02/06/1980 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r / 0 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FEBRUARY 6, 1980 PAGE 3 C. Ledvina called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered. It was observed that since the garage would still be more than 10' from the house that no fire wall would be required. W. Wasniak moved that the variance and special permit be granted, seconded by L. Horvath9 and unanimously approved. Variance and special perm.it granted. Carlton Place (Shore jdest Construction), Clague and Brookpark Rd. Request for variance (1133.13). Request 5' sidewalk variance and in another location a 10' variance for a patio to encroach in required buffer zone. This is contrary to the variance granted October 10, 1979. Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1159-B/ C. Ledvina called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered. Mr. Mongello, Architect, and F. Bower of Shore West Construction explained the request. The variance is to allow a sidewalk, patio, and fence in-the side yard set back area. D..Ledvina questioned the need for a variance in the buffer zone between Residential property and Multi-family zoning. E. Gundy stated that the code read that' such a buffer zone should "remain vacant and be landscaped:' It was pointed out by M. Gareau that in residential areas a sidewalk or patio would be allowed without a variance in the set back area. Mro DeWitt, a neighbor, felt that the door in these units can be moved so that no sidewalks or patio would be necessary in the proposed location; and also that there were other options such as reducing the size of the buildings.so that no variance would be necessary. The other neighbors were also opposed to-the variance. Fred $ower stated that there was no struc-t-ual -e-lement:going into the set back -area, and that -there was no way that they..°could _rel?cate the doozways because .that it would be nec- essary for peopie to-walk -a11-.the -iaay around the bui.lding to enter the unit. Mr. Remmel observed that-_people-would use the shorter access to the -building -whether -the sidewalk was there or not, and that this would be more unsightly, - and that the proposed patio is quite a distance from the rear property line of the adjacent residence facing Mastick Rd. -ln the-opinion-of the-Board, the Code lacks proper definition of the Buffer Zone and the fence and other improvements could be considered landscaping features. C. Remmel moved to grant the variances for the sidewalks immediately adjacent to the buildings and for an $ x 8' patio with a 5@ fence at the end of the 8' x 8° patio for the units in that particular building, seconded by L. Horvath, and unanimously approved. Variances granted. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. 13 D o Ledv:(na, Chairman B. Oring, R cording Secretary