BOA 6-17-20

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES June 17, 2020 A Regular/Virtual Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 9:00 A.M. using in person, the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx due to Delaware’s Declaration of the State of Emergency for COVID-19 with Chairman Sheth presiding. Members present were Chairman Sheth, Colonel Ericson, Mr. Keller, Mr. Senato and Mr. Hufnal. Staff members present were Mr. Swierczek, Mr. Hugg, Mrs. Bulkilvish, City Solicitor Mr. Rodriguez, and Mrs. Savage-Purnell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Keller moved to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2020 Mr. Keller moved to approve the meeting minutes of May 20, 2020 with the necessary corrections. The motion was seconded by Mr. Senato and unanimously carried 5-0. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING APPLICATIONS Mr. Dave Hugg, Planning Director stated that the meeting today will be conducted in accordance with the Agenda. There is one (1) application to be continued from the previous meeting 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 application on this agenda was completed in accordance with Code requirements. The meeting agenda was posted in accordance with Freedom of Information Act requirements. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS The next Board of Adjustment regular meeting is scheduled for July 15, 2020 at 9:00am in the City Council Chambers and with virtual format. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Hufnal made a motion to remove Application V-20-02 from the table. The motion was seconded by Mr. Senato and unanimously carried 5-0. Mr. Hufnal mentioned that if the applicant liked the idea instead of the 1-foot, it would only be a

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2020 6-inch variance which would be a compromise. Applicant #V-20-02 245 McKee Road. Delaware Department of Corrections has requested a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to permitted sign height and sign area for Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts along an Urban Minor Arterial. Specifically, to increase the height from 7 ft. to 8 ft. tall for a monument sign with an electronic message center and to increase the total area of the sign face from 32 SF. to 42.5 SF. at the entrance to their facility on McKee Road. Subject property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone 1). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-067.00-02-16.00-000. The owner of record is National Cup Co. Consideration of this Application began at the May 20, 2020 Board of Adjustment Meeting; however, the Public Hearing and Action was deferred. Mrs. Bulkilvish gave a summary presentation of the Application Request for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 pertaining to permitted sign height and sign area for Nonresidential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts along an Urban Minor Arterial. Exhibits for the Record: Staff Report, Zoning Exhibit, and statement and photos submitted by the applicant. Legal Notice was published in the Delaware State News on June 7, 2020. The public was notified in accordance with regulations. Representative: Ms. Colleen Michelle Allen, Rogers Sign Company Inc. Ms. Colleen Michelle Allen was sworn in by City Solicitor Mr. Rodriguez. Ms. Allen stated that the compromise would be 12 inches from the ground. She is hoping the Board would approve the application as proposed and not the compromise. Mr. Hufnal asked if the sign would be 8 feet and if down the left side and across the bottom is symmetrical. As stated by the applicant, in the electronic sign a certain square footage was needed because you could not make it wider and the top lower because of the LED and the design that makes up the electronic sign. There had to be a certain dimension either way. Ms. Allen replied that is correct. That is how she came up with the current dimensions that were proposed, and it meets the current Code. Mr. Hufnal said if you did make the LED sign smaller height wise, it would be distorting the letters. Ms. Allen replied correct. Ms. Allen mentioned that they are proposing an 18-inch base that would consist of a total height of 8 feet. The current sign is 10 feet tall from the ground. Colonel Ericson asked how close is the sign to the set back? Ms. Allen replied that the current sign is probably roughly 20 feet, but we were told anything beyond 5 feet from the sidewalk and the right of way. Ms. Allen mentioned whatever the Code allows. Colonel Ericson mentioned if you move the sign closer to the setback it would be easier to see from the road. Ms. Allen mentioned 2

