01/04/2016 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

there is no reasonable way to reframe it. Ms. Meredith clarified that Mr. Madison that he did not design the current structure. He stated he did not but was brought in after the structure was built. Ms. Reszegi stated they did not consult any professionals prior to starting work. Discussion of property lines and the concerns of the neighboring property owner took place. Ms. Reszegi bought the house in December 2014 and her mother built the structure in June 2015. Ms. Meredith felt asking for variances after construction was complete is unfair to neighbors. Mr. Papotto stated the structure looks nice and is not overwhelming in the yard. Ms. Meredith said the structure is very large and can be seen from every direction, takes away privacy of neighbors, and impacts the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Sabo agreed. Mr. Raig pointed out the neighbor behind the property would not be impacted by the variance for the rear yard setback due to shape of his property. He did not think variance for height was substantial relative to the total height of the structure. Ms. Meredith pointed out that putting the deck further from the house into the yard makes it more visible from the neighbors' houses. Mr. Allain discussed hardship points, pointed out that the owner did not know the structure was being built. Ms. Sabo clarified if there is illumination on the structure or if there are plans to add it; Ms. Reszegi stated there are not. Mr. Raig said if the property behind them was not shaped the way it is, then they would not need the variance. Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Allann, to grant 15-4769; Lisa Iteszegi: 29840 Broxbourne the following variances for a declc and gazebo: 1. A 593 sq. ft. vaa-iance for maximum lot coverage; code permits 2,700 sq. ft., applicant shows 3,293 sq. ft., Section 1135.05(e). 2. An 11 ft. 8 in. varianee for rear yard setback; code requires 50 ft., applicant shows 38 ft. 4 in., Section 1135.06. 3. A 1 ft. variance for maxicnum height of other accessory structure; code permits 12 ft., applicant shows 13 ft., Section 1135.02(d)(2). Roll call: Allain, Papotto,l2aig - yes; Meredith, Sabo - no. Motioaa passed 3-2. 15-5089; Paul Accordino; 25747 Butternut Ridge Proposal consists of a new garage, the following variances are requested: 1. A 594 sq. ft. variance for a new 24 ft. x 56 ft. garage; code permits 750 sq. ft., applicant shows 1,344 sq. ft., Section 1135.02(c)(1). 2. A 1 ft. 7-1/2 in. variance for the garage height; code permits 15 ft., applicant shows 16 ft. 7- 1/2 in., Section 1135.02(c)(1). The oath was administered to Paul Accordino. Mr. Accordino said he knew a garage was needed when he bought the house in June. He believed the barn style with carriage doors would go with the spirit of the house. The colors, windows and shutters would match the house. Described need for storage for 3 cars, boat and lawn care equipment with a second story because there is no attic in the house and the basement is full. The proposed garage would be set back 25 feet from the house. Mr. Russell said a previous owner demolished the garage and got approval for a smaller garage. If Mr. Accordino receives variances, he will still need to get approval from the Landmarks Commission. Ms. Wenger said the case was tabled by the Landmarks Commission and that the previous approved garage was to code for area. She pointed out that the proposed square footage of the garage would be more than the allowable square footage of a garage and 2