07/07/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the parcel directly behind him however; the lots were not combined when purchased. Ms. Nichols questioned what the dimensions were and what the addition would look like. Mr. Maloney reviewed that the addition would be 22' x 22' and questioned if the rear lot measured 80' x 100'. Mr. Botke believed the 80' x 100' dimension was correct and showed the plans to his neighbors. 1VIr. Rymarczyk indicated that if the lots were consolidated no variances would be required. Ms. Nichols felt that as the original garage was converted into a room and the home already had three bedrooms the request should be denied. Ms. Reynolds inquired what the accessory structure referenced was. Mr. Rymarczyk reviewed that if the addition was built the existing garage would then require a variance. Ms. Nichols asked how many variances an owner could be granted. Mr. Rymaxczyk stated that converting the garage and building a new garage did not require variances however he was not sure if the drive-way required a variance or not. Mr. Yasher questioned if the applicant could prove he owned the, rear property. The clerk showed board members a county printout identifying Mrs. Botke as the owner of the parcel in question. W. Kremzar moved to grant Kimberly Botke of 28550 Holly Drive her request for variance (1123.12), which consists of an addition and that the following variances are granted: 1. An 18 foot variance for a residence too close to rear property line, (code requires 50', applicant shows 321), section (1135.08 A). 2. A 16 square foot variance for accessory structures in rear yard, (code permits 512 sq ft, applicant shows 528 sq ft), section (1135.02 D2). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.08 A) and (1135.02 D2). J. Maloney seconded the motion, which was unanimously denied. During roll call of the motion W. Kremzar "no" the variance requested is excessive, the owner purchased the home knowing the zoning and the request can be solved through another method. M. Diver agreed with Mr. Kremzar and stated that if the lots were consolidated the variances would not be required. Variances Denied 9. Jimmv Mowerv; 4773 Bailev Drive: (WRD 4) Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a new garage. The following variances are requested: 1. A 2 foot variance for an accessory structure too close to side property line, (code requires 5', applicant shows 3'), section (1135.02 D4). 2. A 5 foot variance for an accessory structure too close to rear property line, (code requires 10', applicant shows 5'), section (1135.02 D4). . Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 D4). Mr. & Mrs. 1Vlowery, the owners and Mr. LaRussa, with Solid Ground Construction each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mrs. Mowery indicated the existing garage needed to be replaced. As the yard is very small the placement of the garage is limited for the proper angles to pull into the garage. The existing deck on the back of the home does not leave a proper distance for a large van to be backed into the garage. Mr. LaRussa . indicated that the garage is being placed in line with others in the neighborhood. W. Kremzar moved to grant Jimmy Mowery of 4773 Bailey Drive his request for variance (1123.12), which consists of a new garage and that the following variances are granted: 1. A 2 foot variance for an accessory structure too close to side property line, (code requires 5', applicant shows 31), section (1135.02(D4)). 7of13