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2020 that they will have some increased visibility. Colonel Ericson mentioned that his biggest problem is setting a precedent we cannot live with. There could be other businesses that come in with a sign and want to do the same thing. Normally, the only time it is granted is if there is something unique about the sign or conditions. Colonel Ericson mentioned that the whole case is that you want to recruit for more Correctional Officers. It seems that the problem in getting Correctional Officers is because it is a dangerous place to work at times. He is not sure if this sign would solve the problem. Ms. Allen replied that given current events, the Department of Correctional Office has been involved in a lot of local events and she is hoping that the sign will also increase more local community activities. Mr. Hufnal mentioned that they had a sign not similar to this one further up the street and the speed of the traffic was taken into consideration at the time. He asked if this was the case with this application also and if this was one of the reasons in the increase of height for this sign? Ms. Allen replied depending on the speed a person was driving (40-45 miles per hour), she mentioned that you do not have much time to review the message. Chairman Sheth mentioned that you are reinforcing the same sign twice. He asked if one sign was not enough to attract people, so you must tell them twice. He mentioned that he did not want to have signs converting to the ones like on Route 13. Chairman Sheth asked if the rules enforce signs that they do not go above 7 feet. Mr. Swierczek replied that any new sign must adhere to the Zoning Ordinance or come to the Board of Adjustment. Chairman Sheth asked if the sign was only a 6 feet difference? Mr. Hufnal replied, as previously mentioned at the last meeting, that the difference in the height if you are traveling on that road at 40 mph the nearest sign to that is the Hamlet and to the north is Westminster Village Assisted Living (nursing home). You are really not going to be able to tell the difference of the 1-foot traveling at that speed. In order to get their message out, he thinks that it is important to allow the 1-foot. Chairman Sheth mentioned that they are reinforcing the same message twice. Mr. Hufnal asked how he figured that. Chairman Sheth replied that the virtual message is the same as the digital message. Mr. Hufnal replied that the old sign is going to be removed. The digital sign will be variable, and the top sign will always be the same. The bottom part information will change. He said it is like the sign at the Modern Maturity Center (the message on the bottom changes every day). We have not had any issues with the sign at the Modern Maturity. Mr. Senato questioned if the only message changing on the electronic sign would be the message at the bottom, why not reverse it and put the electronic message at the top and the permanent message at the bottom. He thinks this would be logical. Ms. Allen replied that per Code the header panel must be above any variable message sign. Mr. Hufnal asked if Staff concurred with that remark? Mrs. Bulkilvish replied that if there remains one sign face the lettering can be at the bottom of the electronic message center. One other mock up showed the lettering as part of the face which was not permitted because the electronic lettering center has to be part of the sign face and not all of the sign face. 3

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2020 Chairman Sheth was concerned about the difference in height because the applicant wanted 8-feet. Mrs. Bulkilvish mentioned that switching the message from top to bottom would not change the height at all. Chairman Sheth asked Mrs. Bulkilvish what did she recommend? Mrs. Bulkilvish replied that Staff recommendation is what the Code states as far as the maximum allowable height which is 7-feet. This is why the applicant is before the Board of Adjustment asking for a variance. Chairman Sheth asked Mr. Swierczek what did he recommend and if there were any changes in the recommendations? Mr. Swierczek replied that his colleague Mrs. Bulkilvish reviewed the application and is familiar with the Sign Code. He agreed with Mrs. Bulkilvish’ s interpretation of the Code. Chairman Sheth asked then what is the recommendation. Mr. Swierczek replied 7-feet. Mr. Hufnal replied that Staff has to stick with the Code and that is what the Code allows 7-feet. The reason the applicant is before the Board of Adjustment is because they have asked to go to 8-feet. We are the Board of Adjustment to make that decision whether to go to 8-feet. Staff has given their 7-feet interpretation of the Code. Chairman Sheth asked Mr. Hufnal if it was his suggestion (compromise) was for the 6 inches difference. Mr. Hufnal suggestion was instead of the 18 inches all the way around, make the bottom of 1-foot brick so that you could bring the sign down by 6 inches and you would still have a 6-inch compromise. It would be easier to adjust to then the 1-foot. Chairman Sheth asked if the overall height would be 8-feet and not 7.5 feet? Mr. Hufnal replied that the current proposal is 8-feet not 7.5 feet. Chairman Sheth asked for clarification, it is 6 inches more than the compromise suggested? Mr. Hufnal replied that is correct. Colonel Ericson mentioned that there should not be any compromising. It should be either meet the Code or look at what was requested. He did not see much difference. Mr. Keller mentioned that he would like to point out a matter as he mentioned in the previous hearing regarding the situation of the existing sign being non-conforming. He referenced non- conforming usage from the Zoning Code, Article 7 § 1.1. which the existing sign could continue indefinitely at 10-feet tall. He also referenced Article 7 § 1.12. As discussed at the last meeting, the new sign as proposed will be less non-conforming as well as smaller in size than the existing sign. With the appropriate non-conforming use section of the Code, it seems to be lessening in size and height from the existing non-conforming sign. We would still be non-conforming with the approval of the Board of Adjustment as to this minimal height difference. He was in favor of the reduction of size and height for the new sign still being non-conforming, but at a much less degree. Mr. Hufnal mentioned that he agreed with Mr. Keller on that point as well. 