10/05/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. rTM- -:. Mrs. Foreman clarified that there will be no driveway next to her house the way the others are on the street, aud that this house will be placed on the lot so that the back of the house will be on the side next to them. Mr. Gomersall believed that the house would be an improvement. Mr. Wells prefeired ? to have the 15 feet, and he noted that, at the meeting to consolidate the lots, Mr. Dorony had objected to placing the house too close to the storm sewer. Mrs. Foreman stated that another house on the street had been granted a variance and there had been drainage problems which damaged the house next door. Mrs. Lally believed that the codes should be followed. Mrs. Dorony stated that she lived across the street and would not like to see the side of a house facing her. Mr. Wells explained that there would be a door with a sidewalk and a window facing the front. He presented an elevation showing the cioor. Mr. Lieb believed that a variance should be required to put a house on a lot sideways. Councihnan Nashar thought that granting this variance will set a precedent for others to build homes that do not conform. Mrs. Lally stated that when she built her house, she had to obey all the codes. Mr. Maloney believed that, since Mr. Wells' is cooperating with the city to keep his house away from the sewer line and is planning to make the side of the house look like the front, he was trying to conform to the neighborhood. Mr. Purper stated that, if he had the old home next to him, and had the choice of having a new home replace it with only a 2 foot variance, he would prefer the new house. The neighbors agreed that they would,rather just have the old house torn down since the house was condemned. This board has nothing to do with the condemnation. Mr. Wells believed that he was being harassed. Mr. Gomersall stated that the board would make its decision only on the variance requested. Mrs. Foreman asked that, if the variance is granted, she would like it stated that nothing could be stacked or stored between their house and the property line. This is not up to this board. One neighbor pointed out that it was not just two feet, it would be a two story wall two feet closer. Councilman Nasher asked, if the variance is grauted, would they have the right to put the cables that run from the old house to the radio tower on the new house. Mr. Wells responded that the • cables would go from a proposed shed to the tower. Mr. Gomersall stated he could not u.nderstand the neighbors' objections since there was a lot of non-conformance on that street, most of which was probably "grandfathered". Mr. Wells stated that the old house would be torn down within two weeks of the completion of the new house. Mr. Conway clarified that he could not have two houses on a lot, but they would have to allow him time to move in. Mr. Wells stated that they have been planniug the house for a year, it is a pre-fabricated frame dwelling and State certified. He clarified that they do not make a 26 foot wide house, and this is the most economical and fastest way to build a house. Mr. Conway clarified that Engineering Department wanted a 5 foot clearance from the pipe. Mr. Wells stated that there was 3 feet from the pipe to the end of the easement and the construction company needed 2 feet clearance to dig the foundation. Mrs. Foreman asked what protection they would have from any resulting drainage problems, since the house, with two stories, would be closer to them. Mr. Wells clarified that tlus would be one and a half stories, not two stories. Mr. Dorony advised that when he spoke at the other meeting, he had stated that this lot was not a suitable home site since the sewer line was going right through the property rendering both sides useless to build a suitable house which would face the street. He stated that this house will not face the street and it will be too close to the next house forever. W. Purper moved to grant the request of Richard & Pauline Wells, 5955 Bums Road for a 2 foot variance for distance between dwellings with the stipulations that there will be a front entrance on the west side of the home with a sidewalk and a front bay window. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.07. The motion was seconded by J. Maloney. Roll call on motion: Purper, Mallory, and Gomersall, yes. Mr. Koberna no. Motion carried. Variance granted. 7. G. & C. Huth, 23565 Alexander Rd. • Request for variance (1123.12). Request 2.2 foot side yard variance on east side and 3.2 foot side yard variance on west side to construct porch and upstairs dormer on rear of house. Violation of Ord. 4