paperless packet

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 9:00 AM City Hall, Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 23, 2019 Meeting COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. Reminder: The next Board of Adjustment regular meeting is scheduled for April 17, 2019 at 9:00am in the City Council Chambers. NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-19-01 545 North DuPont Highway. Carla Menard and Ken Sisk have requested a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 pertaining to permitted signs. Specifically, the applicants seek to permit one (1) additional wall sign over the maximum two (2) wall signs allowed for a building with a single street frontage. The property is located on the east side of North DuPont Highway north of Townsend Boulevard. It is 0.86 acres +/- in size and is currently occupied by a Panera Bread Restaurant. Subject property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). Tax Parcel: ED-05- 068.09-01-34.01-000. The owner of record is Dover DE Retail, LLC C/O Lemek Slower Lower LLC. A substantially similar variance was reviewed by the Board of Adjustment on November 15, 2017 and received partial approval. A requested revision to the partially approved variance was subsequently reviewed by the Board on December 20, 2017 and was denied. Both the approval and the denial have expired without the approved sign being installed. Applicant #V-19-02 1160 South DuPont Highway and 59 Roosevelt Avenue. Richard W. Arndt and Patricia S. Arndt have requested variances from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.15 pertaining to the bulk standards of the C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). Specifically, the applicants seek to decrease the minimum required lot depth of 1160 South DuPont Highway from 150 feet to 144 feet, and the minimum required lot width from 150 feet to 135 feet. For 59 Roosevelt Avenue, the applicants are requesting a decrease of the minimum required lot depth from 150 feet to 90 feet, a decrease of the minimum required lot width from 150 feet to 50 feet, and an increase in maximum lot coverage from 75% to 87%. The variances are being requested so that approximately 3,150 SF of land may be transferred from 59 Roosevelt Avenue to 1160 North DuPont Highway, and the Roosevelt Avenue property then sold. Subject properties are zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.17- 05-75.00-000 and ED-05-077.17-05-74.00-000. The owners of record for both properties are Richard W. Arndt and Patricia S. Arndt. Applicant #V-19-03 106 Willis Road. Howard Joseph has requested two variances from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 § 4.3 pertaining to the bulk standards of the RG-2 (General Residence) Zone. Specifically, the applicant seeks to subdivide the property into two duplex lots each with a lot area of 3,750 SF, which is less than the minimum 5,000 SF required under the zoning. The applicant also seeks to permit a 5-foot side yard on each lot, which is less than the minimum 10-foot wide side yard required under the zoning. The 0.17-acre vacant property is located on the west side of Willis Road, north of Division Street. Subject property is zoned RG-2 (General Residence Zone). Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.19-01-23.00-000. The owner of record is 1944 Builder LLC.

Board of Adjustment Agenda March 20, 2019 Page 2 of 2 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 January 23, 2019 A Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 9:00 A.M. with Chairman Sheth presiding. Members present were Chairman Sheth, Mr. Keller, Mr. Hufnal, and Colonel Ericson. Mr. Senato was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Diaz, Mr. Swierczek, Mr. Hugg, Mrs. Harvey, City Solicitor Mr. Rodriguez, Mrs. Savage-Purnell and Mrs. Melson-Williams. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hufnal moved to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded by Colonel Ericson. Mr. Keller mentioned that Application V-18-08 was heard and tabled on December 19, 2018 and should be noted on the agenda. Mr. Hufnal moved to approve the amendment of the agenda to include the notation that Application V-18-08 was heard and tabled on December 19, 2018. The motion was seconded by Colonel Ericson and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2018 Mr. Hufnal moved to approve the meeting minutes of December 19, 2018 with the necessary corrections. The motion was seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. 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 Old Business and one new (1) application on the agenda under New Business. Each Application file will be read, and the floor will be opened for questions of the applicant by the Board and for public testimony. If the Board needs to consult the City Solicitor, they will recess to discuss legal matters. If the applicant must leave, they can contact the Planning Office at 736-7196 to learn of the Board’s decision. A formal notice of the decision will be mailed to the applicants. Approved variances expire after one year if the approved project has not commenced. All public notice for the new applications on this agenda was completed in accordance with Code requirements. The meeting agenda was posted in accordance with Freedom of Information Act requirements. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Information from Planning Staff regarding elections and appointments for Board Leadership: Mr. Diaz stated that the Board asked Staff to clarify the procedures for electing and appointing the leadership of the Board including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and whether it was possible

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 to have a third member in charge of the meeting in case the Chairman and Vice-Chairman were absent on a given meeting day. Staff spent time consulting with the City Clerk’s office and reviewing the enabling legislation for Board of Adjustment in the Delaware State Code. Staff found that each Board member is directly appointed by the Mayor. The Mayor also appoints the Chairman as Chairman so there is no election of the Chairman by the Board members. However, there is nothing in the enabling legislation that officially sets up a Vice Chairman position. The Board members do have the option of electing a Vice Chairman, if they so choose. The Board members also have the option of electing a third member to lead the meeting in the absence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, if they so choose. Finally, the members of the Board are free to resign from the Board of Adjustment at any time if they so choose with a letter to the Mayor stating their resignation. The Mayor does not technically have the authority to turn down a letter of resignation. Mr. Diaz asked if there were any questions. Chairman Sheth mentioned they would discuss the above information after the two applications have been heard. 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 minimum rear yard setback requirement for the R-8 zone is 30 ft, and the applicant proposes to reduce the setback to 28 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. This application was originally submitted for the November 21, 2018 meeting of the Board of Adjustment with a requested rear yard setback of 26.4 ft. The applicant requested in writing on January 7, 2019 that the withdrawal they submitted on January 2, 2019 be disregarded and the case be heard. 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 January 13, 2019. The public was notified in accordance with regulations. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest and there was none. Mr. Diaz gave a summary presentation of the revised Variance Application Request. This application was heard and tabled on December 19, 2018. Mr. Hufnal commented regarding the Memorandum noting the information listed under background for the requested revision needs a correction in the third paragraph from 2 inches to 2 feet. Mr. Keller moved to remove the tabled Application V-18-08 from the floor. The motion was seconded by Colonel Ericson unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. 2

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 Representative: Mr. Gregory Scott, President of Scott Engineering Inc. Mr. Scott was sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Scott testified that he would be representing the applicants who were not able to be present today due to a date change of the meeting. Working with the Architect, they felt that going down to the 12 feet that this would restrict them too much and it was just not working out to give the applicant the square footage that they needed. They felt that the Board seemed willing to consider a lesser variance. They felt that they could work with a reduction down to 2-foot or 28 foot for the rear setback. One of the inherent issues with this particular lot as mentioned earlier is that it is a corner lot. If you take the typical lot and look at the Record Plan for the subdivision around the culdesac you will see that the properties around that culdesac are much wider than this particular corner lot which gives the ability for people to build on the side of their houses. The side yard setbacks are 10 feet for all the Lots in the subdivision and if you were to take 10 feet off on each side you would be losing 20 feet. In this particular case, you are taking 10 foot on one side and 25 feet on the other side for a total of 35 feet. If you look at the Lots across the street (Mayfair Drive) they are 70-foot-wide lots and if you take 10 feet off each side, you would be left with 50-foot building on the open width. In this particular case Lot 82, you are going to lose 35 feet and now you are down to 47 feet. He mentioned this to show that this Lot is difficult, and it does not allow for any addition on the sides of the house that the other Lots would perhaps have. They are restricted to going to the rear yard to do any addition. They are trying to get an addition onto the property that is beneficial and useful for them moving forward for their business and their personal family life. The applicant is coming back to the Board asking for a reduction of 2 feet in the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 28 feet. Chairman Sheth asked them about not having the three sides for addition, but only having two sides. Mr. Scott replied that there is only one side that they can put an addition, which is the rear of the house; there is no space available. The way the house is situated now if you were to have 10 feet on the street side instead of a 25 foot setback you would pick up 15 feet and they would certainly do the addition on that side of the house. Because of the street double frontage, it does not allow them to make the addition on the side of the house. Chairman Sheth mentioned he had a discussion with Mr. Hugg and others to research how many cases have there been in the last 10 years similar to this one and if an amendment to the Ordinance could be made to reduce the footage from 30 feet to 25 feet. He wanted to know how it was derived to have it at 30 feet. Mr. Hugg replied that it is a very small number and is probably not what he would consider sufficient to address changing the Ordinance and he thinks this mechanism (variances) is in place to accommodate those unusual or incidental kinds of situations. If it were a common place issue, then Staff would come back with a recommendation to the Planning Commission to amend the text. Chairman Sheth mentioned that upon his discussion with Mr. Rodriguez, this is the first application with this type of issue in a culdesac that has requested a variance. Mr. Keller mentioned that he seemed to recall that given the minutes of the December 19, 2018 3

