Case 2049
Applicant:
Kirk and Sara Camp Milam
Owner:
Same
Request:
Front and Rear Setback Variance
Location:
425 N. 15th Street
Zoning:
R1A
Surrounding Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
(R1A) Single Family Residential
(R1A) Single Family Residential
(RB) Two-Unit Residential
(R1A) Single Family Residential
Past Zoning History: Originally zoned (RC) Multifamily Residential in 1971. In 2000 the zoning
changed to (RA) and then changed to (R1A) Single Family Residential in 2006.
Planners Comments: The subject property is a home on a non-conforming lot on North 15th
Street between Jefferson Avenue and Adams Avenue. The house was built in 1925, prior to any
zoning ordinance (1971) or building codes and already encroaches on the front yard and rear
yard setbacks of this lot. This is not unusual for home of this age on small lots near the Square.
Due to the historic nature of this residence, any modification to the structure must first go
before the Oxford Historic Preservation Commission to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness.
The case was heard on February 9, 2016, case #367, and a modification for existing structure
was granted to allow construction of a front porch and an addition on the rear.
Having received the approval for the CA from the Preservation Commission, the applicant is
now seeking a front yard setback variance of ten feet (10’) for the front porch and a rear yard
setback variance of eight feet (8’) for the addition. The intent of the variance is to bring the
property into conformity, which would allow the owners to replace the structure if it was ever
damaged or destroyed.
Due to the subject property’s existing nonconforming nature, granting this variance to bring the
property into conformity, would only increase the encroachment by about four feet in the front
yard and less than two feet in the rear setback. The owners have consulted their rear neighbors
1
who have no objections to the new plans as granting of this variance will not encroach on any
neighboring structures. The construction of the front porch would match those of the
neighboring houses and allow the owners to have rights that their neighbors currently enjoy.
Additionally, the owners have contacted the only full-time contiguous residence affected by the
front variance who have also offered their support of the plan.
A variance request may be granted when special conditions exist that are peculiar to the land or
structures that do not apply to other lands or structures in the same District under the terms of
this Ordinance under the terms of the Section 216.07 found below:
216.07 Variances, conditions governing applications, procedures.
1.
To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance form the terms of this ordinance
as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal
enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. A
variance from the terms of this ordinance shall not be granted by the board of
adjustment unless and until written application for a variance is submitted
demonstrating:
a.
That 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 district;
b.
That 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;
c.
That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant; and
d.
That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in
the same district.
2.
Notice of public hearings shall be given as in section 225 herein.
3.
The public hearings shall be held. Any party may appear in person, or by agent or by
attorney.
4.
The board of adjustment shall make findings, that the conditions required by section
216.07, subsection 1. of this ordinance and described in the application do exist.
5.
The board of adjustment shall further make a finding that the reasons set forth in the
application justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum
variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure.
6.
The board of adjustment shall further make a finding that the granting of the variance
will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and will not be
injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
7.
In granting any variance, the board of adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions
and safeguards in conformity with this ordinance. Violation of such conditions and
safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be
deemed a violation of this ordinance and punishable under section 219.
2
8.
No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district,
and no permitted use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be
considered grounds for the issuance of a variance.
9. Under no circumstances shall the board of adjustment grant a variance to allow a use not
permissible under the terms of this ordinance in the district involved, or any use expressly
or by implication prohibited by the terms of this ordinance in said district.
Recommendation: The staff recommend approval of this variance; and if the Board of
Adjustment finds in favor of the applicants request to allow a front yard setback variance of ten
feet (10’) to construct a front porch and a rear yard setback variance of eight feet (8’) to
complete an addition the Board must find that the variance meets the following findings:
1. The Board finds that a special conditions exists due to the unusual nature of the lot
special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the building involved and
which are not applicable to other buildings in the same district;
2. The literal interpretation of the provision of this Ordinance deprives the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this ordinance;
3. Granting the variance request would not confer on the applicant special privileges that
is denied by this ordinance to buildings in the same district
4. The variance applies only to the attached plan and that has been previously approved by
the Oxford Historic Preservation Committee.
3
The Variances Should be Awarded Due to the Following Special Condition and/or Circumstances:
This property is zoned R-1A. The subject lot is a non-conforming lot. The current owner purchased the house in
2000, prior to the 2005 amendments to the building codes. The house was constructed in 1925 according to tax
records. The lot was determined and the house was constructed prior to the implementation of Oxford's first set of
building codes and certainly before the revision in 2005. None of the R-1A designated lots on the street meet the
strict setback requirements set forth in the Code as they were all constructed prior to the Code’s implementation.
Further, many of the R-1A zoned lots in this area are deeper than the subject lot and adjoining lots which allow them
to meet the front and rear setbacks more easily without a variance. This non-conforming property cannot without a
variance.
