Case #2016-BZA Sheila Hines May 4, 2016

Transcription

1 Case #2016-BZA Sheila Hines PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 1 foot side yard adjacent to a street (Paladin Dr.) instead of 17 feet as required for an existing 6 foot tall fence; and to waive the required category I landscaping, 3557 HILBER ST Zoning: R7.5 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: 1965 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65 db DNL REPRESENTATIVE: John Drueitt BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: On March 2, 2011, a variance to a17-foot setback from the property line adjacent to Paladian Drive, instead of 30-feet as required was Granted to enclose an existing carport and convert it to livable space. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant would like retain a recently installed 6-foot wooden privacy fence presently 1-foot from the property line adjacent (Paladian Drive) a street, instead of 17-feet as required when adjacent to a street. According to the applicant, this fence replaces an old 4-foot chain linked fence that was located on the property line adjacent to Paladian Drive. The fence ordinance was amended to allow a fence 6-foot or less in height to be installed in line from the closet corner of any nonconforming dwelling, where it is parallel with a street. Therefore, in this case, the fence could be placed (relocated) at a 17-foot setback from the property line adjacent to Paladian Drive, rather than 30-feet as required in this zoning district. The fence does not meet the spirit or intent of the fence ordinance amended to offer relief to the required side corner setback requirements for fencing installed in conjunction with a nonconforming dwellings Although building permits were obtained for recently constructed carport enclosure and driveway extension; a fence permit was not obtained prior to installing the fence. Because the fence is only setback 1-foot from the property line adjacent to Paladian Drive, it leaves limited opportunity to install landscaping on the applicant s property without encroaching on the right-of-way The fence presents a potential visibility hazard for both pedestrian and vehicle traffic traversing through the intersection and nearby driveways RECOMMENDED CONDITION: 1. An after-the-fact fence permit must obtained within 7 business days of this hearing

2 Case #2016-BZA Thomas Hubbard & Daura Hamlin PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 10 foot rear yard setback (east) instead of 20 feet as required for a proposed sunroom, decking and stairway; and to modify the conditions of a variance granted on August 21, 2002, TH ST Zoning: R5R(NE) GPIN: YEAR BUILT: 1975 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Billy Garrington Of Governmental Permitting Consultants BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: On August 21, 2002, a variance to a 9-foot rear yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required was Granted for a proposed second-story screen porch on an existing deck/ balcony SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing to construct a x sunroom addition above an existing deck currently at a 10-foot rear yard setback, instead of 20- foot as required. The decking and stairway is believed to be nonconforming; however, over 50% of the decking and stairway were replaced and therefore were included with this request. In addition to the variance request mentioned above, the applicants are seeking to modify the conditions of the variance granted in Documentation from a structural engineer stating the existing decking can support the proposed sunroom addition has been provided in the file. Additionally, a letter from the applicant s physician stating the medical condition and the need for the sunroom has also been provided in the file. A building permit was obtained on December 31, 2015 to replace the deck boards and railings on the rear and front decks. It was specifically noted on this building permit a building permit t for the sunroom addition would be obtained at a later time pending engineering and variance approval. Staff was unable to verify if a building permit was obtained for the sunroom addition. The sunroom addition is presently under construction and is approximately 75% complete. The sunroom addition will be constructed in the same footprint of the existing decking; therefore, the present setback will not decrease with this request It appears construction on the sunroom addition began without obtaining a building permit or receiving the necessary variance approval Letters supporting this request have been provided in the file RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. The sunroom shall be completed in substantial adherence to the submitted sketch and site plan provided with the request. 2. An after-the-fact building permit shall be obtained for the sunroom addition within 7 business day of this hearing.

3 Case #2016-BZA Mirasol, LLC PREPARED BY: Karen Lasley DESCRIPTION: A variance to allow a freestanding sign to be located 5 feet from an existing public right-of-way instead of 7 feet as required, 2336 TALVERA PL Zoning: R7.5 (conditional) GPIN: YEAR BUILT - Proposed new sign construction REPRESENTATIVE: Jeff Kroll SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Mirasol subdivision is being developed along both sides of Nimmo Parkway and will have a total of 89 lots. There will be one entrance on each side of Nimmo Parkway and attractive stone neighborhood signs are desired at each entrance. The entrance sign has been erected on the south side of Nimmo Parkway and this sign meets all setbacks. An elevation of the proposed sign for the north entrance shows that the two signs will match. The entrance signs have the name of the subdivision mounted on a 12 stone column with an undulating stone wall that descends in height from 4 8 down to 2 8 before terminating in a 3 tall stone column. The appearance of the sign was approved by City Council when the property was rezoned to Conditional R-7.5 in A variance is being requested to allow the entrance sign on the north side of Nimmo Parkway to have a 5 setback from a public right-of-way, rather than 7 as required. The applicant indicates that the monument sign will not fit in the setback area and that the required 7 setback would place the sign too far from the entrance. Placing the sign at a 5 setback from the right-of-way will not cause a visibility problem at this location. Nimmo Parkway is a very wide, 110 rightof-way with a bike path and there is approximately 75 of green space on the north side between the road improvements and the first residential lot. The developer desires to have the Mirasol entrance sign on the north side of Nimmo Parkway match the entrance sign on the south side. Both signs will be located on property owned by the Homeowners Association. The south side entrance has significantly more area for a sign and all setbacks