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 Meeting he thinks it was stated that while comments were made about a number of additions within the Mayfair II subdivision made over the years that there is no evidence presented at that time at least that any of those were by virtue of variances having been granted to accommodate those improvements. Mr. Keller asked if this was correct? Chairman Sheth replied that there was a different case because the person did not obtain a Building Permit and built without permission. Mr. Keller asked if that was the one that resulted in rehearing and then was a subject of demolition of that improvement. Chairman Sheth replied that he was a member at that time, but he recalls that it was a building constructed without a City Permit. Nothing was approved by the City and perhaps the building is still there because they could not secure the loan. During the title search, they found that the addition of the bedroom did not have a Permit. Colonel Ericson mentioned that the question that comes to his mind is what the Zoning Code was the addition was constructed. Did they have a 30-foot setback and was there a problem or did it change later? Chairman Sheth replied that whatever the case was they wanted approval in order to secure the loan, but it was a violation of the City Code and it was not for the City to decide but City Council. Colonel Ericson mentioned that upon review of the minutes and Mr. Rodriguez comments that “the Board has never granted a variance for any development that has been plotted in accordance with the Zoning Code. It opens a precedent for all developments to ask for the same thing for property owners to do this.” Colonel Ericson mentioned that we could open up the box and make things much worse. He asked once you approve it, how do you turn it down for future applications? Chairman Sheth replied that he asked Mr. Rodriguez what should be done in this case and if he had any suggestions. Mr. Rodriguez replied that in the past, there were a couple of cases that were de minimis. There was a garage built in violation of the Zoning Code that was granted. Based upon the testimony from Mr. Scott, he thinks this application is probably a de minimis grant that the Board could do if they decided to do that. The lot depth is also a factor. It was also stated that this is a corner lot with two roads one on each side. He thinks that this is a different situation. Colonel Ericson asked if this application was unique? Mr. Rodriguez replied yes, correct. Colonel Ericson mentioned that he also had a question that goes back to the uses for the room (guest room for sleeping, office space, meeting room, play room and family guests). He mentioned that he has a sunroom in his home, and it is 1 foot wider than what is being requested for this application. He has always been amazed in the amount of space in his sunroom. He is sure all of these functions will not be done at the same time. He asked Mr. Scott to explain why the applicant could not live with a 12x16 room. Mr. Scott replied that Colonel Ericson was actually right that all of the uses may not be done at the same time, but he thinks the applicant is looking ahead with Mr. Pritchett’s age and health that at some point in time he may need to be on the first floor. The applicant is trying to plan ahead and where their life is leading them. Sure 12 foot is a reasonable size, but it does not fit the needs of the applicant to have additional space once placing items in the room. Those things may occur along the way or in the future years, but he was not sure. He was certain that they may utilize it for a meeting from time to time with their 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 permitted business that they have, for grandchildren playing, and guests. The applicant did not feel that the 12-foot depth was going to give them what they needed square foot wise. Colonel Ericson mentioned that his room was a 13x16 and have been able to accommodate up to 10 persons for a cocktail party with plenty of room including seating. He did not see where the Board has reached a point where there is an Exceptional Practical Difficulty for office space that is upstairs. Colonel Ericson asked if the office was going to be moved downstairs. Mr. Scott replied that he could not answer that question. He did not know exactly what the plans were and in what point of time this would be done, but he thinks that it is the applicant’s intention to have the office downstairs. Colonel Ericson asked if it was used as a playroom, how many grandchildren were anticipated? Chairman Sheth replied that at the last meeting there was an age difference between the husband and wife and some other things. Mr. Senato was present at the last meeting, but he is absent today. Colonel Ericson mentioned that 12x16 is a fairly large room and certainly large enough for a bedroom and he does not see the Exceptional Practical Difficulty. Mr. Keller mentioned that he made an expression of very much the same things. There was a photograph in the exhibits and a notation in the file by Mrs. Pritchett that the existing family room is a 16x16. The photo looks out to the rear yard and if an additional room was put on at 12 feet and fully in compliance with the building setbacks, etc. would it create a 28-foot x 16-foot room. Mr. Scott replied no, it would still be contiguous, but it would still have a wall in between those rooms. Mr. Keller asked if it would be double slider doors. Mr. Scott replied yes. Mr. Keller mentioned that the square footage size with a double slider seemed to be somewhat of an extraordinarily large playroom, book storage, and occasional visitors’ room. He asked if the corner lot was laid out in accordance with the Zoning and building restrictions lines that are laid out on the Record Plan. For the side on Mayberry Lane, the house is sits 29 ½ feet from the property line so there is room for expansion of an additional 4 ½ feet. He was thinking again that the applicant could have a 12 ½ x 20 foot on the same side where the room could be extended to the shed. Mr. Keller stated that this leads into his basic point that he has not yet been sold on the matter of Exceptional Practical Difficulty which would preclude the owner from otherwise making normal improvements. He would think a 16x20, 12x20, or 12x16 room addition could certainly be deemed to be a normal improvement. He has a 12x16 foot den in his home which is a pretty sizeable room that accommodates a lot of activities and functions, etc. As spelled out by Mrs. Pritchett and as recorded in the December 19, 2019 Meeting Minutes that a number of the proposed possible functions entail a number, in his estimation, of personal desires. Quite frankly, for the 16x16 he did not see the evidence presented that it has a stronger necessity to necessarily be consider for the applicant’s request. Colonel Ericson asked if the room would have heating and cooling. Mr. Scott replied yes. 5

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 Colonel Ericson asked if there would be windows all around like most Florida rooms. Mr. Scott replied yes, to the extent that the Code would allow. They would have to consider the brace walls that is required by the Building Code. They plan to have as many windows and open space that is allowed. Mr. Scott mentioned that the builder was present because he was not sure of the specifics of the windows, etc. but he was sure window treatment, can be installed that can resolve any concerns. He stated that he has a 25x25 sunroom and there are times it is still not enough room. He stated that he could not discredit the applicant’s needs or requirements for the playroom or husband using the room as a bedroom, business, furniture, etc. They felt that with what they have and what they need this is what’s being proposed. Whether it is an Exceptional Practical Difficulty or not, he could not say. To the applicant, they feel that it is an Exceptional Practical Difficulty. What the applicant is asking for is very minimal and as previously mentioned this is a very unique lot. There are not that many corner lots that have restrictions as this one does that someone could come back in and say that this was done for a certain person. If it does not meet the criteria, it doesn’t meet the criteria. Mr. Hufnal mentioned the notation regarding a letter sent in on January 2, 2019 withdrawing the application and then on January 7, 2019 they changed their mind regarding the withdraw. He asked what the reason for the change was. Mr. Scott replied that it was initially withdrawn because Mrs. Pritchett was frustrated and disgusted about the entire process and just wanted to forget about it after the Board of Adjustment meeting. After meeting with the Architect and looking at it, what she felt it was kind of left on the table that the Board may consider something less than that. He suggested that they did not have anything to lose to go back before the Board and ask; maybe we will get something. It may work out that you can get something close to what you want. Therefore, we asked that it be put back on the agenda after we spoke with the Pritchetts. Mr. Hufnal stated that the applicant did listen to some of the Board’s suggestions and made a request that was less than what they proposed before. In fact, he took calculations of that and their first submission was 12% of that back line and then with the revisions it came down to 6.6%; so they did make a concession from the original. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Scott if he conducted a title search for this property. Mr. Scott replied no. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Scott if he had seen or reviewed the deed for the property. Mr. Scott replied that he had, there were no deed restrictions noted. This is a standard note that is put on surveys that are performed for coverage so that they are aware that they have not done a title search. If there are easements or restrictions that are noted on the Record Plan or the Deed, then it will be noted on the Plan, but they did not find any. Mr. Keller asked by virtue of what was just stated if Mr. Scott had reviewed Mayfair II Subdivision Record Plan. Mr. Scott replied yes. Mr. Keller asked in the absence of Mrs. Pritchett, if Mr. Scott was aware of the extent of the business operation within the dwelling. Mr. Scott replied no, possibly Mr. Lamb would know 6

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 more about the business. Representative: Mr. Terry Lamb, Contractor, Lamb Construction. Mr. Terry Lamb was sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Lamb testified that he has worked in the Pritchett’s home a few times and they have a transportation company for hospital, school, etc. It is only office space to maintain records; people do not come there to work. Mr. Keller stated that it was previously mentioned that they had six (6) employees and he did not know how many vehicles and part of the stated purpose in the addition was to accommodate meetings with their six (6) employees. Mr. Lamb replied he heard the same things. The employees often take the vehicles with them. There are not six (6) vehicles at the Site. Mr. Keller mentioned that in the Exhibit presented there was a vehicle parked reading D&J Transportation LLC (Photo 3 on the left or north side of the house). He did not know how many vehicles or to the extent to which the business was conducted in that residence. This is what lead him into the questioning regarding the proposed uses as being what appears to be a more personal request for playroom, book storage, business meetings, etc. Chariman Sheth stated that the above question regarding the vehicles was presented to Mrs. Pritchett at the last meeting and she stated that there were not that many vehicles. Chairman Sheth asked Mr. Lamb if he had a City of Dover Business License. Mr. Lamb replied yes, absolutely. Colonel Ericson mentioned that he was not at the last meeting and he was still bothered by the precedent. If the members of the Board or Mr. Rodriguez would like to say something in this regard, he would greatly appreciate it for guidance. Because he could just see them taking this case every time; they had to visit this to where they would say we did this in the past why not now. There is not a clear cut in his mind for an Exceptional Practical Difficulty. As much as we would like to give it to them and like for them to have it, but the Board tends to stay with the Code as written unless you prove strong reasons why it should be or that the property is so unique that it justifies violating the Code. He still did not feel comfortable. Chairman Sheth stated that he agreed with Colonel Ericson because he was not present at the last meeting and he would like to know more. Mr. Hugg mentioned that Colonel Ericson clearly raised a point. Any action by this Board sets a precedent because you are charged with the responsibility for interpreting unique situations that may or may not involve hardships or area issues or something that doesn’t specifically meet the requirements of the Code otherwise there would be no reason for the Board of Adjustment to be in existence. Whatever you decide on any case potentially has the possibility that someone would say well you made this decision in this particular case. The counter to that is that as part of your consideration you are charged with making very specific findings. It is not “I would like to give 7

