PAPERLESS PACKET

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:00 AM City Hall, Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September 19, 2018 Meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 21, 2018 Meeting COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. Reminder: The next Board of Adjustment regular meeting is scheduled for January 16, 2019 at 9:00am in the City Council Chambers. 2. Schedule of Deadlines and Meetings for 2019 NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-18-08 360 Nottingham Court. Claude and Gwen Pritchett have requested an area variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.41 pertaining to the minimum rear yard setback requirement in the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). Specifically, the applicant proposes to reduce the required rear yard setback requirement of 30 ft. to 26.4 ft. The minimum setback requirement for the R-8 zone is 30 ft. Subject property is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). Tax Parcel is ED-05-085.12-04-26.00-000. The owners of record are Claude and Gwen Pritchett. Applicant #V-18-09 100, 250, 350, 400 & 550 Shrewsbury Court. Blue Hen Apartments, LLC has requested a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1.12 pertaining to the minimum setback of an accessory building in a residential zone such as RG-2 (General Residence Zone). Specifically, the applicant is seeking a variance for five newly built parking garages, with a setback of 4.85 ft. (4 ft. 10.2 inches) away from the property line. The minimum setback required for an accessory structure under the zoning is 5 ft. Subject property is zoned RG-2 (General Residence Zone). Tax Parcel is ED-05-077.00-01-01.00-000. The owner of record is Blue Hen APT, LLC. AS AMENDED: The applicant has revised their request for the December 19, 2018 meeting and now seeks a setback of 4.7 feet (4 ft. 8.2 inches). Applicant #V-18-10 1240 McKee Road. Michael Graham on behalf of PAM Dover (Post Acute Medical Rehabilitation Hospital of Dover) has requested a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 pertaining to the maximum size of permitted signs. Specifically, the applicant seeks to permit one (1) wall sign sized 118.31 SF, in lieu of the maximum 32 SF per sign permitted. Subject property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Tax Parcel is ED05-067.00-01-33.00-000. The owner of record is PAM Dover DE IRF LP. Applicant #V-18-11 127, 129, 133 and 135 Roosevelt Avenue. David Miller on behalf of Miller Investments LLC has requested variances from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.3; Article 5 §1.13; and Article 6 §5.3. Specifically, the applicant seeks to exceed the maximum 60% lot coverage of RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and permit construction on 76.7% of the lot area. The applicant also seeks to permit construction of accessory buildings totaling 56.1% of the side and rear yard areas, when the maximum allowed accessory building area for

Board of Adjustment Agenda December 19, 2018 Page 2 of 2 these yards is 30%. Finally, the applicant seeks to allow parking of vehicles within 15 feet of a wall belonging to a multiple dwelling. Subject property is zoned RG-2 (General Residence Zone). Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.18-02- 71.00-000, ED-05-077.18-02-72.00-000, and ED05-077.18-02-73.00-000. The owner of record is Miller Investments LLC. Applicant #V-18-12 1738 Forrest Avenue. Louise Warren on behalf of Dover Christian Church has requested a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 pertaining to the maximum size of permitted signs. Specifically, the applicant seeks to permit one (1) monument sign sized 32 SF, in lieu of the maximum 12 SF permitted for such a sign based on the zoning. Subject property is zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Tax Parcel is ED05-075.00-01-04.00-000. The owner of record is Dover Christian Church Inc. Applicant #V-18-13 101 Ipswich Court. Blue Hen Apartments, LLC has requested a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.3 pertaining to the minimum setback of a multiple dwelling unit structure in the RG-2 (General Residence Zone). Specifically, the applicant is seeking a variance for a currently under construction apartment building, with a setback of 29.8 ft. (29 ft. 10.2 inches) away from the property line. The minimum setback required for a multiple dwelling unit structure under the zoning is 30 ft. Subject property is zoned RG-2 (General Residence Zone). Tax Parcel is ED-05-077.00-01-01.00-000. The owner of record is Blue Hen APT, LLC. ADJOURN 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(2) THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 19, 2018 A Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 9:00 A.M. with Chairman Sheth presiding. Members present were Chairman Sheth, Mr. Keller, Mr. Hufnal, Colonel Ericson and Mr. Senato. Staff members present were Mrs. Savage-Purnell, Mr. Diaz, Mr. Swierczek, Mr. Hugg, and City Solicitor Mr. Rodriguez. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Senato moved to approve the amended agenda to withdraw application V-18-07 per the applicant’s request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 18, 2018 Mr. Keller moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 18, 2018 with minor corrections. The motion was seconded by Colonel Ericson and unanimously carried 5-0. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING APPLICATIONS Mr. Dave Hugg, Planning Director stated that the meeting today will be conducted in accordance with the motion of the amended Agenda. There is one (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. NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-18-06. 100 Enterprise Place. Silver Lake Realty, LLC has requested a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §20.54 and Article 4 §4.16 pertaining to the maximum lot coverage of parcels in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing) Zone. Specifically, the applicant proposes to add 24 parking spaces, increasing the impervious lot coverage on the site from 64.44% to 66.03%. The maximum lot coverage for the IPM zone is 65%. Subject property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing) Zone. Tax Parcel is ED-05-076.15-01-01.00-000. The owner of record is Silver Lake Realty, LLC.

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 Exhibits for the Record: Staff Report, zoning exhibit, and statement and plans submitted by the applicant. Legal Notice was published in the Delaware State News on September 9, 2018. The public was notified in accordance with regulations. Mr. Swierczek gave a summary presentation of the Variance Application Request. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest and there was none. Representative: Mr. Troy Adams, Mountain Consulting Inc., Mr. Scott Henning, SLDE Management LLC/Silver Lake Realty LLC Property Manager Mr. Troy Adams was sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Adams testified that he was present today with Mr. Henning who is responsible of taking care of the facilities at 100 Enterprise Place. As stated by Mr. Swierczek, there are major tenants at this location such as Easter Seals, Government Support Services, General Floor and the Board of Elections. It was a warehouse at some point but was converted to office space. The tenants have a strong pull meaning between clients and employees there is a lot of traffic going in and out daily. There are special days where Easter Seals brings in by DART Paratransit their clients to the office. As you refer to the exhibits on a typical day as it occurs there are several buses that take up several parking spaces which then prohibit other clients and other tenants from parking and creates a shortage of parking. With Government Support Services, there are some conference rooms in their building that are used as a training center for state agencies. You may have a day where Easter Seals may bus in their clients and Government Support Services is having training sessions which would create a high volume of vehicles. The buses park as such where twenty (20) plus spaces are not available. There is enough space on the north end grassy area along Commerce Way that would be perfect for an additional estimated twenty-four (24) parking spaces. In no way do we see that the spaces will be out of character or anything. We obviously must go through the normal process with Planning and Zoning to get the spaces officially constructed. Besides that, this appears to be a reasonable request so that Mr. Henning can satisfy his tenants that have been there for a while and have settled in and we do not want to see them go away. The nature of our request is to be able to create the additional twenty-four (24) spaces which equates to about 1.03% variance beyond the 65% maximum impervious coverage that is required for the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing: Planned Industrial Park) zone. Mr. Senato asked if the buses were parked in the 10 spaces all day? Mr. Adams replied that he would let Mr. Henning answer the question. Mr. Scott Henning was sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Henning replied that the buses come every single day. We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-15, sometimes plus buses that park in the front of the Easter Seals location to off load and load throughout the day. We have corner off that section of the parking lot specifically for Easter Seals to take people in and out throughout the day. 2

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 Mr. Senato asked how many of the spaces are occupied that has signage for loading and unloading. Mr. Henning replied there are approximately 20 parking spaces. They are not filled all day long, but they are opened so that the buses come in and out of the area all day. In the morning they open around 8:00 a.m. and the buses start to come in. Most of the time there are around 12-15 plus buses that circulate through the parking lot. Roughly for 40-minutes the buses are unloading their customers to the premises and then they leave. You then have a period of time (could be a couple of hours) then another bus will show up and drop off some more customers. There is not always a bus parked there if that is what you are looking for. We have to leave those spaces open throughout the day so that the buses do have the access to come in and out and park because they are dealing with people that are in wheelchairs or cannot walk. They park the buses crooked to make the loading and unloading as easy as possible. Mr. Senato asked what the probability of the land across the street was for being opened for an additional 24 vehicles. Mr. Henning replied that he was not sure he followed what Mr. Senato was asking. Mr. Hugg replied that the property across the street is now the Enterprise Park Office of First State Ortho and that property is occupied fully for existing use. Mr. Henning mentioned that it was part of the issue where First State Ortho has moved in and they have asked their employees to park on the street which has now pushed the Government Support and the other tenants’ employees to have no place to park. We have this strain of street parking that is no longer available for his tenants. Mr. Senato asked if the tenant was close to the parking spaces or on the opposite side of the building. Mr. Henning asked if Mr. Senato was referring to the proposed area. Mr. Senato replied yes. Mr. Henning replied they are close to it. The Department of Elections and GSS (Government Support Services) would share because they are both within normal walking distance for the parking spaces. Mr. Senato mentioned as he referred to the exhibits that across the street is an empty lot. He asked Mr. Hugg if there was a proposed building for the lot. Mr. Hugg replied yes, there is a major office building occupied on the green space with parking for the First State Ortho’s new Dover office. There is also 20,000 SF of total floor space. That site is fully developed. Mr. Henning mentioned as he referred to the exhibit that next to the last page shows the new building across the street. Mr. Keller asked for clarification if Mr. Henning was a principal under the LLC for Silver Lake Realty. Mr. Henning replied that he is the property manager for the company which is out of Northern New Jersey and New York. He was asked to bring the application forward. The principal that would normally sign the documentation was out of the country at the time. He was asked by his boss to sign the application and meet with the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Henning if he was in fact with SLDE Management LLC. Mr. Henning replied yes. 3

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 Mr. Keller asked Mr. Henning if he was the contracted property manager. Mr. Henning replied yes. Chairman Sheth stated that Mr. Rodriguez stated that it was ok for Mr. Henning to sign the document. Mr. Keller mentioned that he agreed with the responses regarding the criteria which the Board of Adjustment always undertakes in review and to give some evaluation as to whether there is an Exceptional Practical Difficulty. So in looking at that kind of a circumstance he did not find that there is an Exceptional Practical Difficulty with the applicant requests or findings; however, within that evaluation the Board can give consideration whether it is an Exceptional Practical Difficulty or an unnecessary hardship. He would make the statement that he would deem it an unnecessary hardship as opposed to an Exceptional Practical Difficulty in the circumstance for the need of additional parking spaces. Mr. Hufnal stated that he would agree with Mr. Keller’s statement because in fact it states in the Staff Responses that the Staff considered the applicant having the variance approved to be for an unnecessary hardship rather than an Exceptional Practical Difficulty. Colonel Ericson stated that he would disagree because looking at this they have already proved that there is a lack of parking spaces for the people that use the facility. In fact, one of the agencies may be forced to leave because they do not have enough parking. The applicant is asking for 1.03% increase in area which is very small. Twenty-four more parking spaces does not seem unreasonable to him at all. Mr. Keller mentioned that what he was saying from the tenant’s perspective and the landlord’s management and ownership perspective they are considering that their need for additional parking represents to them an unnecessary hardship if they were unable to achieve through a variance application for additional spaces. This somewhat stems from apparently by the information submitted that some tenants have expressed that unless there is additional parking provided, they may seek other properties or other locations to conduct their respective businesses. Mr. Hufnal agreed with Mr. Keller because it was his understanding if they could not get the approved parking spaces, they would need to look to find another facility to move to in order to get the proper parking that they need rather than use other facilities’ parking. This was their need for having the additional parking needed. Chairman Sheth asked if there was a language issue or there was a disagreement. Mr. Keller stated that quite frankly he agreed with Staff Response that if the variance was not approved that it would represent somewhat of an unnecessary hardship to the ownership of the property because of the result and lack of having additional parking spaces approved. Again, he is in agreement with Staff Response to the due the consideration that the Board has to give as an Exceptional Practical Difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Some of his thought when giving some evaluation of that was that its not an Exceptional Practical Difficulty because there is always the possibility if a tenant leaves that building you may have another tenant to move in that does not 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 require as much parking spaces. He thinks at least two (2) or more tenants by virtue of the information provided have expressed some concerns about the lack of parking. It seems to him to be a reasonable view. Mr. Senato mentioned that in the current photograph on the front of the building it shows an empty lot across the street dated August 20, 2018. Mr. Adams stated that it is an older aerial that is publicly available. It is an oversight on his part. In the stated aerial, the building is not captured yet in what is publicly available. Mr. Senato mentioned regarding the photograph whereas he has to make a decision for the betterment for the City. When the client comes in front of the Board of Adjustment, his decision is based upon the information given to him by the City and the client. Therefore, he is looking at a lot that is empty. So, in his mind he is saying there is an empty lot and if there was a possibility that you would consider (if the lot did not have a building on it) putting 30-40 parking spaces there. In his opinion the aerial photo is misleading; therefore, he would have to base his decision on that. Mr. Swierczek further added that this happens quite a lot for exhibits that they have to pull from Goggle maps. This is the quickest way to be able to provide a satellite image. It does not necessarily update weekly or monthly. When we pull an image, we have to provide the date when the image was pulled, but it would not necessarily be current to the date (of the photo) if that makes sense. The applicant provided in Exhibit D the Photo (#7) that does show the building on the lot that appears empty in the satellite image. Mr. Senato asked if Photo #7 was showing the building across the street from the complex. Mr. Swierczek replied correct. The top photo on page 4 of Exhibit D (the newer looking building with the water tower at the rear) that is the building that is at the current location that appears to be an empty lot in the satellite photo. Mr. Senato replied, thank you. Mr. Senato mentioned as a point of information when the aerial photos are obtained from satellite that might not be accurate and is being used to determine decisions that are made by the Board of Adjustment, would it better if the City provided more accurate photos and perhaps compare before and after photos. This is just his opinion. When he looks at something and he looks at the paperwork in front of him, that is how he makes his decision. And if that being the case and is happening on a regular basis when the clients or the City come before the Board with the information, he could be making a decision and reality, he should be voting another way (either yea, nay, or abstaining). He would prefer to be 100% accurate; and, in this case, about that lot so that he knows exactly what is going on. This is not a criticism. Chairman Sheth stated that Mr. Senato’s statement was right, but it was already corrected by Mr. Hugg as to what is going on in the area. The applicant suggested that it was the most recent available by Goggle maps and as mentioned by Mr. Swierczek. Chairman Sheth mentioned that he agreed with Mr. Senato but at the same time it was corrected as much as it could be. Mr. Senato mentioned that he understood, but this is just the way his mind works. Chairman Sheth opened the public hearing. 5

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 Chairman Sheth closed the public hearing after seeing no one wishing to speak. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any additional correspondence for the record. There was no other correspondence. Mr. Keller moved to approve variance application V-18-06 as submitted and based upon the report by the City lending substantial support for approval of the variance as requested, supplemented by the information and testimony given by representative of the ownership. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hufnal. The motion unanimously carried 5-0. Mr. Senato mentioned for the record that he will not be able to attend the October meeting as he will be out of town. Mr. Hufnal stated that he attended a meeting yesterday and Mr. Hugg was also present at the meeting on the Kent County Economic Development. For three (3) years he has been mentioning that we need to do something with our Sign Ordinance in the City because it seems like these companies come in and are denied because of the signage and regulations that the City has that he thinks is outdated. At the meeting, they talked about the reengineering of some of the City’s regulations because we are losing business. They also mentioned the Permitting regulatory process takes too long. He really thinks we need to look at this; for example, the McDonald’s case that came before the Board in July. You can go to Milford or Smyrna and they have those buildings up and they have the standards that are set up by the corporation for signs and their regulations. The signs are premade because that is the company decision; they are not made to suit the property. He asked why Smyrna can have a regulation for signs that is different, and they can allow things to happen and we deny them. He thinks in some respect that drives people away that want to consider coming to Dover because of our severe regulations. He is not saying to loosen them up, but he thinks they need to be looked at and revised to bring more people to Dover. Chairman Sheth mentioned that we had horrible signs until the Board of Adjustment decided to take action and we now have a much better sign area on Route 13 than in the past. Large corporations can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on signs, small businesses cannot compete with them and they we have to approve it. People do not spend enough money for architectural signs because they go by the size not how it looks. He stated that he understood what Mr. Hufnal was saying, but what they decided, and it was up to the City Council. A lot of questions can be solved during the Planning Commission meeting and when they apply so they do not have to come before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hugg and Mr. Rodriguez can make the suggestion to the City Council because the Board of Adjustment follows the Sign Ordinance. The Board of Adjustment does a lot of good things for the City by getting rid of the certain signs. For example, there was a 200ft pole that anybody could see and it is gone. Colonel Ericson agreed with Chairman Sheth as he would hate to see the point where corporations determine what our standards are. Mr. Senato mentioned Home Depot who was very adamant and wanted a tall sign. The Board of Adjustment restricted them according to the Sign Ordinance and they were not happy. He sees a lot of different cities and in small towns where the signs are ridiculous especially if they do not have a Sign Ordinance. He thinks the City of Dover has a good control on the signs. Perhaps there were one or two instances where you would hope things would 6

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 change. He stated that he is personally satisfied with the ordinances. In fact, everything is uniform when you go up Route 13 whether it is north or south. Chairman Sheth mentioned that Mr. Hufnal’s concern was not to chase away businesses because of signs. He stated that he has not seen any businesses leave because of signs. Mr. Hufnal commented that there were two companies that came to Dover and one of them decided not to build in Dover because they had legal problems with the lease. This property was located next to Pizza Hut and the Board of Adjustment approved them with a big parking lot. The other company that did not stay due to restrictions by the City was Cracker Barrel who was looking at the property near the Route 1 exit. He stated that they are just comments that the Board of Adjustment and City should think about when we are looking at these ordinances. Colonel Ericson asked whether if Cracker Barrel issue was the expensive cost for building at that location; it was not because of the signs. Mr. Hufnal replied no it was not because of signs; it was other factors within the City such as the cost of the Permit. Mr. Senato agreed with Mr. Hufnal that when he looked at the $82,000 fee and if he was a businessman, he would be afraid of what else would come up because that price is ridiculous. He thinks that the cost should also be looked at because that will keep businesses away. Chairman Sheth stated that he did not think it was the Board’s responsibility, but they should let City Council know. If you really look at the history, anyone who came before the Board of Adjustment came after the building was built, no one has come before. Walgreens on Route 8/Saulsbury Road and Wawa on Route 13/Court Street came before the Board of Adjustment and they did not leave. The Wawa wanted a larger sign but was denied and they did not leave. He is not avoiding Mr. Hufnal’s question or concerns. Chairman Sheth asked Mr. Hugg and Mr. Rodriguez whether the City passes the ordinances and the Board of Adjustment follows the ordinances that have been approved. Colonel Ericson agreed with Chairman Sheth. We have wondered way off from as far as what the Board of Adjustment responsibilities are; therefore, he moves to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Keller commented to Colonel Ericson that the Board of Adjustment is not the legislative body; that is the responsibility of the Planning and Inspections Department and subsequently City Council. The meeting was adjourned by Colonel Ericson and seconded by Mr. Senato at 9:53 A.M. Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 7

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES November 21, 2018 The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was opened and then closed due to a legal issue regarding the composition of the Board on Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:00 A.M. with Vice Chairman Ericson presiding. Members present were Vice Chairman Ericson, Mr. Keller, Mr. Hufnal, and Mr. Senato. Chairman Sheth was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Diaz, Mr. Swierczek, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mrs. Harvey, Mrs. Savage-Purnell and City Solicitor Mr. Rodriguez. Vice Chairman Ericson apologized that the Board needed to delay the cases (applications) for one month because a legal issue has come up that the Board was not aware of concerning the composition of the Board that needs to be resolved before hearing any cases (applications). We will hear the cases (applications) next month. Again, he apologized, but the issue just came up this morning. He asked if there were any questions and mentioned that the legal issues have nothing to do with any of the cases (applications). It is strictly an internal problem. The meeting was closed by Vice Chairman Ericson. Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINAL 12.13.2018 Schedule of application deadlines and Board of Adjustment meeting dates for the year of 2019. The submittal procedures for the Board of Adjustment are outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 9, Section 3. Prior to application submission a pre-application meeting with Planning Staff is required. MONTH DEADLINE DATE MEETING DATE JANUARY 12/14/2018 01/16/2019 FEBRUARY 01/18/2019 02/20/2019 MARCH 02/15/2019 03/20/2019 APRIL 03/15/2019 04/17/2019 MAY 04/12/2019 05/15/2019 JUNE 05/17/2019 06/19/2019 JULY 06/14/2019 07/17/2019 AUGUST 07/12/2019 08/21/2019 SEPTEMBER 08/16/2019 09/18/2019 OCTOBER 09/13/2019 10/16/2019 NOVEMBER 10/18/2019 11/20/2019 DECEMBER 11/15/2019 12/18/2019 JANUARY 12/13/2019 1/15/2020 For Information Contact: City of Dover Department of Planning 15 Loockerman Plaza P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 (302) 736-7196 (302) 736-4217 Fax www.cityofdover.com

