Laserfiche WebLink
.? <br />amended to include a 34 square foot variance for required square footage on the <br />first floor. He further advised that it had been stated at the Board of Building <br />Code Appeals meeting that this lot might have been subdivided from a larger lot a <br />few years ago and both lots had been owned by the same person. The Engineering <br />Department has researched this and found that the original plat showed that this <br />lot was established in 1920. The lots on either side had been combined to make 60 <br />foot lots, and from what can be established it would appear that that neither of <br />the lots adjoining this one were owned by the owner of this lot. The neighbors <br />had many objections: this house will devalue their homes; they have drainage <br />problems now, this will make them worse; all the other liomes on the street have <br />basements, this one will not and will not be as valuable; because there is no <br />basement, the main floor will flood; the houses on either side are ranch homes, <br />this will be a two story house; houses this close together will be a fire hazard; <br />another home on a 40 foot lot has changed ownership frequently and because it is <br />on the lot sideways, it looks like an ally way between two houses; 80% of the <br />homes on their street are on 60 foot lots; and the drainage problem is so bad <br />that the street floods. Mr. Gomersall questioned exactly what rights this <br />property owner had in this case. Law Director Gareau stated that the Building <br />Board had given him the right to build, conditioned on their getting this <br />variance. He pointed out that if the city never permitted a house to be built on <br />this property there could be a constitutional question. It is inconceivable that <br />a lot would rema.in vacant indefinitely. Some day someone will permit a house to <br />be bu.ilt. He explained that when the Board looks at a request for a variance <br />three issues must be considered: a hardship that deals with the property because <br />of its size, shape or topography that is not sha.red by other lots in the area; <br />that is if it is unique because of its size, shape or topography; secondly, if <br />refusing to grant a variance a person would be deprived of a substantial property <br />right; and finally, is the request is in keeping with the spirit of the code. He <br />advised that not every lot could meet the strict letter of the code, and the <br />Board is here to decide if the proposal is worthy of deviating from strict <br />adherence to the code. Mro Grace stated that the needs of the neighbors with the <br />reoccurring problems of drainage shovld be considered, but however, on the other <br />hand, the constitutional rights of the property owner must be considered. He <br />pointed out that practically all the neighbors were present, and possibly this is <br />one of the times a lot will remain vacant until the end of time. The neighbors <br />advised that the lot was being maintained by an adjacent resident, and asked if <br />the if the privacy of the neighbors on either side should not be considered. Mr. <br />Gomersall pointed out that the property owner had to pay taxes on the property <br />and questioned why the neighbors would believe that this lot would remain vacant <br />indefinitely. One neighbor responded that when she bought her house, she thought <br />tha,t lot belonged to the people on the other side of it. Mr. Restifo asked if Mr. <br />Miller would consider selling the lot to the neighbors so that he could get his <br />money back if this variance is denied. Mr. Miller responded that he did own the <br />title to the property, but the contract stated that the lot had to be buildable. <br />The neighbors stated that they might be willing to buy the property if the price <br />were reasonable. Law Director Gareau advised that this discussion was not within <br />the Board's jurisdiction. Mr. Grace responded that they were merely giving Mr. <br />Miller some options. B. Grace moved to grant the request of James Miller, <br />property located between 5938 and 5918 Porter Road, for a 4 foot total side yard <br />variance to construct a new dwelling. Please note: Proposal has been heaxd by the <br />Board of Building Code Appeals on September 26, 1991. Permission required to <br />build on a lot 50 foot wide or less). Mr. Gomersall advised that a 34 square <br />foot variance is needed for the first floor. Mr. Grace amended the motion to <br />include approval of the 34 square foot variance for the first floor dwelling <br />area. The motion was seconded by T. Restifo. Roll call on motion: Grace, and <br />Gomersall, no. Restifo and Maloney, yes. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. <br />4