Board of Zoning Adjustments Staff Report Monthly Meeting Monday, July 10, 2017

Transcription

1 Board of Zoning Adjustments Staff Report Monthly Meeting Monday, July 10, 2017 Docket Number: BZA Prepared by: Tim Jackson, AICP Applicant or Agent: Margaret B. Smith Property Location: 2427 Laurel Street Zip: Bounding Streets: Laurel St., Second St., Constance, & First St. Zoning District: HU-RD2 Two-Family Residential District Overlay District: Historic District: Irish Channel Planning District: 2 Existing Use: Single-Family Residence Square Number: 111 Proposed Use: Single-Family Residence Lot Number: B Request Citation: This request is for variances from the provisions of Article 11, Section 11.3.A.1 (Table 11-2A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Request: This request is to permit an addition onto a single-family residence, resulting in insufficient minimum permeable open space and insufficient minimum interior side and rear yard setbacks (AFTER THE FACT). Requested Waivers: Article 11, Section 11.3.A.1 (Table 11-2A) - Minimum Permeable Open Space Required: 30% Provided: 0 Waiver: 30% Article 11, Section 11.3.A.1 (Table 11-2A) - Rear Yard Setback Required: 12 feet (20% or 15 feet, whichever is less) Provided: 0 Waiver: 12 feet Article 11, Section 11.3.A.1 (Table 11-2A) - Interior Side Yard Setback Required: 3 feet Provided: 0 Waiver: 3 feet Project Description: The subject property is located at 2427 Laurel Street in the Irish Channel neighborhood in uptown New Orleans. The lot is slightly irregular in shape. It measures approximately nineteen (19) feet by sixty (60) feet, which is approximately eleven-hundred and forty (1,140) square feet in area. According to the survey, dated December 21, 1977, the rear lot line is actually feet, slightly longer than the front lot line. The side lot line on the Second Street side also makes 1 BZA025-17

2 a slight jog at the exterior stairs on the subject property structure. This jog accounts for the difference between the front lot line and the rear lot line. There is an existing two-story single-family residence on the subject property. According to the submitted plans, the survey, Sanborn maps, and Assessor s records, the original structure measures approximately fourteen (14) feet wide and forty (40) feet deep. The survey, dated December 21, 1977, shows the rear setback to be nineteen (19) feet. The rear yard appears on the survey to have a slab or patio in the rear yard on the First Street side. The 1977 survey shows that the existing structure had a three (3) foot side yard setback on the Second Street side for most of the length of the house forty-one (41) feet, then the property line jogs a little for the last nineteen (19) feet, apparently to make room for exterior stairs to the raised first floor rear entry. It appears that there is a small landing at the top of the stairs before reaching the back door which reduces the Second Street side yard setback to less than a foot for the undetermined depth of the landing, which appears to be approximately three to four feet. The First Street side yard is less than a foot on that 1977 survey. In addition, that survey shows the front steps encroaching onto the right of way by almost three (3) feet. The CZO allows for no front setback based on averaging adjacent properties. 1 This encroachment of the front stairs, along with a second floor balcony on the front (Laurel Street) of the house, are still part of the structure. Encroachment onto the right-of-way is not permitted without specific approval by the City. The applicant states that in 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage to the rear of the house. In 2008, the applicant had a first floor addition built, along with a second floor deck. The first floor addition to the structure measures approximately nineteen (19) feet deep and approximately thirteen (13) feet wide. This was apparently built utilizing the concrete slab shown in the 1977 survey, referenced earlier. The second floor deck, constructed of wood, was built over the first floor addition as well as the rest of the rear yard and cantilevering over the side yard on the Second Street side. This deck measures approximately nineteen (19) feet wide and nineteen (19) feet deep on the Second Street side and approximately thirteen (13) feet deep on the First Street side. The applicant had the first floor addition and the second-floor deck built onto the rear of the house in 2008, without a permit. These improvements encroach on the required rear yard setback and interior side-yard setback, as well as covering the required 30% minimum open space on the lot. The requested waivers are for these three items. 1 CZO Section 11.3.A.2 FRONT YARD BUILD-TO LINE REQUIREMENT 2 BZA025-17

