Laserfiche WebLink
euough property on one side but, the addition would be 2 feet offthe property line on the other <br />side where there would not be 15 feet between their two dwellings as required. Mrs. Keith <br />explained that they needed the additional room because of the new baby, and noted that this <br />would only block one of the Harts' windows wliich is akeady blocked by a fence now. She <br />explained that they are going to have the property re-surveyed, but they have found one or two <br />pins. She did not believe that they could afford to build two stories on the other side, but here <br />they could build on top of the flat roof. They might have to remove part of the Hart's tree that <br />hangs over their house. Mrs. Hart is concemed about the tree, and Mrs. Keith explained that they <br />would have that done professionally. Since they were not sure of the way the roof was <br />constructed, it was pointed out that there could be problems building a second floor if the roof <br />was not properly constructed. The back porcli will be removed and a fou.ndation will be <br />constructed. Mr. Hart stated that both of these homes were probably on the same property at one <br />time and they are about 100 years old. The members believed that this would be an improvement. <br />T. Kobeiua moved to grant the request of Troy A. Keith, 4822 Columbia Road, for a 3 foot side <br />yard variance and a 9 foot variance for distance between dwellings to construct a two story <br />addition, seconded by R. Gomersall, and unanimously approved. Variances granted. <br />Mr. Hart came back after the above issue had been settled, and explained that the area where they <br />were going to add a second story over was a sun room addition and was not part ofthe original <br />structure, and at one time had a fish pond in the middle of it. Mr. Conway advised that they <br />thought there miglit be a problem, but the Building Department would check the plans. <br />Mr. Conway advised that there had been a clerical error and one request had been withdrawn <br />when it should not have been. He explained that the applicant wanted to place his garage 5 feet <br />offthe rear property line and noted that this property backed up to a retail development. He has <br />discussed tlus with the Law Director and it was decided that if themembers wanted to hear the <br />request and if the variance was granted, the Building Department would notify all the abutting <br />property owners, giving them 10 day to raise an objection and if no one objected the variance <br />would stand, but if someone did object, the issue would be brought back before the board at the <br />next meeting. The members decided that they would hear the request. <br />Mr. Gomersall moved to amend the agenda to add the following with the understanding that if <br />the Board acts favorably upon this issue, notice will be given to the abutting property owners who <br />will be notified that they have 10 days in which to object, and if they do not object then the ruling <br />will stand, seconded by J. Maloney, and unauunously approved. <br />14. Ronald Hodorowski, 4703 Fleharty Road. , <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 5 foot variance from rear property line to replace <br />existing garage. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135,02(c)(2). <br />Mr. Hodorowski was present and Mr. Gomersall aclininistered the oath. The members looked at <br />the plans and had no objection to the request. It was verified that this garage was bigger than the <br />existing one and it backed up to Olmsted Plaza Shopping Center. Mr. Hodorowski understood <br />that his neighbors would be notified and he might have to come to the next meeting if someone <br />objected. He advised that he has talked to some of the neighbors. R. Gomersall moved to grant to <br />8