City of Dover Board of Adjustment November 21, 2018 V-18-08 Location: 360 Nottingham Court Applicant/Owner: Claude and Gwen Pritchett Application Date: October 8, 2018 Tax Parcel: ED-05-085.12-04-26.00-000 Present Zoning: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) Present Use: Residence Reviewed By: Tracey Harvey Variance Type: Area Variance Variance Requested: Reduction in the required rear yard setback from 30 feet to 26.4 feet or less to allow the construction of a 16 foot by 16 foot addition to the rear of the property. Project Description: The applicant is seeking a variance from Article 4, Section 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the bulk standard requirements of the R-8 zoning, specifically as those requirements relate to setback requirements. The applicant proposes to construct a 16 foot by 16 foot (256 square feet) addition to the rear of an existing single-family detached home. The requested variance would allow for the reduction of the rear yard setback to reduce the 30 foot regulation by 3.6 feet for a total of 26.4 feet. The property is located at 360 Nottingham Court. Adjacent Land Uses

V-18-08 Claude and Gwen Pritchett 360 Nottingham Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 7 The lands to the north, south, east, and west are all similarly zoned R-8 properties and have one- family detached residences located on them. An area map is in included in Exhibit A. Code Citations Article 4, Section 4.1. [One-family residence zones.] Bulk and parking regulations for one-family residence, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7 zones [are as follows: TABLE INSET: For Dwellings In: R-20 R-15 R-10 R-8 R-7 Minimum required: Lot area (sq. ft.) 20,000 15,000 10,000 8,000 7,000 Lot width (ft.) 120 100 80 70 50 Lot depth (ft.) 150 125 110 100 100 Front yard (ft.) 30 30 25 25 20 Minimum side yard (ft.) 25 20 15 10 5 Total both side yards (ft.) 50 40 30 20 10 Rear yard (ft.) 40 40 30 30 30 Lot coverage 20% 25% 30%0% 35% 40% Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Article 9, Section 2 of the Zoning Ordinance dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. In order to grant a variance, the Board must determine that an exceptional practical difficulty exists. 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 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;

V-18-08 Claude and Gwen Pritchett 360 Nottingham Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 7 (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 from the applicant The applicant has provided background information and responses for the requested variance as it relates to the criteria. (See also Exhibit B) Background The house located at 360 Nottingham Court was constructed in 1979 on Lot No. 31 of the Mayfair II subdivision. Lot 31 is one of the shallower lots in the subdivision at 102.5’ deep and is 8,256 s.f. (0.189 ac.). Claude and Gwen Pritchett purchased the home in August 1991 and have lived there since. The house is a 2-story home (see attached photographs) and the living space of the home is approximately 1,884 s.f. The house originally had 3 bedrooms; however, one of the bedrooms was converted to an office for an in-home business after one of their children moved out and when they started a transportation business known as D&J Transportation, LLC. The business is permitted and licensed by the City of Dover. They still have one child living at home. The Pritchetts are needing additional space in their house to accommodate friends and family when they come to visit as they presently have no spare bedroom. They desire to add a 16’ x 16’ multipurpose sunroom onto the rear of their house that they could entertain guests and use as an office and meeting room for their current business. The room would also serve as a playroom for their grandchildren and a place to store books. The Pritchetts are in their senior years and also have the need for family to come help them from time to time and need a place for them to stay when they come. The multi-purpose sunroom would also free up the 3rd bedroom and allow them to accommodate their guests. They are happy with their home and have no desire to move and are also not in a financial position to do so. The business is a small business that provides transportation services for public carriers and school districts. The business is not in a financial position to be able to lease office space at an offsite location. Based upon the current configuration of the rear of the house, the location of windows and doors, and the required setback of 30’ from the rear property line, the maximum size that they could construct the multipurpose sunroom would be approximately 12’ x 16’. While the width would be adequate they have determined, based upon their need and proposed uses, that the depth would not suffice for their needs and not provide for a very useable or practical space. They also cannot make the width any larger due the location of windows on the rear of the house (see attached architectural drawing).

V-18-08 Claude and Gwen Pritchett 360 Nottingham Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 7 An area variance shall be evaluated on the following criteria; 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Response: The property is located in an R8 zone, which is a one-family residence zone. The proposed multi-purpose sunroom is a use that is permitted and desirable in this zone. Staff Response: The property is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and located in the Mayfair II Subdivision. The subject property is located to the south of Mayberry Lane and to the north of Webbs Lane. The surrounding properties are zoned R-8 and are residential uses. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Response: The properties in the immediate vicinity of this property are all zoned R8 and have one- family residences located on them. Many of the houses have had additions added onto them over the years. The property directly to the rear of the applicant’s property had a screened- in porch added onto the rear of the house. Staff Response: As the applicant describes, the character of the property’s immediate vicinity are one family residences. The house is of similar size to other houses in the neighborhood, many of which have additions which is not uncommon for the neighborhood. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Response: Removing or reducing the restriction upon the applicant’s property would not affect neighboring properties or their uses. The proposed use is conducive to the existing uses in the neighborhood and the zone in which it is located. It would be in harmony with the neighborhood and other additions added onto other houses. As stated, the house to the rear of the applicant’s property has a screened in porch added onto the rear of the house and is relatively close to the rear property line. However, there are trees and a 6’ high wooden stockade fence along the rear property line that separate the two properties and provide for a buffer and screening. There is also a 6’ high wooden stockade fence to the right or south side of the property that would screen the addition from the adjoining property on that side. The left or north side of the property is located along a street, which also has a 6’ high wooden stockade fence. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulation and ordinances and will not represent a radical departure therefrom and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or the adjacent properties.

V-18-08 Claude and Gwen Pritchett 360 Nottingham Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 7 The construction of the addition will not change the character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public welfare. Staff Response: The removal of the restriction upon the applicant’s property would not seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. The property is located on a corner lot in a cul-de-sac. The proposed addition would be located at the rear of the property which is fenced in and would have limited visibility from street view or from adjacent properties. As noted, the property in the rear of the applicant’s property has an addition as well. There were also two building permits issued for additions in 2007 and 2009 for the properties located at 347 and 365 Mayberry Lane that are located across the street to the north of the applicant’s property. 4. Whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Applicant Response: If the restriction is not removed or reduced the restriction would create an unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the applicant/owner in their effort to make normal improvements to the house. The proposed addition is a permitted use under the provisions of the property; however, the house is constructed relatively close to all setbacks with the exception of the rear yard setback. The two street setbacks significantly impact the ability to add onto the house and there is inadequate remaining space between the house and the Mayberry Lane required setback to construct an addition. To do so would require an even greater variance in the setback in order to construct the addition on that side. Also, there is little to no practical space remaining on the right or southerly side of the house. The double street frontage is peculiar to this particular lot and none of these conditions resulted from the act of the applicant or any predecessor in title. The house is presently approximately 1,884 s.f., which is not a large house. The applicant needs additional space in order to house family and visiting guests as well as operate their existing in-home business, which has been approved and licensed by the City of Dover. The proposed addition is a reasonable use of the property. The strict application of the rear yard setback would not allow them to construct an addition of a useful or practical size. The variance requested would allow them to construct a useful addition and is the minimum variance that will allow them to do so. They cannot expand the width of the proposed sunroom due to the location of existing windows in the rear of the house and, even if they could, the existing available depth of 12’ would not provide for a useful or practical multi-purpose room. The granting of the variance is necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the property and to allow for the construction of a practical and useful size multi-purpose sunroom as determined by the architect. The addition of the sunroom would also not exceed the allowable permitted impervious lot coverage of 35 percent. Staff Response: Failure to remove the restriction would result in an exceptional practical difficulty in that the Zoning Ordinance does not accommodate the size of the space needed for improvements to

V-18-08 Claude and Gwen Pritchett 360 Nottingham Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 7 the property to meet the conveniences and needs of the applicant. The property is located on a corner lot which would not allow for improvements to be made from either side of the property based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The depth of the property would not accommodate a useful size of the space. The property is located in area where there have been numerous improvements to the existing housing stock. Variance Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the area variance to reduce the 30 feet minimum rear yard setback to an even 25 feet in order to allow for the construction of a 16 foot by 16 foot addition to the rear of the property for the following reasons: • The applicant has demonstrated that adherence to the requirements of the zoning ordinance would create an exceptional practical difficulty for the owner to make necessary improvements to the property. • The expansion of the building would help improve and preserve the existing housing stock in the neighborhood as there are several neighboring properties with additions. • The property is located on a corner lot which has two front yard setback requirements of 25 feet which impacts the ability for the applicant to add onto the property. • The depth of the property limits the use as a practical space. • The reduction in the rear yard setback from 30 feet. to 25 feet would not have an affect on the neighboring properties. 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. • Approval of a variance does not constitute a Building Permit. A Building Permit must be received from the City of Dover prior to the start of any construction work. • If the variance is approved, staff is requesting an as-built survey to be submitted with the building permit to ensure the addition is incompliance with the approved rear yard setback.

V-18-08 Claude and Gwen Pritchett 360 Nottingham Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 7 GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Exhibit Map 1 (Staff) B Applicant Statement and Responses to Criteria 1 (Applicant) C Site Plan showing building addition 1 (8.5” x 14” portrait) (Applicant) D Architectural Plan 1 (8.5”x11”, landscape) (Applicant) E Site Area Location 1 (8.5”x11”, portrait) (Applicant) F Site Photographs 7 (8.5”x11”, portrait) (Applicant)

City of Dover Exhibit A Application No.: V-18-08 Department of Planning & Inspections R-8 Mimosa Ave R-8 R-8 Alder Rd May berry Ln Locust Point Pl Site Nottingham Ct R-8 Webbs Ln John Clark Rd IO Title: Lands of Claude and Gwen Pritchett Address: 360 Nottingham Court Parcel ID: ED-05-085.12-04-26.00-000 Legend Zoning: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) Owner: Claude and Gwen Pritchett Subject Property Date: 11/13/2018 Dover Parcels Zoning 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 70 140 280 Feet Dover Boundary

Board of Adjustment Application Claude and Gwen Pritchett Response to Criteria Background The house located at 360 Nottingham Court was constructed in 1979 on Lot No. 31 of the Mayfair II subdivision. Lot 31 is one of the shallower lots in the subdivision at 102.5’ deep and is 8,256 s.f. (0.189 ac.). Claude and Gwen Pritchett purchased the home in August 1991 and have lived there since. The house is a 2-story home (see attached photographs) and the living space of the home is approximately 1,884 s.f. The house originally had 3 bedrooms; however, one of the bedrooms was converted to an office for an in-home business after one of their children moved out and when they started a transportation business known as D&J Transportation, LLC. The business is permitted and licensed by the City of Dover. They still have one child living at home. The Pritchetts are needing additional space in their house to accommodate friends and family when they come to visit as they presently have no spare bedroom. They desire to add a 16’ x 16’ multipurpose sunroom onto the rear of their house that they could entertain guests and use as an office and meeting room for their current business. The room would also serve as a playroom for their grandchildren and a place to store books. The Pritchetts are in their senior years and also have the need for family to come help them from time to time and need a place for them to stay when they come. The multi-purpose sunroom would also free up the 3rd bedroom and allow them to accommodate their guests. They are happy with their home and have no desire to move and are also not in a financial position to do so. The business is a small business that provides transportation services for public carriers and school districts. The business is not in a financial position to be able to lease office space at an offsite location. Based upon the current configuration of the rear of the house, the location of windows and doors, and the required setback of 30’ from the rear property line, the maximum size that they could construct the multipurpose sunroom would be approximately 12’ x 16’. While the width would be adequate they have determined, based upon their need and proposed uses, that the depth would not suffice for their needs and not provide for a very useable or practical space. They also cannot make the width any larger due the location of windows on the rear of the house (see attached architectural drawing). Area Variance Criteria 1. The property is located in an R8 zone, which is a one-family residence zone. The proposed multi-purpose sunroom is a use that is permitted and desirable in this zone. 2. The properties in the immediate vicinity of this property are all zoned R8 and have one- family residences located on them. Many of the houses have had additions added onto them over the years. The property directly to the rear of the applicant’s property had a screened-in porch added onto the rear of the house. 3. Removing or reducing the restriction upon the applicant’s property would not affect neighboring properties or their uses. The proposed use is conducive to the existing uses in the neighborhood and the zone in which it is located. It would be in harmony with the neighborhood and other additions added onto other houses. As stated, the house to the

Board of Adjustment Response to Criteria Page 2 rear of the applicant’s property has a screened in porch added onto the rear of the house and is relatively close to the rear property line. However, there are trees and a 6’ high wooden stockade fence along the rear property line that separate the two properties and provide for a buffer and screening. There is also a 6’ high wooden stockade fence to the right or south side of the property that would screen the addition from the adjoining property on that side. The left or north side of the property is located along a street, which also has a 6’ high wooden stockade fence. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulation and ordinances and will not represent a radical departure therefrom and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or the adjacent properties. The construction of the addition will not change the character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public welfare. 4. If the restriction is not removed or reduced the restriction would create an unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the applicant/owner in their effort to make normal improvements to the house. The proposed addition is a permitted use under the provisions of the property; however, the house is constructed relatively close to all setbacks with the exception of the rear yard setback. The two street setbacks significantly impact the ability to add onto the house and there is inadequate remaining space between the house and the Mayberry Lane required setback to construct an addition. To do so would require an even greater variance in the setback in order to construct the addition on that side. Also, there is little to no practical space remaining on the right or southerly side of the house. The double street frontage is peculiar to this particular lot and none of these conditions resulted from the act of the applicant or any predecessor in title. The house is presently approximately 1,884 s.f., which is not a large house. The applicant needs additional space in order to house family and visiting guests as well as operate their existing in-home business, which has been approved and licensed by the City of Dover. The proposed addition is a reasonable use of the property. The strict application of the rear yard setback would not allow them to construct an addition of a useful or practical size. The variance requested would allow them to construct a useful addition and is the minimum variance that will allow them to do so. They cannot expand the width of the proposed sunroom due to the location of existing windows in the rear of the house and, even if they could, the existing available depth of 12’ would not provide for a useful or practical multi-purpose room. The granting of the variance is necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the property and to allow for the construction of a practical and useful size multi-purpose sunroom as determined by the architect. The addition of the sunroom would also not exceed the allowable permitted impervious lot coverage of 35 percent.

Photo #1 Front (west side) of House Photo #2 Right (south) Side of House 1

Photo #3 Left (north) Side of House Photo #4 Rear Yard Facing South 2

Photo #5 Rear Yard Facing North Photo #6 Rear (east side) of House 3

Photo #7 Rear of Existing Family Room 4

V-18-08 Claude and Gwen Pritchett 360 Nottingham Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 7 The lands to the north, south, east, and west are all similarly zoned R-8 properties and have one- family detached residences located on them. An area map is in included in Exhibit A. Code Citations Article 4, Section 4.1. [One-family residence zones.] Bulk and parking regulations for one-family residence, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7 zones [are as follows: TABLE INSET: For Dwellings In: R-20 R-15 R-10 R-8 R-7 Minimum required: Lot area (sq. ft.) 20,000 15,000 10,000 8,000 7,000 Lot width (ft.) 120 100 80 70 50 Lot depth (ft.) 150 125 110 100 100 Front yard (ft.) 30 30 25 25 20 Minimum side yard (ft.) 25 20 15 10 5 Total both side yards (ft.) 50 40 30 20 10 Rear yard (ft.) 40 40 30 30 30 Lot coverage 20% 25% 30%0% 35% 40% Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Article 9, Section 2 of the Zoning Ordinance dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. In order to grant a variance, the Board must determine that an exceptional practical difficulty exists. 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 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;

V-18-08 Claude and Gwen Pritchett 360 Nottingham Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 7 (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 from the applicant The applicant has provided background information and responses for the requested variance as it relates to the criteria. (See also Exhibit B) Background The house located at 360 Nottingham Court was constructed in 1979 on Lot No. 31 of the Mayfair II subdivision. Lot 31 is one of the shallower lots in the subdivision at 102.5’ deep and is 8,256 s.f. (0.189 ac.). Claude and Gwen Pritchett purchased the home in August 1991 and have lived there since. The house is a 2-story home (see attached photographs) and the living space of the home is approximately 1,884 s.f. The house originally had 3 bedrooms; however, one of the bedrooms was converted to an office for an in-home business after one of their children moved out and when they started a transportation business known as D&J Transportation, LLC. The business is permitted and licensed by the City of Dover. They still have one child living at home. The Pritchetts are needing additional space in their house to accommodate friends and family when they come to visit as they presently have no spare bedroom. They desire to add a 16’ x 16’ multipurpose sunroom onto the rear of their house that they could entertain guests and use as an office and meeting room for their current business. The room would also serve as a playroom for their grandchildren and a place to store books. The Pritchetts are in their senior years and also have the need for family to come help them from time to time and need a place for them to stay when they come. The multi-purpose sunroom would also free up the 3rd bedroom and allow them to accommodate their guests. They are happy with their home and have no desire to move and are also not in a financial position to do so. The business is a small business that provides transportation services for public carriers and school districts. The business is not in a financial position to be able to lease office space at an offsite location. Based upon the current configuration of the rear of the house, the location of windows and doors, and the required setback of 30’ from the rear property line, the maximum size that they could construct the multipurpose sunroom would be approximately 12’ x 16’. While the width would be adequate they have determined, based upon their need and proposed uses, that the depth would not suffice for their needs and not provide for a very useable or practical space. They also cannot make the width any larger due the location of windows on the rear of the house (see attached architectural drawing).

V-18-08 Claude and Gwen Pritchett 360 Nottingham Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 7 An area variance shall be evaluated on the following criteria; 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Response: The property is located in an R8 zone, which is a one-family residence zone. The proposed multi-purpose sunroom is a use that is permitted and desirable in this zone. Staff Response: The property is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and located in the Mayfair II Subdivision. The subject property is located to the south of Mayberry Lane and to the north of Webbs Lane. The surrounding properties are zoned R-8 and are residential uses. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Response: The properties in the immediate vicinity of this property are all zoned R8 and have one- family residences located on them. Many of the houses have had additions added onto them over the years. The property directly to the rear of the applicant’s property had a screened- in porch added onto the rear of the house. Staff Response: As the applicant describes, the character of the property’s immediate vicinity are one family residences. The house is of similar size to other houses in the neighborhood, many of which have additions which is not uncommon for the neighborhood. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Response: Removing or reducing the restriction upon the applicant’s property would not affect neighboring properties or their uses. The proposed use is conducive to the existing uses in the neighborhood and the zone in which it is located. It would be in harmony with the neighborhood and other additions added onto other houses. As stated, the house to the rear of the applicant’s property has a screened in porch added onto the rear of the house and is relatively close to the rear property line. However, there are trees and a 6’ high wooden stockade fence along the rear property line that separate the two properties and provide for a buffer and screening. There is also a 6’ high wooden stockade fence to the right or south side of the property that would screen the addition from the adjoining property on that side. The left or north side of the property is located along a street, which also has a 6’ high wooden stockade fence. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulation and ordinances and will not represent a radical departure therefrom and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or the adjacent properties.