3 Figure 1: Subject Property Survey Figure 2: First Floor Plan Showing Improvements under the First Floor Improvements Encroaching into the Required Rear Yard (NTS) Figure 3(left): Second Floor Plan Showing Deck Encroaching Over the Entire Rear Yard as Well as the Side Yard 3 BZA025-17

4 Figure 4, right: Front Elevation Which Shows the Side Yard and Rear Yard Encroachment of the Addition, Including the Second Floor Deck Figure 5: HDLC Inspection Photo from Second Street Side, Taken on April 26, 2016 Showing Location of the Deck & First Floor Addition at the Rear Property Line Residence at Second Street Rear Property Line 4 BZA025-17

5 The property owner / applicant has been cited by the Department of Safety and Permits and the Historic District Landmarks Commission several times for violations related to the deck, as well as other violations unrelated to the addition. In March of 2016, the applicant was cited for having an illegal deck built without a permit, not having a Certificate of Occupancy for the deck, and for Minimum Property Maintenance Decks Porches and Balconies - Deteriorated \ Structurally Unsound. 2 Administrative Adjudication Hearings were held on June 15, 2016 and September 21, 2016, both reset to a future hearing date. An Administrative Adjudication Hearing was held on January 11, 2017 where the case was given an open reset in order to give the property owner time to comply or apply for variances for the encroachments. Surrounding Development The subject property is located in the Irish Channel neighborhood on Laurel Street in an HU- RD2 Two-Family Residential Zoning District. As such, the neighborhood consists of predominantly single and two-family residential dwellings on relatively small lots, although, most lots in the area are between thirty (30) and thirty-five (35) feet in width and between one hundred (100) and one-hundred and twenty (129) feet deep. The subject property is much smaller at approximately nineteen (19) feet by sixty (60) feet, which is approximately elevenhundred and forty (1,140) square feet in area. There are a few neighborhood oriented businesses scattered through the area but the predominant character of the neighborhood is residential and typical of many older historic neighborhoods in the City. This neighborhood, the Irish Channel, is a designated historic district. It is known for its small cottages and shotgun homes located on narrow lots, traditionally inhabited by blue-collar workers who could afford their Figure 7: Map of the Irish Channel Historic District, from HDLC Subject Property 2 Code Enforcement Dept. Report # MPM - 4/26/ BZA025-17

6 modest prices. Houses here are typically smaller than in the Garden District or in other parts of Uptown. Most of these buildings date back to the second half of the 19 th century. 3 Figure 8: Zoning Map of Irish Channel Neighborhood & the Subject Property The lots in this neighborhood, though small by other Uptown neighborhood standards, are typically larger than the subject property. As Figure 10 illustrates, the subject property, located on Square 112 and bounded by Laurel St., Second St., Constance, & First St., is by far the smallest lot on the square in terms of lot width and the second smallest in terms of lot depth. The average lot width of these lots is 31.6 feet; the average lot depth is feet. The subject property is only 19 feet by 60 feet, much smaller than the neighborhood norm and smaller than the requirements of the HU-RD2 District (Figure 11, next page). However, Figure 10 also shows the typical rear yard on Square 112. These measurements were used using the measuring tool on the City s Property Viewer site. Though the measurements may not be precise, they give a good indication of the neighborhood norm. As the chart shows, other than the subject property, only one property has a rear yard encroachment, that being tri-plex next door to and abutting the subject property BZA025-17

7 Figure 9: Survey of Properties on Square 112 Lot Width and Depth Address Street Lot Width- Feet Lot Depth - Feet Rear Yard - Feet 2427* Laurel Street* 19* 60* Laurel Street Laurel Street st Street st Street st Street st Street st Street st Street Constance Street Constance Street Constance Street Constance Street Constance Street Constance Street Constance Street Constance Street nd Street nd Street nd Street *Indicates Subject Property Average Figure 10: HU-RD2 Area and Bulk Requirements Related to Subject Property Again, the character of the Irish Channel, like many other Uptown neighborhoods, is for structures to maximize the space on relatively small lots. As a result, there is some history of similar variance requests being requested and approved by the Board. Figure 11 below shows a number of approved requests for rear yard and side yard setback variances. However, it should be noted that only one of the rear yard variance request approvals was for the entire rear yard BZA That request was for new construction of a deck on a smaller than typical lot size, measuring 21 by 50. There is no history of variance requests being approved for the Maximum Impervious Surface requirement. 7 BZA025-17

