07/07/2014 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cannot be attached to the new garage. Therefore the two garages will be three feet away from each other. Mr. Menoni said he was under the impression that the building will be used for a kennel not a garage. Ms. Speegle said it will be used as a garage. Ms. Blaclcmer said she is concerned with pit-bulls which she has seen and the number of dogs on the property. She works nights sometimes and when leaving her home the dogs are very loud. She doesn't want to have her view bloclced by an oversized building. Mr. Smith said the existing garage is a 20'x30 building which is visible from the street and the new 20'x30' building will be located behind the home and not visible to any neighbor unless they are in the yard. A section of property is fenced in with a solid 6 foot fence which blocks the visibility. Ms. Blackmer said she will be able to see the garage and believes it will lower the value of her home. Ms. Manrodt said their dogs are not before the board nor does it pertain to the request. She owns a boarding lcennel in another county which will not be moved. The fence installed is to maintain their dogs in the yard. The worlc they are doing inside and outside their home is increasing the value of the neighborhood. They have three vehicles one of which is a very large van which will be housed in the new garage; it is their intent to not allow their yard to be an eyesore. Mr. Russell said the applicants were granted a variance for the addition size which was to be attached. It was found that the two garages could not be attached as the existing garage has a floating footer. The request is for two detached garages and there has been no discussions regarding a lcennel. Mr. O'Malley said dog kennels require a use variance as they are not peimitted in residential zoning. The applicants are not seelcing a use variance they are seelcing an area variance for the second garage. Mr. Russell said that the total square footage of either detached garage does not exceed the 450 sq. ft. granted in June. Mr. Raig asked what the second garage would be used for. Ms. Speegle said a riding lawmnower is required to maintain the yard they have three vehicles and other yard eqtiipment which will be stored in one of the garages as well. Mr. Allain asked if electricity would be run to the garage and Mr. Smith said electricity would be an option that could be add to the garage. Mr. Allain said although he would rather see the existing garage demolished and a new garage built, the size of the property wat-rants both garages. Ms. Bellido said in June she believed the addition was warranted and it is now being moved three feet therefore she has no objection. Mr. Papotto asked if the materials being used for the garage were permitted and Mr. Russell said when worlcing drawings area submitted they will be reviewed for compliance. Mr. Raig moved, seconded by Mr. Papotto, to grant APP14-870 Kristen Manrodt & Tiffany Speegle of 23052 Mastick Rd. a variance for two (2) detached garages on a lot; code permits one (1), applicant shows two (2); Section 1135.02(d)(1), noting BZA granted a 450 sq. ft. variance on 6/2/14, motion passed 4-0. COMMERCIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS App14-1200: The ExchanF_,e; 4125 Great Northern Blvd Proposal consists of a new wall sign. The following variance is requested: A 5.2 sq. ft. variance for a wall sign larger than code allows; code permits 38.3 sq. ft., applicant shows 43.5 sq. ft., Section 1163.25(c). The oath was administered to contractor Jessica Ruf£ Ms. Ruff said the applicants are requesting the variance as the business is growing. She reviewed the materials of the wall sign proposed. Mr. Russell said he had no objections to the request. Mr. Allain asked if the height of the sign required a variance and Mr. Russell said the height is permitted but total square footage of the sign exceeds what is allowed. Mr. Allain aslced what the size of the other signs in the plaza are 6