V-18-08 Claude and Gwen Pritchett 360 Nottingham Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 7 The construction of the addition will not change the character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public welfare. Staff Response: The removal of the restriction upon the applicant’s property would not seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. The property is located on a corner lot in a cul-de-sac. The proposed addition would be located at the rear of the property which is fenced in and would have limited visibility from street view or from adjacent properties. As noted, the property in the rear of the applicant’s property has an addition as well. There were also two building permits issued for additions in 2007 and 2009 for the properties located at 347 and 365 Mayberry Lane that are located across the street to the north of the applicant’s property. 4. Whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Applicant Response: If the restriction is not removed or reduced the restriction would create an unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the applicant/owner in their effort to make normal improvements to the house. The proposed addition is a permitted use under the provisions of the property; however, the house is constructed relatively close to all setbacks with the exception of the rear yard setback. The two street setbacks significantly impact the ability to add onto the house and there is inadequate remaining space between the house and the Mayberry Lane required setback to construct an addition. To do so would require an even greater variance in the setback in order to construct the addition on that side. Also, there is little to no practical space remaining on the right or southerly side of the house. The double street frontage is peculiar to this particular lot and none of these conditions resulted from the act of the applicant or any predecessor in title. The house is presently approximately 1,884 s.f., which is not a large house. The applicant needs additional space in order to house family and visiting guests as well as operate their existing in-home business, which has been approved and licensed by the City of Dover. The proposed addition is a reasonable use of the property. The strict application of the rear yard setback would not allow them to construct an addition of a useful or practical size. The variance requested would allow them to construct a useful addition and is the minimum variance that will allow them to do so. They cannot expand the width of the proposed sunroom due to the location of existing windows in the rear of the house and, even if they could, the existing available depth of 12’ would not provide for a useful or practical multi-purpose room. The granting of the variance is necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the property and to allow for the construction of a practical and useful size multi-purpose sunroom as determined by the architect. The addition of the sunroom would also not exceed the allowable permitted impervious lot coverage of 35 percent. Staff Response: Failure to remove the restriction would result in an exceptional practical difficulty in that the Zoning Ordinance does not accommodate the size of the space needed for improvements to

V-18-08 Claude and Gwen Pritchett 360 Nottingham Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 7 the property to meet the conveniences and needs of the applicant. The property is located on a corner lot which would not allow for improvements to be made from either side of the property based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The depth of the property would not accommodate a useful size of the space. The property is located in area where there have been numerous improvements to the existing housing stock. Variance Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the area variance to reduce the 30 feet minimum rear yard setback to an even 25 feet in order to allow for the construction of a 16 foot by 16 foot addition to the rear of the property for the following reasons: • The applicant has demonstrated that adherence to the requirements of the zoning ordinance would create an exceptional practical difficulty for the owner to make necessary improvements to the property. • The expansion of the building would help improve and preserve the existing housing stock in the neighborhood as there are several neighboring properties with additions. • The property is located on a corner lot which has two front yard setback requirements of 25 feet which impacts the ability for the applicant to add onto the property. • The depth of the property limits the use as a practical space. • The reduction in the rear yard setback from 30 feet. to 25 feet would not have an affect on the neighboring properties. 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. • Approval of a variance does not constitute a Building Permit. A Building Permit must be received from the City of Dover prior to the start of any construction work. • If the variance is approved, staff is requesting an as-built survey to be submitted with the building permit to ensure the addition is incompliance with the approved rear yard setback.

V-18-08 Claude and Gwen Pritchett 360 Nottingham Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 7 GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Exhibit Map 1 (Staff) B Applicant Statement and Responses to Criteria 1 (Applicant) C Site Plan showing building addition 1 (8.5” x 14” portrait) (Applicant) D Architectural Plan 1 (8.5”x11”, landscape) (Applicant) E Site Area Location 1 (8.5”x11”, portrait) (Applicant) F Site Photographs 7 (8.5”x11”, portrait) (Applicant)

MEMORANDUM Department of Planning & Inspections P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7010 Fax (302) 736-4217 DATE: December 12, 2018 TO: Board of Adjustment Members FROM: Julian Swierczek, Planner I SUBJECT: Amendment of Board of Adjustment Application V-18-09 Blue Hen Apartments: Garages at 100, 250, 350, 400 & 550 Shrewsbury Court, Dover Background for Requested Revision Blu Hen Apartments, LLC originally applied to the Board of Adjustment on October 10, 2018 for an area variance to permit a reduction in the minimum setback required for an accessory building in a residential zone from 5 feet to 4 feet 10.2 inches. The foundations were laid to comply with the 5 foot setback, but the vinyl siding and corner trim that were added to the wall made the overall structure of five (5) of the new garages (numbered 36, 37, 38, 39, and 41 on Site Plan) to be located within the setback. However, on December 4, 2018, the Applicant submitted a revision to their October 10th application submission. The amended request is that the setback be further reduced to 4.7 feet or 4 feet 8.4 inches instead of to the original requested reduction to 4.85 feet or 4 feet 10.2 inches. The applicant explained that the reason for this amended request is due to a new, more detailed survey utilizing GPS gave new information for how far the five (5) garages are actually located from the lot line. See attached letter. Staff Comments and Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the revised area variance request to reduce the minimum setback of an accessory building in a residential zone due to the following reasons: • The decrease in minimum setback requirements continues to be not significant enough to pose any detrimental affect on the neighboring properties. The current minimum setback for accessory buildings in a residential zone is 5 feet. The applicant is proposing reducing this minimum for five of the 11 built garages to the amended request of 4.7 feet ( 4 feet 8.4 inches). The applicant has stated that they were built so close to the lot line for the purpose of staying as far from underground utilities as possible. While the five garage structures are over the minimum setback, their foundations are not, as they were all built at least 5 feet

BOA Memo for Blue Hen Apartments Garages at 100, 250, 350, 400 & 550 Shrewsbury Ct. 12-19-18 Meeting Page 2 of 2 from the lot line. An error was made in calculating for the siding and trim that were added at later stages. • The west of the garages at the property line consists of a landscaped area of grass and shrub & tree plantings. An upright curb separates this area from the parking spaces on the adjacent property. These site elements minimize any differences in setback. • As the structures are already built, Staff believes it would be an unnecessary hardship for the applicant to not have this variance request approved. The Board of Adjustment should consider this amended information in its review of the original application for V-18-09 Blue Hen Apartments at 100, 250, 350, 400, & 550 Shrewsbury Court. Attachments: 1. Letter dated December 4, 2018 with update information 2. Staff Report for Application V-18-09

City of Dover Board of Adjustment November 21, 2018 V-18-09 Location: 100, 250, 350, 400 & 550 Shrewsbury Ct. (on the east side of Bay Road, behind Blue Hen Corporate Center) Applicant/Owner: Blue Hen Apartments, LLC Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.00-01-01.00-000 Application Date: October 10, 2018 Present Zoning: RG-2 (General Residence Zone) Current Use: Apartments Reviewed By: Julian Swierczek, Planner I Variance Type: Area Variance Variance Requested: To reduce the minimum 5-foot setback required for an accessory building in a residential zone. Applicant has built eleven (11) new parking garages, five (5) of which are only 4.85 feet (4 feet 10.2 inches) from the lot line. This request only pertains to those five garages (numbered as structures 36, 37, 38, 39, and 41 on the Site Plan).

V-18-09 Blue Hen Apartments at 100, 250, 350, 400 & 550 Shrewsbury Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 7 Project Description The applicant is requesting a variance from Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1.12 Supplementary Regulations applying to residence zones, to allow for a decrease in the minimum setback requirements for an accessory building in a residential zone. This current application V-18-09 is proposing to reduce the minimum setback required for an accessory building in a residential zone from 5 feet to 4.85 feet to accommodate the five (5) already built structures located within the setback. The applicant is asking for an area variance because the current owner, Blue Hen Apartments LLC built five (5) of the (11) new accessory garage structures (numbered 36, 37, 38, 39 and 41 on Exhibit C) on the site of the Blue Hen Apartment Complex with setbacks under the required minimum of 5 feet. The foundations of Garages #36, 37, 38, 39, and 41 were built the required 5 feet away from the lot line; however, once the walls were put up and the vinyl siding and corner trim put in place, these (5) structures instead are measuring only 4.85 feet (4 feet 10.2 inches) away from the lot line. The Applicant has provided a series of Exhibits with their application. A Site Plan, highlighting the five structures (Numbered as 36, 37, 38, 39 and 41) can be found in Exhibit C. A series of photographs showing the garages subject to this Area Variance request (8 pages) is to be found in Exhibit D. The Garages have specific addresses (for 911 response) of 100, 250, 350, 400 & 550 Shrewsbury Court. Adjacent Land Uses A Zoning Map Exhibit (Exhibit A) prepared by staff is attached to this Report. It shows the subject property location and surrounding zoning. The properties to the southeast are zoned IPM (Industrial Park and Manufacturing Zone) and contain the new Chesapeake Utilities Dover Campus. The properties to the southwest are zoned SC-2 (Shopping Center Development) and contain the Blue Hen Corporate Center. The property to the northwest is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) is the site of East Dover Elementary School. Immediately adjacent to the site to the northeast is the Schoolview subdivision of one- family detached dwellings, which are zoned R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone). The subject site itself was developed as apartments in phases from 2007 through 2018. Code Citations Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1.12 gives the required minimum setback for accessory buildings. Specifically, it states: Such buildings shall be set back five feet from any lot line and shall not be located less than ten feet from an adjoining principal structure. Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 defines Accessory building as follows: A building or use clearly incidental or subordinate to, and customar[il]y in connection with, the principal building or use on the same lot. Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 defines Setback as: The distance between the street line and the setback line.

V-18-09 Blue Hen Apartments at 100, 250, 350, 400 & 550 Shrewsbury Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 7 Zoning Ordinance in turn defines the setback line as: A line extending between the two side lot lines of a lot or a parcel of land, which is parallel to, and a stated distance from, a street line. For this property, the five (5) garages are accessory buildings because the principal structures are the apartment buildings. Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Zoning Ordinance Article 9 §2 dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. Specifically, the Board must determine: 2.1 Variance. The board shall have the authority to authorize variances from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not contrary to public interest where the board determines that a literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant. In granting variances, the board shall determine that the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. 2.11 Area Variance. A variance shall be considered an area variance if it relates to bulk standards, signage regulations, and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that address lot layout, buffers, and dimensions. In considering a request for an area variance, the board shall evaluate the following criteria and document them in their findings of fact: (a) the nature of the zone in which the property lies; (b) the character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; (c) whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; and (d) whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Review of Application As part of the application, the applicant was asked to summarize how the requested variance relates to the above criteria. The applicant’s responses are provided below along with a Staff assessment of the application in accordance with the required criteria. The applicant’s responses are also provided in Exhibit B. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Response: “The property is in the RG-2, General Residence zone, which allows a mix of commercial and residential uses.” Staff Response:

V-18-09 Blue Hen Apartments at 100, 250, 350, 400 & 550 Shrewsbury Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 7 Staff notes that while the RG-2 (General Residence) zone allows for a variety of residential uses varying from one-family-residences through to Garden Apartments, commercial uses are slightly limited in scope, being only conditionally allowed after a review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Responses: “The adjoining property on which side the non-conformity exists is zoned SC-2, Community Shopping Center, and is used as a parking lot. There are landscaped curb islands between the garages and the parking lot, negating the appearance of the non- conformity. The other use near the project is a daycare on an SC-2 zoned property. Both adjoining properties and the subject property ultimately are owned by the same company, but they are listed as separate entities.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with the applicant’s description but notes that their description pertains to the properties to the southwest of the site in question, which are the properties nearest to the five (5) garages subject this variance request. The properties there largely contain Blue Hen Corporate Center with the various offices and facilities contained therein, with the parts of the site nearest the subject property containing parking lots. Staff further notes that areas to the southeast are zoned IPM (Industrial Park and Manufacturing Zone); this is where the newly built headquarters of Chesapeake Utilities is located. To the northwest is located Dover East Elementary School which is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). Immediately to the northeast, opposite from the part of the site where the five (5) garages in question are located, are a series of one-family residences in Schoolview Subdivision, which are zoned R-8 (One-family Residence Zone). On the subject site, the Garages on located along the westernmost property line on the apartment complex. They are part of the parking lot serving the Apartment Buildings along Shrewsbury Court. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Response: “There would not be any effect on the adjoining property. There are landscaped islands between the garages and the parking lot which creates a uniform setting. The non- conformity is 0.15 (1 ¾”) which is not noticeable given the layout of the site and the landscaping. The land directly adjoining the garages is a parking lot so no neighbors are affected by granting the variance.” Staff Response: Planning Staff agrees with the assessment of the applicant in that the part of the site where the five (5) garages in question are located, backs up to the parking lot at the rear of the Blue Hen Corporate Center. The residential properties that border the site, do so at the opposite side of the property, to the northeast, meaning that the adjacent residential

V-18-09 Blue Hen Apartments at 100, 250, 350, 400 & 550 Shrewsbury Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 7 properties would not be affected by the minimum setback for an accessory structure being reduced from 5 ft. to 4.85 ft. 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: “The hardship was caused by the existing underground utilities which affected the original layout of the apartment complex. The rear wall of the garages would need to be removed and reconstructed 0.15’ (1 ¾”) closer to the site which would be an economic hardship on the owners of the property. The property lines also cannot be moves to resolve the issue as the adjoining property is a different zoning district and financing is separate for the different entities.” Staff Response: Staff notes that the Applicant sought to build the garages as close to the lot line as possible to avoid any conflict with underground utilities in laying out the overall site. They also note that the only reason they went within the 5 ft setback was an oversight in that they put the foundations where required by Code but accidentally did not account for the siding which would slightly overhang the foundation by 1 ¾ inches. The applicant has stated that, were the variance not be approved, they would incur an economic hardship as they would not be able to utilize the now completed new garages and would have to demolish them to move them by 1 ¾ inches further away from the lot line. Planning Staff would agree with this being an unnecessary hardship. Variance Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow decreasing the minimum setback for an accessory structure in a residential zone to 4.85 feet, as pertaining specifically to structures 36, 37, 38, 39 and 41 (Addressed as 100, 250, 350, 400, and 550 Shrewsbury Court). Staff recommends approval for reasons as follows: • The decrease in minimum setback requirements is not significant enough to pose any detrimental affect on the neighboring properties. The current minimum allowed setback in a residential zone is 5 ft. and the applicant is proposing reducing this minimum for 5 of the 11 built garages to only 4.85 ft. (4 ft. 10.2 inches). The applicant has stated that they were built so close to the lot line for the purpose of staying as far from underground utilities as possible. While the five garage structures are over the minimum setback, their foundations are not, as they were all built at least 5 ft. from the lot line. An error was made in calculating for the siding and trim that were added at later stages. • The west of the garages at the property line consists of a landscaped area of grass and shrub & tree plantings. An upright curb separates this area from the parking spaces on the adjacent property. These site elements minimize any differences in setback.

V-18-09 Blue Hen Apartments at 100, 250, 350, 400 & 550 Shrewsbury Court Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 7 • As the structures are already built, Staff believes it would be an unnecessary hardship for the applicant to not have this variance request approved. Advisory Comments to the Applicant • Approval of a variance does not constitute a Building Permit. A Building Permit must be received from the City of Dover prior to the start of any construction work. In this case, documentation of the action on the variance would need to be added to the five Building Permits already issued for the Garages and their compliance evaluated as part of the Final Inspections for the structures.

V-18-09 Blue Hen Apartments at 100, 250, 350, 400 & 550 Shrewsbury Ct. Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Exhibit Map 1 (Staff) B Criteria Responses (Applicant) 2 C Site Plan identifying the (5) garages that are 1 (36” x 24”) subject of Variance request (Applicant) D Series of photos showing the garages which are the 8 subject of this application

City of Dover Exhibit A Application No.: V-18-09 Department of Planning & Inspections ROS RG-3 RG-3 Little Creek Rd C-1 C-1A R-8 IO R-8 l Ct lv d Bar nB He Ot e D Blu is CPO C r vy Le C-3 L o n g Isla C t er ou rt Ln owl Cr F d Ct Ct f rta n aw n be rto sle R-8 Ro be ord Ha Ki Av m tSt e Av e Site RG-2 K ea rs R-8 t t AS SC-2 eC y ne Ct m ag M Plu Blu eH M en all C-4 yR Ba SC- ec t o 2 Hwy 1 r d on IPM n n nC yL State ir erg Ru C En ion eo t rta IO n po nc ns h Tra Pu C-4 vd Bl er ov St Title: Lands of Blue Hen Apartments LLC Address: 100, 250, 350, 400 & 550 Shrewsbury Ct, Parcel ID: ED-05-077.00-01-01.00-000 Legend Zoning: RG-2 (General Residence Zone) Owner: Blue Hen Apartments LLC Subject Property Date: 11/08/2018 Dover Parcels Zoning 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Dover Boundary

HASLET STREET 24 25 (PRIVATE R.O.W. WIDTH BLUE HEN BLVD. IPSWICH COURT EXISTING LONG ISLAND VARIES) FOUNDATION EXISTING COURT FOUNDATION KIMBERTON COURT PLUMAGE COURT ZONED: RG-2 ZONED: SC-2 ZONED: RG-2 LONG ISLAND KIMBERTON COURT KEARSNEY COURT ZONED: SC-2 CT. 30 3 STORY BUILDING 6 APT. UNITS EXETER COURT 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 35 EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING THREE-STORY THREE-STORY THREE-STORY THREE-STORY THREE-STORY THREE-STORY 34 THREE-STORY EXISTING THREE-STORY APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT THREE-STORY BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING APARTMENT BUILDING SHREWSBURY COURT SHREWSBURY COURT SHREWSBURY COURT 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ZONED: RG-2 ZONED: SC-2 28 83 54 30 42 40 56 30 42 40 56 7 11 14 16 18 22 56 21 56 8 56 55 GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 60 ft. SHEET NO. :1 OF 1 CADD FILE:BOAPlan_BHA DATA COLUMN SITE BLUE HEN APARTMENTS - PHASE 2 VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=2000' · Notice: These drawings and design are the exclusive property of Larson Engineering Group, Inc., and shall not be used, altered or copied without written permission.

City of Dover Board of Adjustment November 21, 2018 V-18-10 Location: 1240 McKee Road, Dover DE Applicant: Michael Graham c/o PAM Dover DE IRF LP Owner: PAM Dover DE IRF LP Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.00-01-33.00-000 Application Date: October 10, 2018 Present Zoning: IO (Institutional and Office Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Present Use: Physical Rehabilitation Hospital (under construction) Proposed Use: Physical Rehabilitation Hospital Reviewed By: Eddie Diaz Variance Type: Area Variance Variance Requested: To permit a wall sign sized 118.31 SF where the maximum sign area permitted is 32 SF. (For a non-residential use adjacent to a residential use).

V-18-10 PAM Rehabilitation Hospital Signage, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 14 Project Description The applicant is currently constructing a new 43,522 SF physical rehabilitation hospital at 1240 McKee Road in Dover (Site Plan #S-17-05, granted Final Approval on February 5, 2018). The applicant proposes to install a single large wall sign on the front façade of this building, sized 118.31 SF. The sign cannot be installed in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The property’s frontage on McKee Road (an “Urban Minor Arterial” street) and the proximity of residential uses across the street limit the maximum size for a wall sign on this property to 32 SF. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Supplementary Sign Regulations specified in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 to allow the property to exceed this maximum sign area. The applicant provided a series of Exhibits together with their application. The variance application renderings, showing the size of the sign and its position on the building, can be found in Exhibit C. Other exhibits provided by the applicant include a zoning map (Exhibit A, originally prepared by Planning Staff), responses to the variance criteria (Exhibit B), letter height calculations (Exhibit D), a report from the United States Sign Council (Exhibit E), and neighbor signatures (Exhibit F). Planning Staff has provided a series of additional Exhibits to add to the information provided by the applicants. These include Exhibit G, which shows a 31 SF monument sign for the project previously approved on July 20, 2018, Exhibit H, which shows the property’s Site Plan, Exhibit I, which shows renderings for a previous iteration of the wall sign, and Exhibit J, which shows the City’s sign table. These Exhibits are packaged separately from those submitted by the applicant. Prior Applications This project was previously scheduled to be heard by the Board of Adjustment on September 19, 2018 as variance application V-18-07. However, V-18-07 was withdrawn by the applicant before it could be heard at the meeting. The current application differs from the previous one primarily because the applicants now seek a sign area of 118.31 SF. Previously, they had requested a sign area between 352 SF and 424 SF. This area reduction was achieved in two ways. First, the applicants reduced the amount of text on the sign. The sign previously read “PAM Rehabilitation Hospital of Dover” in large letters on the first line and “A Post Acute Medical Hospital” in smaller letters on the second (See Exhibit I for the previous design of the sign.) The second line of text was removed entirely for the new application. Second, the applicants worked with Planning Staff to achieve a more accurate measurement of the sign area according to the definitions given in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 4.3. This change is discussed in more detail in the “Measuring the Size of the Sign” section of this Report, under “Code Citations.” In addition to shrinking the size of the sign, the applicant provided revised responses to the variance criteria with their new application.