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2020 Colonel Ericson asked Mr. Rodriguez if he would make a comment. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he agreed. Colonel Ericson mentioned that since the sign is non-conforming now and the new sign is going to be less, we would still have a non-conforming sign, is that correct? So, this hearing would not have been necessary. Mr. Rodriguez replied that the Board of Adjustment would still need to vote. Mr. Keller replied that he agreed with Mr. Rodriguez as he referred to Zoning Code Article 7 § 1.1. that the sign could not be changed to another non-conforming without a special permit or Board of Adjustment approval. Chairman Sheth asked how old the existing sign was. Ms. Allen replied that it was permitted in 1999. Chairman Sheth mentioned that with the building and the signs in the past and with the past non- conforming use, there is a possibility they did not need a permit and did not need to come before the Board. Now it does make sense that an approval is needed by the Board of Adjustment. He mentioned with Colonel Ericson to follow the rules because we do not want signs to look the way they use to look on Route 13 because it took a long time to correct. Mr. Keller asked for clarification on the size and height. Regarding the size, the applicant is requesting a 42.5 SF sign which is still over the current Code, but it is a change from the existing non-conforming sign size. The existing sign is greater in size than 42.5 SF. Ms. Allen replied yes. Mr. Keller mentioned that this is in fact somewhat of an agreement expressed that the new proposed sign exceeds the zoning requirement of 32 SF; so, they are reducing the size of the existing non-conforming sign. They are seeking an approval from the Board of a 42.5 SF sign. Secondly, to permit the sign as being 8ft. in height and a reduction of 2-feet in height from the existing non-conforming sign. It is not 100% in sticking with the Code because there is an expression of an allowance of at least half of that request to allow mainly the increase in size over the existing zoning requirement of 32 SF. Chairman Sheth mentioned if the Board looks at this application and the complications, the Staff member was trying to give the Board direction about questions; and they did a good job. The case is more complicated because there is already a big non-conforming sign. The Board made some suggestions to the Applicant. He mentioned that there are times the Board has exceptional cases and the Board has a responsibility; and this application is an exceptional case. Colonel Ericson mentioned that it was an unusual situation that would require it in most places because they already have a non-conforming sign. They are only asking for another non- conforming sign. Mr. Keller asked for clarification again, the applicant can do nothing and the existing non- conforming sign of 10-feet high and 50+ SF in size could be continued indefinitely according to the Zoning Code. The proposal with a reduction in size and height, although minimally in his opinion, would remain to be a non-conforming sign and is a step in the right direction. Chairman Sheth agreed. 5

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2020 Chairman Sheth opened the public hearing. Mr. Greg Christian stated that it would be a positive impact to the building. He noticed that there was some deep discussion regarding the size and how close we are to it, but we have been at this for a while. It will be a great impact to the community and what we are doing will be beneficial. Chairman Sheth closed the public hearing. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any additional correspondence for the record. There was none. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest and there was none. Colonel Ericson moved to approve variance application V-20-02 to permit a 42.5 SF sign in addition to the 8 feet in height sign that will be a smaller non-conforming sign, based upon the fact that there is currently a non-conforming sign that is considerably larger. This is a unique situation and by the Code they cannot request a non-conforming for the following sign. (50:24) The motion was seconded by Mr. Keller. The motion unanimously carried 4-0. Roll Call Vote ▪ Mr. Keller – I – based upon the testimony given, non-conforming uses, presentation and information provided by the applicant. ▪ Colonel Ericson - I – based upon the testimony given and discussion during this hearing. ▪ Mr. Hufnal – I ▪ Mr. Senato – abstain from voting ▪ Chairman Sheth – I – based upon the information submitted by Staff and the applicant. Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Senato abstained. NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-20-04 5 Pine Street. Rev. G. Derrick Hodge has requested an area variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §1.31 pertaining to the corner visibility with regards to fences in a residential zone, and Article 5 §1.55 pertaining to fence height in the front yard area of a residential zone. Specifically, the applicant proposes to increase the height of a fence within the area designated as a setback for corner visibility from 3 feet to 5 feet, and to increase the maximum height of the fence allowed in the front yard from the 4 feet to 5 feet. Subject property is zoned R- 8 (One-family Residence Zone). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-077.17-04-02.00-000. The owner of record is Rev. G. Derrick Hodge. Mr. Swierczek gave a summary presentation of the Application Request for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Article 5 §1.31 pertaining to the corner visibility with regards to fences in a residential zone, and Article 5 §1.55 pertaining to fence height in the front 6

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2020 yard area of a residential zone. Exhibits for the Record: Staff Report, Zoning Exhibit, and statement and photos submitted by the applicant. Legal Notice was published in the Delaware State News on June 7, 2020. The public was notified in accordance with regulations. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any additional correspondence for the record. There was none. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest. Mr. Hufnal mentioned that Rev. Hodge is the new minister of their church and he was on the Committee of selecting the new minister. He abstains from voting and participating on this application. Representative: Rev. G. Derrick Hodge, Owner. Mr. Hodge was sworn in by City Solicitor Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Hodge testified that there are two (2) requests in the variance application. He stated that he read the analysis of Staff comments and understands the safety concerns related to the corner visibility. He mentioned that he is withdrawing the first request of the fence on the corner since he and Staff could not compromise on the requirement for visibility. He stated that he would cut the corner off that fence and will not put a fence there so that there is no barrier to the visibility if someone wishes to turn left onto State Street. Second, he believes the request is necessary for the normal enjoyment and use of the property. It does not cause any hardship to any neighbor and the statement orientation of the Lot is such that according to the Code a variance is reasonably requested; it’s unique. Staff Response points out that he could use the fence in the back yard up to 6.5 foot high. However, you may note from the drawings and photographs that there is no back yard. The back yard is about 1-yard in the smallest point. The house is situated oddly so that what is normally the frontage is the longer of the boarders at 170 feet. There is no back yard or back door. So, he could not fence the property in and allow the dog to leave out the back door and run about. It is a large enough dog that it needs more space than what he has. He basically has two (2) small side yards and a front yard. So, the dog would be unable to exercise the way a Labrador needs to exercise if he was confined to one side yard. He is requesting and understands that there would be no fence on the corner and on the frontage the fence would extend from the one side to the other side. The extra picket would not cause any undue hardship to the neighbors. He believes it is going to be a lovely fence and the Labrador would not be able to jump over the fence. He is requesting (a height increase of) 4 feet to 5 feet in the front yard with no corner fence obstructing visibility. Colonel Ericson asked the applicant if he could mock up the photographs so that it can reference the request. Mr. Hodge replied that he submitted drawings that are located to the right. The only difference would be the corner between State Street and Pine Street. It would not be as squared. The fence would be removed from the corner and everything else would stay the same. Colonel Ericson asked where would the fence go? Mr. Hodge replied he was not sure he understood. Colonel Ericson mentioned that he did not understand what the applicant was going 7