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 it to them or it sounds like a great idea,” you have a certain set of tests that has to be followed and while there may be a precedent each case that comes before the Board is really going to be unique. It may have some precedential value, but it does not necessarily determine that every case is exactly identical to this one. If it was it would perhaps be difficult to say no. It has already been determined that there have essentially been no cases like this that have come before the Board in recent history. He thinks the concern about something being a precedent, while he agreed it is important, he did not think it necessarily rises to the level of extreme concern. Chairman Sheth stated that after the last meeting he asked Staff about any previous cases, history or incidents and not much was found. He then asked City Solicitor and he gave his opinion. He also asked the question regarding amending the Ordinance. As previously mentioned by Mr. Hugg, there are not enough cases for an amendment. Chairman Sheth also mentioned the age difference between the couple and the hardship. Therefore, the application was tabled at the last meeting so that they could think about it. Colonel Ericson asked City Solicitor Rodriguez if he recommended that he recuse himself from voting since he did not attend the meeting on December 19, 2019. City Solicitor Rodriguez replied that Colonel Ericson had read the complete minutes and they would tell you everything that he needed to know; and he heard the testimony today given by Mr. Scott. City Solicitor Rodriguez did not think that it was necessary for Colonel Ericson to recuse himself. Mr. Keller commented that he agreed with Mr. Hugg’s statements regarding precedent setting actions by the Board. He agreed that in essence the only reason the Board exists is to consider variations from accepted Planning and Zoning matters. At the same time each and every case is different. The Board is guided by the matters from a court case quick check which establishes criteria which the Board shall give some evaluation too in all cases. It does not mandate that there is absolute adherence to each one of those four (4) conditions necessarily, but it does point out the major considerations which the Board must consider in evaluating each and every case. Mr. Keller stated that he was yet to be persuaded from his position that there is not an Exceptional Practical Difficulty. He is still of the opinion that the request is driven by personal matters regarding the applicant’s proposed possible uses, everything from business meetings to children playing and storing books in the new room. The matter regarding Exceptional Practical Difficulty is somewhat qualified by the matter that in the Board’s evaluation as to whether or not the applicant would be denied otherwise building normal improvements to the property if such an application was denied. In closely looking at Mr. Scott’s Plan Sheet that was prepared, it seems that there were a couple of alternatives from a dimensional standpoint although he is not a registered engineer. There could very well be within the dimensions on the Plan space for a 12x20 or 12x16. In his estimation, those dimensions are normal improvements and fully within the setbacks and building restrictions qualifiers on the Record Plan. He is not finding a substantive enough rational for his affirmative vote for this application. Chairman Sheth asked Mr. Scott how many total square feet would be added with the 2 feet difference. Mr. Scott replied roughly 32 feet. Chairman Sheth asked how much it would cost to add 2 feet. Mr. Scott replied that it cost 8

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 roughly $100 per square foot, $100 x 32 = $3200, so roughly $3200. Mr. Hufnal commented that the unusual circumstances of this Development and hearing all the testimonies previously as well as today, the applicant did make a lot of concessions in coming back with this application. The applicant reduced the request almost in half. Although he could not see an Exceptional Practical Difficulty in the situation, he does understand the uniqueness and why the request was made because there is no other place to go with this addition if they were to make one. Even though their wishes are there, the Exceptional Practical Difficulty may not be in their favor. Mr. Keller moved to deny variance application V-18-08 as submitted based upon a complete review and previous re-review of the public hearing testimony by the applicant and professional witnesses associated with the proposed addition. He has not found it to be a case in his estimation that the applicant has adequately met the criteria for an Exceptional Practical Difficulty in this instance. He did not agree with the proposition that this expansion would improve and preserve the existing housing stock in the neighborhood. We are not developing the neighborhood, the Board had plaintiff attention with the applicant and the property. Also, the difficulties presented by the owner are not necessarily practical as opposed to wishful thinking and theoretical. They are more routine personal requests as opposed to “exceptional” ones. The motion was seconded by Colonel Ericson. Roll Call Vote Mr. Hufnal – no to the denial Colonel Ericson – yes to the denial Mr. Keller – yes to the denial Chairman Sheth – remained absent Mr. Senato – was absent Chairman Sheth stated variance request was denied. 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 65.4% of the lot area. The applicant also seeks to permit construction of accessory buildings totaling 38% of the side and rear yard areas, where the maximum allowed accessory building area for 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. This application was originally submitted for the December 19, 2018 meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Two of the requested variances have been reduced; the original requested maximum lot coverage was 76.7%, and the original requested maximum accessory building area for the side and rear yards was 56.1%. 9

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 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 January 13, 2019. The public was notified in accordance with regulations. Mr. Diaz 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. Mrs. Melson-Williams noted that the applicant just provided members and staff with a handout packet which looks to include a series of pages: a Site Plan sheet, several renderings of the proposed concept building and the accessory structures are also presented in a series of color renderings. Representative: Mr. Constantine F. Malmberg III, The Malmberg Firm LLC, Attorney at Law; Mr. David Miller, Owner. Mr. Malmberg stated that the property is fairly unique in the City of Dover not just because of the relatively small size of the property but more importantly the area. The area is kind of hemmed in and to the right is the Mobile Home Park and across and down the street are Apartments. The Lot to the immediate left is zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) and the Coastal Carwash is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and across the street is the Hertrich Car Dealership. Directly across the street from the proposed project is the Kent County Theater Guild or Patchwork Playhouse. The Theater seats 100 people. This all used to be single family residences years ago. This whole area is in transition and the question is what you do with a property like this that was single family residences and now it is a mix match of couple of single-family homes and two (2) small apartment buildings. There is currently ten (10) dwelling units within the four (4) buildings on these three (3) properties. They have also had a reputation as fostering a drug trade and some other crimes in the area. It is an area that needs some significant investments in the City of Dover. Mr. Miller would like to invest in this area and would like to make significant improvements to this project in area that needs it. This is part of the backdrop that the analysis should look to when deciding whether or not there is an Exceptional Practical Difficulty. According to the Kwik check case, basically its balancing between the harm of the neighbors and the harm or difficulty to the applicant in making use of the property. As mentioned by Mr. Diaz, this property went through a Rezoning by City Council late last year. The applicant was very forthright that the reason for the RG-2 (General Residence Zone) was because that zoning permits apartments. Neighbors showed up and were supportive of the application. He thinks for the reason that he just articulated which are some of the negatives that are currently in the neighborhood and the added significant improvement to the neighborhood. As he referred to the handout, he mentioned that there was an architectural rendering from the front of the building and the ground level parking is under the building. He did not know why there is a Code provision that says you have to be 15 feet away from a residential structure. He did not recall the issue coming up when the underground parking was done at the Wesley College dorms which has a significant number of spaces under a significantly more dense residential dwellings. There is underground parking at the new Courthouse although it is not residential. There is underground parking at the AG Office on Water Street. It is just a practical matter and necessity for a more urban setting where we are becoming 10

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 and should be. That picture as well as the other one depicts the covered parking. The covered parking drives a request from a 30 to 38 percent lot coverage. The City considers these like garages and perhaps that is the way it should be categorized. From his client’s perspective, what is driving this decision is the desire to afford the apartment dwellers amenities that are not usually available and to make it a more competitive apartment. They think they new amenities will be nicer and retain the renters longer. More stable and better apartments are good for the neighborhood altogether. This is an area that needs significant investments. Mr. Miller is willing to invest $2 million in the project to revitalize the area. The neighbors are supportive of the efforts. Again, it will be good for the neighborhood in a positive way and not a negative way. He was glad to do the recommended suggestion by Mr. Diaz regarding the covered parking. With the covered parking, the backs of the buildings face the neighboring properties which is Commercial and the Mobile Home Park. But still they are amendable to do plantings to break up the look of the wall all around to make it prettier. We think that this is a quantum benefit to the area. Again, there are no real negatives. It is a very unique area that requires a unique and thoughtful idea on what to do in transitioning into a more up-to-date use. The outside constraints drive a few of the requests. The requests for the lot coverage, which is the major one, is less than a 10% variance. It is 5.4 feet out of the 60% allotment. The other ones are fairly de minimis; he would suggest. Mr. Keller asked if there were any written submissions from the neighboring properties as opposed to directly by the applicant. Mr. Diaz replied no, the office did not receive any letters directly from neighboring properties stating that they were in support or against. Mr. Keller stated to Mr. Malmberg that he asked the question because he wanted to know if some neighboring properties were in support. Mr. Malmberg replied that at the Rezoning hearing, it was his understanding which was in Mr. Hare’s District that he was supportive of the application. Several of the neighbors talked to Mr. Hare and likewise expressed their support. Again, this is third hand information from others. There have been no known opposition and there were supportive persons in the neighborhood. Mr. Keller asked if the additional planting would also be on the north of the garage area along Evergreen Drive. Mr. Malmberg replied yes, it would be the primary focus. He thinks that there are already plantings along the Mobile Home Park side, but he would supplement that. He would do anything to breakup the walls. You only need roughly 4-5-foot-tall plantings to make a nicer look. Colonel Ericson asked the square footage of apartments and what kind of clientele he is expecting. Mr. Malmberg replied that these are market rate apartments and the total square foot of the building is something he would need to ask the owner Mr. Miller. Mr. David Miller was sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Miller testified that the apartments will be two (2) bedrooms and (2) bathroom units. The gross square footage is roughly 1150 SF and each unit will be somewhere around 900 SF. 11