V-18-10 PAM Rehabilitation Hospital Signage, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 14 Adjacent Land Uses The property is located on the west side of McKee Road north of College Road. To the north of the property are the headquarters of the First State Model Railroad Club and a Day Care Facility, zoned CPO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone). Across McKee Road to the east are the North Dover Elementary School zoned IO, a stormwater pond, and three one-family dwellings located in an enclave of Kent County. To the south are two more one-family dwellings, zoned CPO and R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone) respectively, as well as the McKee Crossing commercial building, zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). Finally, at the rear of the property to the west is the Emerald Pointe subdivision, consisting of one-family detached dwellings zoned R-8. All the above-mentioned uses are located either entirely or partially within the Corridor Overlay Zone (COZ-1). The COZ-1 requires enhanced design requirements for landscaping, setbacks, building placement, parking, buffering, and access in order to promote superior urban design. A map of the property and surrounding area may be found in Exhibit A. Code Citations The City of Dover sign regulations found in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4 determine the allowable number, type and dimensional characteristics of signage on a property according to: ● The type of use ● Proximity to residential uses ● Classification of roads on which the property has frontage The proposed hospital is considered a permitted, non-residential use located adjacent to a residential use as specified in Article 5 §4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The City of Dover sign regulations distinguish three (3) types of roads for purposes of determining allowable signage. McKee Road is an “Urban Minor Arterial” as defined by Article 5 §4.3. The entire “Sign Table” from Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4.7 is presented in Exhibit J. The section pertaining to this project is highlighted in the middle section of the table. This section is what applies to “Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts” as shown in the vertical text on the left, and shows the sign types, maximum number of signs, sign area, sign height, and minimum required setbacks and exclusion zones for signs on properties fronting on “Urban Minor Arterial” streets. For this property, two wall signs are permitted based on the property’s frontage on McKee Road. The signs granted by McKee Road are limited in size to 32 SF. They are additionally limited to being no more than 15% of the size of the facade they are on. To promote flexibility in signage designs, wall signs may be placed on any façade of the building regardless of what street classification they are permitted under. (See Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.4(C)(5).)

V-18-10 PAM Rehabilitation Hospital Signage, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 14 The table below compares what is permitted under Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4.7 to the applicant’s proposed signage. Table 1 Allowed and Requested Signage, 1240 McKee Road Sign # Description Location Max size Max height % of Wall Area Setback (ROW) Exclusion Zone east Permitted 32 SF 15% 1 Wall Sign N/A N/A N/A façade Requested 118.31 SF 0.6% McKee Permitted 32 SF 7 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. 2 Monument N/A frontage Approved 31 SF 4 ft. 10 in. 10 ft. >20 ft. Measuring the Size of the Sign As previously mentioned, the applicants worked with Planning Staff to achieve a more accurate measurement of the sign area for this new application, according to the definitions given in Zoning Ordinance Article 5 Section 4.3. These definitions are as follows: Sign area: The area of the smallest geometric figure, or the sum of the combination of regular geometric figures, which comprise the sign face. The area of any double-sided or "V" shaped sign shall be the area of the largest single face only. The area of a sphere shall be computed as the area of a circle. The area of all other multiple-sided signs shall be computed as 50 percent of the sum of the area of all faces of the sign. Sign face: The surface upon, against or through which the sign copy is displayed or illustrated, not including structural supports, architectural features of a building or sign structure, nonstructural thematic or decorative trim, or any areas that are separated from the background surface upon which the sign copy is displayed by a distinct delineation, such as a reveal or border. Previously, the applicant had arrived at a sign area between 352 SF and 424 SF by measuring the length and width of the “shoe-box pan cabinet” supporting the sign (see page 5 of Exhibit I for construction details of the sign). This 3.5-inch deep box is a structural support intended to contain the power supply for the sign and support the LED-lit channel letters which comprise the actual sign. This box should not be confused with a so-called cabinet sign, which is a box containing both power supply and lighting where the sign is the entire flat front face of the box. For such a sign a straightforward length-by-width measurement to measure the sign area would be appropriate. However, this method is not always appropriate for channel letters. For channel letters, “the area of the smallest geometric figure, or the sum of the combination of regular geometric figures, which comprise the sign face” may be used to find the sign area. Using multiple geometric figures is useful for excluding excess empty space from the sign area without going so far as to exclude necessary empty space that is part of the text. The dimensions used to arrive at a 118.31 SF sign area for the applicant’s sign in particular are shown on page 2 of Exhibit C. Here one can see that 118.31 SF is the sum of a 38” by 48” logo and a 28” by 57’ 10” line of text, minus the empty space made by the difference between the large and small capital letters. 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:

V-18-10 PAM Rehabilitation Hospital Signage, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 14 2.1 Variance – The board shall have the authority to authorize variances from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not contrary to public interest where the board determines that a literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant. In granting variances, the board shall determine that the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. 2.11 Area Variance. A variance shall be considered an area variance if it relates to bulk standards, signage regulations, and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that address lot layout, buffers, and dimensions. In considering a request for an area variance, the board shall evaluate the following criteria and document them in their findings of fact: (a) the nature of the zone in which the property lies; (b) the character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; (c) whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; and (d) whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Review of Application As a part of the application, the applicant was asked to state how the requested variance relates to the above four criteria. The applicant’s new principal responses are provided below, along with a staff assessment of the application in accordance with the required criteria. The applicant’s full argument is also provided in Exhibit C. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Response: “The property lies in the I/O Zone that permits business, professional, and governmental offices; banks; research, design and development laboratories; public and institutional uses; public utility rights of way and structures; day care centers; emergency shelters and transitional housing. Applicant's rehabilitation hospital providing care to patients with serious physical injuries is permitted as an institutional use in this zone. The property also lies in the Corridor Overlay Zone COZ-1 which requires enhanced design requirements for landscaping, setbacks, building placement, parking, buffering, and access in order to promote superior urban design. Applicant's rehabilitation hospital met the requirements to be granted a designation of Superior Urban Design. It is worth noting that no other hospital or similarly sized facility lies within an I/O zone and in the Corridor Overlay Zone and, therefore, are not subject to the stringent sign restrictions imposed on the applicant. Bayhealth Hospital is subject to a Unified Comprehensive Sign plan and the Eden Hill facilities are within the Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone where signage is permitted if it complies with approved Pattern Books in which particular sizes of signs are not prescribed. For example in the Eden Hill Farm Professional Office, Medical & Financial District Pattern Book Fifth Edition (2007), there is no minimum or maximum sign size within the District. Pictures of appropriate examples simply depict well proportioned horizontally placed letters across front entryways. (Eden Hill Patter Book p.19) This is exactly what applicant

V-18-10 PAM Rehabilitation Hospital Signage, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 14 seeks to do, install properly proportioned horizontally placed wording across its entryway. Applicant suggests that in cases of unique properties, such as hospitals, the proportional size of the sign to the size of the building should be paramount, rather than adhering to a strict rule of permitting only a 32 sq. ft. sign regardless of the size of the building and/or its additional setbacks.” Staff Response: The property is in the IO Zone, which permits business, professional, and governmental offices; banks; research, design and development laboratories; public and institutional uses; public utility rights of way and structures; day care centers; emergency shelters and transitional housing. The physical rehabilitation hospital is permitted as an institutional use. As previously mentioned, the property is also in the Corridor Overlay Zone. The COZ-1 requires enhanced design requirements for landscaping, setbacks, building placement, parking, buffering, and access in order to promote superior urban design. While the Corridor Overlay Zone does not directly regulate signage, the property’s inclusion in the Corridor Overlay Zone is significant to this application. The applicant has complained about the appearance of a 32 SF sign given the large setback of the building. According to the project’s Site Plan (Exhibit H), the building is set back from the property line 86 feet. This is a deviation from the required front yard setback of the Corridor Overlay Zone, which is typically a minimum of 40 feet and a maximum of 50 feet for nonresidential properties along McKee Road. In their conditional approval of the project on March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission extended the maximum front yard setback for the hospital to 90 feet, based on the project exhibiting characteristics of “Superior Urban Design.” See Zoning Ordinance Article 3, Section 27.61 for information on setbacks in the Corridor Overlay Zone, including the Commission’s ability to extend the setback. See also Article 3, Section 27.2 for the criteria the project met to be granted a designation of Superior Urban Design. It is noted that the COZ-1’s setback extension provision does not necessarily account for signage requirements. Had the hospital building been built no more than 50 feet from the property line as originally required, it would have been much easier to see a code- complaint sign on the building from the street. With regard to the applicant’s suggestion that hospitals and other “unique properties” should be regulated on the basis of sign proportionality rather than sign size, Staff disagrees primarily because there is no basis in the sign code for determining what is a unique property or allowing discrimination between types of land uses. The facilities mentioned by the applicant are not granted additional signage due to their medical use but rather because of various special provisions in the code related to the Traditional Neighborhood Design Zone and Unified Comprehensive Sign Plans for campuses, neither of which apply to this single building in an IO Zone. The Bayhealth main campus is zoned IO, the same classification as the applicant’s property.

V-18-10 PAM Rehabilitation Hospital Signage, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 14 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Response: “The property is located on 1240 McKee Rd. in a transitional area of town with mixed use. (Exhibit A) The subject site is zoned I/O. Property across the street and facing the front elevation of the building is zoned I/O and is home to the North Dover Elementary school. Property to the northwest of the subject property is a private non-residential use and property adjacent to that is a day care center. Properties immediately adjacent to the southeast and northwest of the subject property are zoned CPO and a short distance down the road at the corner of McKee Rd. and College Rd. is a C-2A parcel with a convenience store, liquor store and other businesses. There is also CPO zoned property across from the front elevation of the building in addition to three (3) small residential parcels that are in a Kent County enclave. (Exhibit A) The residential parcels have various setbacks from the hospital building but appear to be between 200 - 300 feet from the face of the hospital building. The proportional signage, as requested, will be legible from McKee Rd. and will fit into the character of the immediate vicinity and the uses therein.” Staff Response: Staff generally concurs with the applicant’s description of the immediate vicinity. It is noted that the North Dover Elementary School shares only about 80 feet of frontage with the subject property, compared with the subject property’s 655 feet of frontage overall; the school’s main frontage is on College Road. The CPO-zoned property across from the elevation, meanwhile, shares about 15 feet of frontage with the subject property. The three residential parcels share the most amount of frontage with the property, having about 295 feet in common. The remaining 265 feet across from the property are taken up by State land containing a stormwater management pond. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Response: “Delaware Courts have paid particular attention to whether the granting of a requested variance will seriously affect neighboring properties. The question is not whether it simply affects neighboring properties but whether it seriously affects them. Nepa at p. 16. Instead of installing 2 (32 sq. ft.) signs, the applicant seeks to install 1 (118.31 sq. ft.) sign on the face of the building consisting of illuminated letters that make up the name of the hospital. In keeping with the Zoning Ordinance §4.4 C, the sign is designed as an integral component of the building facade architectural composition and is properly sized so that it is legible from McKee Rd. and proportionally sized to the building. Proportional signage is an important component in the City of Dover Zoning ordinance which restricts signs in "Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts" fronting "Urban Minor Arterial Streets" to no more than 15% of the size of the facade upon which they are placed. The Requested sign (118.31 sq. ft) is only .8% of the face of applicant's 42,140 sq. ft. hospital, a mere fraction of the 15% allowance.

V-18-10 PAM Rehabilitation Hospital Signage, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 8 of 14 a. The applicant's request will not seriously affect the residences that face the front elevation of the building. The applicant's sign vendor conducted a series of tests and confirmed that the proposed sign variance would produce no lighting or glare effects on property over 150 feet away from the face of the building. All three (3) residences that face the hospital are more than 150 feet away from the face of building so that the signage will have no effect in terms of illuminating their properties. (Exhibit F) The building is set back 86 feet from the property line and the right-of-way is an additional 95 feet wide immediately in front of the building. This extended set back reduces the sign's possible adverse effects in terms of lighting or glare on the three (3) neighboring residences to zero. More importantly, the owners of the only residences that face the hospital and who would see the sign have no opposition to the variance requested and are supportive of the project. The applicant met with the owners of the three (3) residences, discussed the project, the proposed sign variance, and provided them with a packet of information for their review. (Exhibit F) The three property owners expressed no opposition and in fact confirmed their support for the variance requested by signing the attached form included in Exhibit F. b. The applicant's request will not seriously affect neighboring properties by setting a precedent for larger signage. The hospital is a unique building for the area and has a greater than average set back from the road. Other businesses are located closer to the roadway and will be competing for different patrons than the hospital. It is unlikely that the other businesses in the area will suffer a competitive disadvantage with a standard sized sign or argue that a precedent for large signage has been set if the applicant's request is granted. Considering the support of the residential neighbors, the lack of lighting or glare effects on any neighboring properties, and the fact that the proposed sign is proportional to the building and well below the 15% size restriction, the applicant contends that the sign variance will not seriously affect neighboring properties.” Staff Response: There are several ways the sign may affect neighboring properties and the area at large that the Board should consider. The first is the sign’s direct effect on the neighbors across the street. Staff originally anticipated the size and lighting of the sign could have adverse effects on these neighbors. However, the signatures gathered by the applicant and shown in Exhibit F as well as the testimony above suggest the homeowners instead view the proposed variance favorably. Exhibit F also includes the materials shown to the homeowners. Key to the applicant’s argument presented there is that the sign would be far enough away from the neighbors that there would be no glare or excess lighting on their properties. As previously mentioned, the building is set back 86 feet from the property line. The right-of-way width varies but is an additional 95 feet wide immediately in front of the building. Therefore, it does appear that the building’s extended setback lessens the sign’s possible adverse effects. The second way the sign may affect neighboring properties is by setting a precedent for neighbors to request their own oversize signage. In this case, Staff does not believe a

V-18-10 PAM Rehabilitation Hospital Signage, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 9 of 14 precedent would be set. The hospital is the largest building in the immediate area, and there are no other medical uses nearby. The hospital would therefore not need to use signage to compete with other, similar neighboring businesses for customers’ attention. The other businesses in the area should also not feel the need to compete with it. While there is no basis in the sign code for singling out a property as unique and therefore deserving of more signage, such factors can still be a consideration for a variance. The third way the sign may affect the area at large is by being a distraction to passing motorists. Though large signs in general tend to be more distracting than smaller ones, this can be lessened by having the sign be proportional to the building, and by having the sign sit parallel to the road rather than face oncoming motorists. In this case the large sign sits parallel on a proportionally large building, one that motorists will see well before they see the sign itself. By contrast, a small sign difficult to read from the street may prove more of a distraction to motorists, who may spend time trying to figure out what it says rather than focus on the road. Based on the above factors, including neighbor support, lack of competition, and the sign’s proportionality, Staff believes that the sign will have a minimal adverse effect on the neighboring properties and area. 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: “This is the final factor in the exceptional practical difficulty analysis where the Board weighs the "the potential harm to the neighboring properties" if the variance is granted against "the potential harm to the property owner by denying it." McLaughlin at pp. 1192-1193 a. The requested variance is necessary for motorist legibility. The United States Sign Council (Sign Council) and its research arm, the United States Sign Council Foundation, funded a wide variety of studies to determine, with a degree of certainty, the optimal size of letters and size of signs that are necessary for motorist legibility. In its Sign Legibility Rules of Thumb report, the Sign Council outlines how motorists react to signs and provides calculations to determine the appropriate size of letters for legible, and thus safe, motorist viewing. (Exhibit E) The applicant's sign developer ran the Parallel Letter Height Model Equation #2 from the Rules of Thumb report and determined that the optimal letter height for the subject building would be a 30 inch letter. (Exhibit D) The requested variance is for a 118.31 sq. ft. sign with a 28 inch letter, almost exactly the optimal letter height identified by the calculation. (Exhibit D) If the 32 sq. ft. sign restriction is not removed in this case, the size of the letters will be inadequate for motorist legibility according to the research cited in the Sign Council's Report. Indeed, the artist's renderings show that a 32 sq. ft. sign

V-18-10 PAM Rehabilitation Hospital Signage, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 10 of 14 becomes more of a distraction on the face of the hospital for passing motorists than a clear marker of its entranceway. (Exhibit C) Not only does legible signage promote safety but it decreases the frustration and anxiety that patients and visitors can experience by getting lost and having to re-navigate to find the front door. The requested signage will provide the communication necessary to easily direct patrons to the hospital's main entrance. b. The requested variance enables the Post-Acute Medical (PAM) Corporation to promote its national brand in our local community and should weigh in favor of granting the variance. The Delaware Supreme Court has held that economic considerations, even standing alone, may be a sufficient justification to grant an area variance. Kwik-Check at p. 1291. "The inability to improve one's business or to stay competitive as a result of area limitations, may be a legitimate 'exceptional practical difficulty' that would justify a grant of a variance." Kwik-Check at p. 1291. The Post Acute Medical Corporation operates rehabilitation hospitals throughout the nation and strives to become the most trusted source for post-acute services in each community it serves. Part of becoming that trusted source, is its branding with the names of its hospitals containing the particular community in which it sits, in this instance PAM Rehabilitation Hospital of Dover. The name uniquely identifies the geographic locations of the various PAM hospitals and promotes the reputation of the PAM brand, enhancing its success in a competitive market. While it is true that the approved monument will provide the unique name, having the same name at the entranceway maintains continuity and reinforces the PAM brand. With the recent construction of similar buildings within a relatively short time in Dover of facilities that provide some overlapping services, it's important for the public to be able to easily distinguish between the facilities. Legible and consistent branding helps to provide that communication to the public. In summary, the 118.31 sq. ft. requested sign allows the hospital to display its branded name with letters, according to the calculation recommended by the United States Sign Council, that provide near optimum legibility for motorists. Conversely, denying the variance or not removing the restriction of the 32 sq. ft. sign, necessarily results in a sign on the face of the building, perpendicular to motorists, that is too small to incorporate the Sign Council's Best Practices Standards as they relate to legibility. These factors in addition to the 118.31 sq. ft. sign being well proportioned to the subject property and well within the restriction of 15% of the face of the building, weigh heavily in favor of granting the variance. Likewise, the conclusions to be drawn from the third factor in determining whether granting the variance would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses weighs in favor of granting the variance. The analysis of lighting and glare on the only neighboring residential properties that could possibly be affected demonstrates that there is no effect on those properties. More importantly, those neighbors have been apprised of the request for the variance and have no opposition to the applicant's request. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that the benefits from granting the variance substantially outweigh any detriment, and therefore, the applicant respectfully asks the Board to find that an exceptional practical difficulty exists and to grant its requested variance.”

