VRB vs. Idol

For reasons it would probably take therapy to figure out the daughter and I have bonded over American Idol this season. I'd never watched a single episode of the preceding four years so it took her a couple weeks to teach me the ropes. Now we make popcorn just before show time and share critiques. She is a huge McPheeverite. I am really bummed that Chris is out and Taylor is still in.

Where then was I on Tuesday night at 8:00? Not in front of the TV, but in front of the TV cameras, testifying at the Variance Review Board (VRB) hearing. Our rear yard neighbors asked for, and got, a setback variance for a screened porch they want to put on the back of the new house they are going to build. After watching the preceding cases and seeing the board deliberate, I have to say the tension is nearly as exciting as watching the Idol results show, and the outcomes a lot more important. A family will not be able to expand their family room any farther into their backyard, a middle aged guy who needs hyrdotherapy will not be able to build a 20' wide extenson on the back of his house to enclose a hot tub, and an elderly woman described by her agent as "substantially built" will have to come back with a plan for extending a car port that will accomodate a wheel chair but not a big boat. All of these were turned down because the board saw alternatives to encroaching on the setbacks that set the tone for their respective neighborhoods AND the homeowner was suffering no "hardship."

It's taken me a long time to get to it, but hardship is the point of this post. Under the legal definition a hardship that justifies granting a variance has to do with the property and its situation, not the situation of the owner. Needing a larger house for yourself and 4 children is not a hardship. Having a tree in the way of the new house that makes your lot unbuildable could be.

People who are successful with the VRB usually:

1. Have neighborhood support, either in person or by letter. However, many letters are too vague indicating the project might not have been fully described. In my neighbor's case for instance, the posted legal notice was for "reduction of rear yard setback" it didn't have to mention tree removal or that the porch would be attached to a brand new house. The minimum legal requirement was met. Importantly though, when asked, the builder and owner were very forthcoming with information about their plans and it showed at the hearing. The VRB takes neighbors' support more seriously if they can tell the surrounding property owners have full information.

2. Are sensitive to the surrounding architecture and landscape. Just because you can legally build form setback to setback doesn't mean you should. I am convinced my neighbor was successful because he is maintaining the current spacing between his new house and the old cracker style cottage next door. The cottage is built far closer to the property line than would be allowed now and he has no legal requirement to preserve the distance the adjoining property has enjoyed since the 1920s. Board members specifically mentioned the builder's accomodation of the house next door when they moved to approve the request.

3. Show a willingness to mitigate the adverse affects of their request. Volunteering to beef up landscaping beyond requirements or maintain the feel of an older home, even if it isn't designated as an historic structure, are both persuasive.

All in all my little sojourn into the world of public hearings was worthwhile, even though I totally missed Elvis night on Idol.