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 Mr. Hufnal asked if each apartment were allowed a certain amount of parking spaces. Mr. Miller replied that per Code they are allotted 2.25 covered and uncovered. He is trying to accomplish that each tenant has two (2) covered parking spaces in a garage-type facility. Mr. Keller mentioned that he wanted to lend a word of caution that the garages as displayed on the Engineering Plan, particularly those to the left and right-hand side of the proposed apartment building or close to the property lines. There were instances where the footers were laid out, they were laid out in conformance with the required setbacks; however, the subsequent addition of siding, whether it be vinyl siding or brick facing, obligated some builders to legally come back in to request variances of additional inches. He hopes that when the layout is provided that it takes in to account whatever is ultimately going to be put on the siding of the structures. He is sure it will be. Mr. Malmberg replied that the Mr. Diener, the Engineer was present, and you just put him on notice, so he was sure that he would account for the thickness of the siding. Mr. Malmberg mentioned that they understand the concern and they will make sure it is addressed so that they are not back before the Board of Adjustment asking for a 1 ½ inch side yard setback variance. Mr. Malmberg mentioned that this application still needs to go through the Site Plan process. It is more of a very detailed concept design at the current time. Mr. Keller mentioned that once again on two or three separate occasions there were extremely minor requests for variances that seemed to be simply an oversight in the layout. Mr. Malmberg mentioned that he would suggest that as the County does that a request for a variance within 10% should be something that could be administratively handled so you are not sitting around wasting your time on a 2-inch request. Mr. Keller replied that this has not happened yet. Colonel Ericson asked about the parking under the building and if the requirements are being met. Mr. Malmberg replied that he was not sure he understood the question. The answer is no. The drives are way wider than the fire lanes that are 24 feet. They agree with the requirements. Colonel Ericson asked about the negative effects if the back of the garage could have landscaping or some type of screening to block the back of the garage; do you propose that at all? Mr. Malmberg replied no they did not, they will do landscaping. He did not think that fencing would add anything, but landscaping would. Colonel Ericson asked about Staff recommendations and asked if they could be explained. Mr. Diaz replied that Staff normally issues recommendations when they believe further information could come up during the hearing that could sway a recommendation in one way or another. In this case, we have cited the balancing test that the applicant has also explained. We believe that the applicant faces an Exceptional Practical Difficulty in terms of potentially not being able to 12

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 build their project if they need to further reduce the number of units on site in order to meet the Code. We do not have the numbers on that so to speak. Mr. Keller mentioned that it is extremely rare that they are truly provided dollar figures as to what makes a project viable or not and a point of no return in that evaluation. He asked if Mr. Malmberg could generally state or discuss considerations made when evaluating as to whether he could proceed with a project viability. Mr. Malmberg replied that he has his own projects that he could probably answer to that. The original plan was for 21 units; the optimum which would be a nice return on the investment. There was discussion with Staff regarding something that would not hurt them, but still make sense. They came up with the 18 units and the significantly reduced request from 15.1% to a 5.4% variance request. They are at a level where it is a de minimis request. It is roughly a $2 million project in an area that sort of needs it. Mr. Keller noted to point out generally what transpires in the hearts and minds of builders and developers with regards to that as opposed to extending a backscreen porch or something on a property in these commercial instances. Mr. Hufnal commented that the revised plan over the original concept makes a lot of sense and is within the variance line of what can and cannot be accepted. He thinks it is a tremendous improvement for that area which has been quite negative for the past several years. He thinks with a mix of businesses and what is currently there, it makes a good improvement. Chairman Sheth opened the public hearing. 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. Colonel Ericson moved to approve variance application V-18-11 which has three parts: to exceed the RG-2 zone’s maximum lot coverage of 60% and allow lot coverage of 65.4; to allow accessory buildings to take up 38% of the side and rear yards, exceeding the typical limit of 30%, providing that they break up the sides of the building using landscaping and fences; and to allow parking within 15 feet of a wall belonging to a multi-family dwelling. This will be limited to any parking location partially underneath the building. This is also based upon the testimony given and the Staff Report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Keller. The motion unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Hufnal questioned whether the parking under the building was subject to the Building and Fire Marshal restrictions. Mr. Diaz replied that is correct. Information from Planning Staff regarding elections and appointments for Board leadership Chairman Sheth mentioned that at the current time Colonel Ericson was the Vice Chairman. He asked if there was any objection. There was none. 13

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 Mr. Keller asked about Mr. Diaz comments regarding the formal format for the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman. Mr. Diaz replied that the Mayor appoints a Board member as Chairman. For any other served leadership position, you would have an election. Mr. Keller was curious about the title source for that move. He thought he had read at some point in the State Statue that the Board elects from within its Chair and Vice Chair. He was not aware of a mayoral appointment of a Chair. Chairman Sheth mentioned that he spoke with Mayor Christiansen regarding the elections and having a third person in case the Chairman and Vice Chairman is absent. Mr. Rodriguez mentioned that the Chairman is appointed by the Mayor. Mr. Diaz mentioned that it was correct that the Chairman is appointed by the Mayor and it is also listed in the Statue. Mr. Keller asked if the Statue could be cited. Mr. Diaz replied no, not off the top of his head. Chairman Sheth stated that if they can have an election that does not raise a question in the future. Colonel Ericson mentioned that it would help if there was a third person in case of the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman. Chairman Sheth asked for suggestions. Mr. Keller moved to accept Mr. Hufnal as the Vice -Vice Chairman and the motion was seconded by Chairman Sheth. Mr. Hufnal mentioned that his term will expire this year. Mr. Hufnal accepted the interim position of Vice-Vice Chairman in the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman. Colonel Ericson suggested Mr. Keller if Mr. Hufnal was retiring this year. Role in this order • Chairman Sheth • Vice Chairman Ericson • Vice-Vice Chairman Hufnal • Vice-Vice Chairman Keller Mr. Diaz stated that the relevant Delaware Statue is Title 22, Chapter 3 and Sub-Chapter 2 for the Board of Adjustment and Section 3:22 Composition in terms of office. It states that members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by City Council including the Chairperson. 14

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2019 Chairman moved to accept that Colonel Ericson continue as Vice Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hufnal. The motion was unanimously carried 4-0. Vice Chairman Ericson moved to accept Mr. Hufnal as the third person as Vice Chairman in the absence of Chairman and Vice Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Keller. The motion was unanimously carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned by Mr. Keller and seconded by Mr. Hufnal at 10:43 A.M. Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 15

City of Dover Board of Adjustment March 20, 2019 V-19-01 Location: 545 North DuPont Highway Applicants: Ken Sisk c/o Lemek LLC Carla Menard c/o Mandeville Sign Kim Diehl c/o Kent Sign Co. Owner: Dover DE Retail, LLC c/o Lemek Slower Lower LLC Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.09-01-34.01-000 Application Date: February 15, 2019 Present Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) Present Use: Restaurant Reviewed By: Eddie Diaz Variance Type: Area Variance Variance Requested: To permit one (1) wall sign over the maximum two (2) wall signs permitted for properties with a single street frontage, for a total of three (3) wall signs

V-19-01 Panera Bread Signage, 545 North DuPont Highway Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 8 Project Description The property is the location of a Panera Bread restaurant, originally constructed under Site Plan S-16-23 and subdivided from the Capital Commons shopping center under Subdivision Plan SB- 17-02. There are two (2) existing wall signs on the restaurant building, and the restaurant also has a tenant panel on the Capital Commons shopping center’s existing pylon sign. The applicant proposes to install one (1) additional wall sign on the restaurant building. All of the existing signs have been installed in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, based on the property’s frontage on North DuPont Highway (an “Urban Principal Arterial” street). However, the one (1) new proposed wall sign is not permitted, because there is not a second street frontage for the restaurant that would permit additional wall signs. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Supplementary Sign Regulations given in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 in order to allow the additional wall sign. A substantially similar variance to this one was reviewed by the Board of Adjustment on November 15, 2017 (Application V-17-16). That application asked for two signs, including one sized 94.74 SF and one sized 35.67 SF. The Board at that time denied the 94.74 SF sign and approved the 35.67 SF one, which read “Panera Bread.” The application returned to the Board of Adjustment on December 20, 2017 seeking a revision of the approved sign from 35.67 SF to 47.27 SF; the extra square footage would have come from adding the words “drive thru” to the bottom of the sign. However, the Board denied an amendment to the variance that would allow the approved sign to be larger. A Sign Permit was issued for the 35.67 SF sign (#17-2206) but ultimately the sign was not installed. This application is considered “substantially similar” to the previous one because the 35.67 SF sign now requested by the applicant is identical to the one originally approved. The larger 47.27 SF version of the sign is not submitted for consideration at this time. Reapproval of the variance is needed to install the sign because it has been more than a year since the original variance was approved (the Board’s approval expired on November 30, 2018). The denial given by the Board was also more than a year ago. The sign and its proposed location on the building are shown in Exhibit D. Two (2) photos taken by the applicant showing the existing two (2) signs on the building are shown in Exhibit F. The two existing signs are on the south and west elevations of the building, while the proposed sign would be on the north elevation. Adjacent Land Uses This property is part of the Capital Commons Shopping Center (addressed as 545, 515, and 505 North DuPont Highway). The shopping center is zoned C-4. The main building of the shopping center is located to the east of the site and contains two retail establishments (Big Lots and Burlington). Southeast of the site across the center’s main parking lot is another lot which has been developed as a Longhorn Steakhouse restaurant (Site Plan S-17-13, also the subject of withdrawn variance application V-17-15). A pylon sign for the common use of all the establishments in the shopping center is located midway between the two restaurant sites. The shopping center overall is located at the intersection of North DuPont Highway and Townsend Boulevard; however, the Panera Bread site/parcel itself does not have a second street frontage.