V-18-10 PAM Rehabilitation Hospital Signage, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 11 of 14 Staff Response: The calculations performed by the applicant according to the design guidelines in the United States Sign Council Foundation’s Sign Legibility Rules of Thumb report demonstrate that the requested wall sign needs to be at least 118.31 SF, if not slightly larger, if its message is going to be safely and clearly read by motorists. Two questions arise from this finding. The first is whether the building needs a wall sign visible by motorists at all- whether the applicant faces a practical difficulty if they cannot have such a sign. The second is whether the message itself needs to be long as it is- whether, since the sign should not be shrunk by reducing letter height, it can be shrunk by reducing the number of letters, and whether the applicant would face a practical difficulty by being forced to do so. These questions roughly correspond to the applicant’s points “a” and “b” above. a. Does the building need a wall sign visible by motorists? Two points made by Staff in the previous version of this Report were 1) that the proposed monument sign is likely sufficient to tell oncoming motorists of the hospital’s location, based on the success of nearby establishments with similar signage and 2) that 32 SF, while insufficient for motorists, is a good size for pedestrian legibility- placed lower on the building, a 32 SF sign would be useful for guiding people already in the parking lot to the right entrance. These points remain true. However, it is admittedly unusual for a building to have no motorist-oriented signage at all, especially on a road like McKee Road that has relatively heavy traffic. The Board members may find it useful to review Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 4.1, which contains the purpose statement of the City’s sign code. To highlight, the purpose statement says in part that “it is the intent of this section to authorize the use of signs which are compatible with their surroundings, appropriate to the activity that displays them, expressive of the identity of individual activities and the community as a whole, and legible in the circumstances in which they are seen.” It further says that “signs shall legibly convey their messages without being distracting or unsafe to motorists reading them.” While the purpose statement never explicitly says that signs must be visible to vehicles, only designed so they are not distracting or unsafe if they are, the purpose statement’s emphasis on context and compatibility suggests that in an environment like McKee Road, motorist-oriented signage is appropriate. The applicants may face an exceptional practical difficulty if they are unable to size their sign accordingly. b. Does the sign message need to be long as it is? The text of the sign is “PAM Rehabilitation Hospital of Dover,” sized 57 feet 10 inches by 28 inches. There is also a logo, which is 38 inches by 48 inches. The applicant could theoretically meet code by just having their logo on the building, or at least ask for a lesser variance by asking for fewer words. In fact, they have already done this by removing the tagline “A Post Acute Medical Hospital” from the sign. However, every word the applicants removes for the sake of shrinking the sign reduces the effectiveness of their branding. For instance, removing the words “of Dover” would, according to the applicant, reduce the hospital’s

V-18-10 PAM Rehabilitation Hospital Signage, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 12 of 14 connection to the local community and make it harder to build trust with the members of that community. The question thus becomes whether less effective branding is an exceptional practical difficulty for the applicant. The applicant has requested that the Board consider possible limitations to the competitiveness of their business if the variance is not granted. While there are no similar facilities in the immediate vicinity for the hospital to compete with, it is true that there are other medical facilities in the City at large that could potentially offer overlapping services. The Board members should also consider the purpose statement of the sign code again, which by saying that signs should be “expressive of the identity of individual activities” does support branding on principle. On the other hand, the Board should consider that a public benefit of the City’s sign code is that it is to a degree anti-competitive. This is suggested in the purpose statement when it says the ordinance “is enacted to avoid the visual clutter that is potentially harmful to [among other things, the] business environment and opportunities.” The sign code provides (except in very specifically defined circumstances) a level playing field that benefits businesses in any given area by giving them roughly equal space in which to express their brand, while ensuring the overall urban environment does not have so much signage the corresponding business environment is harmed. The anti-competitive principle works against the applicant’s argument that they should have more signage to complete their envisioned branding package, because ideally, the applicants would be working to find a way to express their brand within the space available, on level footing with their competitors. Weighing the non-competitive principle against the degree to which the effectiveness of the applicant’s branding is reduced by the size limitation (again, if they wanted to meet code, they could fit their logo but not a single additional word), it does appear that the applicant may have an exceptional practical difficulty. The applicant could fit all their branding by shrinking the sign letters, but doing this would mean they cannot get the letter height they need to make sure the sign can be safely seen by motorists. Variance Recommendation Staff tentatively recommends approval of the variance to permit a 118.31 SF wall sign exceeding the maximum 32 SF size, for the following reasons: 1) It does not appear that any adverse effects would be imposed on neighbors by the sign. 2) Reading the intent of the sign code, it does appear that motorist-oriented signage would be expected of this site. Further, while the monument sign may be enough motorist- oriented signage on its own, it is common and expected for buildings to have both freestanding and building-mounted signage visible for motorists. 3) The setback of the building is such that the applicant must retain the requested letter height of 28 inches for the sign to be seen by motorists. The sign wouldn’t need letters as large if the building met the typical 40 to 50-foot setback of the Corridor Overlay Zone, but the building cannot be moved at this point. 4) While the City typically expects businesses to express their branding within the area limits of the sign code, Staff acknowledges that given the constraints in points 2 and 3

V-18-10 PAM Rehabilitation Hospital Signage, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 13 of 14 above, 32 SF (or even 64 SF if they chose to use two signs) is very little space with which to express the applicant’s branding under their building’s specific circumstances. Advisory Comments to the Applicant • If granted, variances become null and void if work has not commenced within one (1) year of the date the variance was granted. At present there is no provision for extension. • If a variance is granted, a new Sign Permit application will be required for the sign. The previous Sign Permit application submitted was approved for the monument sign only.

V-18-07 PAM Dover Signage, 1240 McKee Road Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages APPLICANT-PROVIDED EXHIBITS A Zoning Exhibit Map 1 B Applicant’s Response to Criteria 4 C Variance Application Renderings 4 D Optimal Letter Height Calculation 2 E United States Sign Council: Sign Legibility Rules of Thumb Report 19 F Materials Presented to Neighbors and Signature Sheets 5 STAFF-PROVIDED EXHIBITS G Approved Monument Sign from Permit #18-1103 dated 7/9/2018 1 H Hospital Site Plan 1 (11”x17”) I Variance Application Renderings for application #V-18-07 5 J Sign Table from Zoning Ordinance Article 5 Section 4.7 1

Exhibit G

24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 F:\AutoCAD\Projects\2016\2016242\DWG\2016242-SITE-C3D15.dwg, Jan 31, 2018 - 10:59am 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 Dover, DE 24x36 309 S. Governors Ave. Dover, DE 19904 Ph. 302.734.7950 24x36 Fax 302.734.7965 24x36 Salisbury, MD 24x36 312 West Main St. Suite 300 24x36 Salisbury, MD 21801 Ph. 410.546.9100 Fax 410.546.5824 24x36 24x36 Wilmington, NC 3205 Randall Parkway, Suite 211 24x36 Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 24x36 Ph. 910.341.7600 Fax 910.341.7506 24x36 www.beckermorgan.com 24x36 24x36 Exhibit H 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 NA D8 3 24x36 DS 24x36 P GR ID 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 PROJECT TITLE 24x36 MEDCORE 24x36 PARTNERS 24x36 24x36 PHYSICAL 24x36 REHABILITATION 24x36 HOSPITAL 24x36 24x36 MCKEE ROAD 24x36 CITY OF DOVER 24x36 KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE SHEET TITLE 24x36 24x36 24x36 SITE & STRIPING PLAN 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 0 15 30 60 24x36 24x36 SCALE : 1" = 30' 24x36 24x36 ISSUE BLOCK 24x36 13. 1/26/18 REVISED PER OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER COMMENTS 12. 1/15/18 REVISED PER DNREC COMMENTS 24x36 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES C-PR-SITE-C-NOTES.DWG REVISED PER CITY OF DOVER 24x36 11. 1/9/18 G-1 INSTALL P.C.C. CURB (TYPE 1-6) (TYP.). SEE DETAIL, SHEET C-901. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS G-2 INSTALL 6' WIDE, 5" THICK PERVIOUS CONCRETE SIDEWALK AS SHOWN HEREON. SEE PERVIOUS CONCRETE DETAIL, 10. 1/2/18 REVISED PER CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS 24x36 SHEET C-901. 24x36 G-3 INSTALL HANDICAPPED CURB RAMP WITH DETECTABLE WARNING TRUNCATED DOMES (12:1 MAXIMUM SLOPE), DEPRESS 9. 12/18/17 REVISED PER CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS CURB AT RAMP. SEE DETAILS, SHEET C-901. 8. 12/4/17 REVISED PER CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMENTS G-4 INSTALL FLUSH (DEPRESSED) P.C.C. CURB - TYPE 1-6 AND 4" THICK, 5' WIDE FLUSH (DEPRESSED) CONCRETE SIDEWALK. SEE THIS SHEET FOR LIMITS OF FLUSH CURB/SIDEWALK. 11/20/17 REVISED PER CITY OF DOVER 24x36 24x36 7. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS G-5 CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSITION FROM INTEGRAL P.C.C. CURB - TYPE 1-8 INTO P.C.C. CURB - TYPE 1 MOD 6". G-6 INSTALL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AS SHOWN HEREON. MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT GRADES AT EDGE. 6. 11/6/17 ISSUED FOR BIDDING SEE HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT SECTION DETAIL, SHEET C-901. 24x36 5. 10/11/17 REVISED PER DELDOT COMMENTS 24x36 G-7 KNOX BOX TO BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO FRONT ENTRY DOOR. CONTACT LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PURCHASE AND FOR LOCATION & INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. 4. 9/25/17 REVISED PER DELDOT & KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT COMMENTS G-8 INSTALL NEW BICYCLE RACK TO PROVIDE FOR 7 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES. RACK TO BE BELSON MODEL H36-7-P-SF. 24x36 BLACK POWDER COAT FINISH. INSTALL ON 9' x 6' x 4" THICK CONCRETE PAD AND ANCHOR TO CONCRETE. 3. 9/12/17 REVISED PER CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC WORKS & PLANNING COMMENTS 24x36 SEE BIKE RACK DETAIL, SHEET C-901. 2. 7/11/17 .REVISED PER DELDOT COMMENTS STRIPING & SIGNAGE CONSTRUCTION NOTES C-PR-STRIPING-C-NOTES.DWG G-9 INSTALL LOADING RAMP PAD AS SHOWN HEREON. SEE LOADING RAMP PAD DETAIL, SHEET C-901. . T-1 PROPOSED PAINTED STRIPING - 4" WIDE SOLID WHITE LINE. G-10 INSTALL 12' x 12' MASONRY DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A PRIVATE 1. 6/5/17 REVISED . PER DELDOT COMMENTS 24x36 HAULER. SEE DETAIL, SHEET C-903. 24x36 T-2 PROPOSED PAINTED STRIPING - 4" WIDE SOLID HANDICAPPED BLUE MARK DATE DESCRIPTION G-11 PROPOSED PARKING LOT LIGHT. LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE NOT BASED ON CALCULATIONS. OWNER AND CONTRACTOR TO LAYER STATE: C-201 T-3 DETERMINE LIGHTING TYPES AND EXACT LOCATIONS TO OBTAIN THE 1.5 FOOT CANDLES AT GRADE. FIXTURE LOCATIONS SEE DETAIL, SHEET C-901. NOT TO CONFLICT WITH REQUIRED LANDSCAPE TREE PLANTINGS. PROJECT NO.: 2016242.00 24x36 T-4 PROPOSED PAINTED HANDICAPPED SYMBOL - HANDICAPPED BLUE (TYP.). SEE DETAIL, SHEET C-901 G-12 INSTALL 6" DIA. STEEL PIPE BOLLARD WITH HDPE PLASTIC BOLLARD COVER (TYP.). COLOR TO BE SAFETY YELLOW, FILL 24x36 T-5 INSTALL HANDICAPPED PARKING SIGN. (TYP.) (5 REQUIRED). SEE DETAIL, SHEET C-901. SOLID WITH CONCRETE (TYP.). SEE DETAIL, SHEET C-903. DATE: 4/20/2017 T-6 INSTALL "FIRE LANE" SIGN. SEE DETAIL, SHEET C-901. G-13 PROPOSED CANOPY. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS. SCALE: 1" = 30' T-7 PROPOSED FIRE LANE PAINTED STRIPING - 4" WIDE SOLID YELLOW LINE. G-14 INSTALL PRIVACY FENCE. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DETAIL, SHEET L-102. DRAWN BY: J.M.P. PROJ. MGR.: G.V.M. 24x36 24x36 T-8 PROPOSED PAINTED "PIANO KEY" PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK - 24" WIDE x 6' LONG SOLID WHITE LINES WITH 24" SPACING. G-15 INSTALL 4" THICK CONCRETE SIDEWALK, AS SHOWN HEREON. SEE SIDEWALK, EXPANSION JOINT AND CONSTRUCTION SEE DETAIL, SHEET C-901. JOINT DETAILS, SHEET C-901. SHEET T-9 INSTALL "FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION" SIGN ON BUILDING. SEE DETAIL, SHEET C-901. G-16 INSTALL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AS SHOWN HEREON. SEE LIGHT DUTY PAVEMENT SECTION DETAIL, SHEET C-901. 24x36 T-10 T-11 INSTALL "STOP" SIGN. SEE DETAIL, SHEET C-901. PROPOSED PAINTED STRIPING - 16" WIDE SOLID WHITE STOP BAR. G-17 G-18 PROPOSED 8' x 8' PAD MOUNT UTILITY TRANSFORMER. REFER TO STRUCTURAL PLAN SET FOR PAD DETAILS. PROPOSED 14' LONG x 7' WIDE PAD MOUNT EMERGENCY GENERATOR. REFER TO STRUCTURAL PLAN SET FOR PAD DETAILS. C-201 COPYRIGHT 2017 24x36 F:\AutoCAD\Projects\2016\2016242\DWG\2016242-SITE-C3D15.dwg, Jan 31, 2018 - 10:59am .PDF 24x36 24x36 2018-01-31 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36

Exhibit I

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

City of Dover Board of Adjustment December 19, 2018 V-18-11 Location: 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue Applicant: Miller Investments, LLC Owner: David Miller Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.18-02-71.00-000, ED-05-077.18-02-72.00- 000, and ED-05-077.18-02-73.00-000 Application Date: October 12, 2018 Present Zoning: RG-2 (General Residence Zone) Present Use: Two (2) one-family dwellings and two (2) multi-family apartment buildings, total 10 dwelling units across all four buildings Proposed Use: One multi-family apartment building with 21 dwelling units Reviewed By: Eddie Diaz Variance Type: Area Variance Variances Requested: 1) To exceed the RG-2 zone’s maximum lot coverage of 60% and allow lot coverage of 75.7% 2) To allow accessory buildings to take up 56.1% of the side and rear yards, exceeding the typical limit of 30% 3) To allow parking within 15 feet of a wall belonging to a multi-family dwelling

V-18-11 Lands of Miller Investments LLC at 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 12 Previous Applications On July 24, 2018, the applicant for this project submitted to the Planning Office an application for rezoning of 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue (Application #Z-18- 01). The rezoning application proposed changing the zoning of these properties from the then-designation of R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone) to a new designation of RG-2 (General Residence Zone). The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing for the rezoning application on September 17, 2018 and recommended the rezoning to City Council for approval. City Council held a Public Hearing and Final Reading of the application on October 8, 2018 and approved the rezoning as ordinance #2018-08. Project Description The three (3) parcels addressed as 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue currently contain a mix of one-family and multi-family residences, all operated as rental units. The applicant proposes to increase the number of dwelling units on site from ten (10) units to 21 units by demolishing the four (4) existing structures, consolidating the three parcels into one, and building one new three-story apartment building. The new apartment building would be accompanied by 48 on-site parking spaces to meet the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Six (6) accessory buildings are also proposed, which are intended to turn 38 of the parking spaces into covered parking. The remaining ten (10) parking spaces would be located in an alcove on the first floor of the apartment building, thus ensuring they are also covered, by the second floor. A site plan showing the applicant’s proposed project is in Exhibit C. In order to build the apartment building, required parking, and accessory buildings in the format proposed by the applicant, the project would need three variances as follows: 1) Lot coverage: The project is in the RG-2 (General Residence) Zone, which for multi- family dwellings sets a maximum lot coverage of 60%. The project as proposed would have a lot coverage of 75.7%. 2) Accessory structures: The Zoning Ordinance sets a maximum area for accessory structures in all residential zones, equal to 30% of the area given to the property’s required rear and side yards. In this case, the covered parking would total 56.1% of the required rear and side yards of the consolidated lot. 3) Parking near a wall: The Zoning Ordinance restricts parking near the walls of multi- family dwellings. Specifically, cars cannot be parked within 15 feet of any wall belonging to such a dwelling. This rule would ordinarily prevent putting parking in an alcove of the first floor of the building in the way the applicant proposes. Should these variances be granted, the project will be able to proceed toward the Planning Commission’s Site Development Plan review process, subject to further refinement of the design. The design shown in the site plan provided should be considered preliminary. The project will need to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission before it can

V-18-11 Lands of Miller Investments LLC at 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 12 apply for a Building Permit and be constructed, and it will also need a Parcel Consolidation Plan to combine the three lots into one parcel. Adjacent Land Uses A Zoning Map showing the zoning of the three parcels and the neighboring properties can be found in Exhibit A. The property is located on the north side of Roosevelt Avenue, east of South DuPont Highway. This section of Roosevelt Avenue exits only onto South DuPont Highway and does not have any other road connections. The project’s neighbors along Roosevelt Avenue include seven (7) one-family dwellings on individual lots, zoned R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone). In addition, immediately to the west of the property is a building zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) which appears to be a combined residential and commercial building. Immediately to the east of the property is the Riverside Mobile Home Park, split-zoned between R-8 and the MH (Manufactured Housing) Zone. The R-8 section contains eight (8) homes while the MH section contains an estimated 32 additional homes. At the east end of Roosevelt Avenue is the entrance to the Riverchase Apartments, which consists of 80 apartment units split between six (6) multi-family apartment buildings. The Riverchase Apartments like the subject property are zoned RG-2. Several nonresidential uses are among the project’s neighbors on Roosevelt Avenue as well. Across the street from the project is the Kent County Theater Guild, zoned R-8. West of the project site on the north side of Roosevelt Avenue is a grass lot belonging to a martial arts studio, whose main building is on South DuPont Highway. West of the grass lot is a car wash at the corner of Roosevelt Avenue and South DuPont Highway. A multi-tenant building containing a liquor store and salon completes the block of South DuPont Highway between Roosevelt Avenue and Evergreen Drive, the next street to the north. These three properties are zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). On the south side of Roosevelt Avenue are a daycare center, zoned R-8, and an auto dealership at the corner with South DuPont Highway, zoned C-4. Finally, the project does have some neighbors which are not on Roosevelt Avenue. These are the one-family residences located in the Morris Estates II subdivision immediately adjacent to the north, zoned R-8. These residences front on Evergreen Drive and Evergreen Circle, and three of them also back onto the project site. Code Citations RG-2 (General Residence Zone) and Lot & Bulk Standards Zoning Ordinance Article 3 §2 outlines the permitted uses in the RG-2 Zone. These permitted uses include what are called “garden apartments;” Garden Apartments are defined in Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Garden apartments: Multiple dwellings designed to provide maximum accessibility of the dwelling units to the private open space. The dwelling units share a common lot area which is the sum of the required lot areas of all dwelling units within the building.