8 Figure 11: Variance History, Similar Requests in HU-RD2 Districts Similar Request for Rear Yard Setback Variance for a Single-Family Residence in a HU-RD2 District Docket Subject Lot Size Address Required Requested Variance Disposition BZA x Camp St. 18' 8'-1" 9'-11" Approved BZA x Terpsichore St. 15' 3' 12' Approved BZA x Camp St 15' 10' 5' Approved BZA x Constance Street 15' 5'-5.5" 9'-6.5" Approved BZA x Fourth Street 10' 0' 10' Approved BZA x Walnut Street 14'-3" 4'-4" 10'-1" Approved Similar Request for Interior Side Yard Setback Variance for a Single-Family Residence in a HU-RD2 District Docket Subject Lot Size Address Required Requested Variance Disposition BZA x Laurel St 3' 2.46' 6.48" Approved Similar Request for Maximum Impervious Surface Variance for a Single-Family Res. in HU-RD2 District Docket Subject Lot Size Address Required Requested Variance Disposition BZA x Coliseum Street >40% 57% 17% Withdrawn BZA x N. Tonti Street 40% max 50% 10% Withdrawn At the June 12, 2017 meeting, the BZA deferred this docket at the request of the staff in order to give time for review and analysis of revised plans and documents submitted by the applicant and her architect. 8 BZA025-17

9 Revisions Submitted Several revisions to the original request were submitted by Donald Maginnis, Architect, representing Ms. Smith, the applicant. First Floor Revisions There are few revisions proposed for the first floor. The bath and laundry room, which were part of the post-katrina rebuilding, are proposed to remain. The structure is three (3) feet from the rear property line and the proposal is for it to remain. This is unchanged from the original request. This addition was constructed in 2008 after Katrina at the same time as the second floor deck. The deck was built to the rear property line, but the revised proposal calls for the deck to be six (6) feet from the rear property line, as explained on the next page. The stairs leading to the second floor deck will be rebuilt. Figure 12: Revised First Floor Plan (right) and Inset (below) Showing Rear Yard Setback of Three (3) Feet 9 BZA025-17

10 Second Floor Revisions The revised floor plan for the second floor shows the following: The existing deck is being reduced by three (3) feet. This will put the edge of the deck at six (6) feet from the rear property line. Since this existing deck has been cited by the Department of Safety and Permits for its deteriorated state, the rest of the deck will be repaired and rebuilt. Figure 13: Revised Second Floor Plan (right) and Inset (below) of Deck. Interior side yard setback less than three (3) feet. 10 BZA025-17

11 Summary of Revised Plans The revised plans represent an improvement over the original application. Requested Waivers: Article 11, Section 11.3.A.1 (Table 11-2A) - Minimum Permeable Open Space Required: 30% Provided: approx. 10% Waiver: 20% Though no calculations were provided, based on the revised plans, it is estimated that the permeable open space is approximately 10%. Article 11, Section 11.3.A.1 (Table 11-2A) - Rear Yard Setback Required: 12 feet (20% or 15 feet, whichever is less) Provided: 3 feet Waiver: 9 feet The original application included drawings showing the second floor deck built to the rear property line. The revised plans indicate the deck will be pulled back six (6) feet, twelve (12) feet is required. However, the first floor laundry room and bath will remain at three (3) feet from the rear property line. Article 11, Section 11.3.A.1 (Table 11-2A) - Interior Side Yard Setback Required: 3 feet Provided: 0 Waiver: 3 feet The revised plans show that except for the stairs to the deck, the required three (3) foot interior side yard setback on the Second Street side is met. The second floor addition, constructed in 2008, and the revised deck plans are still within the three (3) foot required setback. The First Street side yard setback is less than three (3) feet but that situation was created when the original structure was built. Although the revised plans show an improvement in the situation and an attempt to move closer to compliance with the requirements of the CZO, the staff believes that the nine (9) criteria are not met, as indicated in the original staff report and below. Therefore, the staff cannot recommend approval of these requests. 11 BZA025-17