V-19-01 Panera Bread Signage, 545 North DuPont Highway Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 8 Directly adjacent to the Panera site to the north is a Holiday Inn hotel. A sampling of the other businesses and institutions in the area include a loan center, an insurance agency, a tattoo parlor, a gas station, a children’s learning center, and a church. All of these properties are mostly zoned C-4, with a small amount zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). To the northeast of the site are one-family residences in the Towne Point subdivision, zoned R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone). 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 restaurant is considered a permitted, non-residential use not 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. North DuPont Highway is an “Urban Principal Arterial” as defined by Article 5 §4.3. The entire “Sign Table” from Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4.7 is presented in Exhibit B. The section pertaining to this project is highlighted at the bottom of the table. This section is what applies to “Nonresidential Uses in Nonresidential Districts” as shown in the vertical text on the left; and it shows the sign types, maximum number of signs, sign area, sign height, and minimum required setbacks and exclusion zones for signs on properties fronting on “Urban Principal Arterial” streets. For this property, two wall signs are permitted based on the property’s frontage on North DuPont Highway. The signs granted by North DuPont Highway have no specific maximum size, but are limited to being no more than 15% of the size of the facade they are on. The additional sign, if granted a variance, would have no size limitations specified in the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Adjustment in choosing to grant a variance may accept the sign as proposed or impose a different area limitation. Any future sign that replaces the sign permitted by variance would be limited in area to either the Board’s specification or the area of the approved sign, whichever is greater. To promote flexibility in signage designs, wall signs may be placed on any façade of the building. (See Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4.4(C)(5).) The table below compares what is permitted under Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §4.7 to the applicant’s existing and proposed signage:

V-19-01 Panera Bread Signage, 545 North DuPont Highway Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 8 Table 1 Allowed and Requested Signage, 545 North DuPont Highway Sign # Description Location Max size Max height % of Wall Area Existing "Panera Bread" south Permitted No max 15% 1 N/A lettering façade Requested 35.67 SF 2.2% Existing "Panera Bread west Permitted No max 15% 2 N/A Drive Thru" lettering façade Requested 47.27 SF 3.1% Proposed "Panera Bread" north Permitted not permitted N/A 3 N/A lettering façade Requested 35.67 SF 2.2% *Pylon sign tenant panel not included in the above table, as the regulations for pylon signs do not include regulations for individual panels. Expiration Provisions Zoning Ordinance Article 9 §3 gives the following rules when a variance was approved or denied more than a year ago: 3.3 Unless work is commenced and diligently prosecuted within one year of the date of the granting of a variance, such variance shall become null and void. 3.8 Whenever the board of adjustment denies an application for variance, such application for variance, or an application on the same property which is substantially similar, shall not be accepted for reconsideration by the board of adjustment sooner than one year from the date of denial. Variance V-17-16 was approved in November 2017, and its requested amendment was denied in December 2017. Even though the current variance is “substantially similar” to the one that came before, since it is now 2019 it may now be considered anew because of the above provisions. 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.

V-19-01 Panera Bread Signage, 545 North DuPont Highway Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 8 Review of Application As a part of the application, the applicant was asked to state how the requested variance relates to the above four criteria. The applicant’s responses are provided below, along with a staff assessment of the application in accordance with the required criteria. The applicant’s responses are also provided in Exhibit C. The responses have been rewritten from when they were originally submitted in 2017. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Response: “The property is zoned C-4 Highway Commercial which allows for two building signs not to exceed 15% of the wall area where each sign is placed. The code also allows for one pylon/monument sign not to exceed 100 square feet.” Staff Response: As explained in the “code citations” section above, the signage regulations on this property come from its position on an Urban Principal Arterial, rather than its C-4 Zoning. However, the regulations given by the applicant are correct. Wall signs for properties on Urban Principal Arterials are not given a specific size limit, only the requirement to stay under 15% of the wall area. Monument signs for properties on Urban Principal Arterials may be up to 100 SF. Pylon signs for the same may be up to 100 SF if set back at least 15 feet from the right-of-way, and up to 150 SF if set back at least 30 feet from the right-of-way. The C-4 zone permits a wide variety of businesses, including restaurants. The basic building and site typology used by the restaurant, i.e. a freestanding building housing a single eating establishment and surrounded by parking, is common along DuPont Highway. The existing signage is equivalent in character to other signs in the zone and along the highway, as is the proposed sign. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Response: “This site is an outparcel in front of a retail center. It is surrounded by commercial properties.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with the applicant regarding the commercial nature of the immediate area. The nature of the immediate area is also determined in large part by the highway environment. In front of the site, there are three (3) northbound lanes and three (3) southbound lanes of DuPont Highway. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Response:

V-19-01 Panera Bread Signage, 545 North DuPont Highway Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 8 “Removal of the restriction will not adversely affect the neighboring properties, as the request is to add a sign that is just over 2% of the allowable 15% of the building. Due to the location of the building and the size of the existing signs surrounding the property we feel this sign will have no adverse effects. There is another outparcel on the south end of the property that has four wall signs and a ground sign. This property was not required to request an area variance as it fronts two roads and therefore was allowed by code two signs per frontage. If the access road to the north of our property was a named street, we would be afforded the same.” Staff Response: When property owners seek to exceed the sign regulations, Staff concern is typically with whether the additional signage is excessive in nature, such that it may distract passing drivers or spark competition for larger signs from neighboring businesses. However, the size of the sign (35.67 SF) is small compared to most signs on DuPont Highway, being only about 4 SF larger than the maximum for local streets (32 SF). For this reason, Staff does not believe adding the sign would cause the building signage to be excessive. Permitting the sign is also unlikely to spark competition from neighboring businesses, because, as the applicant points out, the nearest other restaurant is already permitted by code more signage than the applicants are requesting by variance for their own restaurant. (See Exhibit G). The corner Longhorn Steakhouse restaurant represents the standard other businesses may try to attain, not the Panera Bread. 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: “Without the removal of the restriction all south bound traffic on Rt 13 would have limited or obscured visibility of the existing signs. They would not see the existing west elevation sign unless they looked to their left as they were driving past. The proposed sign on the north side of the building would allow all south bound traffic to identify the building. This hardship could have been addressed with a ground sign. However, the restrictions imposed by the code regarding setbacks and exclusion zones make that option unfeasible.” Staff Response: Staff does believe that having no building signage facing north, to be visible to southbound drivers, presents an impediment to operation of the business and possibly a hardship. There are a number of ways the applicant might have overcome this hardship. One would have been to design the site from the beginning so that there was room for a freestanding (ground) sign facing north. However, Staff concurs that given the code requirements for setbacks and exclusion zones, a ground sign is unfeasible due to the current design of the site (see Site Plan in Exhibit E). During Site Plan review, Staff did not advise the applicant that their design would not permit a monument or pylon, because it was thought the shopping center main pylon would be enough freestanding signage.

V-19-01 Panera Bread Signage, 545 North DuPont Highway Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 8 Another way to overcome the hardship would have been to install the sign currently on the west façade on the north façade instead. There may be an unstated reason signage is needed on the west façade. A third way would have been to design the restaurant’s tenant panel on the shopping center main pylon so as to be more visible to southbound drivers. At present this panel is not very visible from a distance; it may be more oriented to visibility from the parking lot. A final way would have been to establish a Unified Comprehensive Sign Plan for Capital Commons. Staff has presented this option to all involved applicants throughout the development of every property in the shopping center, but as yet none have taken it up, for unknown reasons. In all four of the above cases, the applicant may have to overcome an adverse existing condition to achieve a signage solution permitted by code, either by making alterations to the site, relocating/redesigning existing signs, or achieving a cooperation with the property owner and other tenants that might not be possible. To an extent these existing conditions are self-imposed, but only to an extent. The first two cases might have been overcome by better coordination with Planning Staff, while for the second two, the size of the tenant panel and the overall direction of a signage strategy for the shopping center are likely beyond the applicant’s control. Variance Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a variance to permit a 35.67 SF sign on the north face of the building, as shown in the applicant’s sign package, for the following reasons: • The size of this requested sign is not excessive and would be in character for the zone and the surrounding uses. • North-facing signage is necessary to advertise the presence of the restaurant to southbound drivers. At present, the only north-facing sign is the tenant panel on the pylon, which appears to be too small to be read effectively from the southbound lanes and is also located after you travel past the restaurant building. • There are significant obstacles to installing code-compliant north-facing signs. Advisory Comments to the Applicant • If granted, variances become null and void if work has not commenced within one (1) year of the date the variance was granted. At present there is no provision for extension. • A Sign Permit application must be filed for review prior to installation of the additional sign if the variance is approved.