V-18-11 Lands of Miller Investments LLC at 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 12 “Multiple dwellings” and “multi-family dwelling” are further defined as follows: Dwelling, multi-family: (See "dwelling, multiple"—A building, or portion thereof, containing more than two dwelling units). Dwelling, multiple: A building, or portion thereof, containing more than two dwelling units. The applicant’s project is considered a Garden Apartment because the common lot area is the sum of the required lot areas of all dwelling units within the building; see the “Lot area/Dwelling Unit” line in Table 1 below. Zoning Ordinance Article 4 §4.3 gives the bulk standards for buildings in the RG-2 Zone. These include separate standards for “one-family detached dwellings,” “one-family multiple semi-detached and other two-family dwellings,” and “multiple dwellings,” the last category of which garden apartments fall under. The standards for multiple dwellings, compared with the project proposal, are listed below: Table 1: Zoning Requirements and Requested Bulk Standards V-18-11 Lands of Miller Investments LLC at 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Ave RG-2 (General Residence Applicant's project Zone) Minimum required for Standard: Proposed: multiple dwellings: Lot area/Dwelling Unit (sq. ft.) 1,700 1,718 Lot width (ft.) 100 235 Lot depth (ft.) 125 153 Front yard (ft.) 30 30 Side yard (ft.) 25 58.5 Total both side yards (ft.) 50 117 Rear yard (ft.) 30 47.75 Off-street parking spaces 2/Dwelling Unit* 2.25/Dwelling Unit Maximum Permitted for Standard: Proposed: multiple dwellings: Building height Stories 3 3 Feet 40 <40 Floor area ratio none prescribed 0.85 Lot Coverage 60% 75.7% Number of dwelling units in group of attached dwellings or in multiple none prescribed 21 dwellings

V-18-11 Lands of Miller Investments LLC at 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 12 *Superseded by Zoning Ordinance Article 6 §3, which prescribes 2.25 spaces/Dwelling Unit for all apartment uses Based on the bulk standards for multiple dwellings in the RG-2 Zone, the first variance requested is for 75.7% lot coverage, exceeding the maximum 60%. Accessory Buildings Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §1.1 describes regulations for accessory buildings in residential zones. Article 5 §1.1 reads in part as follows: 1.1 Accessory buildings. An accessory building may be located in any required side or rear yard provided: 1.11 Such buildings shall not exceed 15 feet in height. 1.12 Such buildings shall be set back five feet from any lot line and shall not be located less than ten feet from an adjoining principal structure. 1.13 All such buildings in the aggregate shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the area of the required rear and side yard. Note that the term “required rear and side yard” refers to the area between the property line and the setback line in these yards, as opposed to the area between the property line and the principal building. For instance, for this project the “required” rear yard is 30 feet deep by code, but the actual rear yard is 47.75 feet. According to Planning Staff measurements, the six (6) accessory buildings proposed by the applicant have a combined total area of about 6,156 SF. The total area of the required rear and side yards for the property comes to about 11,700 SF. This indicates that the accessory buildings will take up about 52.6% of the required rear and side yards. This number is close to the 56.1% requested by the applicant, which is likely the result of more accurate measurements. Because more than 30% is proposed, this is the second variance requested. Staff estimates that without the variance about 3,510 SF worth of accessory buildings could be constructed, enough to cover about 21 parking spaces (as opposed to the proposed 38). Parking Near the Wall of a Multi-Family Dwelling Zoning Ordinance Article 6 §5.3 provides the following regulations: 5.3 Supplementary parking regulations for multiple dwellings. No parking space shall be located in any front yard or within three feet of any lot line in side or rear yards. The parking of motor vehicles within 15 feet of any wall or portion thereof, is prohibited. Except for electric vehicle charging stations, no automobile service shall be permitted to be extended to users of the lot, including sales, repair or fueling, and no gasoline, oil, grease, or related supplies shall be stored or sold in any such lot or in any garage on such lot. The general purpose of these regulations is to reduce the impact of vehicles on site to the people living in the dwelling units. They do not prohibit parking vehicles under the second floor of the building. However, the site plan currently shows that the north wall of the first

V-18-11 Lands of Miller Investments LLC at 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 12 floor of the building would be right up against a 10-space parking area. In order to meet the zoning code, this wall would have to be moved 15 feet to the south, away from the parking spaces. The applicant does not want to do this, thus forming the basis of the third variance request. As previously stated, all three variances would be required for the applicant to build their new apartment building the way their preliminary plan describes. If any of the variances are not granted, substantial changes to the basic site layout will be required before the project can be reviewed by the City’s Planning Commission. It should be also noted that if the second and third variances are granted, the project will not be exempt from any Building Code or Fire Code provisions related to the building construction and parking design proposed. These codes may also require changes to the design and should be addressed early in the design process. Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Zoning Ordinance Article 9 §2 dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. Specifically, the Board must determine: 2.1 Variance – The board shall have the authority to authorize variances from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not contrary to public interest where the board determines that a literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant. In granting variances, the board shall determine that the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. 2.11 Area Variance. A variance shall be considered an area variance if it relates to bulk standards, signage regulations, and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that address lot layout, buffers, and dimensions. In considering a request for an area variance, the board shall evaluate the following criteria and document them in their findings of fact: (a) the nature of the zone in which the property lies; (b) the character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; (c) whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; and (d) whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Review of Application As a part of the application, the applicant was asked to state how the requested variance relates to the above four criteria. The applicant’s responses are provided below, along with a staff assessment of the application in accordance with the required criteria. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Response: “The three parcels with four buildings under consideration for variance by the Board of Adjustments were recently unanimously approved for rezoning to RG2 by

V-18-11 Lands of Miller Investments LLC at 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 12 the Dover Planning Commission and Dover City Council. RG2 permits Multi-family apartment housing. Two of the buildings had previously been converted to apartment buildings.” Staff Response: The RG-2 Zone in the City of Dover permits certain agricultural uses; one family detached dwellings on 6,000 square foot lots; public buildings; and garden apartments, as well as a variety of conditional uses. Other types of multiple dwellings other than garden apartments are permitted conditionally in RG-2. The RG-2 Zone is more appropriate for the two multi-family dwellings currently on site than the previous R-8 Zoning. The RG-2 zoning also makes possible the applicant’s proposed project. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Response: “The property lies in an area with an "eclectic" mix of uses. Multi-family housing is across the street to the east at the end of Roosevelt Avenue, west of the property is C-1 and C-4 zoning including a car wash and multi-tenant building, to the east is a manufactured housing community and to the south of Roosevelt Avenue is additional C-4 with Automobile dealerships. The area contains quite a mix of uses with an apparent shift from historic single family residences toward multi-family and commercial. The proposed redevelopment will follow this trend in making use of the two dilapidated residences as well as two other dilapidated buildings previously converted to Multi-family apartment buildings.” Staff Response: Staff generally concurs with the applicant’s description of the surrounding area. The referenced multi-tenant building may be the building zoned C-1 or the salon and liquor store building. There is only one automobile dealership in the immediate area, though its size and the variety of cars it sells makes it appear to be multiple dealerships. The applicant’s description of a shift from single-family uses toward multi-family and commercial uses in the area appears to be true. The applicant’s description of the existing structures on site as “dilapidated” is more debatable. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Response: “The applicant seeks to redevelop the properties as a single garden style apartment. The proposed structure contains 21 units. The parking required by the City is 2 ¼ spaces per unit, which parking drives the variance requests. The request for a variance in the lot coverage allows for adequate parking for the 21 units. The request for a variance in the percent of accessory buildings is for the purpose of permitting an upgraded amenity of covered parking. The final variance permits parking under a portion of the structure. None of the requested variances, if

V-18-11 Lands of Miller Investments LLC at 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 8 of 12 granted, would have any negative impact on surrounding properties and in fact, allows for construction of a higher quality project with amenities. It should be noted that parking under a structure is not unusual in the City, as examples can be found at the Schwartz Center for the Arts, Wesley College dorms as well as the office building housing the Attorney General and at the Courthouse. Permitting the redevelopment of this dilapidated section of Roosevelt Avenue would in fact, represent a benefit to the neighboring properties.” Staff Response: The applicant states in the above response that there will be no negative impacts on surrounding properties but offers little to support this besides the idea that the project will be high-quality and have amenities. These are aspects which affect the tenants more than they do the neighbors. Staff does believe there are some elements of the site proposal which may negatively affect the neighbors if variances are granted to permit them. One potential impact is related to the density of the project. The Planning Commission approved a zoning district that allows new multi-family uses on this site, so some increase in density is to be expected. However, the applicant’s proposed project would achieve a density of 25.6 units per acre. For comparison, the other RG-2 zoned property on the street has a density of only 10.8 units per acre; the manufactured home park has a density of 8.3 units per acre; and the ten units currently on the project site have a density of 12.2 units per acre. The density and design proposed do not allow the site to have the proportion of open space enjoyed by the other properties on the street. The construction of the new apartment building is therefore likely to change the street’s character, a prospect that neighboring property owners may take issue with. As the applicant states, the parking required for the requested number of units drives the first variance. Reducing the density of the project would reduce the amount of required parking, in turn causing a reduction in impervious surface on site so that a lesser variance or no variance is needed. Another potential impact may come from the proximity and number of accessory buildings. While the covered parking does meet the minimum 5-foot setback for accessory buildings, these structures are very large compared to the typical accessory sheds and garages seen in residential zones. The immediate neighbors will see these structures run parallel along most of their adjoining property lines. The bulk of these structures could be hidden in various ways, such as through fencing and landscaping, but it is not clear at this time that such things are proposed. The effect could also be reduced by simply having fewer accessory buildings, thus reducing the area they take in the rear and side yards so that the second variance is not needed. Planning Staff does not see likely negative impacts to neighbors from parking against the wall of the apartment building underneath the second floor. In such a

V-18-11 Lands of Miller Investments LLC at 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 9 of 12 location, the parking spaces are well set back from neighboring properties and are not visible from most angles. There may have been some negative impacts if the parking spaces were both next to a wall and out in the open, which is the scenario envisioned by the ordinance. However, such a parking configuration is not proposed for this project. 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: “The proposed redevelopment of those run down properties represent a significant improvement to an area of the City that badly needs such redevelopment. The most significant requested variance, lot coverage ratio, permits the construction of a building containing 21 units. Without this variance the project would be limited to 11 units (or a request to eliminate much of the parking, which would have a negative impact on the surrounding properties). Absent a granting of this variance, the project is not economically viable and will be abandoned. The variance request more for accessory structure area is driven by the City's interpretation that covered parking is considered the same as a garage or storage shed and thus the limitations. The granting of this variance permits an attractive amenity to the project allowing it to be more marketable with higher probability of being commercially competitive and successful. In, Kwik-Check Realty v. New Castle, several instructive points were made by the Court. The Court noted when considering an "area" variance cases (such as applicable here), the proper test in Delaware is the less burdensome one of the exceptional practical difficulty (as opposed to the higher standard of unnecessary hardship). The Court allowed that exceptional practical difficulty may be met, under appropriate weighing of the other impacts, in a desire to upgrade a business, remain competitive and increase responses herein to profits. The balanced approach adopted by the Court is reflected in question 3 and this question 4 which poses a balance between any negative impact on neighboring properties against either the benefit and potential negative impact of granting or not granting the variances. It is respectfully submitted that the redevelopment of these properties, which granting of these variances permits, result in both a higher likelihood of a successful project as well as a significant improvement (rather than detriment) to the neighboring properties and the surrounding area.” Staff Response: Staff concurs that the inability to improve a property, or stay competitive as a result of area limitations, may be a legitimate exceptional practical difficulty that would justify granting a variance. The applicant claims a difficulty that is economic in

V-18-11 Lands of Miller Investments LLC at 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 10 of 12 nature, saying that the project would not be viable if they had to reduce the number of units to eleven (11). However, it is not clear how they arrived at this number being the total they could build with no variances. This is only one unit more than what already exists on the site. It is important to note that while a variance may be granted to ensure the applicant can realize a return on investment and thus build the project, the purpose of the variance should not be to maximize the applicant’s return on investment by permitting a use greatly more intensive than what’s allowed under the Zoning Ordinance’s design requirements. In this case the balancing test cited by the applicant must be used. The intensive use proposed for the property may pose a negative impact on neighboring properties which outweighs the negative impact imposed on the property owner if the variances are not granted. Absent more explanation from the applicant as to why there will be no negative impacts, or why they believe their building capabilities to be so limited, one must look to the potential issues caused by the project’s density and the size of its accessory buildings. Variance Recommendations Staff recommends denial of the first variance for lot coverage, for reasons as follows: • This variance request is driven by parking, which in turn is driven by the proposed density (unit count) of the development. While the RG-2 Zone does not specify a maximum density, the project density may still be considered greatly more intensive than that allowed by zoning based on how much it causes the project to exceed maximum lot coverage. A greatly intensive use is more likely to negatively impact surrounding properties. • It is not clear why the applicant believes only (11) units can be built on the property if no variances are granted. It is not known how many units the applicant needs for the project to be viable. • Because the number of units needed to make the project viable is not known, it is not clear the project passes the balancing test of the exceptional practical difficulty standard; i.e. it is not clear the potential harm to the applicant outweighs the potential harm to neighboring property owners. Staff recommends denial of the second variance for accessory building coverage, for reasons as follows: • The size of the accessory structures combined with their proximity to the property lines of the site is likely to cause negative impacts on the immediate neighbors, absent mitigating features such as fences or landscape screening. It is not clear from the applicant’s designs whether such features are proposed. • While covered parking as an amenity could make the project more attractive to potential tenants, it is not clear that the project’s economic viability depends on it. If the first variance was granted and this second one was not, the applicant could still

V-18-11 Lands of Miller Investments LLC at 127, 129, 133, and 135 Roosevelt Avenue Board of Adjustment Report Page 11 of 12 build some covered parking up to the 30% limit, which the applicant could then distribute among the tenants as they see fit. Staff recommends approval of the third variance for allowing parking within 15 feet of a wall. Staff further recommends this variance be limited to any parking located underneath or partially underneath the building. The recommendation is given for the following reasons: • No negative effects on neighboring properties would be expected from granting this variance. • If this variance is not granted, the parking under the building will have to be relocated or removed. This would mean either increasing the magnitude of the other two requested variances or reducing the number of dwelling units without the benefit of an accompanying impervious surface reduction. • Limiting the variance to parking spaces under the building will give the applicant the flexibility they need to design this parking area as they see fit (subject to Building and Fire Code requirements), while keeping parking away from the exterior walls of dwelling units as is the purpose of the ordinance. 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 the property are subject to Site Development Plan approval processes and appropriate permits from the City of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections and other agencies. • Granting of a variance does not waive the applicant’s requirement to adhere to all City Building and Fire codes when designing and constructing the project. • The site plan depicts balconies which project from the main body of the building. The applicant previously stated that these would be redesigned so they are recessed into the building. Absent this redesign, a fourth variance for the building’s front yard setback would be needed. Fire Code requirements for the site may also be impacted by these balconies.

V-17-09 Lands of Margaret Johnson at 1310/1324 Forrest Avenue Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Exhibit Map (Staff) 1 B Applicant responses to variance criteria 3 C Site Plan (Applicant) 1 (24” x 32”)

City of Dover Exhibit A Application No.: V-18-11 Department of Planning & Inspections R- R-8 8 C-4 C-4 R-8 Eve rgre en Ev Dr er gr ee y Hw n Ci Du po r nt MH C-4 C-1 Site RG-2 R-8 Roosevelt Ave River Chase Dr R-8 C-4 RG-2 Title: Lands of David Miller Investments LLC Address: 127, 129, 133, & 135 Roosevelt Ave Parcel ID: ED-05-077.18-02-71.00-000, ED-05-077.18-02-72.00-000, Legend and ED-05-077.18-02-73.00-000 Zoning: RG-2 (General Residence Zone) Subject Property Owner: David Miller Investments LLC Dover Parcels Date: 12/5/2018 Zoning 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 100 200 400 Feet Dover Boundary

Exhibit B THE MALMBERG FIRM LLC 30 The Green Attorney at Law Dover, DE 19901 Tel: (302) 672-5600 Constantine F. Malmberg, III Fax: (302) 672-5609 cmal111berg@themalmbergfirm.com November 29, 2018 Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP Principal Planner City of Dover, Delaware RE: Roosevelt Avenue Apartments Dear Mrs. Melson-Williams: Below, we are addressing the BOA AREA Variance requirements criteria: 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies: The three parcels with four buildings under consideration for variance by the Board of Adjustments were recently unanimously approved for rezoning to RG2 by the Dover Planning Commission and Dover City Council. RG2 permits Multi-family apartment housing. Two of the buildings had previously been converted to apartment buildings. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. The property lies in an area with an "eclectic" mix of uses. Multi-family housing is across the street to the east at the end of Roosevelt Avenue, west of the property is C-1 and C-4 zoning including a car wash and multi-tenant building, to the east is a manufactured housing community and to the south of Roosevelt Avenue is additional C-4 with Automobile dealerships. The area contains quite a mix of uses with an apparent shift from historic single family residences toward multi-family and commercial. The proposed redevelopment will follow this trend in making use of the two dilapidated residences as well as two other dilapidated buildings previously converted to Multi-family apartment buildings. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant's property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses.

The applicant seeks to redevelop the properties as a single garden style apartment. The proposed structure contains 21 units. The parking required by the City is 2 ¼ spaces per unit, which parking drives the variance requests. The request for a variance in the lot coverage allows for adequate parking for the 21 units. The request for a variance in the percent of accessory buildings is for the purpose of permitting an upgraded amenity of covered parking. The final variance permits parking under a portion of the structure. None of the requested variances, if granted, would have any negative impact on surrounding properties and in fact, allows for construction of a higher quality project with amenities. It should be noted that parking under a structure is not unusual in the City, as examples can be found at the Schwartz Center for the Arts, Wesley College dorms as well as the office building housing the Attorney General and at the Courthouse. Permitting the redevelopment of this dilapidated section of Roosevelt Avenue would in fact, represent a benefit to the neighboring properties. 4. Whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardships 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. The proposed redevelopment of those run down properties represent a significant improvement to an area of the City that badly needs such redevelopment. The most significant requested variance, lot coverage ratio, permits the construction of a building containing 21 units. Without this variance the project would be limited to 11 units (or a request to eliminate much of the parking, which would have a negative impact on the surrounding properties). Absent a granting of this variance, the project is not economically viable and will be abandoned. The variance request more for accessory structure area is driven by the City's interpretation that covered parking is considered the same as a garage or storage shed and thus the limitations. The granting of this variance permits an attractive amenity to the project allowing it to be more marketable with higher probability of being commercially competitive and successful. In, Kwik-Check Rea11y__y_,__New Castle, several instructive points were made by the Court. The Court noted when considering an "area" variance cases (such as applicable here), the proper test in Delaware is the less burdensome one of the exceptional practical difficulty (as opposed to the higher standard of

unnecessary hardship). The Court allowed that exceptional practical difficulty may be met, under appropriate weighing of the other impacts, in a desire to upgrade a business, remain competitive and increase responses herein to profits. The balanced approach adopted by the Court is reflected in question 3 and this question 4 which poses a balance between any negative impact on neighboring properties against either the benefit and potential negative impact of granting or not granting the variances. It is respectfully submitted that the redevelopment of these properties, which granting of these variances permits, result in both a higher likelihood of a successful project as well as a significant improvement (rather than detriment) to the neighboring properties and the surrounding area. Constantine F. Malmberg, Ill

Exhibit C

City of Dover Board of Adjustment December 19, 2018 V-18-12 Location: 1738 Forrest Avenue, Dover, DE Applicant: Louise Warren on Behalf of Dover Christian Church Owner: Dover Christian Church Inc. Tax Parcel: ED-05-075.00-01-04.00-000 Application Date: November 15, 2018 Present Zoning: R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Present Use: Place of Public Assembly Proposed Use: No Change Reviewed By: Eddie Diaz, Planner I Variance Type: Area Variance Variance Requested: Variance to increase the maximum allowed sign area by 20 SF in order to permit a 32 SF monument sign.

V-18-12 Dover Christian Church signage at 1738 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 8 Previous Applications This property is the site of a Conditional Use Site Plan (C-13-11) for a then-9,600 SF church originally approved by the Planning Commission on October 21, 2013. The project was granted a one-year extension of approval by the Commission on August 17, 2015, before coming in to the Commission again on March 21, 2016 for a series of extensive plan revisions, principally a reduction in the building size to 3,850 SF. The plan attained Final Plan Approval on July 21, 2016, and a permit for construction was approved on September 16, 2016. Construction on the church continued until June 20, 2018, when a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the building. The Sign Permit Application for the sign subject to this variance was submitted to the Planning Office on September 10, 2018. A Site Plan showing how the site was ultimately developed is included in Exhibit F. It shows the church building, the parking lot, the site entrance, the sidewalks, the bioretention facility, and the approximate location of the proposed sign. Project Description The property is located at 1738 Forrest Avenue and is occupied by Dover Christian Church, a newly-established place of worship. Before the church was constructed the property was occupied by a one-family detached residence, now demolished. The use of the property as a place of worship is a Conditional Use within the R-10 (One Family Residence) Zone. The sign the applicant proposes is a monument sign. It would be located on frontage of an Urban Minor Arterial street and within a residential zoning district. A rendering of the proposed sign is given in Exhibit D. The maximum size for such a sign, under the Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4.7 is 12 SF, but the applicant would like to have a sign that is 32 SF in size. Note that the 32 SF sign area applies only to the main sign panel and the 3 lines of 8-inch changeable copy on the body of the sign. The cross and outline of an open book at the top of the sign are architectural features not required to be included in the sign area. Also of note, the 3 lines of changeable copy meet the restrictions on changeable sign area given in Zoning Ordinance Article 5 Section 4.4(E), representing less than 70% of the sign face. The sign is currently depicted in Exhibit D as being 8 feet tall, but the applicant has agreed to reduce the height of the sign, so it meets the 7-foot tall limit under the zoning. Based on the compliance of these other factors of the sign design, the variance for 32 SF of sign area is the only variance required for this sign. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use The subject property is zoned R-10, and it lies also within the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). This overlay zone includes regulations for building and site design that apply to new development, but there are no provisions in it directly related to signage. The property lies on the south side of Forrest Avenue, near to the City limits. The nearest cross- street is Dover High Drive. Adjacent to the east of the property is the site of the Dover High School, also zoned R-10. Adjacent to the west and south is property of the Leander Lakes

V-18-12 Dover Christian Church signage at 1738 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 8 Apartments, zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). West of the apartment property is land belonging to another church known as Destiny Christian Church. This property is also zoned R-10. Finally, across the street from Dover Christian Church are a handful of residential and agricultural uses as well as a building contractor’s yard. These properties are located in Kent County and are zoned AC (Agricultural Conservation) and IG (Industrial General) respectively. A Zoning Map exhibit (Exhibit A) prepared by staff is attached to this report showing the subject property location and surrounding zoning. Code Citations The City of Dover sign regulations found in Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4 determine the allowable number, type and dimensional characteristics of signage on a property according to: ● The type of use ● Proximity to residential uses ● Classification of roads on which the property has frontage The subject property is considered a conditional, non-residential use located in a residential zone as defined by Article 3 §1.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. R-10 is among the residential zones: Residence zones: R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, R-7, RM-1, RM-2, RG-1, RG-2, RG-3, RG-4, RG-5, RGO, or MH zone. The City of Dover sign regulations distinguish three (3) types of roads for purposes of determining allowable signage. Forrest Avenue is an “Urban Minor Arterial” as defined by Article 5 §4.3. The entire Sign Table from Zoning Ordinance Article 3 §4.7 is presented in Exhibit B. The section pertaining to this project is at the top of the table and colored with a light blue background. This section is what applies to “Residential Uses and Nonresidential Uses in Residential Districts” as shown in the vertical text on the left. It shows the maximum number, sign area, height, and minimum required setbacks and exclusion zones for signs on “All Streets,” which would include Urban Minor Arterials. Referring to the listing of specific uses found in this section, one finds that the Code does not specifically address here places of worship as a Conditional Use. Conditional Uses including places of worship are instead addressed in the second section of the table colored in light purple, “Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts or Uses.” Under this section a 32 SF monument sign would be permitted; however, this section would only be applicable if the church was in a nonresidential zone. Because the church is in a residential zone, it must use the 12 SF limit given for the only nonresidential use specified in the light blue section of the table (professional office).