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2020 to do with the fence. Colonel Ericson asked the applicant if he could show him on the map where the fence will be located. Mr. Hodge replied yes. Whatever the Code permits, he is just going to cut the corner off the fence on State Street/Pine Street instead of doing a right angle. Colonel Ericson mentioned as he referred to Exhibit D, the site shows the corner visibility as 20 feet down State Street and 20 feet down Pine Street is legal. He asked if this information was correct? The only change would be the front yard. Mr. Hodge replied that the two sides and the back yard will remain as Code simply requiring a one-foot difference in the front yard. It leaves the variance for consideration because of the neatness of the shape of the lot and house that does not permit a back-yard fence. Chairman Sheth asked if the change was needed or if it was already made in the records. Mr. Swierczek replied that the applicant agreed to comply with the corner setback. The applicant would just be asking for the variance for the front yard (fence height). Colonel Ericson mentioned that all of this would need to be explained in the amendment that the applicant is not going to have a corner. Mr. Swierczek clarified what the applicant is proposing. If you look at Exhibit D for the corner area that has the height restriction noted in green, the applicant is asking that the 5-foot fence would be put all around the property except where the green is marked. He would instead put the 5-foot fence at an angle from 20 feet away on Pine Street and 20 feet away from the corner on South State Street. If that was the situation, the applicant would only be asking again for the second variance request to increase the height of the fence in the front yard from 4 feet to 5 feet. The first part of the variance request is for corner visibility. Mr. Senato asked for clarification regarding the corner. Mr. Swierczek demonstrated, as he referred to Exhibit D, that if this was Pine Street and this was State Street the 5-foot fence would go across the property like this (at a diagonal). Colonel Ericson asked if a statement could be provided of what the revised request would be. We cannot be in doubt of what we vote on. Mr. Hodges stated that with the issue related to the corner visibility there is no vote necessary because he is not asking for a variance. Colonel Ericson mentioned that the applicant changed the design of the fence. The applicant is taking out the corner, but the applicant does not state exactly what he plans to do. If this issue was to go to court in the future, you would have to say what did you agree on. On the drawing at the bottom where it says corner visibility, is it permissible to cut the corner off 20 feet off both streets? He would like to see it in writing as to exactly what it is that the applicant wants. Mr. Hodges replied that he is simply agreeing to perform by the Code; so, there would be no action required by this body. Mr. Swierczek clarified that the applicant’s revised request again would only be that he is omitting the first part of his request. The second part of his request to increase the height of the 8

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2020 fence in the front yard from 4-feet to 5-feet would be the only variance that he would need because the only fence would be in the front, side, and rear yard. He would not build within the 20-foot setback corner visibility. There would be no fence located in the corner visibility area. Mr. Hodges stated that he is not requesting a variance for that corner. He will comply by Code. Chairman Sheth mentioned that the applicant has withdrawn the first request. Mr. Keller asked if he was correct that there will still be a 6.5-foot fence directed across from a portion of each side and the rear yard. Mr. Swierczek replied that 6.5-feet is simply the maximum height allowed by Code in the front and side yard of a residential property. Mr. Hodges is asking to build a 5-foot fence around the entirety of his property line and has simply revised his request to not build any fence within the corner visibility. So, it would be a 5-foot fence along the rear, side and front of the property. No fence going into the corner visibility area. No fence would be above 5-foot in height in the applicant’s revised proposal. Mr. Senato asked about the corner angle on Pine Street. It is not going to be an open area at an angle; it’s going to be a fence there and it is going to be setback. Will it be set back 5-feet (20-feet) from the square of Pine Street and State Street? He just wanted to be clear that the property is not going to be square. Mr. Swierczek replied that basically the fence would have five (5) sides. The 5-foot fence would continue at an angle and it would not be open space. As previously mentioned, there would be no variance for the first request which was to increase the permitted height of a fence within the area designated as a setback for corner visibility from 3-feet to 5-feet. The applicant would be asking for the second variance to increase the fence in the front yard from 4- feet to 5-feet. Mr. Hodges mentioned that because of the odd shape of the yard he would not have amount of space. You would have to place the front and the two sides together in a single fence. To have the sides and the back at 5-feet and the front at only 4-feet, it would be fairly useless because the dog would jump over the front 4-feet fence. It would be necessary to have the same height all the way around. Colonel Ericson mentioned that he would like the request (simply what is going to occur) in the motion so that nothing else is being done other than what is approved. He would like to have specifically in the motion what will occur. There have been issues in the past where the Board approved one thing and the applicant did something different than what was approved. At the current time, the Board does not quite understand