12 Impact and Analysis According to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Zoning Adjustments must consider the following criteria in order to determine what impact the requested variance would have on adjacent properties if it were approved. The procedure affords an applicant relief from the strict requirements of the zoning law when unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty exists. 1. Do special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district? Yes, the subject property is a very small lot. As the charts in Figure 9 and 10 indicate, the subject property is the smallest lot in terms of lot width and lot area of all the lots surveyed in Square 112. It is also much smaller than that required in the HU-RD2 District. 2. Will the literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district? Rear Yard: No, the neighborhood is characterized by structures built closer to the property lines. As discussed and illustrated in Figure 11, the BZA has approved several rear yard encroachment requests on properties that are unusually smaller than the neighborhood norm but, only one for the entire rear yard. Side Yard: No, the neighborhood norm is for residences to have minimal setbacks, 3 feet for side yards. There are no examples in the immediate area where the structure encroaches entirely on the side yard and, as Figure 11 shows. There is only one example of a variance being granted for side yard setbacks in the area, and that approval was for only 6.5 inches. Permeability: No, there is no evidence of recent deviations from this requirement in the neighborhood. 3. Do any special conditions and circumstances result from the actions of the applicant or any other person who may have (or had) an interest in the property? Rear and Side Yards: Yes, the first floor addition and the second floor deck were constructed by the owner without a permit in The result was the encroachment into the required side and rear yards. Permeability: No, when the addition and deck were built in 2008, the City did not have the permeability requirement that is in the current CZO, adopted in BZA025-17

13 4. Will the granting of the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege which is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district or similarly situated? Rear Yard: Yes, as shown in Figure 11, only one other structure was found in the vicinity that encroaches into the entire rear yard setback as does the subject property. Though some variance requests have been granted for similar requests, as illustrated in Figure 11, of the six (6) requests approved for rear yard setback variances, only one was for the entire rear yard, BZA That request, located approximately five (5) blocks from the subject property, was also for a proposed new deck although that deck was at a height of only three (3) feet. The other requests approved by the BZA, as shown in Figure 11, were typically on larger lots and were for partial encroachments into the rear or side yards. Side Yard: Yes, as shown in Figure 11, no other structures were found in the vicinity that encroaches into the entire rear yard setback as does the subject property. Permeability: Yes, there is no evidence of recent deviations from this requirement in the neighborhood. 5. Will the variance(s), if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? No, for all three variance requests since the addition and the deck in question are located to the rear of the property and are not visible from the street. These alterations have been there since 2008, almost nine years, so approving the variances would not change the character of the area. 6. Will strict adherence to the property regulations result in a demonstrable hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from mere inconvenience? No, all three variance requests are for the convenience of the applicant. Even though the property is significantly smaller than other properties in the area, the extent of the encroachment of the addition and deck to the rear and side yard are excessive and could have been addressed by the applicant prior to construction. 7. Is the purpose of the variance based exclusively upon a desire to serve the convenience or profit of the property owner, or other interested party(s)? Yes, all three variance requests are more for the convenience of the applicant. Rear Yard: Even though the subject property is smaller than the neighborhood norm, and while there are few examples of the entire rear yard being encroached upon, one variance was approved for the entire rear yard. The typical variance request approved, as shown in Figure 12, left some room in the rear yard open. 13 BZA025-17

14 8. Will the variance be detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? Rear and Side Yard: Yes, the variances could be detrimental to the public welfare. As this subject property s history illustrates, a rear yard setback waiver is not just for ground level improvements. Once the right to encroach into the rear and side yards is granted, the structure could expand upward to the full height allowed in the district, as the subject property has done. Also, as discussed, the structure is in poor condition and Safety and Permits and the HDLC have cited the property owner for building the addition and the deck without a permit in 2008 and without a Certificate of Occupancy. Within the last year, the property owner has been cited because the deck has been determined to be unsafe. Permeability: No, approval of the request for permeability requirements will not have such impacts. 9. Will the variance impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase traffic congestion in the public street, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety? Rear and Side Yard: Yes, the deck structure is a two-story structure and situated at the rear and side property lines. This illustrates the problem with a variance for the entire rear yard, discussed earlier. The rear yard variance would not grant the encroachment for just for the first floor. This shows that the second floor deck at the rear and side property lines, which negatively impacts neighboring properties. Conceivably, the open deck could be enclosed and the impacts on the neighboring properties, which this request allows. This could impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties and, since it is constructed of wood, could be considered a possible fire hazard. Permeability: No, approval of the request for permeability requirements will not have such impacts. Staff Recommendation Based on this report, the staff recommends DENIAL of the requested variance for Article 11, Section 11.3.A.1 (Table 11-2A) - Minimum Permeable Open Space because the request fails to satisfy five (5) of the nine criteria as they pertain to the requested variance, in that: The literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The special circumstances result from the actions of the applicant. The granting of the variances will confer on the applicant special privileges which are denied by this ordinance to others. There is not a demonstrable hardship to warrant the requests. 14 BZA025-17