V-19-01 Panera Bread Signage, 545 North DuPont Highway Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Exhibit Map 1 (Staff) B Sign Table from Zoning Ordinance Article 5 1 Section 4.7 (Staff) C Applicant Responses to Criteria 1 D North Façade Proposed Elevation (applicant) 1 E Site Plan (applicant) 1 F Photos of Existing Building and Signs (applicant) 1 G Photos of Longhorn Steakhouse signs at 505 1 North DuPont Highway (applicant) H Board of Adjustment meeting minutes of 2 November 15, 2017 I Board of Adjustment meeting minutes of 1 December 20, 2017

City of Dover Exhibit A Application No.: V-19-01 Department of Planning & Inspections Je ffe R-8 ric Blv d Dr a p e r D r C-4 R-20 IO R-8 Buck son r R-8 Dr Mi llerD C-1A R-8 C-4 Site pont Du C-4 Hw y R- t 8 Chath am vd C RG-3 d Bl en w ns To Ln n de ar G C-2A C-4 Ea s R-7 R-7 tA Dr ve w R-7 vie ke C-4 R-7 La Su n tDr se Title: Panera Bread Address: 545 North DuPont Highway Parcel ID: ED-05-068.09-01-34.01-000 Legend Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) Owner: Dover DE Retail Subject Property Date: 03/13/2019 Dover Parcels Zoning 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 125 250 500 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.

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Exhibit G

Exhibit H CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE DECISION Case No. V-17-16 Dover, Delaware Owner: Dover DE Retail, LLC Applicant: TLM Realty Corp. Date: November 15, 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS This property is located at 545 North DuPont Highway, lying on the east side of Rt. 13 north of Townsend Blvd., containing 0.86 acres ± zoned C-4 (HCZ) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The premises is occupied by Panera Bread Restaurant. The variance requested in is for two additional signs to be place upon the building in addition to the two signs presently existing on the wall of the building. Two wall signs are permitted since the property has a single street frontage. The pertinent article is Zoning Ordinance Article 5 Section 4.7. Tenant Panera Bread has a Tenant Panel on Capitol Commons Shopping Center on an existing pylon sign, which lists other properties in the center. North DuPont Highway is an Urban Principal Arterial Street. The restaurant is considered, as far as the sign regulations are concerned, as a non-residential use in a non-residential district. According to the sign regulations for this property two wall signs are permitted based upon the property's frontage on North DuPont Highway. Signs granted by North DuPont Highway have no specific maximum size but are limited to being no more than 15 percent of the size of the fa9ade thereon. The two additional signs requested both to be placed on the north side of the building would be a smaller wall sign, having an area of 35.67 square feet and a larger wall sign having an area of 94.74 square feet. For the two additional signs requested, if the Board grants a variance for both signs, there would be no size limitations specified in the Zoning Ordinance but the Board in choosing to grant a variance may accept the signs as proposed or impose a different area limitation. Any future signs that replace the two signs, if permitted by the variance, would be limited in area to either the Board's specification or the area of the accepted signs. DECISION In reaching it's decision, the Board considered the two requested signs separately. For the smaller sign to be located on the north face of the building, the Board granted the variance with a sign to be placed on the wall having an area of 35.67 square feet. The vote by the Board was three in favor of granting the variance (Chairman Sheth, Mr. Hufnal and Col. Ericson) voting against the granting of the variance were Mr. Keller and Mr. Senato. Regarding the second variance requested for the larger wall sign to be located on the north fa9ade of the building, the Board voted to deny this variance for the sign having an area of 94.74 square feet and the vote of the Board was not unanimous with Mr. Senato voting in favor of granting the variance but four Board members voted in favor of denying the variance who

Exhibit I CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE DECISION Case No. V-17-16 Dover, Delaware Applicant/Owner: Panera Bread Date: December 20, 2017 Applicant seeks an amendment to the decision of the Board rendered on Applicant's presentation before the Board on November 15, 2017 where the Board approved an additional wall sign having a maximum area of 35.67 square feet, to be located on the north face of the building. This was the application orally agreed to and presented to the Board at its meeting. Subsequently, staff overlooked a revision presented by Applicant for this sign to read "Panera Bread Drive Thru" with an area of 47.27 square feet. This was submitted as a second revision to the original application and Applicant now seeks to have the Board change it original decision to allow the sign on the north face of the building to be changed from 35.67 square feet to an area of 47.27 square feet to read as stated above, "Panera Bread Drive Thru". It was the decision of a majority of the Board that the application should be denied since at the hearing held on November 15, 2017, Applicant agreed with the size of the sign to be 35.67 square feet and did not call to the Board's attention any revision that was sought by Applicant. So the original decision of the Board in this matter will remain unchanged with the sign on the north face of the building to have an area of 35.67 square feet. (Chairman Sheth, Col. Ericson, Mr. Keller, and Mr. Sonata voted to deny the increase in signage as stated. Mr. Hufnal voted to approve the application) cc: Building Inspector NHR:rp

City of Dover Board of Adjustment March 20, 2019 V-19-02 Addresses: 1160 south Dupont Highway 59 Roosevelt Avenue Location: North side of Roosevelt Avenue, west of South DuPont Highway Applicant/Owners: Richard W. Arndt, Patricia S. Arndt Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.17-05-75.00-000 and ED-05-077.17-05-74.00-000 Application Date: February 12, 2019 Present Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) Uses: 59 Roosevelt Avenue Prior: office Current: vacant 1160 South DuPont Highway Prior: residential (demolished) Current: Office Reviewed By: Julian Swierczek, Planner I Variance Type: Area Variance Variance Requested: To decrease the minimum required lot depth of 1160 South DuPont Highway from 150 feet to 144 feet, and the minimum required lot width from 150 feet to 135 feet. For 59 Roosevelt Avenue, the applicants are requesting a decrease of the minimum required lot depth from 150 feet to 90 feet, a decrease of the minimum required lot width from 150 feet to 50 feet, and an increase in maximum lot coverage from 75% to 87%.

V-19-02 Lands of William and Patricia Arndt at 1160 S DuPont Hwy and 59 Roosevelt Ave Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 8 Project Description The applicants are requesting variances from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.15 pertaining to the bulk standards of the C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) to allow for a reduction in the minimum lot width and lot depth requirements for both 1160 South DuPont Highway and 59 Roosevelt Avenue, as well as an increase in maximum lot coverage for 59 Roosevelt Avenue. This current application V-19-02 is proposing dedicating 3,150 SF of land from the current 59 Roosevelt Avenue to 1160 South DuPont Highway. The business currently occupying the building at 1160 South DuPont Highway had previously been located in the building at 59 Roosevelt Avenue. Several accessory structures from the rear of 59 Roosevelt Avenue remain in use by the business since it moved to the neighboring property. The applicants are asking for the area variances as the owners wish to consolidate the structures still in use by their business at 59 Roosevelt Avenue into the new business location at 1160 South DuPont Highway. This would allow them to then potentially sell the property at 59 Roosevelt Avenue. The properties are currently legally non-conforming as they were laid out prior to the adoption of the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance. However, as the owner wishes to transfer land from 59 Roosevelt Avenue to 1160 South DuPont Highway, there is a requirement to bring any non-conformity into compliance with Code. As this will not be possible, the applicant is asking for a reduction in lot width and lot depth for both properties, and an increase in impervious lot coverage for 59 Roosevelt Avenue as stated in the Zoning Ordinance Article 4 §4.15. Zoning and 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 subject properties are zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and are located on the north side of Roosevelt Avenue west of South DuPont Highway. The neighboring property immediately to the north along South DuPont Highway, as well as across South DuPont Highway to the east and across Roosevelt Avenue to the south are also all zoned C-4 and home to several commercial uses. The property adjacent to the west along Roosevelt Avenue is vacant land again zoned C-4. To the north, but not immediately adjacent to either property is a subdivision of one-family residences also zoned R-8. Code Citations Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.15 lists the bulk and area standards for lots in the C-4 zone. Exhibit B is a table that summarizes the requirements for the C-4 zone and compares them to the applicant’s proposed project. The standards requiring variances are highlighted. Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 defines Lot Coverage as follows: The percent of a lot which is covered, or planned to be covered, with impervious surfaces. [The term] "lot coverage" shall include off-street parking areas and driveways, but not public streets.

V-19-02 Lands of William and Patricia Arndt at 1160 S DuPont Hwy and 59 Roosevelt Ave Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 8 Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 defines Lot Depth as follows: The minimum distance from the street line of a lot to the rear lot line of each lot. Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 defines Lot Width as follows: The distance between the side lot lines of a lot or between the side lot line and the street line most nearly parallel to the side lot line for a corner lot, measured at the street line and setback line. For odd-shaped or triangular-shaped lots or lots fronting on cl-de-sac streets, the lot width measured at the street line may be reduced to not less than one-half of the minimum lot width required for the zoning district. If the street line is a curved line, the lot width measurement shall be measured along the arch of the curved line. 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 C. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Response:

V-19-02 Lands of William and Patricia Arndt at 1160 S DuPont Hwy and 59 Roosevelt Ave Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 8 The applicant did not provide an explanation as to the nature of the zone type but provided instead the table of Bulk and Parking regulations for highway commercial (C-4) zones. C-4 Minimum Required: Lot width (ft.) 150 Lot depth(ft.) 150 Front yard (ft.) 20 Side yard (ft.) 15 Rear yard (ft.) 10 or equal to bldg. height Side or rear yards which adjoin a 30 residence zone (ft.) Off-street parking Per 300 sq. ft. floor area or 1 Per employee (whichever is greater) 1 Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 6 Feet 75 Floor area ratio 4.0 Lot Coverage 75% Staff Response: The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). This zone permits retail uses as well as business, professional, and government offices and wholesale, storage,