what is being done. Mr. Hodges replied that his request is for a variance of the requirement that the frontage (fence height) be no more than 4-feet. He is requesting that the front of the fence be allowed at 5-feet. Mr. Senato asked what the height was the applicant was requesting. Mr. Hodges replied 5-feet all the way around. Mr. Hodges stated that the zoning only requires that the front be less than 5-feet. The zoning allows for 6.5-feet on the rear and side yards. He was not sure if Colonel Ericson was satisfied with his response. Colonel Ericson replied no, he was not satisfied because the applicant still has not said what he is going to do in the corner. He needs to know exactly what is going to be done and he would like to have it in the motion, so it does not open up any problems. 9

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2020 Mr. Keller agreed with Colonel Ericson. As depicted on Exhibit D, it shows a straight-line front yard coloration partially green and partially red regarding the 3-feet and 4-feet as he understands the Exhibit. He speaks only in general terms of the frontage yardage; it does not specify that they would not be a violation of the diagonal corner. Mr. Swierczek replied that Mr. Hodges is revising the variance request. It is to not build any fence in the corner area that has the 3-foot height restriction. No fence would be located in that area. He is proposing 5-feet in the side and rear yards, which is in compliance with Code and 5-feet in the front yard, not the corner area. No fence would be in the corner area. So, the 5-foot fence would only be in the front, rear and side yards, but not the corner area. If the Board would grant the variance, it would be in compliance with your approval of the variance request. When Staff reviews the Fence Permit, they would ensure that there is no fence in the corner visibility setback area. Colonel Ericson asked Mr. Swierczek if he could describe what that looks like, because according to the corner visibility chart it states that you have to keep clear 20-feet from the corner of Pine Street and State Street. Does that dimension mean that you cannot build the 5-feet? Mr. Swierczek replied that Code identifies that the corner height restrictions for corner visibility is from the point of the intersection of Pine Street and South State Street. It is 20-feet north on South State Street and 20-feet east on Pine Street. In that triangle from those two 20-feet points and the intersection, the fence can only be 3-feet in height. The applicant is stating that he will not build any fence in that area at all; so he can build the 5-foot fence outside of that area. Chairman Sheth asked for clarification that the 3-foot fence does not require a variance. Mr. Swierczek replied that Code permits that a 3-foot fence (no higher) could be built in the corner visibility area. Chairman Sheth mentioned that all clarifications should be made in the motion regarding the height of the fence (no higher than 3-foot in height). Colonel Ericson mentioned that any changes to the request should be in writing. It should state that a 5-feet fence cannot be used in that corner visibility area. Mr. Swierczek replied that it is already in Code, so we would not allow the applicant to do something that Codes restricts. What the applicant is asking to do is already stated as a variance request. Colonel Ericson asked then what is the problem putting it in a motion. Mr. Swierczek replied that he did not have a problem putting it in a motion. He does not know how to be any more specific. Colonel Ericson asked Mr. Swierczek to put it in a motion. Colonel Ericson did not want to see this problem happen again as he has seen it done many times. Mr. Hodges stated that it was not written because it was not until he saw the Staff response that he realized that his first request was inappropriate. That’s why in the original writing the drawing shows the right angle in that corner. Mr. Senato stated that he agreed with Colonel Ericson. If the motion specifically stated what Colonel Ericson mentioned will that suffice as to exactly what will legally happen in the vote, yes or no. Mr. Rodriguez replied yes it will, because it will be 20-feet from the street to the corner. 10

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2020 The side yard which is on State Street does not need a variance (could be 5-feet). It cannot be 20- feet south and in the front yard 20-feet that goes east. He is asking for a variance of 5-feet instead of 4-feet. He could not build in 20-feet at the corner because of Code restrictions. Mr. Hodges mentioned that the request would be and perhaps the motion if the Board chooses would simply read: the applicant is requesting that the Board grant a variance to allow a 5-foot fence in the front yard, assuming that all the Zoning restrictions are obeyed. This would cover the corner. Mr. Senato mentioned that he would like the motion to be more specific so that the Board does not have any future problems. Mr. Hodges replied that his request would then be that the Board grant a variance to allow a 5-foot fence to be built along the frontage of Pine Street, until the point of 20-feet to the corner from both State Street and Pine