4 were met. The developer was not able locate the same sign with the long serpentine wall within the space available. An entrance sign on the north side of Nimmo Parkway can be accommodated within the required setbacks if the length of the serpentine wall is reduced. It is important to the developer that the signs match, however, and the variance is being requested. CONDITIONS: If approved, the following condition should be required: 1. The entrance sign shall substantially adhere to the submitted site plan and sign elevation.

5 Case #2016-BZA Henley Farm, LP PREPARED BY: Karen Lasley DESCRIPTION: A variance to permit a building used for the sale of agricultural products to be 31 feet in height instead of 12 feet in height as allowed, 2061 PLEASANT RIDGE RD Zoning: AG1/AG2 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: 1850 s AICUZ: Less than 65 db Ldn REPRESENTATIVE: Representative: Edward Bourdon, Esquire SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This 43.5 acre parcel is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts and is being actively farmed. There is an existing historic 1850 s farm house on the property that is being restored. The applicants would like to use the first floor of the structure for the sale of agricultural and agricultural-related products. Section 401(d) of the Zoning Ordinance allows for the sale of agricultural products and agricultural-related products on an active farm operation subject to requirements outlined. One such requirement sets the maximum height of a farm stand at 12 measured from the ground level to the eaves. The historic farmhouse has a height of 31, exceeding the 12 height maximum for a farm stand and a variance is being requested. A 12 by 28 addition will be constructed adjacent to the dwelling to be used as an entrance and for display of agricultural products. The one-story addition will have a roof, but will be open on three sides. No height variance is needed for the addition and all setback requirements are met. The second story of the home will be used as an office for Princess Anne County history research and as a repository for historical information. Such educational, historical and cultural use is permitted in the Agricultural Districts as an Agritourism Activity. The 12 height maximum for farm stands was intended for new, freestanding farm stands. Using a 31 tall historic farm house for the sale of agricultural products is unique and in harmony with the intended spirit of the ordinance. Approval will allow for the preservation of a farm home constructed in the 1850 s. Preserving a +160 year old historic building and allowing reuse as a farm stand will enhance the rural character of this area.

6 The only variance needed is to the maximum 12 height for a farm stand. The proposal will meet all other zoning requirements. CONDITIONS: If approved, the following condition shall be required: Use of the historic farm house for the sale of agricultural and agriculturallyrelated products shall be in keeping with the submitted site plan.

7 PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster Case #2016-BZA N & C Real Estate Development, Inc DESCRIPTION: A variance to 6 foot side yard setbacks (both north & south) instead of 8 feet each as required for a proposed single family dwelling, 144 S GUM AVE Zoning: R5D GPIN: YEAR BUILT: New construction AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eddie Bourdon Of Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a two story singlefamily dwelling 6-feet from both the north and south side property lines. This lot was created in the late 1800 s and is presently 4,200 square feet and 35-foot wide. Therefore, the lot is nonconforming in regards to the minimum required (50 ) lot width and (4,200 sf) lot area. A single-family dwelling and detached garage is currently located on three (3) contiguous nonconforming lots. The existing dwelling and detached garage will be demolished and each of the (3) lots will be individually developed with a single-family dwelling. The lot is nonconforming in regards to the required lot width and lot area for this zoning district This proposal is consistent with the developmental trend occurring in the surrounding neighborhood Considering the width and size of the lot, the setback relief requested is believed to be reasonable This request is not expected to present a detrimental to the adjoining property owners or surrounding community RECOMMENDED CONDITION: 1. The proposed two-story single-family dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan.