15 The variances are based upon a desire to serve the convenience of the owner. Based on this report, the staff recommends DENIAL of the requested variances for Article 11, Section 11.3.A.1 (Table 11-2A) - Rear Yard Setback and for Article 11, Section 11.3.A.1 (Table 11-2A) - Interior Side Yard Setback The request fails to satisfy seven of the nine criteria as they pertain to the requested variance because the requests fail to satisfy seven (7) of the nine criteria as they pertain to the requested variance, in that: The literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The special circumstances result from the actions of the applicant. The granting of the variances will confer on the applicant special privileges which are denied by this ordinance to others. There is not a demonstrable hardship to warrant the requests. The variances are based upon a desire to serve the convenience of the owner. The variances could be detrimental to the public welfare. The side and rear yard variances will impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. 15 BZA025-17

16 Zoning

17 Sanborn

18 Survey

19 Timothy H. Jackson From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Tuesday, May 16, 20173:36 PM Timothy H. Jackson Re: Laurel Street letter.docx Tim Jackson Please find the letters regarding the appeals and the 9 criteria addressed. I am assembling the drawings and photos as I am sending this. Note that I am proposing the modification of the 2nd floor deck (which is structurally unsound) but retaining the 1st floor enclosed habitable areas in an effort to find a solution. I will also contact the HDLC and ICNA for input from same. We note that there was no opposition at the meeting however I want to cover all possible comments. DONALD MAGINNIS ARCHITECT 1111 SAINT MARY ST. UNIT A NEW ORLEANS, LA damarcht@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Timothy H. Jackson <thjackson@nola.gov> To: DONALD MAGINNIS (damarcht@aol.com) <damarcht@aol.com> Sent: Mon, May 15, :50 pm Subject: Laurel Street Mr. Maginnis If you have new drawings, proposals, etc. I suggest those be submitted. I will ask HDLC what their requirements are and let you know. Tim Jackson, AICP Planning Administrator New Orleans City Planning Commission 1300 Perdido Street, Suite 7W03 New Orleans, LA Office: thjackson@nola.gov 1

20 DONALD MAGINNIS ARCHITECT 1111 SAINT MARY ST. UNIT A NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA (504) FAX Board of Zoning Adjustments MAY 16, Perdido St., 7th floor New Orleans, LA RE: 2427 Laurel St. Members of the Board: The Owner of the above noted property requests an after the fact variance to the following CZO: requirements. Minimum Permeable Area < 30% Required Rear Yard of 12-0 Required Interior Side Yards of 3-0 In March 2017 the owner appeared to the Board without representation and proper materials and I asked on her behalf to defer the matter while I could review and address the three issues in question. Post Katrina there was an unpermitted enclosed 1 st floor rear addition plus an unpermitted open 2 nd floor deck that replaced a damaged two story rear wing. I reviewed the file and visited the site and propose to modify the 2 nd floor addition and retain the 1 st floor addition. I comment as follows about the variances: The small lot is 19-0 x 60-0 or only 1,140 sf and the original two story residence always exceeded more than 70% of the area, as do most neighboring properties There has never been 30% permeable area either before or after the unpermitted additions. Some permeable area will be proposed beyond the approximately 5% existing. There has never been a 12-0 rear yard. The yard was only about 6-0 pre-katrina but the enclosed 1 st floor addition reduces that to about 3-0 as does the deck above. We propose to modify the deck to within 12-0 of the line but retain the 1 st floor living areas. There have never been two 3-0 side yards. The original house and overhangs encroached on both side yards and the additions extended the encroachments into the required 3-0 side yards. We will propose to reduce the 2 nd floor deck at the left side to gain some side yard space. The right side neighbor is more than 3-0 away but the left side and rear neighbors both approach into their 3-0 required separations. The work was done three years after Katrina with the owner s Road Home money (approximately $80,000.00) and without permits by an obviously unqualified contractor. Please review the letter addressing the nine criteria and information provided and look favorably upon this request. Sincerely: Donald Maginnis Architect CC: Margret Smith owner

