07/27/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would agree to 30 by 60 feet with a second floor. Mr. Gomersall and Mr. Maloney still have a concern about the height. Mr. Holmgren stated that if he could uot have a second floor, he would not take the second floor off the existing garage but his intent had been to put the second floor back further away from the street where no oue would see it. The inember discussed the area wluch could be either a car port or a patio. Mr. Conway stated that a car port would be part of the garage area, but a patio would uot be, it would depend on how it was used. Mr. Holmgren stated it was a patio with a picvic table on it. Mr. Gomersall asked if they would agree to a 20 foot height and a 1,770 square foot variance for a 30 by 60 foot building. Mr. Holmgren would not agree to that and Mr. Koberna asked if he wanted to think this over and return next month. Mrs. Holmgren stated that they would theu have to keep the second floor on the present garage and people can see that building. T'he discussiov continued and Mr. Gomersall advised that the meetvlg would have to continue. Mr. Holmgren agreed to the compromise. It was again clarified that the barn would be 30 by 60 foot and 20 feet lugh aud the existing structure was 720 square foot, not counting the patio area, wluch would be a 1770 square foot variance. R. Gomersall moved to grant to John Holmgreu, 5695 Barton Road, a variance to have a second detached garage on property; a 1770 square foot variance for area; and a 5 foot variance for heiglrt of second garage. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02(c) and 1135.02(c)(1). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney, and wlanimously approved. Variances granted. 15. William A. Corner, 23838 Franlc St. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 4 foot side yard variance and 7 foot rear yard variance to replace existing detached garage. Violatiou of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02(c)(2). Chau-inau Goinersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was adinuustered to Mr. Corner avd Mr. Lagiua, coutractor. It was clarified that the 7 foot rear yard variauce meant the garage would be 3 feet off the property liue. Tlie members had no problein witli the request. M. Boyle moved to gi•ant a vaiiance for William A. Coi-ner, 23838 Frauk Street, for a 4 foot side yard variance and a 7 foot rear yard variauce to replace existing detached garage. Violatiou of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02(c)(2). The motion was secouded by W. Ptuper, aud uuauunously approved. Vai7ances grauted. 16. Matthew G. Sununa, 25191 Butteruut Ridge Road. Clai7fication and discussion ofvariance granted Febiuary 1, 1995. Chairman Goinersall called all iuterested parties before the Uoard. Tlie oath was admuustered to NLrs. Sununa, her attomey, Mr. DiGeronuno, her fi7eud, Ms. Fritz who lives further down Butternut Ridge Road, and neighbors, Mr. Fuchs, Mrs. Ellis, Mr. Podskalan, Mr. and Mrs. Kilboume, and Mr. and Mrs. Mian. Mr. Goinersall ascertained where neighbors lived in relatiou to tlus house and it was noted that the neighbor who backed up to tlus fence was uot present. Mr. Gomersall explained that they were not here to discuss whether or not they were going to put the fence up, the board is here to clarify what was already decided on at the Febiuaiy 1, 1995 meeting. At the tune it was decided on, Mr. Goinersall drew a plan as to how tlus fence would be constiucted and everyone was aware of it. It appeared that in the motion, the word southeast was used iustead of southwest. He explaiued wliere the fence was to go and that it was to take a right angle, a 90 degree angle, to extend to a point where the chain link fence of the adjouung ueighbor ends at that comer. (A neighbor was told he could not speak at tlus time.) That was where the fence was supposed to go, but the fence was constiucted all the way across and dowu so there is an excess fence that was put up that does not belong there. IVIi. DiGermonimo, attorney, questioned if tlus was the drawing Mr. Gomersall made, aud presented a different drawing. He advised that the controlling language in the variance is what is most important, so he believed that the Summa's responded accordingly, and there is uo ueed to clarify it any further. Mr. Gomersall responded that the board was going to clarify it and he did uot laiow 8