V-19-02 Lands of William and Patricia Arndt at 1160 S DuPont Hwy and 59 Roosevelt Ave Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 8 warehousing, and distribution establishments. The existing uses of the sites are permitted under the zoning. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Responses: “In the early 20th century, Roosevelt Avenue was a residential neighborhood. Post-World War II the neighborhood transitioned commercial with the growth of U.S. 13 (DuPont Highway). The proposed variance would not alter the character of the community. Both lots are already non-conforming parcels Adjustment of the property line would not be objectively visible to the public. The shift of 3,150-square feet is located in the rear northwest corner, being 50x63. The adjustment would provide the H&A Electric and future occupants with access to an existing framed storage garage for ancillary storage and support. The area being shifted from 59 Roosevelt Avenue already is not accessible as usable space to the occupant of 59 Roosevelt Avenue. Shifting the 3,150 square feet of land to 1160 south DuPont Highway ill consolidate business operations for the occupants of 1160. No known objections from surrounding property owners are known to the Applicant at this time.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with the applicant’s description, and with the assessment that the office use of the sites are not out of character for the area. The property immediately adjacent to the west is also zoned C-4 but is vacant. The properties along South DuPont Highway to the south and north are all zoned C-4 as well and are occupied by various commercial spaces, offices and car dealerships. There are some residential areas further to the west and north of the site which are zoned R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone), but not immediately adjacent to either of the properties in question. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Response: “Granting of the variance application would have no impact on neighboring properties or their use. The Applicant’s property is presently non-conforming, and has been non-conforming since the adoption of the City of Dover Zoning Code. The non- conformity would continue into the future in near identical manner to its present-day use. If the variance is granted, the Applicant will grant an easement for the present and future fee simple owners of 1160 South DuPont Highway to access the existing frame

V-19-02 Lands of William and Patricia Arndt at 1160 S DuPont Hwy and 59 Roosevelt Ave Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 8 garage situated on the 3,150-square foot parcel of land being shifted from 59 Roosevelt Avenue to 1160 South DuPont Highway, from the paved parking area at 59 Roosevelt Avenue. Access to the existing frame garage is only possible from Roosevelt Avenue. Access to the existing frame garage is not possible from South DuPont Highway.” Staff Response: Planning Staff agrees with the assessment of the applicant in that if the variances were to be granted, there would be no affect on neighboring properties. No new development is proposed, only the ability of the business now occupying the premises at 1160 South DuPont Highway to maintain ownership of the accessory buildings currently to the rear of 59 Roosevelt avenue, while then being able to sell on the main building at 59 Roosevelt avenue to a new owner. The applicant has stated that an easement would be put in place to ensure the current access to the accessory buildings presently to the rear of 59 Roosevelt avenue, will still be accessible through 59 Roosevelt avenue, once the rear 3,150 SF of the property is transferred to 1160 South DuPont Highway. This ensures that the current arrangements of both sites are maintained. 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 Applicant did not create the hardships from which relief is sought with this variance recommendation. The Code imposing the restrictions was adopted after 59 Roosevelt Avenue and 1160 South DuPont Highway were created. The business operations and lot dimensions have existed in non-conformance with the Code since the Code’s adoption. Lot area for both 59 Roosevelt Avenue and 1160 South DuPont Highway has been further lost over time thru the enlargement of Roosevelt Avenue and expansion of U.S. 13 (South DuPont Highway). Acquiring additional land to deflate the lot coverage area or increase the dimensions of the lot sizes are not an option.” Staff Response: Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.15 states that both the minimum required lot width and lot depth of a parcel in C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) is 150 ft. It also states that the maximum lot coverage is 75%. Neither of the properties are currently compliant with these standards as they were laid out prior to the adoption of the city of Dover’s Code of Ordinances. To make either property fully complaints with the bulk standards as found in Exhibit B would require the acquisition of further land beyond these two parcels.

V-19-02 Lands of William and Patricia Arndt at 1160 S DuPont Hwy and 59 Roosevelt Ave Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 8 The applicant is asking for these variances as they wish to maintain the accessory buildings needed for their business currently at 59 Roosevelt avenue, and incorporate them into the property now containing their offices at 1160 South DuPont Highway. They further seek to be able to sell on 59 Roosevelt Avenue which is the property they no longer require. Were the applicant to not have their variance requests approved, they would either have to maintain ownership of the property they no longer require for the functioning of their business, or they would have to acquire new property further away, in order to provide the space needed to compensate for the loss of the accessory buildings currently located at 59 Roosevelt Avenue. Staff considers this an unnecessary hardship. Variance Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow for the reduction in both minimum lot widths and minimum lot depths, as well as the variance to allow the increase in maximum impervious lot coverage for 59 Roosevelt Avenue. Staff recommend approval for reasons as follows: • Neither the decrease in minimum lot width or lot depth would have significant negative impacts on neighboring properties in terms of aesthetics. Neither would the increase in maximum lot coverage, as no physical alterations are proposed to take place on either of the properties beyond the transfer of land from one property to the other. • Were the variances not to be approved, the applicant would either be forced to maintain ownership of both properties, or to relocate the functions currently held in the accessory structures to a new site elsewhere. Both of these options would be an unnecessary hardship, and the latter would be a practical difficulty. 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. • In order to create the new lot line boundaries, an application for a Minor Lot Line Adjustment is required.

V-19-02 Lands od William and Patricia Arndt at 1160 South DuPont Highway and 59 Roosevelt Avenue Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Exhibit Map 1 (Staff) B Affected Zoning Requirements and Requested 1 Bulk Standards Table C Background Information and Criteria Responses 2 (Applicant) D Site Plan with proposed lot lines 1 (24”x36”) (Applicant)

City of Dover Exhibit A Application No.: V-19-02 Department of Planning & Inspections R-8 Ev er g r ee nD r e d Av har Orc C-4 y Hw Du pont R-8 C-1 Site C-4 Roosevelt Ave C-4 C-4 R-8 Title: Lands of William and Patricia Arndt Address: 59 Roosevelt Avenue 1160 South DuPont Highway Legend Parcel IDs: ED-05-077.17-05-75.00-000 and ED-05-077.17-05-74.00-000 Subject Property Zoning: C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) Dover Parcels Owner: William and Patricia Arndt Date: 03/13/2019 Zoning 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 75 150 300 Feet Dover Boundary

Exhibit B: Effected Zoning Requirements and Requested Bulk Standards for C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) V-19-02 Lands of William and Patricia Arndt Existing 59 Roosevelt Proposed 59 Roosevelt Existing 1160 South DuPont Proposed 1160 South Minimum Required: Code: Avenue avenue Highway DuPont Highway Lot Width (ft.) 150 50 50 135.95 135.95 Lot Depth (ft.) 150 153 90.5 94 144 Maximum Lot Coverage 75% 84% 87% 61.6% 67.5%

City of Dover Board of Adjustment March 20, 2019 V-19-03 Location: 106 Willis Road Applicant: Howard Joseph Owner: 1944 Builder LLC Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.19-01-23.00-000 Application Date: February 07, 2019 Present Zoning: RG-2 (General Residence Zone) Present Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Duplex (2 residential units) Reviewed By: Eddie Diaz, Planner I Variance Type: Area Variance Variances Requested: To allow a decrease in the minimum allowable lot size from 5,000 SF to 3,750 SF, and to allow a decrease in the minimum side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet

V-19-03 Lands of Howard Joseph at 106 Willis Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 9 Project Description The applicant proposes to create two (2) new parcels of land out of one (1) currently existing parcel, to build a duplex dwelling of two (2) residential units. The first requested variance is from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.3, regarding the minimum required lot size for one-family, semi-detached (duplex) dwelling units in the RG- 2 (General Residence) Zone. In the RG-2 Zone, duplex units have a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF, but the applicant is requesting the minimum lot size of each of their two new lots be reduced to 3,750 SF. The applicant is further requesting a second variance, also from the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.3, regarding the minimum side yard required for a duplex in the RG-2 (General Residence) Zone. In the RG-2 Zone, a duplex unit is required to have a minimum side yard of 10 feet, applying to the side of the lot on which the dwelling is not attached. The applicant is requesting this minimum side yard be reduced to 5 feet. A plot plan of the existing 50-foot by 150-foot property is given by the applicant in Exhibit C. This plan does not show the exact location of the new property line the applicant would strike in order to subdivide the lot. However, based on conversation with the applicant, Planning Staff is informed that the new property line would go right down the middle of the lot from east to west, dividing the parcel into two evenly sized new lots each with 25 feet of frontage on Willis Road. This project has not yet been reviewed by the Planning Commission; submission and approval of a Minor Subdivision Plan application and a Conditional Use Site Plan application, either together or separately, would be needed before the proposed duplex could be constructed. Adjacent Land Uses The property is zoned RG-2 and is located on the west side of Willis Road, north of East Division Street. Two alleys run adjacent to the property, one on its north side and one on its west side, with Willis Road running on its east side. To the north across the first alley and to the east across Willis Road are lands of the Mapleton Square Apartments, zoned RG-2. The Mapleton Square Apartments are considered “Garden Apartments” under the zoning. To the west across the second alley are a group of duplex dwellings zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) fronting on Spruance Road. Adjacent to the property to the south are a group of townhouse units zoned RG-3 (Group Housing Zone), along with additional townhouses and duplexes further south also zoned RG-3. Further west across Spruance Road are one-family detached dwellings zoned R-7 (One-Family Residence Zone). Notably, the subject property is the only undeveloped parcel in the immediate area. A Zoning Map Exhibit (Exhibit A) showing the property and adjacent zoning districts can be found in the attachments to this Report. In addition, the applicant provided photos of the site and the surrounding area (Exhibit D). Many of these photos show the Mapleton Square Apartments; others show examples of existing townhouses, duplexes, and one-family detached dwellings in the area. A few show non-residential uses located at the ends of

