08/08/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,.„ land can uot support additional housing. She elaborated that the traffic aud flooding ou mastic road is horrendous, and felt this proposal would worsen these conditions. She uoted tlus proposal would drive out taxpayers and attract transient individuals. Mrs. Casedonte explained that the schools are overpopulated now and this proposal would increase the nu.mber of students per school. Mr. ? Clingman stated that with proper engineering this could conform, and indicated there is a section of land 50 feet wide which is zoned single family and on Mr. Bower's plan it is marked multi-family. In response to Chairman Gomersall question, Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk clarified that he deals with what is on the building plan; whereas the engineering department deals with zouiug. Mr. Bower admitted there was an error inade on the previous plan (the zoning was inadvertently reversed), however the latest plan (received August 7, 1996) accurately indicates the zoning. ' Mr. Clingman stated this proposed development landlocked a 50 foot wide piece of property. Chairman Gomersall asked if the board members had any eomments. Mr. Purper stated that Mr. Bower has done a good job addressing most of the concerns tonight, but there are also future concerns such as busing that does not pertaiu to what the board is addressing tonight. He further indicated that compromises have beeu made, and everyone should take a serious look at this proposal, for it could be a lot less desirable in the future. Mr. Malouey stated that there is not adequate parking spaces around the pool area. He felt, to preveiit any uunecessary tragedy, there should be a fence along the roadway, parallel to the neighbors driveway. Mr. Koberna is concerned about the drainage, the density, and fire safety. Ms. Boyle concurred with the rest of the members. Mr. Gomersall concluded that based on the comments heard by the board, he did not feel tlie members would grant this big of a variauce. He asked if Mr. Bower would like a vote tonight, as he can rework the plan, addressing the coucei-us spoken of tonight. Mr. Bower felt reducing the proposal fu.rther would not be economically feasible, and requested the board vote on it tonight. If the proposal is denied, he would like to come up with a uew concept that is within the zoning code. Chairman Gomersall stated that he appreciates the fact Mr. Bower did address some of the concerns at the last meeting, however, there are still a multitude of problems. R. Gomersall moved to grant the proposal of A Stone's Throw (Shore West Coustiuction),property south of I-480, frouting on Brookpark Road, and abutting the rear property lines of lots on the uorth side of Mastic Road, west of Clague Road. Continued from June 6, 1996. Request for variance (1123.12). 1) Request variance to construct two and three family structures in a Multi-Family District which is not contiguous to a two family or Clustez District. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1137.02. Multi-family codes. 2) Request 60 foot variance for buildings fronting Brookpark Road. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1137.07(b)(1). Multi-family codes. 3) Request 5 foot variance for the setback of structures from sidewalk or pavement. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1136.06(a). Cluster codes were used as determined by the Building Commissioner under Section 1117.02. 4) Request variance to have 30 units inore than permitted. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1137.06 (Cluster codes). The motion was seconded by T. Koberna. Roll call on motion: Gomersall, Koberna, Boyle, Purper, and Maloney, no. Motion failed to pass. T'he meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Gomersall, Chairman 91 ornish, Assistant Clerk of Commissions 9