21 DONALD MAGINNIS ARCHITECT 1111 SAINT MARY ST. UNIT A NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA (504) FAX Board of Zoning Adjustments MAY 16, Perdido St., 7th floor New Orleans, LA RE: 2427 Laurel St. Members of the Board: The Owner of the above noted property requests a variance to the three issues by modifying the existing conditions. We are addressing the nine review standards and procedures as follows: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. The lot size is unusually small compared to other lots in the block and area. The house is only 15-0 and one room wide in a shotgun arrangement with only one private 2 nd floor bed room. Other houses are larger with better room plans. 2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. A literal interpretation of the ordinance would result in the reduction of the 2 nd floor deck and the partial elimination of the 1 st floor rear Laundry/Bath rooms. The deck can be reduced to conform to the yard requirements but the enclosed living areas are necessary for the owner s use and welfare. 3. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant or any other person who may have or had interest in the property. The conditions are the result of unpermitted work post Katrina by an unqualified contractor, and not by the intent of the owner, who relied on the contractor to build according to the codes. The new enclosed one story addition and deck above replaced a two story rear wing that was destroyed during Katrina. 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant and special privilege which is denied by this Ordinance to others lands, structures, or buildings in the same district or similarly situated. There are no other similar small residential structures or lot conditions in the area. Most adjacent houses are larger and do not strictly meet all of the yard and permeable area requirements.

22 2427 Laurel St. continued 5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character and scale of the area will remain unchanged. The house is the same scale, materials and style as other residences and the front street façade will be unchanged. The 1 st St side view will be altered to conform to the HDLC guidelines if required. 6. Strict adherence to the regulations for the property would result in a demonstrable hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. The hardships are not from the actions of the owner but the result of an unqualified contractor doing unpermitted work on an unusually small lot. The reduction of the 2 nd floor deck would be an inconvenience, but the reduction of the 1 st floor rear utility rooms would be a demonstrable hardship. 7. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to serve the convenience or profit of the property owner or other interested party(s). The variances as modified will have no profit or commercial considerations. The property is the owner s small single family residence and can t be used for rental purposes. The owner will still have less enclosed living space than before Katrina. 8. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The variance will upgrade the building and will not encroach upon or adversely affect any public property, right of way, or any adjacent private properties. 9. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or increase substantially the congestion in the public street, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The variance will not impair any light or air to or drain any water onto adjacent properties. There will be no impairment to any public property or rights of way. There are no traffic or parking issues with the property. The owner, Ms. Margret Smith will make the modifications proposed in an effort to comply as closely as possible with the CZO. Please look favorably on this proposal. DONALD MAGINNIS ARCHITECT

23

24

25 REBUILD DECK STAIR DECK 19'-5" LAUNDRY BATH KITCHEN 60'-0" DINING ROOM 60'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" DEMO 3'-0" +- DECK 7'-0" 6'-0" 15'-0" ROOF BELOW REBUILD DECK BATHROOM BEDROOM 3'-0" 3'-0" LIVING ROOM BEDROOM 19'-0" BALCONY LAUREL ST. 1ST FLOOR PLAN 1/8 "=1'-0" 2ND FLOOR PLAN 1/8 "=1'-0" 2427 LAUREL ST.

26

27

28 1.Left-side 2.Front facade

29 3.Left-side

30 4. Left-side

31 Left-side view 6. Rear Yard

32 7. Rear yard 8.Rear yard

33 9.Rear yard

34 Site Plans

35

36 Elevations

37 Photos

38

39

40

41