V-19-03 Lands of Howard Joseph at 106 Willis Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 9 Willis Road, including a philanthropic/office use near the north end and the Maranatha Church near the south end. Code Citations According to Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §2.4(b), duplex dwellings are a conditional use in the RG-2 Zone. Duplex dwellings are given a definition in Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 to distinguish them from one-family detached dwellings and townhouses, which can also potentially be built in the RG-2 Zone and which have differing bulk standard requirements. The Zoning Ordinance further defines a semi-detached dwelling, as this definition also applies towards the understanding of a duplex. Zoning Ordinance Article 12 Duplex: A one-family, semi-detached dwelling unit having only one dwelling unit from ground to roof and only one wall in common with another dwelling unit. Dwelling, one-family: A permanent dwelling unit placed on a permanent foundation and designed and intended for use by only one family. One-family dwellings shall not include manufactured homes or mobile homes but shall include modular homes constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22—Buildings and Building Regulations. Dwelling, semi-detached: A dwelling with one wall in common with only one adjacent dwelling. Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 §4.3 lists the bulk and area standards for different types of residential uses in the RG-2 Zone. For one-family semi-detached dwellings such as duplexes, Article 4 §4.3 back-refers to Article 4 §4.2, the bulk and area standards for the RG-1 Zone. Table 1 below summarizes the requirements applying to duplexes and compares them to the applicant’s proposed project. The standards requiring a variance are highlighted.

V-19-03 Lands of Howard Joseph at 106 Willis Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 9 Table 1: Zoning Requirements and Requested Bulk Standards V-19-03 Lands of Howard Joseph at 106 Willis Road RG-2 (General Applicant's Project Residence Zone) Duplex/One-Family Duple/One-Family Residence Type: Semi-Detached Semi-Detached Standard: Requirements Proposed Minimum requirements per dwelling unit: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot area (sq. ft.) 5,000 3,750 3,750 Lot width (ft.) 25 25 25 Lot depth (ft.) 100 150 150 Front yard (ft.) 15 15 15 Side yard (ft.) 10 5 5 Rear yard (ft.) 30 30 30 Off-street parking spaces 1/DU N/A N/A Maximum permitted: Building Height (stories) 2 1/2 N/A N/A Building Height (ft.) 35 N/A N/A Building Coverage 50% N/A N/A Note: N/A in the table above means there is no known value because there is no specific design for the duplex. Applicant’s Proposed Project At present, not much is known about the duplex the applicant proposes for the property, aside from the variances requested and that the dwellings will otherwise meet the bulk standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant stated that they had tried to sell the lot for the purpose of building a one-family detached dwelling (also permitted under the zoning), but that there had been no buyers. They believed that the property would be easier to sell if it were subdivided for a duplex; however, the property is too small to subdivide for a duplex without a variance from the minimum required lot area. The applicant also requested a variance from the minimum required side yard because the 10-foot minimum yards combined with the proposed 25-foot lot widths would result in the units themselves being only 15 feet wide, a width the applicant believes is insufficient. The variance requested from the minimum side yard requirement would allow for units 20 feet wide. 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-19-03 Lands of Howard Joseph at 106 Willis Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 9 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. These responses may also be found in Exhibit B. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Response: “This property has RG-2 Zoning which under conditional uses 2.4 permits duplex dwellings with restrictions being one dwelling per lot and access from an alley if possible.” Staff Response: The RG-2 Zone permits certain agricultural uses; one family detached dwellings on 6,000 square foot lots; public buildings; and garden apartments. It also permits a wide variety of uses conditionally, including but not limited to townhouses and duplex dwellings. Duplex dwellings specifically are conditionally permitted under Zoning Ordinance Article 3 Section 2.4(b); this section specifies that no more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on a lot and that dwellings shall take access from an alley or other shared access where such access is available. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Response: “Neighbors are either apartments, townhouses, or duplexes. The only single family house on the street is .2 mile south. The north end of Willis is anchored by GT Painting and Telamon. The south end by Maranatha Church.”

V-19-03 Lands of Howard Joseph at 106 Willis Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 9 Staff Response: The character of the immediate vicinity is residential, with a mix of garden apartments, townhouses, and duplexes. One-family dwellings are also present in the neighborhood but are farther away from the site. The property is at the end of a stretch of narrow lots that contain existing duplexes and townhouses. Staff believes a new duplex on this property would fit in with the existing homes. As a vacant lot, the property is an opportunity for residential infill development in an existing residential area. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Response: “Removing the restrictions would be no problem because the setbacks would be no smaller than other zones. Two allies [sic] access the property. The neighborhood is all multi-family dwellings, both sides of the street with commercial properties on the North and South ends.” Staff Response: Staff does not believe reducing the minimum lot size for the new lots would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood. While the surrounding residences are all believed to meet the bulk standards for their respective zoning districts, many of the nearby lots are in fact smaller than what the applicant is requesting. For instance, the two interior units of the adjacent group of four townhouses appear to have lot sizes of 2,700 SF each, based on the minimum lot width of the RG-3 zone for group dwellings (18 feet) and their known 150-foot lot depth. Because small lots are common in the area, two additional small lots should not have a detrimental effect. For the side yard setbacks, Staff advised the applicant when discussing the variance application that they should not ask for a reduction greater than five feet, because five-foot side yard setbacks are the smallest such minimum setback seen throughout the residential zones. This setback is seen for one-family dwellings in the R-7, RG-1, and RG-2 Zones. Staff believes that 5-foot side-yard setbacks would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood in this case because if a one-family dwelling had been built on the property instead of a duplex, it would have been allowed to have the same 5-foot setbacks. In other words, the variance would allow building a duplex as large as, but no larger than, a one-family dwelling permitted under code. 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-19-03 Lands of Howard Joseph at 106 Willis Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 9 Applicant Response: “If the restrictions are not removed the lot would stay vacant. Signs have been on the lot for a year and not one phone call. Building a single family house in a 100% multi-family neighborhood doesn’t seem to be practical.” Staff Response: According to satellite imagery, the applicant’s property was once occupied by what appears to be a one-family dwelling, but this structure was demolished sometime between 1992 and 2003. The property has remained vacant since then, despite ample opportunity for redevelopment. This lends credence to the applicant’s assertion that the property cannot be sold for construction of a one-family dwelling due to the lack of adjacent similar dwellings. Based on the size of the property, construction of other permitted or conditional uses in the RG-2 Zone such as townhouses or garden apartments does not appear to be practical. Therefore, getting approval for a duplex appears to be the applicant’s best route for selling the property. Denying the variance for lot size would impose a hardship because the applicant would have to continue marketing the lot for single-family, when such development is not forthcoming. Denying the variance for side-yard setbacks may impose a hardship, because any developers interested in building a duplex may become uninterested when they learn they would only be allowed to build units 15 feet wide. Variance Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the variance to decrease the minimum lot size for the proposed lots from 5,000 SF to 3,750 SF, as well as the variance to reduce the minimum side-yard setback for the proposed lots from 10 feet to 5 feet for reasons as follows: • The proposed use for a duplex is in keeping with the nature and allowable uses in the RG-2 Zone and the residential character of the surrounding area. • The property is the only undeveloped lot in the neighborhood and based on the time it has stayed vacant it appears that construction of a code-compliant one-family dwelling is not practical. Construction of other permitted uses in the RG-2 Zone also does not appear to be practical. • If the variance for lot size is not granted, the applicant will have to continue marketing the lot for single-family use, when such development is not forthcoming. • If the variance for side-yard setbacks is not granted, the duplex that could be built would be limited to having units 15 feet wide. This would be smaller than the other duplex units in the area and may be seen by developers as an undesirable restriction. • The variances if granted are unlikely to be detrimental to neighboring property owners, because surrounding properties in the neighborhood are similar in lot size and building bulk to what the applicant is requesting.

V-19-03 Lands of Howard Joseph at 106 Willis Road Board of Adjustment Report Page 8 of 9 Advisory Comments to the Applicant • If granted, variances become null and void if work has not commenced within one (1) year of the date the variance was granted. At present there is no provision for extension. • Improvements to the property are subject to Subdivision Plan and Conditional Use Plan approval processes through the Planning Commission, and appropriate permits from the City of Dover Department of Planning & Inspections and other agencies.

V-19-03 Lands of Howard Joseph at 106 Willis Road. Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Zoning Map Exhibit 1 (Staff) B Applicant Responses to Criteria 1 C Plot Plan of Property 1 (Applicant) D Photos of Site and Surrounding Area 13 (4”x6”) (Applicant)

City of Dover Exhibit A Application No.: V-19-03 Department of Planning & Inspections RG-3 ROS R-7 RG-2 RG-3 RG-2 R-7 Site RG-2 illis W Rd R-7 Sp r nc e ua Rd RG-3 RG-1 R-7 R-7 Title: Lands of Howard Joseph Address: 106 Willis Road Parcel IDs: ED-05-068.19-01-23.00-000 Legend Zoning: RG-2 (General Residence Zone) Owner: Howard Joseph Subject Property Date: 03/13/2019 Dover Parcels Zoning 2012 Buildings Kent County Parcels « 0 75 150 300 Feet Dover Boundary

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D