Laserfiche WebLink
pointed out that the issue is with the space between the deck and the house and she believed that <br />the front yard looks like a back yard. Ms. Sabo did not believe the lack of windows for <br />supervision warranted a variance because there are ways to supervise the children when they are <br />in the backyard. The backyard is fenced in and is big enough for the deck to be built. Ms. <br />Meredith added that the play structure is clearly visible from the Bridlewood parking lot. Mr. <br />Raig agreed with Mr. Allain that it is far from the road but Mr. Allain hopes the owners contact <br />the Building Department in the future. <br />Ms. 1VIeredith moved, seconded by Mr. Allain, to grant the following variance as written for <br />16-7150; Mellisa Edwards & Aziz Ouqassou; 24702 Kennedy Ridge I2oad: <br />1. A varaance for an accessory structure (cietached deck) to be built in the front yard; code <br />does not allow, applicant shows a freestanding deck built in the front yard; Section <br />1135.02(d)(3). <br />Motion passed 3-2, Ms.1VIeredith and Ms. Sabo voted no. <br />16-7355; William Brake; 23196 Marion Road <br />Representative: William Brake, Owner <br />Proposal consists of a new garage. The property is zoned One Family Residence C. <br />The following variance is requested: <br />1. A 4 ft. variance for side yard setback of a detached garage; code requires 5 ft., applicant <br />shows 1 ft., Section 1135.02(c)(2). <br />Mr. Aspery stated that the applicant is proposing to demolish their existing detached single-car <br />garage and construct a new detached, 20 feet by 20 feet two-car garage. Code requires that a <br />detached garage be set back not less than 5 feet from a side property line. The applicant currently <br />shows a 1 foot setback for the side property line to the west, which would encroach on the <br />minimum required side property line setback by 4 feet. Mr. Brake stated that the ideal situation <br />would be to push back the front of the garage but the back of the property drops off which <br />significantly increases the cost of construction of the foundation. The current driveway would <br />require an additional4 feet of concrete added to the east to match up the new garage door. Mr. <br />Papotto clarified that the new garage will be in the same location as the current garage, 20 feet <br />from the house. Mr. Brake stated that the last three feet of the current driveway will be replaced <br />to provide adequate drainage for the garage. Mr. Papotto pointed out that the side of the garage <br />would be very difficult to access for maintenance. <br />Mr. Allain complimented Mr. Brake for his submittal and his presentation of his hardships. Mr. <br />Papotto was concerned about the future neighbors allowing access to the side of the garage for <br />maintenance. Mr. Allain was concerned about the drainage of the property being affected by <br />shifting the garage back. Mr. Papotto believed that a new garage would be an improvement to the <br />property. <br />Ms. Meredith moved, seconded by Ms. Sabo, to grant the following variamce as written for <br />16-7355; William Brake; 23196 Marion Road: <br />1. A 4 ft. variance for side yard setback of a detached garage; code requires 5 ft., <br />applicant shows 1 ft., Section 1135.02(c)(2). <br />Motion passed 4-1, Mr. Papotto voted no.