V-18-12 Dover Christian Church signage at 1738 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 8 Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Zoning Ordinance Article 9 §2 dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. Specifically, the Board must determine: 2.1 Variance – The board shall have the authority to authorize variances from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not contrary to public interest where the board determines that a literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant. In granting variances, the board shall determine that the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. 2.11 Area Variance. A variance shall be considered an area variance if it relates to bulk standards, signage regulations, and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that address lot layout, buffers, and dimensions. In considering a request for an area variance, the board shall evaluate the following criteria and document them in their findings of fact: (a) the nature of the zone in which the property lies; (b) the character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; (c) whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; and (d) whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Review of Application As part of the application, the applicant was asked to summarize how the requested variance relates to the criteria. The applicant submitted new responses in conjunction with their request for a Revised variance. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Responses: “The property; Dover Christian Church is zoned R10 which allows us to have a 12 square foot sign. However, the code allows a 32 square foot sign in all other zoning districts that are adjacent to residential.” Staff Response: As previously noted by Staff, places of worship are not expressly specified in the section of the Sign Table in Exhibit B pertaining to this property, but Staff would generally interpret the permitted maximum sign area to be 12 SF. The applicant correctly notes that if their property were merely adjacent to residential instead of zoned residential, they would be able to install the sign they want without a variance.

V-18-12 Dover Christian Church signage at 1738 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 8 Places of worship are permitted in residential districts through a Conditional Use review process. Such uses are consistent with the nature of the R-10 zone, and it is common for churches to be found in residential zones around the City. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Responses: “The 32 sq ft sign will not change the character of the surrounding area. The properties near Dover Church Christian all have signs that are larger than 32 sq ft, such as Dover High School, Destiny Church and a large pole sign across the road.” Staff Response: The limits on sign area imposed by code are parcel-specific according to road frontage, type of use, and proximity to residential uses, so staff do not look at existing signs on neighboring properties when determining what the limits are for signage. However, it is worth noting here that the Dover Christian Church property is the only parcel in the immediate area currently subject to a limitation of 12 SF. The parcels across the street in Kent County are not subject to the City’s sign regulations, and indeed one property owner has taken advantage of this to put up a billboard. The Leander Lakes Apartments, as a multi-family residential use, are permitted a 32 SF monument sign. The Dover High School is subject to a Unified Comprehensive Sign Plan (US-14-01) approved by the Planning Commission, which allows them among other signs the 131 SF monument sign at the corner of Forrest Avenue and Dover High Drive. Finally, Destiny Christian Church, while also limited to 12 SF, currently enjoys a nonconforming 32 SF sign put up before its property was annexed into the City. This other church would be limited to a 12 SF sign if they wanted to replace their current sign. Photos of some of the surrounding signs taken by the applicant are shown in Exhibit G. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Responses: “No. All signs within 200 feet are larger than 32 square feet. Dover High School, Destiny Church and a large pole sign.” Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the proposed sign would have a negative impact on neighboring properties or uses. Though there are several residential uses in the surrounding area, most of them are set back much farther from Forrest Avenue than the church, meaning residents would not typically see the sign from their houses or apartments. Staff estimates that the nearest residence would be about 200 feet from the sign.

V-18-12 Dover Christian Church signage at 1738 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 8 The sign should also not set a precedent for other properties in the area to request larger signs. Between the apartment complex and the high school, the area within City limits is very well built out and little future development is expected. Meanwhile the existing uses in the area already have signs that are the same size or larger than the applicant’s requested sign; none of these larger signs were previously authorized through granting of a variance. 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 the restriction is not removed it will create a hardship on Dover Christian Church in promoting church activities for the community, as well as identifying who we are. The property is located on Forrest Ave in Dover which is a busy street. Oncoming traffic would have a difficult time seeing the name of the Church and the information on the message board. The allowable 12 square feet sign will only allow a two (2} line message board with 6 inch lettering with approximately 20 characters. Whereas the 32 square feet sign will have a three (3} line message board 8 inch lettering with approximately 60 characters. The Name of Dover Christian Church on a 12 square feet sign, is 3.6" which is readable at a distance of 30ft. Whereas the 32 square feet sign, is 6.2" readable distance of 60ft.” Staff Response: In the present case staff agrees with the applicant that the maximum size of the sign presents an exceptional practical difficulty, because the small size of the letters at 12 SF would make it difficult for oncoming motorists to read the sign. Most residentially-zoned places of worship in Dover are along local streets which have a much lower speed limit than Forrest Avenue. If the letters on the sign are too small to see from a fast vehicle on the road, the sign will likely prove a distraction to passing motorists rather than a useful guidepost. It is also worth noting that the monument sign is proposed to be set back 5 feet from the edge of the right-of-way, which is the minimum setback for such a sign under the zoning. As such the sign cannot be made more readable by moving it closer to the road. The size and placement also make it useful for passing pedestrians. Though not mentioned in the applicant’s written response, staff and the applicant did discuss the possibility of using the property’s wall sign allowance, either instead of a monument sign or to supplement a 12 SF sign. The applicant’s response to this was that the church was designed with very little exterior wall space for signs. The 16 SF

V-18-12 Dover Christian Church signage at 1738 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 8 limitation on the two wall signs they could have would not be much better for visibility than a 12 SF monument sign, given the distance of the church building from the street. Staff believes the proposed sign area at 32 square feet would not be out of character with the use of the property as a place of worship, or with the Urban Minor Arterial road type. Many such places throughout Dover have similar signs that display the name of the facility, hours, and also include a changeable sign area to display messages, announcements of events, etc. Variance Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit a 32 SF monument sign, for reasons as follows: ● The proposed sign is in character with the immediate surroundings and would not seriously impact surrounding uses. ● The sign regulations are generally based on a relationship between the classification of street and its typical traffic conditions. Staff believes that a 32 square feet monument sign presents a legible sign design that could be safely read but not be distracting. Limiting the sign area to 12 SF may impose a hardship on the property because such a sign would be undersized relative to the prevailing speeds on the street. ● The restriction placed on the property is currently unique to it, with other properties nearby having avoided a 12 SF limitation through legal means despite their same or similar zoning. 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. ● In accordance with staff’s agreement with the applicant, the submitted Sign Permit Application will be amended by staff to reduce the base of the sign by one foot, thereby decreasing the overall height of the sign from 8 feet to 7 feet. The permit will be issued if the variance application is successful, and will be subject to the provisions of the variance granted.

V-17-02 Whatcoat UM Church Signage at 341 Saulsbury Road Revised Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS 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 Applicant’s responses to variance criteria 1 D Renderings of proposed sign (applicant) 1 E Plot plan of property from before church development (applicant) 1 F Site Plan sheet excerpted from C-13-11 Final Plan 1 (11”x17”) (staff) G Photos of nearby signs (applicant) 1

City of Dover Exhibit A Application No.: V-18-11 Department of Planning & Inspections R-10 F a l m o u th R-10 Tu c ke t Ci r W ay R-10 A R- 10 Yarm o u t h W ay Forrest Ave Site R-10 rH ve Do igh Dr R-10 RM-2 RM-1 Title: Lands of David Miller Investments LLC Address: 127, 129, 133, & 135 Roosevelt Ave Parcel ID: ED-05-077.18-02-71.00-000, ED-05-077.18-02-72.00-000, Legend and ED-05-077.18-02-73.00-000 Zoning: RG-2 (General Residence Zone) Subject Property Owner: David Miller Investments LLC Dover Parcels Date: 12/5/2018 Zoning 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Dover Boundary

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

24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 SITE DATA 24x36 24x36 1. OWNER OF RECORD: DOVER CHRISTIAN CHURCH, INC. C/O WALTER GORDON, TRUSTEE .R T. 8) 1156 SOUTH GOVERNORS AVENUE 24x36 (DEL DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 24x36 2. ENGINEER / SURVEYOR: BECKER MORGAN GROUP INC. 309 SOUTH GOVERNORS AVE. DOVER, DE. 19904 E. (302) 734-7950 24x36 24x36 V STA 3. PROPERTY MAP NUMBERS: ED-05-075.00-01-04.00-000 E 4. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: EXISTING: R-10 / COZ-1 RR SITE 24x36 FO PROPOSED: R-10 / COZ-1 24x36 5. DEED SUMMARY: DEED BOOK: 3620 PAGE: 191 7. PRESENT USE: RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPOSED USE: CHURCH 24x36 8. PROPERTY AREA: Dover, DE 24x36 9. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: EXISTING : 4,180 S.F. (0.10 AC) - 0.06% 309 S. Governors Ave. PROPOSED : 32,655 S.F. (0.75 AC) - 48.15% Dover, DE 19904 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: 75% Ph. 302.734.7950 24x36 10. SETBACKS: R-10 / COZ-1 R-10 (NON-RESIDENTIAL) COZ-1 Fax 302.734.7965 24x36 FRONT: 50 FT. NONE SIDE: 25 FT. (25' TOTAL FOR BOTH) NONE Salisbury, MD REAR: 25 FT. NONE 24x36 312 West Main St. Suite 300 24x36 11. BUILDING: EXISTING : 1,232 S.F. (TO BE REMOVED) PROPOSED : 3,850 S.F. Salisbury, MD 21801 . HEIGHT ALLOWED: 35' Ph. 410.546.9100 HEIGHT PROPOSED : 35' FROM TOP OF STEEPLE Fax 410.546.5824 24x36 LOCATION MAP SCALE : 1" = 400' LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED: 20% 24x36 LOT COVERAGE PROPOSED: 10% Wilmington, NC CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE II (000) (NFPA CONST. TYPE) 3205 Randall Parkway, Suite 211 SPRINKLER SYSTEM: YES Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 24x36 24x36 12. UTILITIES (SOURCE) : WATER: CITY OF DOVER Ph. 910.341.7600 SEWER: CITY OF DOVER Fax 910.341.7506 GAS: CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES 24x36 ELECTRIC: CITY OF DOVER www.beckermorgan.com 24x36 13. PREDOMINANT SOILS : FgA : FALLSINGTON LOAM 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES UlB : UNICORN LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES 14. PARKING CALCULATIONS : EXISTING 2 24x36 REQUIRED : 1 PER 4 SEATS = 128 / 4 = 32 24x36 DEL. RT. 8 PROPOSED : 40 SPACES HANDICAPPED PARKING REQUIRED : 3 SPACES (1 VAN) . HANDICAPPED PARKING PROVIDED : 3 SPACES (1 VAN) A VE SITE BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED : 40 / 20 = 2.0 = 2 ST 24x36 24x36 E BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED : 4 RR FO 15. LOADING CALCULATIONS : LOADING BERTHS REQUIRED : 1 16. SIGNAGE : FUTURE PERMIT SUBMISSION 24x36 I VE 17. OUTDOOR LIGHTING : LIGHTING SHALL BE 1.5 FOOT CANDLES MIN. AT GRADE 24x36 DR 18. TREE PRESERVATION : EX. WOODLAND AREA: 0 S.F. S TI WOODLANDS TO BE CLEARED: 0 S.F. (0%) AR TOTAL WOODLANDS REMAINING: 0 S.F. (0%) 24x36 TOTAL NON-WOODLAND AREA: 67,850 S.F - 0 = 67,850 S.F s.f 24x36 67,850 S.F / 3000 = 22.6 23 TREES REQUIRED EXISTING TO BE RETAINED: 0 PROPOSED TREES: 31 24x36 TOTAL TREES: 23 24x36 19. SURVEY BENCHMARK: NGS MONUMENT: COLLEGE . VERTICAL: NAVD88 HORIZONTAL: NAD83 24x36 VICINITY MAP SCALE : 1" = 1200' 20. WATER DEMANDS: PLUMBING FIXTURES UNITS: 16 24x36 21. SANITARY SEWER DEMANDS: PEAK FLOWS: 2.31 GPM AVERAGE DAILY FLOWS: 0.52 GPM HbB OtA VELOCITY: 2.86 FPS 24x36 WoA SaB HbB 24x36 WoA HbB WoA FgA OtA Lo HbB 24x36 FgA FgA GENERAL NOTES : 24x36 CoA WoB 1. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATA SHOWN HEREON WAS PREPARED BY BECKER MORGAN GROUP, DOVER, DE, FgA SaB FzB FgA IN JUNE 2012. VERTICAL DATUM IS BASED ON NAVD 88. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS BASED ON WoA DELAWARE STATE PLANE NAD 83. 24x36 Lo 24x36 WoA 2. THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN WERE TAKEN FROM THE BEST AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT HbB SaB OtA MISS UTILITY OF DELMARVA (1-800-282-8555) TO VERIFY THEIR EXACT LOCATION PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY HbB CONSTRUCTION. ANY DAMAGE INCURRED TO ANY UTILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY AT THE CONTRACTORS FgA SaB EXPENSE. IF THE CONTRACTOR RELIES ON THE UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON, HE DOES SO AT HIS OWN RISK AND 24x36 24x36 Lo UlA WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION DUE TO TIME DELAYS FROM SAID RELIANCE. HbB HbB SaB 3. THE PROJECT AREA IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE ONE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, BASED ON FIRM MAP WdA FgA UlB 10001C0162H, PANEL 162 OF 435, DATED MAY 5, 2003. UlB Lo WoA 24x36 PyA 4. BECKER MORGAN GROUP, INC. CERTIFIES THAT THERE ARE NO FRESH WATER WETLANDS LOCATED ON THE PROJECT SITE. 24x36 HbB HbB PROJECT TITLE SITE UlB 5. ALL ROADS, PARKING AND OTHER PAVED AREAS WILL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR DEDICATION. PROPOSED PyA UlB PyA 24x36 UlA CaA 6. DELAWARE REGULATIONS PROHIBIT THE BURIAL OF CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION DEBRIS, INCLUDING TREES AND STUMPS 24x36 ON CONSTRUCTION SITES. ANY SOLID WASTE FOUND DURING EXCAVATION MUST BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISCARDED. 24x36 HbB CoA FgA HbB CaA UlB 7. ALL HANDICAPPED PARKING DEMARCATION, STALLS, AND BUILDING ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE "AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT" AND ANSI A117.1-1998 " ACCESSIBLE AND USABLE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES" DOVER 24x36 A FgA WoA OtA UlB 8. THIS DRAWING DOES NOT INCLUDE NECESSARY COMPONENT FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY. ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST BE DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970 AND ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS CHRISTIAN Wo THERETO APPURTENANT. 24x36 SOIL SURVEY MAP SCALE : 1" = 1,667' 9. BEFORE THE CONTRACTOR CAN BEGIN CONSTRUCTION HE MUST OBTAIN THE PROPER PERMITS AND/OR APPROVALS FROM THE CITY OF DOVER (C.O.D.), DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL (DNREC), DELAWARE CHURCH 24x36 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DELDOT) , KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT (KCD) AND ALL APPROPRIATE STATE AND SOIL MAP TAKEN FROM "NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY" COUNTY AGENCIES. 24x36 24x36 FgA : FALLSINGTON LOAM, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES 10. ALL CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND MATERIALS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC WORKS UlB : UNICORN LOAM, 2 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE OF DELAWARE (DELDOT) STANDARDS AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. 11. ALL FIRE LANE DEMARCATION AND FIRE LANE SIGNS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE FIRE PREVENTION 24x36 REGULATIONS. 24x36 12. ALL WORK WITHIN CITY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN THE 1738 FORREST AVE. CURRENT REVISION OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, BY THE DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND ALL CITY OF DOVER REQUIREMENTS. CITY OF DOVER 24x36 24x36 13. TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONTROL SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CURRENT KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE VERSION OF THE DELAWARE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS. SHEET TITLE 24x36 14. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SEDIMENT / EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT VERSION 24x36 DELAWARE SEDIMENT AND STORMWATER REGULATIONS BY THE DELAWARE KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT 15. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL/STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES FOR ALL DIMENSIONS COVER SHEET OF BUILDINGS AND FOUNDATIONS. PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINTS, AS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN, SHOULD ONLY BE USED AS 24x36 A REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED PLANS. . 24x36 FIRE MARSHAL GENERAL NOTES 16. HYDRANT CONNECTIONS BY THE CONTRACTOR ARE PROHIBITED. THIS METHOD MAY NOT BE UTILIZED DURING ANY PHASE OF THE PROJECT. . 24x36 1. ALL FIRE LANES, FIRE HYDRANTS, AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MARKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DELAWARE STATE FIRE PREVENTION REGULATIONS (DSFPR). 17. ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINES, STORM DRAINS, AND WATER LINES NOT USED FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION MUST BE PROPERLY ABANDONED AT THE MAINS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS . 24x36 REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 2. ALL BUILDING WITH SPRINKLER SYSTEMS SHALL BE MONITORED AND KNOX BOXES SHALL BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED 24x36 ADJACENT TO THE MAIN ENTRANCE DOOR. 18. PART II, CHAPTER 180, ARTICLE III, SECTION 180-10 OF THE CODE OF KENT COUNTY REQUIRES THAT "NO PERSON SHALL 24x36 3. ADDRESS NUMBERS OF AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN HEIGHT MUST BE PLACED ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE BUILDING DISCHARGE OR CAUSE TO BE DISCHARGED ANY STORMWATER, SURFACE WATER, UNCONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER, ROOF VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. RUNOFF, SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE, UNCONTAMINATED NONCONTACT COOLING WATER, CONDENSATE, OR UNPOLLUTED INDUSTRIAL PROCESS WATERS TO ANY SANITARY SEWER". THE CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE DURING 4. ANY NATURAL OF LP GAS BOTTLES, METERS, REGULATORS, ETC. MUSH HAVE IMPACT PROTECTION. 24x36 CONSTRUCTION THAT NO ILLEGAL DISCHARGES TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ARE CREATED WITH THE SITE 24x36 5. ANY GAS FIRED HVAC EQUIPMENT MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH EMERGENCY CUT OFF SWITCHES REMOTELY LOCATED. IMPROVEMENTS. 6. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION TO BE 5" STORZ TYPE CONNECTION. 0 10 20 40 19. THE SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT 7. PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL MEET THE LARGE AREA BUILDING REQUIREMENTS OF THE DSFPR - REGULATION 702, CHAPTER 5, (302) 736-7025 PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF 24x36 SECTION 3. PUBLIC WORKS MUST OBSERVE ALL CITY OWNED WATER AND SANITARY SEWER INTERCONNECTIONS AND TESTING. ALL 24x36 8. PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL HAVE HORIZONTAL STANDPIPES INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE THE DSFPR AND NFPA 14. WATER TAPS MUST BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF DOVER APPROVED CONTRACTOR. THE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR THE WATER TAP MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD DUE TO CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTING MAIN. POSSIBLE CONDITIONS 9. PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL BE PROTECTED BY AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13. THAT WOULD REQUIRE TAPPING RELOCATION INCLUDE PROXIMITY TO PIPE JOINTS, OTHER TAPS, CONCRETE ENCASEMENTS, SCALE : 1" = 20' 24x36 CONFLICT WITH OTHER UTILITIES, AND THE LIKE. TEST HOLES MUST BE PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE 24x36 THE BEST TAPPING LOCATION. THE CITY OF DOVER WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD CONDITIONS REQUIRING ISSUE BLOCK LEGEND ADJUSTMENT OF THE TAPPING LOCATION OR FOR ANY WORK REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED AND LAWFUL CONNECTION. 24x36 24x36 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER SANITARY GRAVITY SEWER LINE, EX. 10"S 10" S 20. IF THE APPROVED PLAN NEEDS TO MODIFIED DUE TO ERRORS OR OMISSIONS OR FIELD CONDITIONS, ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT 7 6-23-16 FINAL DELDOT SUBMISSION SIZE & FLOW DIRECTION AND STORM WATER CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE KENT CONSERVATION CONCRETE SIDEWALK, SLAB / PAVING 6 5-31-16 REVISED PER AGENCY REVIEW SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN, SIZE DISTRICT (KCD). EX. 10" F.M. 12" F.M. IMPERVIOUS SURFACED ROAD, DRIVE & FLOW DIRECTION 24x36 OR LOT 21. THE KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT (KCD) RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF 5 5-12-16 REVISED PER AGENCY REVIEW 24x36 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (S.M.H.) PERIODIC SITE INSPECTION. INDIVIDUAL TREE OR BUSH N/A 4 4-14-16 REVISED PER AGENCY REVIEW WIRE FENCE EVERGREEN X X DECIDUOUS X X X X SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT SHEET INDEX OWNERS CERTIFICATION 22. ALL WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY COMPONENTS MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC WORKS WATER/WASTEWATER HANDBOOK. 3 3-1-16 REVISED PER AGENCY REVIEW 24x36 CHAINLINK FENCE WATER MAIN & SIZE EX. 10" W 12" W C-001 COVER SHEET WE, DOVER CHRISTIAN CHURCH, INC., HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE ARE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY 24x36 STOCKADE FENCE C-101 EXISTING CONDITIONS / DEMOLITION PLAN DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, THAT THE PLAN WAS MADE AT OUR DIRECTION, AND THAT WE 23. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO FINAL GRADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT CITY OF DOVER FIRE HYDRANT F.H. F.H. 2 9-24-15 REVISED PER AGENCY REVIEW C-201 SITE / SIGNAGE & STRIPING PLAN ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME TO BE OUR ACT AND DESIRE THE PLAN TO BE DEVELOPED AS SHOWN IN REQUIREMENTS AND PRACTICES. WATER VALVE (W.V.) OR METER (W.M.) C-301 UTILITY PLAN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. 24. TRASH COLLECTION SHALL BE BY PRIVATE HAULER. THE CITY OF DOVER WILL NOT PROVIDE TRASH SERVICE TO THIS 1 7-27-15 REVISED PER AGENCY REVIEW STRUCTURE (CONCRETE, WOOD, 24x36 METAL, ETC.) W.M. W.V. W.M. W.V. PROJECT. 24x36 STORM DRAIN MANHOLE (S.D.M.H.) C-401 GRADING PLAN MARK DATE DESCRIPTION DRAINAGE DITCH OR SWALE C-500 SEDIMENT & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COVER SHEET 25. AT IT'S MEETING ON OCTOBER 21, 2013, THE CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTED CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF LAYER STATE : C-001 C-501 PRE-CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WALTER GORDON, TRUSTEE DATE THE SITE FOR THIS PLACE OF WORSHIP. AT IT'S MEETING ON AUGUST 17, 2015, THE CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION EMBANKMENT SIDESLOPES (DOWN) STORM DRAIN LINE (CMP OR RCP) GRANTED A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN, APPLICATION C-13-11. PROJECT NO.: 2012072.00 24x36 C-502 CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 24x36 CONTOUR 49 55 CATCH BASIN C-503 CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, FACILITY 1 ENGINEERS CERTIFICATION DATE: 6/19/15 ELEVATION SPOT SHOT 43.55 25.50 T.C. C-504 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS 25.15 25.00 B.C. UTILITY POLE W/ OVERHEAD SERVICE (TELEPHONE OR ELECTRIC OR BOTH) I, GREGORY V. MOORE, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A REGISTERED ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, SCALE: 1" = 20' BENCH MARK C-505 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND TO MY BEST DRAWN BY: R.J.M. PROJ. MGR.: J.S.F. 24x36 24x36 N/A PROPERTY OR RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC U.E. U.E. C-601 ENTRANCE PLAN KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF REPRESENTS GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE U.T. U.T. C-602 ENTRANCE PLAN LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. SHEET CENTERLINE C-901 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS UNDERGROUND GAS MAIN EX. 2" G 2" G 24x36 LIGHT POLE CONSTRUCTION NOTE N/A PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED N/A C-902 L-101 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LANDSCAPE PLAN GREGORY V. MOORE P.E. NO. 9311 DATE C-001 COPYRIGHT 2013 24x36 F:\AutoCAD\Projects\2012\2012072\DWG\2012072-SITE-C3D15.dwg, Jun 23, 2016 - 8:33am .PDF 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36 24x36