8 Case #2016-BZA B & K Homes, LLC PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to 6 foot side yard setbacks (both north and south) instead of 8 feet each as required for a proposed single family dwelling, 146 S GUM AVE Zoning: R5D GPIN: YEAR BUILT: New construction AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eddie Bourdon Of Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a two story singlefamily dwelling 6-feet from both the north and south side property lines. This lot was created in the late 1800 s and is presently 4,200 square feet and 35-foot wide. Therefore, the lot is nonconforming in regards to the minimum required (50 ) lot width and (4,200 sf) lot area. A single-family dwelling and detached garage is currently located on three (3) contiguous nonconforming lots. The existing dwelling and detached garage will be demolished and each of the (3) lots will be individually developed with a single-family dwelling. The lot is nonconforming in regards to the required lot width and lot area for this zoning district This proposal is consistent with the developmental trend occurring in the surrounding neighborhood Considering the width and size of the lot, the setback relief requested is believed to be reasonable This request is not expected to present a detrimental to the adjoining property owners or surrounding community RECOMMENDED CONDITION: 1. The proposed two-story single-family dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan.

9 Case #2016-BZA B & K Homes, LLC PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to 6 foot side yard setbacks (both north and south) instead of 8 feet each as required for a proposed single family dwelling, 148 S GUM AVE Zoning: R5D GPIN: YEAR BUILT: New construction AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eddie Bourdon Of Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a two story single-family dwelling 6-feet from both the north and south side property lines. This lot was created in the late 1800 s and is presently 4,200 square feet and 35-foot wide. Therefore, the lot is nonconforming in regards to the minimum required (50 ) lot width and (4,200 sf) lot area. A single-family dwelling and detached garage is currently located on three (3) contiguous nonconforming lots. The existing dwelling and detached garage will be demolished and each of the (3) lots will be individually developed with a single-family dwelling. The lot is nonconforming in regards to the required lot width and lot area for this zoning district This proposal is consistent with the developmental trend occurring in the surrounding neighborhood Considering the width and size of the lot, the setback relief requested is believed to be reasonable This request is not expected to present a detrimental to the adjoining property owners or surrounding community RECOMMENDED CONDITION: 1. The proposed two-story single-family dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan.

10 Case #2016-BZA Bishard Homes, LLC PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 5 foot side yard setback (east) instead of 10 feet as required for a proposed single family dwelling, th ST Zoning: R7.5 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: New construction AICUZ: noise zone 70-75dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eddie Bourdon Of Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story singlefamily dwelling 5-feet from the east side property line, instead of 10-feet as required. Presently, a one-story single-family dwelling is located on two (2) contiguous nonconforming (13 & 14) lots. Each of these lots are 4, 375 square feet and are 35- feet wide. The lots were created in 1925 and are nonconforming in regards to the minimum (7,500 sf) lot area and lot width (75 ) required in this zoning district today. The existing dwelling will be demolished and a single-family dwelling will be developed on each of the lots individually. This lot is nonconforming in regards to the minimum lot area and lot width required for this zoning district Staff believes the variance request is reasonable when considering the lot is significantly nonconforming to minimum lot area and lot width This variance request is not expected to create a detriment to the adjoining property owners or surrounding community RECOMMENDED CONDITION: 1. The proposed two-story single-family dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevation

11 Case #2016-BZA Bishard Homes, LLC PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 5 foot side yard setback (east) instead of 10 feet as required for a proposed single family dwelling, TH ST Zoning: R7.5 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: New construction AICUZ: noise zone 70-75dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eddie Bourdon Of Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story singlefamily dwelling 5-feet from the east side property line, instead of 10-feet as required. Presently, a one-story single-family dwelling is located on two (2) contiguous nonconforming (13 & 14) lots. Each of these lots are 4, 375 square feet and are 35- feet wide. The lots were created in 1925 and are nonconforming in regards to the minimum (7,500 sf) lot area and lot width (75 ) required in this zoning district today. The existing dwelling will be demolished and a single-family dwelling will be developed on each of the lots individually. This lot is nonconforming in regards to the minimum lot area and lot width required for this zoning district Staff believes the variance request is reasonable when considering the lot is significantly nonconforming to minimum lot area and lot width This variance request is not expected to create a detriment to the adjoining property owners or surrounding community RECOMMENDED CONDITION: 1. The proposed two-story single-family dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevation

12 Case #2016-BZA Ocean Front Ave, LLC PREPARED BY: Karen Lasley DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 10 foot setback adjacent to a street (43rd street) instead of 30 feet as required for a proposed single family dwelling; and to a foot setback adjacent to unimproved Atlantic Blvd (east) instead of 30 feet as required for a proposed in-ground pool, 4210 OCEAN FRONT AVE Zoning: R7.5 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: Existing home constructed in Proposed new construction. REPRESENTATIVE: Eddie Bourdon of Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The site consists of two 50 by 150 Oceanfront, single-family lots zoned R-7.5 Residential District. The lots front right-of-way on three sides. To the north there is 50 wide, unimproved 43 rd Street with a pedestrian beach access; Oceanfront Avenue, a 20 platted alley, is on the west side and unimproved Atlantic Boulevard is to the east. The applicant desires to demolish the existing single-family dwelling and build one new single-family home. The existing home has a 4.13 setback from 43 rd Street. A variance is being requested to allow the new home to have a 10 setback from 43 rd Street, rather than 30 as required. The proposed dwelling meets all other zoning requirements. A variance is also being requested to allow an in-ground swimming pool to have a 12.5 setback from unimproved Atlantic Boulevard, rather than 30 as required. Although platted as a right-of-way, Atlantic Boulevard is a sandy beach area that will not be improved. An architectural elevation of the proposed dwelling was submitted showing an attractive, high-quality home with good architectural detail. The existing home has a 4.13 setback from 43 rd Street. The proposed redevelopment increases the setback from this right-of-way, which is used only for pedestrian beach access, to 10. The required setback for side yards that are not adjacent to a public street in the R-7.5 District are 5 on one side and 10 on the other side. The proposed 10 setback from 43 rd Street is in keeping with the character of this North End community. Most homes in the vicinity of the subject site are closer to the unimproved rights-of-way that provide pedestrian beach access.

13 The proposed redevelopment reduces two legally platted Oceanfront lots to one single-family lot. Building code requires the internal lot line to be vacated. The Zoning Ordinance allows in-ground swimming pools to have a 5 rear yard setback where not adjacent to a public street. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance allows in-ground swimming pools in the R-5R District adjacent to the public beach to have a 5 rear yard setback. Because this North End lot is zoned R-7.5, a 30 setback is required from Atlantic Boulevard for the proposed in-ground pool. It is recognized that Atlantic Boulevard is a sandy beach area and will not be improved. Approval of the variance to allow for an in-ground pool with a 12.5 setback from Atlantic Avenue could be recurring in nature and a Zoning Ordinance amendment should be considered. CONDITIONS: If approved, the following conditions should be required: 1. Development shall substantially adhere to the submitted site plan. 2. As required by the Building Code, the internal lot line shall be vacated as shown on the submitted site plan.

14 Case #2016-BZA Peppertree Condominiums PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 14 setback adjacent to a street (Country Mill Rd) instead of 30 feet as required for proposed deck replacements on building #12; and to a 20 foot setback adjacent to a street (Country Mill Rd) instead of 30 feet as required for proposed deck replacements on building #3, 1032 AUTUMN WOODS LN CM Zoning: A18 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: 1983 AICUZ: noise zone 70-75dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Paul Angelson SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to replace decking as well as make several improvements on all of the existing condominium buildings in the development. Three of the buildings adjacent to Country Mill Road are located in the required setbacks. Variances to a 14-foot setback for building #12 and to a 20-foot setback for building # 3 from the property line adjacent to Country Mill Road, instead of 30-feet as required for the proposed deck replacements are sought with this request. Building # 6 is also depicted in the required 30-feet setback; however, it is considered nonconforming. The decking to be replaced will meet the required 30-feet setback; therefore, it is not included with this request. This condominium development was constructed in 1983 and at that time the required setback from a property line adjacent to a street was 10-feet. Therefore, the buildings as well as the decking are nonconforming to the minimum 30-feet setback required today. In order to replace the decking on buildings #3 and #12 that are now encroaching onto the required setback from the property line adjacent to Country Mill Road, setback variances are necessary. The decking on the remaining buildings within the development will comply with the required setbacks. The proposed decks will be replaced is the same footprint as the decks they are replacing. Therefore, the decks will not be enlarged or expanded and the current setback will not decreased with this proposal. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. The decks shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan. 2. The proposed decks shall not be enlarged or expanded without further consideration from the Board of Zoning Appeals 3. The decks shall remain unenclosed

