05/03/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY 3, 1989 PAGE 5 12. Richard Rutt, 23950 Lucille Road Request for variance (1123.12). Request 1.5 foot side yard variance to replace existing garage. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.02(c)1. Chairman Bugala called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Rutt. Board had no problem with the request.B. Grace moved to grant the request for Richard Rutt, 23950 Lucille Road, for a 1.5 foot side yard variance to replace existing garage, violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.02(c)1, seconded by J. Helon, and unanimously approved. Variance granted. 13. Raymond A. Mull, 25043 Linda Drive Request for variance (1123.12). Request 20 foot rear yard variance for patio awning. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.08(a). Chairman Bugala called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Mull. Chairman Bugala stated that the request is substantial but pointed out that the yard does back up to commercial property and this should not cause a problem. J. Helon moved to grant a variance for Raymond A. Mull, 25043 Linda Drive, for a 20 foot rear yard variance for a patio awning, violation of Ord. 87-93, 1135°08(a), seconded by B. Grace, and unani- mously approved. Variance granted. 14. Lo.retta an d Thomas Grauel, 5425 Dorothy Drive. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 32 foot rear yard variance for addition. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.08(a). Chairman Bugala called all interested parties-before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. and Mrs. Grauel and adjacent property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Beck, Mr. Springman, Ms. Dapsis, J. Rubel, Mr. Devine. Mr. Grauel read a statement (included in file) citing his reasons for the request: they need more room, but new home would not be affordable; likes this neighborhood, stating that cul-de-sac is safe for children, addition has a low roof line (will not be seen from the street) and will conform to the neighborhood, and concluded that there.will still be a rear yard 55 feet wide by 44 feet deep as well as an area 32 feet wide by 18 feet deep behind the addition. He nresented a drawing showing his property and the relation to adjacent properties. Mr. Springman, a neighbor to the rear, objected that he was not notified and that this addition was closer to him than to the neighbors on Dorothy Drive who were notified; he is objecting to the addition and pointing out that there is presently a fence which blocks off the open area, and the addition would make it.worse. Mr. Grauel advised that the neighbor directly behind them had stated that he had no objection to the proposal. Mr. Rubel, who also lives in the rear, is objecting on the basis of drainage and belie.ves that he is being walled off. Mr. Beck, the neighbor on the north (adjacent to the ad- dition) was advised that the height of the roof would be 16 to 18 feet high, the deck would be 20 to 24 inches off the ground. Mr. Beck pointed out *_hat a variance had been granted for the rear yard when the house was built; that the addition would be almost equivalent to two homes on one lot; that the structure is high and will block off their property; and he does not believe that to refuse this variance would deprive the owner of substantial property rights (one of the criteria for granting a variance as stipulated in the code). Mrs. Beck presented pictures taken from their property showing poles and : sheets which s.imulate what they will see if the addition is built. Mr. Beck concluded that they have been told by a realtor that this sturcture would devaluate their property. Mrs. Dapsis,-a neighbor on Dorothy Drive, stated that she is ar realtQr and she agrees that this would devaluate their property.