Street. Mr. Keller asked with the installation of the fence must it be at the perimeter of the property or may it be set back 25-feet and still be obligated to be mandated height restrictions. Mr. Swierczek replied that Code allows the placement of the fence anywhere on the property up until the property line. So, if someone wanted to build a fence at the setback, it is allowed. It is very common in residential areas. It does not have to be on the property line. Mr. Keller asked if it would still be regarded as a side yard fence or front or rear yard fence. Mr. Swierczek replied that any fence that is within the first 25-feet of the setback from Pine Street which is considered the front yard of that property has the 4-foot height restriction per Code. The corner visibility is 3-feet per Code. The side and rear yards are up to 6.5 feet per Code. So, 5-feet in the side and rear yards is in compliance with Code. The only thing the applicant would be asking for is the front yard. Mr. Keller stated that one of the reasons that he asked is because the Board is obligated to give the evaluation to Exceptional Practical Difficulty and Unnecessary Hardship. He agrees with Staff reasoning that the basis of Mr. Hodges is more personal than an Exceptional Practical Difficulty. As far as the request of the difficulty it is not inherent in the land as an evaluation of the Board as an Exceptional Practical Difficulty. A portion of the rationale is to enclose the dog. The next owner of the property may not have a dog. Mr. Hodges replied that the Exceptional Practical Difficulty is indeed inherent in the property because there is no back yard and no ability to fence the back yard in the way that most people do because of the shape of the house and the odd orientation. He basically has 3 very small pieces of yard which consists of 2 sides and a very small front. The fact that the back of his house goes almost immediately to his neighbor’s property, who is in favor of the fence, is what which this unique and inherent in this property. Mr. Senato mentioned that he understood it was clear to him that the fence was needed for the protection of the dog. Mr. Hodges replied that it was not just because of the dog. He believes that the way the fence will be done will be aesthetically pleasing and the picket fence is an improvement to the look of the lot. Chairman Sheth opened the public hearing. 11

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2020 Chairman Sheth closed the public hearing. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any additional correspondence for the record. There was none. Colonel Ericson moved to approve variance application V-20-04 allowing the fence around the property to be 5-feet in height. However, because of corner visibility the first 20-feet along State Street and/or Pine Street cannot be 5-feet per the Code. The motion was seconded by Mr. Senato. Chairman Sheth asked if there were any questions? Mr. Keller asked if the wording of the motion restricts the angle cut at State Street and Pine Street of something less than the 5-feet requested. Mr. Swierczek replied, no. Colonel Ericson worded the motion very well. The front yard height restrictions and the corner visibility restrictions are basically treated as two separate parts of the Code. One does not supersede the other. Adding Colonel Ericson notes to respect that height restrictions of the corner visibility will not restrict Mr. Hodges beyond what he is asking. The motion is granting what the applicant is asking for. Planning Staff would then agree that the motion is in compliance with the Code. Mr. Keller asked if it would amount to a complete perimeter fence to include the work at Pine Street and State Street at a maximum of 5-feet. Mr. Swierczek replied no. He stated, as Colonel Ericson noted, if any fence was to be put in the corner visibility area it could not be above 3-feet in height. However, any fence outside of the corner visibility area could be 5-feet in height, including in the front yard. Mr. Senato asked about Mr. Swierczek’s remarks above regarding the 3-foot fence in the corner visibility area, but he understood that no fencing would be put in that area because of the corner visibility. Mr. Swierczek replied that with Mr. Hodges’ revised request he wants to put a fence that is 5-feet in height around the entirety of his property; no fence will be located in the corner visibility area. Instead the 5-foot fence would be built at an angle across from the 20-foot sections. No fence will be in the corner visibility area. Mr. Senato asked not now or in the future. Mr. Swierczek replied correct. Once Mr. Hodges puts the fence there it is final. Chairman Sheth mentioned that Mr. Rodriguez stated that the motion does satisfy City’s requirements. Mr. Rodriguez agreed. Mr. Keller mentioned that he was comfortable with the motion. The motion unanimously carried 3-1. Mr. Hufnal abstain from voting. Roll Call Vote • Mr. Keller - no • Colonel Ericson - yes • Mr. Hufnal - abstain 12

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 17, 2020 • Mr. Senato - yes • Chairman Sheth - yes The meeting was adjourned by Mr. Senato and seconded by Mr. Hufnal at 10:36 A.M. Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 13