City of Dover Board of Adjustment December 19, 2018 V-18-13 Location: 101 Ipswich Court (East of Bay Road and adjacent to Blue Hen Boulevard, within the Blue Hen Apartment Complex behind Blue Hen Corporate Center) Applicant/Owner: Blue Hen Apartments, LLC Tax Parcel: ED-05-077.00-01-01.00-000 Application Date: November 15, 2018 Present Zoning: RG-2 (General Residence Zone) Current Use: Apartments (Apartment Building under construction Reviewed By: Julian Swierczek, Planner I Variance Type: Area Variance Variance Requested: To reduce the minimum 30-foot setback required for a multiple unit dwelling structure in the RG-2 (General Residence Zone). Applicant is nearing completion of a building which has been built 29.8 feet (29 feet 9.5 inches) from the lot line. This request only pertains to the one apartment building (numbered as Building 24 on the Site Plan).

V-18-13 Blue Hen Apartments at 101 Ipswich Ct. Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 8 Project Description The applicant is requesting a variance from Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.3 Bulk and Parking Regulations applying to the RG-2 (General Residence Zone), to allow for a decrease in the minimum front yard setback requirements for multiple dwelling unit apartment building in a residential zone. This current application V-18-13 is proposing to reduce the minimum front yard setback required for a multiple dwelling unit residential building in the RG-2 zone from 30 feet to 29 feet 9.5 inches to accommodate a nearly completed apartment building which has been located within the setback. The multiple dwelling unit structure (numbered 24 on Exhibit C) on the site of the Blue Hen Apartment Complex as constructed encroaches into the front yard setback. The foundations were built the required 30 feet away from the lot line; however, once the walls were put up and the brick veneer, balcony supports, vinyl siding, and corner trim put in place, the structure instead measures only 29.8 feet (29 feet 9.6 inches) away from the lot line. The structure was built as close to the 30-foot setback as possible to accommodate the 15 feet required by Code in Article 6 § 5.3 to be between the parking lot and the apartment building. It should be noted that the application cites two slightly different figures for the variance request. The application form and map list a front yard setback of 29.8 feet (variance of 0.20 feet), which translates to 29 feet 9.6 inches. The Criteria Response document requests a reduction of 2 ½ inches meaning the variance requested is to reduce the setback to 29 feet 9.5 inches. For this application, the Board should consider the greater reduction requested to allow for a front yard setback of 29 feet 9.5 inches. The Applicant has provided a series of Exhibits with their application. A Site Plan, highlighting the apartment building (Number 24) can be found in Exhibit C. A series of photographs showing the apartment building subject to this Area Variance request (5 pages) is to be found in Exhibit D. The Apartment building has a specific address (for 911 response) of 101 Ipswich Court. Adjacent Land Uses A Zoning Map Exhibit (Exhibit A) prepared by staff is attached to this Report. It shows the subject property location and surrounding zoning. The properties to the southeast of the apartment complex are zoned IPM (Industrial Park and Manufacturing Zone) and contain the new Chesapeake Utilities Dover Campus. The properties to the southwest are zoned SC-2 (Shopping Center Development) and contain a Day Care facility and the Blue Hen Corporate Center. The property to the northwest is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and is the site of East Dover Elementary School. Immediately adjacent to the site to the northeast is the Schoolview subdivision of one-family detached dwellings, which are zoned R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone). The subject site itself was developed as apartments in phases from 2007 through 2018. Code Citations Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.3 gives the required minimum setbacks for multiple dwelling unit buildings in the RG-2 zone. Highlighted is the setback requirement from which the applicant is asking a variance:

V-18-13 Blue Hen Apartments at 101 Ipswich Ct. Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 8 Table 1: Bulk and Parking Regulations for general residence zone (RG-2) One-Family Multiple One-Family Semi-Detached Multiple • Dwellings and Other Dwellings Detached Two-Family Dwellings Minimum required: (Same requirements as for Lot area/DU (sq. ft.) 1,700 dwellings in RG-1 zone) Lot width (ft.) 100 Lot depth (ft.) 125 Front yard (ft.) 30 Minimum side yard (ft.) 25 Total both side yards (ft.) 50 Rear yard (ft.) 30 Off-street parking 2 spaces Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 3 Feet 40 Floor area ratio — Lot coverage 60% Number of dwelling units in group of attached None dwellings or in multiple dwellings prescribed Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 defines the following: Dwelling, multiple: A building, or portion thereof, containing more than two dwelling units. Setback: The distance between the street line and the setback line. Setback line: A line extending between the two side lot lines of a lot or a parcel of land, which is parallel to, and a stated distance from, a street line. Article 6 §5.3 provides supplementary parking regulations for multiple dwellings: No parking space shall be located in any front yard or within three feet of any lot line in side or rear yards. The parking of motor vehicles within 15 feet of any wall or portion thereof, is prohibited. Except for electric charging stations, no automobile service shall be permitted to be extended to users of the lot, including sales, repair or fueling, and no gasoline, oil, grease, or related supplies shall be stored or sold in any such lot or in any garage on such a lot. Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests

V-18-13 Blue Hen Apartments at 101 Ipswich Ct. Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 8 Zoning Ordinance Article 9 §2 dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. Specifically, the Board must determine: 2.1 Variance. The board shall have the authority to authorize variances from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not contrary to public interest where the board determines that a literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant. In granting variances, the board shall determine that the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. 2.11 Area Variance. A variance shall be considered an area variance if it relates to bulk standards, signage regulations, and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that address lot layout, buffers, and dimensions. In considering a request for an area variance, the board shall evaluate the following criteria and document them in their findings of fact: (a) the nature of the zone in which the property lies; (b) the character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; (c) whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; and (d) whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Review of Application As part of the application, the applicant was asked to summarize how the requested variance relates to the above criteria. The applicant’s responses are provided below along with a Staff assessment of the application in accordance with the required criteria. The applicant’s responses are also provided in Exhibit B. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Response: “The property is in the RG-2, General Residence zone, which allows a mix of commercial and residential uses.” Staff Response: Staff notes that the RG-2 (General Residence) zone allows for certain agricultural uses and public buildings, as well as a variety of residential uses including one-family- residences, multiple dwellings, and Garden Apartments. Garden Apartments are considered a type of multiple dwelling. In the RG-2 zone commercial uses are slightly limited in scope, being only conditionally allowed after a review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Responses:

V-18-13 Blue Hen Apartments at 101 Ipswich Ct. Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 8 “The adjoining property on which the side of the non-conformity exists is zoned IO, Institutional/Office, and is used as a recreational field. There is landscaping between the building and Blue Hen Mall Road, negating the appearance of the non-conformity. The other use near the project is the Schoolview subdivision that is zoned R-8. The rear of the residential houses face the building and there is a large landscaped buffer and wood fence between the properties.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with the applicant’s description and notes that their description pertains to the properties to the northwest and northeast of the site in question, which are the properties nearest to the apartment building subject to this variance request. The apartment building is adjacent to Blue Hen Boulevard on its north and Haslet Street (the entrance drive to the complex) on the east. To the northwest is East Dover Elementary School with its recreational fields being closest to the apartment building in question. To the northeast, across the apartment complex entrance drive (Haslet Street) are a series of single family residences zoned R-8 (One-family Residence Zone). These homes are part of the Schoolview subdivision. The rear yards of these homes are landscaped and there is a wooden fence largely blocking the view of the subject site from the houses. The properties to the southwest of the apartment complex are zoned SC-2 (Shopping Center Development zone) and contain a Daycare building and The Blue Hen Corporate Center with the various offices and facilities. Staff further notes that areas to the southeast are zoned IPM (Industrial Park and Manufacturing Zone); this is where the newly built headquarters of Chesapeake Utilities is located. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Response: “There would not be any effect on the adjoining property. There is landscaping between the building and the Blue Hen Mall Road which creates a uniform setting. The nonconformity is 0.20’ (2½”) which is not noticeable given the layout of the site and the landscaping. The land directly adjoining the building is a recreational field, so no neighbors are affected by granting the variance.” Staff Response: Planning Staff agrees with the assessment of the applicant in that the part of the site where the apartment building in question is located, sits across from the recreational fields of a neighboring school. The area between the apartment building and the adjacent road, Blue Hen Boulevard, is landscaped. As the variance is relatively minor in scale, no neighboring properties would be seriously affected if the variance were approved. 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.

V-18-13 Blue Hen Apartments at 101 Ipswich Ct. Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 8 Applicant Response: “The hardship was caused by the existing parking area which affected the original layout of the apartment complex. The corner of the building would need to be removed and reconstructed 0.20’ (2½”) closer to the site which would be an economic hardship on the owners of the property.” Staff Response: Staff notes that the Applicant sought to build the apartment building as close to the lot line on Blue Hen Boulevard as possible, so as to ensure that the building was at least 15 feet from the parking lot as required in Zoning Ordinance Article 6 §5.3. They also note that the only reason they encroached into the 30 ft setback was an oversight. They put the foundations where required by Code but accidentally did not account for the exterior wall cladding, which would slightly overhang the foundation by 2.5 inches. The applicant has stated that, were the variance not to be approved, they would incur an economic hardship as they would not be able to utilize the nearly completed apartment building and would have to partly demolish the part (northern wall) of the structure and reconstruct so as to be compliant with the 30-foot front yard setback. Planning Staff would agree with this being an unnecessary hardship. Variance Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow decreasing the minimum front yard setback for a multiple-dwelling unit structure in the RG-2 zone to 29 feet and 9.5 inches, as pertaining specifically to Building 24 (Addressed as 101 Ipswich Court). Staff recommends approval for reasons as follows: • The decrease in minimum setback requirements is not significant enough to pose any detrimental affect on the neighboring properties. The current minimum allowed front yard setback for a multiple dwelling unit building in the RG-2 zone is 30 ft. and the applicant is proposing reducing this minimum for just one of their apartment buildings to only 29 ft. 9.5 inches. This is a total reduction of only 2.5 inches. The applicant has stated that they were built so close to the lot line for the purpose keeping the required minimum of 15 ft. away from the parking lot on the other side of the building. While the apartment building foundations were placed at the 30 ft. minimum setback, once the exterior wall cladding materials were placed, the structure ultimately was 29 feet 9.5 inches from the lot line. It was error made in calculating for the siding and trim that were added at later stages of wall construction that created the non-conformity. • To the northwest of the subject Apartment Building is the recreational field for East Dover Elementary School. The apartment building is screened from the adjacent road and school property by landscaping. To the northeast are single family-dwellings which are further screened from the site by a wooden fence and landscaping. These site elements, together with the relatively small scale of the variance, minimize any impacts that neighboring properties may incur were the variance to be granted.

V-18-13 Blue Hen Apartments at 101 Ipswich Ct. Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 8 • As the building is nearly completed, Staff believes it would be an unnecessary hardship for the applicant to not have this variance request approved. Advisory Comments to the Applicant • Approval of a variance does not constitute a Building Permit. A Building Permit must be received from the City of Dover prior to the start of any construction work. In this case, documentation of the action on the variance would need to be added to the Building Permit already issued for this apartment building and its compliance evaluated as part of the Final Inspections for the building.

V-18-13 Blue Hen Apartments at 101 Ipswich Ct. Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Exhibit Map 1 (Staff) B Criteria Responses (Applicant) 2 C Site Plan identifying the apartment building 1 (36” x 24”) subject of Variance request (Applicant) D Series of photos showing the garages which are the 5 subject of this application

City of Dover Exhibit A Application No.: V-18-13 Department of Planning & Inspections ROS RG-3 RG-3 Little Creek Rd C-1 C-1A R-8 IO R-8 l Ct lvd Bar nB He Ot e D Blu is CPO C r vy Le C-3 L o n g Isla C t er ou rt Ln owl Cr F d Ct Ct f rt a n aw n be rto sle R-8 Ro be ord Ha Ki t Av e m tS Av e Site RG-2 K ea rs R-8 t t AS SC-2 eC y ne Ct m ag M Plu Blu e nM He all C-4 yR Ba SC- ec t o 2 Hwy 1 r d on IPM n n nC yL State ir e rg Ru C En ion eo at n p ort IO nc ns h Tra Pu C-4 vd Bl er ov St Title: Lands of Blue Hen Apartments LLC Address: 101 Ipswich Ct, Legend Parcel ID: ED-05-077.00-01-01.00-000 Subject Property Zoning: RG-2 (General Residence Zone) Owner: Blue Hen Apartments LLC Dover Parcels Date: 12/11/2018 Zoning 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Dover Boundary

November 15, 2018 Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams Mr. Eddie Diaz City of Dover Department of Planning P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 RE: BLUE HEN APARTMENTS – BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Dear Dawn/Eddie: We would like to make an application for an area variance request for the above referenced project. We are requesting a variance from Article 4, Section 4.3 of the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance which requires a setback for all structures. Building 24 was constructed over the setback line with the minimum setback being 29.8’ for a variance of 0.20’. Building 24 was constructed on an undeveloped portion of the original Blue Hen Apartments as an infill development. The building was pushed to the front yard setback line due to meeting the requirement for Article 6, Section 5.3 that required 15’ spacing from the parking lot to the building windows. We could not move the existing parking therefore to maintain the required spacing we shifted the building toward the setback line. The building in question have a foundation that was placed on the 30’ setback line. Unfortunately, the vinyl siding and corner trim extend beyond the foundation, creating the non-conformity. The maximum non-conformity is a 0.20’ encroachment into the setback. The Area Variance shall be evaluated on the following criteria: 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies: The property is in the RG-2, General Residence zone, which allows a mix of commercial and residential uses. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein: The adjoining property on which side the non-conformity exists is zoned IO, Institutional/Office, and is used as a recreational field. There is landscaping between the building and Blue Hen Mall Road, negating the appearance of the non-conformity. The other use near the project is the Schoolview subdivision that is zoned R-8. The rear of the residential houses face the building and there is a large landscaped buffer and wood fence between the properties.

3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect the neighboring properties and uses: There would not be any effect on the adjoining property. There is landscaping between the building and Blue Hen Mall Road which creates a uniform setting. The non-conformity is 0.20’ (2½“) which is not noticeable given the layout of the site and the landscaping. The land directly adjoining the building is a recreational field so no neighbors are affected by granting the variance. 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 provision of the zoning ordinance: The hardship was caused by the existing parking area which affected the original layout of the apartment complex. The corner of the building would need to be removed and reconstructed 0.20’ (2½“) closer to the site which would be an economic hardship on the owners of the property. We appreciate your consideration in this variance request. Please review this information and call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, LARSON ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. Douglas J. Liberman Vice President

HASLET STREET 24 25 (PRIVATE R.O.W. WIDTH BLUE HEN BLVD. IPSWICH COURT LONG ISLAND EXISTING EXISTING 3 STORY VARIES) 3 STORY APARTMENT APARTMENT COURT BUILDING BUILDING KIMBERTON COURT PLUMAGE COURT ZONED: RG-2 ZONED: SC-2 ZONED: RG-2 LONG ISLAND KIMBERTON COURT KEARSNEY COURT ZONED: SC-2 CT. 30 3 STORY BUILDING 6 APT. UNITS EXETER COURT 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 35 EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING 3 STORY 3 STORY 3 STORY 3 STORY 3 STORY 3 STORY 34 3 STORY EXISTING 3 STORY APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT 3 STORY BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING APARTMENT BUILDING SHREWSBURY COURT SHREWSBURY COURT SHREWSBURY COURT 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ZONED: RG-2 ZONED: SC-2 28 83 54 30 42 40 56 30 42 40 56 7 11 14 16 18 22 56 21 56 8 56 55 GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 60 ft. DATA COLUMN SHEET NO. :1 OF 1 CADD FILE:BOAPlan-Bldg-24_BHA SITE BLUE HEN APARTMENTS - PHASE 2 VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=2000' · Notice: These drawings and design are the exclusive property of Larson Engineering Group, Inc., and shall not be used, altered or copied without written permission.