PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2005-00841, Christopher Ehrman Mr. Schwartzman informed the applicant of his right to defer his application to the next meeting because there were only two voting Board members present. Mr. Ehrman stated that he would like to continue his request. Christopher Ehrman presented his request for a seven-foot variance from the front setback requirement to construct a twenty-two foot wide by eight-foot deep covered front porch. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Ehrman stated that staff has recommended denial of his variance. He asked that the Board grant his request for a variance for the following reasons: The lack of a front entrance and location of the home in relation to the front setback are unique, in particular, to the property. He and his wife are seeking a variance because the home currently has no defined front entrance. As a result, the home appears incomplete. He said the home’s front door is located on the left side of the home while the driveway is located on the right side. Mr. Ehrman stated that either the majority of homes in the immediate area have a front entrance or a driveway on the same side of the home as the side door acts as the front door. Therefore, they are seeking the Board’s assistance in obtaining a variance to construct a covered porch wrapping around the front half and along the left side of the home creating a defined point of entry and, as a result, bringing the side door to the front of the home. Mr. Ehrman stated that their home was constructed only one foot from the setback and they cannot construct a defined front entrance without a variance. He stated that granting the variance would be in the public interest, and would allow him to complete the front of their home as well as improve the value of their home. He also noted that their neighbors openly support of the construction of the covered front porch. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Ehrman explained that the entry door would still be the side door. He said he would not be able to put a front door onto the house because it would lead into his bathroom. Mr. Ehrman stated that not granting the variance would result in practical difficulty in the use of the property because his family, as well as visitors, must currently traverse the entire length of the home and be subjected to inclement weather. This is extremely inconvenient for all for bringing in groceries or, more importantly, bringing in small children and elderly parents. Furthermore, first time visitors to the home have a difficult time locating the entrance to the home because it is not a defined entrance on the front of the home. Mr. Ehrman stated that, without a variance, they would be denied the most basic use of their property and the right to construct a defined entrance on the front of their home, which would provide protection from the elements. In addition, the home would remain unfinished. Mr. Ehrman stated that the only option would be to move the entire structure back seven feet. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Ehrman explained there is a sidewalk along the front of the home that runs to the driveway. There are two points of entry to the home. Mr. Deitchman stated that the Board has received Mr. Ehrman’s addendum by Federal Express regarding the application. Mr. Ehrman addressed the Board’s concern regarding the reason staff recommended denial of the variance. He explained that one of the reasons supporting this need for a front is to allow them to travel from the driveway to the house. He said that moving the driveway would make it more difficult for them because the entry door is on the right side of the house. Mr. Ehrman explained that moving the driveway to the left side of the house is difficult because there are obstacles such as a large tree in the front left corner of the lot abutting the sidewalk as well as a utility pole. The location of the tree and utility pole would prohibit the construction of any paved or concrete surface larger than the existing walkway to the home on the left side of the lot. Mr. Ehrman stated that the proposed covered front porch is the best design for the front of the house, which would create a doorway. Mr. Ehrman submitted into the record as Exhibit 2, two photographs of his home illustrating the actual location of the utility pole and tree on the left side of the property. He noted the front porch would not go all the way across; it would go to the center of the house to create a center focal point. He said that moving the driveway to the left side of the property would be impractical in that the lot gets narrower and the utility pole is in the lot line. In response to Mr. Schwartzman, Mr. Ehrman explained that he is only proposing to construct the porch to go halfway across the front of his house because some rooflines on Twinbrook homes are unusual, and a portion of the roof nearest the driveway is very low. It would take a tremendous amount of work to alter that roofline to make it uniform with the other portion of the roof. Mr. Schwartzman disclosed for the record that he also lives in the applicant’s neighborhood and his house is almost identical. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Ehrman stated that there are no houses with porches on his street. He noted that there are houses with porches on other nearby streets. The Board and staff discussed concerns regarding the findings that have to be met in order to approve this application. Mr. Ehrman further pointed out that two of the findings could be addressed in that there is a drainage problem in the front of his house, and the initial placement of his house on the lot is peculiar. In addition, due to the internal structure of his house, a front door could not be placed in the middle of house because it would be in his bathroom. Mr. Ehrman also pointed out that a covered porch is also needed because his son has asthma and another child is due in April 2005. The following citizens testified in support of the application: 1. Jacob Kerns, 13215 Ardennes Avenue, testified that he recently came before the Board with a variance for a porch. He said when he found out where Mr. Ehrman lived, he found that his aunt used to live next door to the previous owners of Mr. Ehrman’s house, and he was down there a lot to play. He said he still remembers the drainage issues in the front yard, which is still a major issue. Mr. Kerns stated that it is commendable that Mr. Ehrman is improving his house and he glad to see that there are many people in the neighborhood who are taking more pride in their houses. 2. Harry Thomas, 1121 Lewis Avenue and President of the Twinbrook Citizens Association, testified in support of the application. He pointed out that moving a utility pole would be very costly. The applicant already has a driveway on one side and the people in Twinbrook would like to see the residents to do as much to make Twinbrook a warm community rather than a cold community. A porch on this house would be aesthetically pleasing and would enhance the community. It is nice to sit outside and converse with the community. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Thomas stated that two of the findings could be met in that sloping of the hill into Mr. Ehrman’s property, the cost of moving the utility pole to put in a driveway and the drainage problem on the front of the property.
