05/05/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would be no room to set it back, he would have to move the walk. Mr. Koberna advised the applicants that if they are turned down, they will not be able to put the shed where they want it, and tliat the law requires 10 foot, but the neighbors suggested 5 foot offthe line. Mr. D'Agostino refused to compromise. Mrs. D'Agostino stated that the neighbors had no right to be here and their objections were stupid. J. Maloney moved to grant the request for Joseph and Edith D'Agostino, 3229 Twin Circle Drive, their request for a 7 foot rear yard variance to replace an existing shed, seconded by T. Koberna. Roll call on motion: Maloney, Koberna, Purper, and Gomersall, no. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. Jerome Rizzo, 26681 Leenders Lane. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 10 foot front setback variance to construct attached garage. Also request variance to put garage in required front yard. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1135.06(a) and 1161.08. Chairmau Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. Rizzo, who explained that he was only going to add 10 feet to the front of his garage. The members had no problem with the request. W. Purper moved to grant a request to Jerome Rizzo, 26681 Leenders Lane, for a 10 foot front setback variance to construct attached garage and also to grant a variance to put garage in required front yard, seconded by R. Gomersall, and unanimously approved. Variances granted. 4. Shore West Construction Co., 246 Vista Circle. Request for variance (1123.12) Request variance to have only 1 enclosed off street parking space for dwelling. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1136.09. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was adviinistered to Mr. Bower and Mr. Tenant, Shore West Construction, and Mr. Bouman, son of the prospective tenant. Mr. Bower presented a colored floor plan of the unit and a diagram of where the there would be an exterior parking space near to the unit. Mr. Gomersall questioned why the laundry room could not be in the area where it was planned for in order to keep the 2 car garage. He is opposed to eliminating parking, since a future owner might have two cars and would have to leave one car on the street. Mr. Bower stated that since Mrs. Bou.mau only had one car, she wanted to utilize the existing utility room for additional space inside the u.nit. They would be vvilling to have a subsequent owner come in for a variance when the property changed hands. Mr. Bouman stated that his mother did not want to have the utility room where it is shown since it would be inconvenient when she had guests. In response to Mr. Koberna's questions, Mr. Conway verified that a laundry tray was not required by code. Mr. Tenant believed that Mrs. Boumau really objected to the laundry room where it was, because it was behind bifold doors and there was very little room. Mr. Tenant stated that he liad intended to raise the garage floor to be level with the floor of the house. Mr. Conway advised that this room would have to be sealed from the garage area because of fiunes. Mr. Maloney was concerned about starting a precedence since this is a new development. He also questioned who would pay to remove and re-install the plu.mbing when a new owner came back. Mr. Tenant stated that the plumbing was already installed in the laundry room area. After some discussion, it was suggested that the laundry equipment could be placed against the garage wall that is adjacent to the living room so there 3