The Campbell Reporter

News

Homeowners' remodeling request has to meet tough new zoning code

By Moryt Milo

Wayne and Julie Firsty want to add 749 square feet to their house. It isn't a big remodel, considering that most city requests are in the 1,000- to 2,000-square-foot range, but the Firstys have hit a snag. Their application falls under a new city ordinance with five conditions.

These conditions include proving a strict and literal interpretation of the code would create an unnecessary physical hardship to the homeowner, and that denying the application would deprive the homeowner of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same area. The Firstys also have to prove the existence of exceptional circumstances or conditions that do not apply to other properties in the same zoning district.

Wayne Firsty told the Campbell Planning Commission that even with the tough new language in the code, he believes he has the right formula for getting his request approved.

He told the planning commissioners on Oct. 24 that his family chose to build out, not up, and to do so required reconfiguring his garage from its perpendicular arrangement to a parallel layout. He said this would create an aesthetically pleasing look for his home and neighbors living on Bent Drive. He said this remodel would increase the landscaping in the front of his property, with more grass and less concrete. But herein lies the rub: Moving his garage would reduce the setback from the street.

According to new zoning regulations, the garage must be located 25 feet from the curb. Under the new layout it would be a little over 18 feet from the curb. The 7-foot difference required him to apply for a variance.

Firsty, who moved to Campbell more than six years ago, wants to stay in the Orchard City. He wants to increase the size of his bathrooms, bedrooms and playroom to accommodate his growing family. He also doesn't want to cut into his back yard, were his 2- and 5-year-old daughters play.

"I want my children to be able to play in the back yard, where it is safer," he said.

The planning commissioners found themselves wrestling with code interpretation while trying to do the right thing for a resident who clearly had good intentions, they said.

Commissioner George Doorley sympathized even further when he said, "I feel like I live in the same home, with the same circular driveway, and I can't go back because my property isn't deep enough. I understand completely what it is like to have too much concrete."

He told his colleagues that this is an example of how strict interpretation of the rules doesn't make sense. He said the issue was whether the driveway was an adequate length from the road, and Doorley thought it was.

Commissioner Bob Roseberry also wanted to help Firsty.

"I realize there is nothing extraordinary about this house, and we could be setting a precedent so all the other homes could go this way. However, I also realize that building a second story is an option, and I think that's a lot worse."

Commissioner Mark Ebner pointed out, "If we deny this request, he can come back with a second-story design, and instead of one unhappy homeowner we will have more unhappy neighbors."

One neighbor, however, did oppose Firsty's request. Robert Williams told the commission the last time it approved a variance on nearby Cameo Drive, it resulted in a big boat being parked in the driveway.

"I think that's enough said," Williams said.

But the commissioners wanted to find a solution that would satisfy the zoning code and the homeowner.

As they tossed out ideas, they realized the planning department had not measured the garage; without the exact dimensions it would be difficult to make a ruling on the setback.

The commission asked the planning department to obtain the information and postponed its decision until the Nov. 14 meeting.