15 PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY Case #2016-BZA Michael & Wendy Chriest / John & Patricia Wobbleton DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 1.6 foot side yard setback (east) instead of 10 feet as required and to a 6 foot side yard setback (west) instead of 10 feet as required for existing covered entryways; and to a 5.1 foot side yard setback (east) instead of 10 feet as required for an existing dwelling, 4404 & 4406 LOOKOUT RD Zoning: R5R(SD) GPIN: REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Chriest YEAR BUILT: 1977 AICUZ: Less than 65 db Ldn REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Chriest SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants each own half of the existing duplex dwelling and are trying to maintain and upgrade the property, however, several variances are needed to complete the work. A building permit was obtained to reside and resheath the duplex. Problems arose when two covered entryways were reconstructed that do not meet side yard setbacks. City records show that the structure was constructed in At that time, the City Zoning Ordinance required 1.5 parking spaces per unit and an all-weather surface was not required for single-family or duplex dwellings, so the property is legally nonconforming since it contains three parking spaces. The following variances are being requested: 1. A variance to allow a 5.1 setback from the eastern lot line for the existing dwelling. When this duplex was constructed in 1977, the required side yard setback was 8. There is no record of any variance being granted to allow this duplex structure to have a 5.1 side yard setback. Therefore, a variance is required to allow the existing 5.1 side yard setback to remain, rather than meet the 10 side yard setback required today for a duplex dwelling. The size of the structure along the eastern lot line will remain the same with no expansions; it has recently been resided. 2. A variance to allow a 1.6 side yard setback on the east side, instead of 10 as required for an existing covered entryway for unit #4404. The Chriest s report that the covered entryway existed when they purchased their unit in The overhang was in such bad condition that it needed to be entirely rebuilt. Repairs were started prior to learning about the setback issues and the variance is being requested so that the overhang can be completed.

16 3. A variance to allow a 6 side yard setback on the west side, instead of 10 as required for an existing covered entryway. This covered entryway was also badly in need of repair. The owners of #4406 report that the width of the overhang was expanded by approximately six inches, bringing it closer to the western lot line than the original entryway. As repaired, the entryway has a 6 setback from the western property line, while the original setback was approximately 6.4. The applicants desire to maintain and upgrade the property is positive. Although the western wall of the duplex meets the 1977 required setback of 8, Staff cannot explain how the eastern wall was built with a 5.1 side yard setback. Approximately half of the overhang on each unit is technically roof rafter. Roof rafters can encroach into the required setback by up to 4. The required side yard setback is now 10, allowing roof rafters to have a 6 setback. The roof rafter overhang for unit #4406 does not require a variance. Only the area over the porch requires a setback variance from the western property line. The roof rafter can have a 6 setback and the requested variance will allow the overhang covering the porch to remain in alignment with the roof overhang. On the east side, the roof rafter, the porch entryway and the wall of the duplex all require a variance. The duplex structure has existed at this location for almost 40 years. The 3.5 wide roof eave and porch covering appear to be minimal. CONDITIONS: If approved the following conditions should be required: 1. Approval is subject to the submitted site plan and is for the existing structure and overhang improvements only. No additions or further extensions are permitted with this variance approval. 2. The unfinished covered porches and roof eaves shall be finished in keeping with the rest of the duplex exterior.

17 PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster Case #2016-BZA Zimmerman Family Properties, LLC DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 19 foot front yard setback (south) instead of 30 feet as required and to 5 foot side yard setback (west) instead of 10 feet as required for a proposed single family dwelling, 2620 W CHUBB LAKE AVE Zoning: R7.5(SD) GPIN: YEAR BUILT: New construction AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Zimmerman Family Properties, LLC SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story single-family dwelling 19-feet from the front property line instead of 30-feet as required and 5-feet from the west side property line, instead of 10-feet as required. An existing one-story single-family will be demolished in anticipation of the proposed dwelling. Currently, the existing dwelling encroaches on the W Chubb Lake right-of-way approximately 5.7-feet and there is no offstreet parking spaces shown on the site. The proposed dwelling will maintain a 19-foot front yard. Consequently, due to the narrowest of the W. Chubb Lake right-of-way; staff encourages that the front yard setback be slightly increased. It appears the proposed dwelling could maintain at least a 20-foot front yard setback or potentially more without interfering with the water s edge in the rear of the lot. The lot is 2,700 square feet and 30-foot wide. It was created in the late 1920 s and it is nonconforming in regards to the minimum (75 ) lot width and (7 500sf) lot area required today in this zoning district. The lot is nonconforming in regards to the minimum lot width and lot area required for this zoning district The front yard setback will increase significantly and the required two 9 x 18 offstreet parking spaces will be installed The side yard setback variance requested is reasonable when considering the narrowness of the lot Staff encourages the applicant to consider increasing the front yard setback. The improved portion as well as the dedicated W. Chubb Lake Ave right-of-way is significantly narrow RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed two-story single-family dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevation. 2. All improvements (i.e. steps, retaining wall, dwelling) presently located in the right-of-way (W. Chubb Lake Ave) shall be removed or an encroachment agreement must be obtained prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy for the proposed dwelling.