Strict Application of the Provisions Will Impose Unnecessary Hardship:
The existing structure footprint currently encroaches the front and rear setbacks as set forth in the Code of
Ordinances applicable to this lot. If a strict application of the front and rear setbacks are imposed, the owners would
be precluded from reconstructing the existing structure much less remodeling. Additionally, if the house is
destroyed by a storm or fire, the setback limitations determined years after the construction of the house prohibit any
re-building or remodeling if strictly applied to this non-conforming lot. As stated above, this is a non-conforming
lot, and the house was built prior to any application of the Code of Ordinances.
Granting the Variance Will Not be Materially Detrimental to the Public Welfare or Adjoining Properties:
The owners are asking for a rear setback variance that allows the entire rear wall of the house to align with the
farthest extents of the existing structure. Currently, the rear wall of the utility room and office is not aligned with
the rear face of the carport columns. The owners are only seeking to extend half of the rear wall 20 ½“ to align with
the current farthest extents. This house backs up to the Turner’s back yard. The variance will not encroach upon any
neighboring structure. The Turners have reviewed the plans and have no objection as evidenced by the attached
letter.
The owners are asking for a front setback variance that will allow them to construct a usable front porch and provide
them with a welcoming outdoor living space. The new front porch will contribute to the current rhythm of the
neighboring houses which all have front porches. Currently there is a small front stoop that already encroaches the
setback, like many of the neighboring houses. The owners are asking to build the porch 48.75” closer to the street
than the current stoop which will still be farther off the street than many of the neighboring houses. Please reference
the attached photographs for examples of the neighboring houses. The Kings, who live across the street are the only
full time contiguous owners affected by the front variance. They, like the Turners, have reviewed the plans and do
not object to the design and variances as indicated in the attached letter.
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
LIN
PROPERTY
E
PROPERTY
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK
SETBACK
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
REAR OF NEW HOUSE ALIGNS WITH
REAR EXTENT OF EXISTING HOUSE
PORCH EXTENDS CLOSER TO
STREET THAN EXISTING STOOP
SETBACK
9'-101"
4'-03
4"
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
3"
52'-54
SETBACK
SETBACK
119.02
1,848.88
59.90
AREA CALCULATIONS:
FIRST FLOOR CONDITIONED = 1,848.88 SF
PORCHES/STOOPS UNDER ROOF = 470.71 SF
CARPORT UNDER ROOF = 471.71 SF
DRIVEWAY/SIDEWALK = 908.56 SF
TOTAL BUILDING = 2,791.30 SF
TOTAL BUILDING + DRIVEWAY/SIDEWALK = 3,699.86 SF
TOTAL LOT = 8,466.93 SF
TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE
= 2,791.30 / 8,466.93 = 32.97%
TOTAL BUILDING + DRIVEWAY/SIDEWALK COVERAGE
= 3,699.86 / 8,466.93 SF = 43.70%
291.79
471.71
BEDROOM 5
BEDROOM 4
68'-9"
BRICK BASE TO EDGE OF CARPORT
CARPORT
22'-7"
CARPORT
DINING
BEDROOM 3
42'-7"
BRICK BASE TO BRICK BASE
52'-53
4"
SETBACK
SETBACK
12'-63
4"
STOOP
21'-312"
CARPORT
11'-414"
CARPORT
TO BRICK BASE
4'-1012"
STOOP
GRILL PORCH
MASTER SUITE
BEDROOM 2
SETBACK
FRONT PORCH
31'-63
4"
BRICK BASE TO EDGE OF PORCH
47'-512"
BRICK BASE TO BRICK BASE
15'-103
4"
EDGE OF PORCH
TO BRICK BASE
68'-9"
BRICK BASE TO CARPORT
21'-312"
BRICK BASE TO EDGE OF CARPORT
9'-1012"
EDGE OF PORCH
TO BRICK BASE
8'-8"
BRICK BASE
TO CARPORT
SETBACK
34'-6"
BRICK BASE TO BRICK BASE
9'-1012"
EDGE OF PORCH
TO BRICK BASE
52'-53
4"
8'-1"
BRICK BASE
TO BRICK BASE
47'-512"
BRICK BASE TO BRICK BASE
+/-19'-414"
GRADE TO TOP OF EXISTING
ROOF RIDGE
+/-20'-212"
GRADE TO TOP OF PROPOSED
NEW ROOF RIDGE
HARDIEPLANK LAP SIDING, TYP.
ARCHITECTURAL
SHINGLES, TYP.
MODULAR BRICK, TYP.
DISTANCES MEASURED FROM FRONT
FOUNDATION WALL TO STREET:
423 N. 15th St. = +/- 29'
433 N. 15th St. = +/- 36'
435 N. 15th St. = +/- 11'
1423 Adams Ave. = +/- 17'
503 N. 15th St. = +/- 18'
519 N. 15th St. = +/- 30'
1418 Adams Ave. = +/- 22'
425 N. 15th St. = +/- 25' (proposed new
distance from foundation wall to street)