SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN NO PA PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND TO THE BEST PROPOSED - (12) 12'x20' PARKING SPACES -- PRO RKING ARE OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF REPRESENTS GOOD FOR V POSED SL A SURVEYING AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE LAWS D= ACUU AB -- PROPOSED - (12) 12'x20' PARKING OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. M AP SPACES 9.48 01°22 PARA TUS '' '29" N 78 N 78 °38'2 °33'0 .79' DIVI A= 6 1" E ED-05-076.08-01-38.00-000 ,895 ED-05-076.08-01-39.00-000 LANDS NOW OF 0" E E LANDS NOW OF 69.2 MELINDA F. GIANGRANT, TRUSTEE NEW E STR MELINDA F. GIANGRANT, TRUSTEE -- D/R 569-212 -- ZONED: C-3 -- - - 60 R= 2 CE WILLIAM A. ELLIOTT, PLS 68.7 NTRAN S I O N' WIDE - - -- D/R 569-210 -- ZONED: C-3 -- CONTAINS 6,714 SQ. FT. ± CONTAINS 5,419 SQ. FT. ± 1' (NO EX IT) 5' ONLY ET REG. NO. DATE REVISIONS MARK DATE DESCRIPTION SEE A DRIVEWAY EASEMENT RECORDED IN D/R 331-12 FOR THIS AREA PAVED AREA S 01°43'26" W 95.95' 16' +/- ING E PAVED AREA EXISTING LANE #2 POINT OF BEGINNING NTRA S 01°43'26" W 100.00' (NO E NCE ONLY XIT) EXIST ED-05-076.08-01-40.00-000 OWNERS INFORMATION LANDS NOW OF 16' +/- CLEAN CARS, INC. -- D/R L-43-234 -- ZONED: C-3 -- EXISTING LANE #1 MELINDA F. GIAGRANT, TRUSTEE LINE ALK CURB ETE W CONC R #730 OAK DRIVE DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 CLASS "A" SURVEY N 78 PLAN OF PROPOSED SITE IMRPOVEMENTS UTILITY POLE PREPARED FOR - TYPICAL °33'0 MELINDA F. GIAGRANT, TRUSTEE 0" E 231. #726 DIVSION STREET / #815 FOREST STREET DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 79' TAX MAP #: ED-05-076.08-01-38.00-000 1 STORY BLOCK BUILDING TAX MAP #: ED-05-076.08-01-39.00-000 EAST DOVER HUNDRED CITY OF DOVER, COUNTY, DELAWARE DRAWN BY: NIK CHECKED BY: WAE SCALE: 1"=10' DATE: 13-OCT-21 PAVED AREA TERLINE AL CEN DATE OF FLD WRK: 21-AUG-2015 PHYSIC EET DATE CRNRS SET: TBD STR G LEY FIELD BOOK/PAGE: N/A PAVED AREA RID SCJ FILE NAME: 08-16-15 DRAWING #: 08.16-15b CONTRACT #: 08.16-15 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT IS PHYSICAL CENTERLINE OF RIDGLEY STREET, EXTENDED SHEET 1 ___ OF 1 ___ 43

Item 4. 44

Item 4. 45

Item 4. 46