07/07/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ?? of the land would not change from what it currently was. He reviewed that the Assistant City Engineer reported that the addition would be required to have downspouts and tied into the existing sewer line. Mr. Hogan asked if there was an engineering report submitted for the site dated July 7, 2005. The clerk advised that she had not received any reports from the engineering department that day. Mr. Borowske indicated that any dirt that was dug up would be removed from the site so existing elevations would not change. Mr. Hogan questioned if the home did not meet today's codes why would it be allowed to be further out of code. He questioned why the board would address the request without a report from the city engineer. Mr. O'Malley explained the definition of a non-conforming building and advised that engir_eering issues of drainage were not before the board other than the city engineer's previous report stating downspouts must be on the addition and tied into the existing sewer line. Mr. Borowske believed that the addition being properly drained would decrease the existing water runoff as the existing porch drains into the yard. Mr. Parikh voiced that as the work was being completed there would be city inspections and he would make sure that the contractor followed what they were told to do by the inspectors. Ms. Bartos commented that the applicant's runoff flooded her backyard half way up to her house. She suggested the city inspector said she would still have drainage problems if the addition is built. She stated that if the addition is built it would be, closer to her home and the existing drain in the back does not work as it had been broken for years so the flooding would be worsened. W. Kremzar moved to grant Manoj Parikh of 24944 Deerfield Drive his request for variance (1123.12) which consists of an addition and that the following variances are granted: • A special permit to add to a non-conforming building (1165.02). Note: The existing rear setback is only 35', code requires 50'. 1. A 28 foot variance for a residence too close to rear property line, (code requires 50', applicant shows 221). Which is in violation of 90-125, Section (1135.08 (A)). J. Maloney seconded the motion. In the framing of the motion; Mrs. Diver stated that she would defer her vote until she received the engineering department's second report. Mr. O'Malley advised the members to deliberate among themselves before having roll call taken on the motion. Roll call on the motion; M. Diver "no", with the following comments; the property can be used and yield a reasonable return without the variance. The variance requested is substantial and the character of the neighborhood would be altered, but the variance would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. It is assumed that the land conformed to code when purchased but zoning requirements had changed and the owners predicament can be precluded by constructing a smaller room. Although she likes the look of the room it does not meet the 7 requirements for granting a variance. W. Kremzar "no" for the same reasons as Mr. Diver and the fact that the building is already non-conforming and the proposal is to increase the non-conformity further. J. Maloney "no" the room size is encroaching the rear to much as the room is enlarging the non-conformity. Variance Unanimously Denied Mr. Parikh requested something in writing as to why he was denied. The clerk advised that he was welcomed to a copy of the minutes once theywere transcribed. 2. Brvan & Janice Tench; 24357 Woodmere Drive: (WRD 2) Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a pool. The following variance is requested: 1. A 161 square foot variance for swimming pool in rear yard, (code permits 728 sq. ft, applicant shows 889 sq ft(garage, deck & pool). 2of13