3. Stephanie Diaz, 5720 Crawford Drive, testified that she lives across the street and supports the application and she happy they are enhancing their property as well as a solution to a drainage problem.
4. Julia Pierce, 5712 Vandergrift Street, testified that she is in support of the application. She pointed out that there is no place sit out front to watch the children play and she believes that is a safety issue. She said that she and her husband moved into the neighborhood because it had a nice community feel. It would be nice to be able to sit out in the front to watch the kids play. She feels that is a peculiarity in that there is no place for them to sit to watch the children. Ms. Pierce stated that she and her husband also are planning on putting on a front porch. 5. The TCA Transportation Chair, testified in support of the application. He pointed out that because of the grade of the front of the property, there would be no room to put in a driveway on the left of the house. 6. Brigitta Mullican, 1947 Lewis Avenue, testified in support of the application. She said that she was informed about this variance and heard that this application was recommended for denial and she came to hear the decision. Ms. Mullican stated that she understands the issue of the zoning and the requirements. After listening to the applicant’s arguments, she supports the variance for the porch and it is practical. The best argument she heard was the safety issue of not being able to watch the children play. 7. Stan Shepherd, 5710 Vandegrift Street, testified that he lives three streets away and he has a very similar house. He said he has a side porch and he is able to sit and watch his children play in the front yard. He pointed out that he has a drainage problem in the front yard. He said he has seen the applicant’s property and moving the driveway to the left side of the property would make it much smaller and it would not provide enough room to get out of the car to get into the door. He said he supports the application. After further discussion regarding the findings, and there being no one else to speak for or against the Variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. OLD BUSINESS De Minimis Revision for Variance Application APP2004-00827 Joe Dulaney, 819 Aster Boulevard provided information to the Board that his variance application was approved by the Board on June 5, 2004 regarding an addition to his house. Mr. Dulaney explained a small change on the corner of the addition’s roofline. The previous roofline was accepted by his neighbor and after having second thoughts, he the neighbor has signed the plans and indicted that the change in roofline is acceptable. Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to modify Variance Application APP2004-00827 and take into account the de minimis changes in the design of the roofline and that the plans are completed as submitted. The motion passed unanimously.
DECISIONS Variance Application APP2005-00841, Christopher Ehrman Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Variance Application APP2005-00841 per the three findings: 1) The variance as requested would not be contrary to the public interest. The Boards’ finding is similar to staff’s findings; 2) The variance is requested owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of any action taken by the applicant. The Board has found that because of the elevation of this lot and its topography, there is a significant problem with ponding and flooding and that this is peculiar to this lot; 3) A literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result in practical difficulty. The Board has found that there are practical difficulties including a large tree removal and possible movement of the driveway to other side of the house. Based on those three findings, the Board approves the plans as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Thomas recommended that the Board send this application to the Mayor and Council because Twinbrook community is now revising its master plan. Ms. Hall stated that the Board has already presented the Mayor and Council information about this issue. Minutes Mr. Schwartzman recommended that the minutes of Meeting Nos. 2-05 and 3-05 be forwarded to the May 7, 2005 meeting when all Board members would be present. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:35am. NOTE: Should further details of this hearing be required, a tape recording of the meeting is available. The Planning Division maintains a tape of the meeting for a period not less than one year from the date of each meeting. | 
