12/03/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Director Gareau explained that at the time the zoning code was adopted (requiring 60 foot lots) if two lots were adjacent to one another and had a common owner, they had to be joined together to conform. He stated that the reason for that is that if the city subd.ivides substandard lots, when the house is planned, variances will be required for at least for side yards. Mr. Kolick stated that Mrs. McCrone's house was immediately west of this property. She is not against the street being extended, but she is against the undersized lots. He noted that the developer has the ability to meet the code, so there is no practical difficulty or hardship to merit decreasing the size of those lots. Additionally, they had Mr. Resar look at it to see if it could be developed. Mr. Resar advised that since there is a sanitary sewer installed already, they would only have to install the water main and pavement so it would probably cost about $60,000 to put the street in. With three lots that would be about $20,000.00 per lot to put the street in which is not unreasonable and they would still make a profit. Squeezing four lots on this property would affect the neighboring property owner, Mrs. McCrone. When her house was built in 1973 the lot width requirement was less, and her lot exceeds what he is proposing. Her lot is 57.2 feet wide. She had had five 45 foot lots and combined them for larger lots. Mr. Mowinski disagreed since he had to pay for the lots as well as street. He maintained that it would be d.ifferent if the neighborhood was such that he could sell a$200,000.00 house, but it is not. He owns 3 of the five lots, and his partner owns the other two. Mr. Gomersall'stated that he saw no reason to disagree with plauviug commission who suggested that they deny the request. He believed that the lots should be combined. Mr. Maloney advised that he looked at the lots and considering the nu.mber of cars people have today, and that many people have recreational vehicles, reducing them to this size would be u.nacceptable. Mr. Sauder, who owns the parcel in the middle, was sworn in at this time. He maintained that Mrs. McCrone bought lots from him in 1972 so she could combine the lots to make 4 lots, and the ordinance went in 1962. In 1996 and 97, Mr. Simmons, a bu.ilder, built on two 45 foot lots. Mr. Gomersall advised that this will be judged on its own merits, not what has happened before. Mr. Sauder stated that he just wanted justice. Mr. Gareau questioned if Mr. Simmons owned these lots in 1962. Mr. Sauder stated that he bought them later on. The board is not familiar with this. Mr. Sauder suggested that they could check the county records, and come back later. Mr. Koberna noted that the last lot was 72.6 feet wide and wondered why this had not been made smaller in order to make the other lots larger, since if they made them all equal they would all be 59.6 foot in width which would require less of a variance. The developers stated that it was done this way to keep the square footage the same. Mr. _ Suhail, the surveyor who drew the plat, came forward and was sworn in. He stated that the end lot was 72 feet wide in the rear, not in the front. Mr. Gomersall noted that the front was still bigger. He explained that this lot was 55.41 in the front. Mr. Koberna wondered if they divided it that way to meet the square footage requirements. He believed that with the 72 foot rear, the 4 lots could be divided so that each were 59.9 foot wide. Mr. Suhail stated that the lots should be 60 foot wide miuimum in the front. Mr. Koberna stated that these could have been divided so that only a very small variance would be required. W. Purper moved to grant a request to Mowinski Bu.ilders for sublots 156-A, 157-A and 158-A/159-A Broxbourne (eastern extension)., for a 4.6 foot variance on sublots 156-A, 157-A, and 158/159-A) in a C Residence District (60 feet required) to subdivide five (5) lots into four (4). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney. Roll call on motion: Purper, Maloney, Kobema, Miller, and Gomersall, no. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. 11. John Schloss, 25176 Tara Lynn Drive. Request for variance (1123.12). Request two (2) foot rear yard variance to keep shed eight (8) feet from rear property line. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02(d)(4). Chainnan Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admiuistered to Mr. Schloss. The members had no problem with the request. 7