10/06/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

applicants return to make sure the applicant and board understood what is being asked and could see the details on the plans. Applicants chose to continue. J. Maloney moved to grant John McClacherty of 29600 Stewart his request for variance (1123.12), whach consists of a new fence and that the ffollowing variances are granted as amended: 1. A 15 foot variance for a fence higher than 30" and less than 50% open in a 25' required setback on a corner lot, (code permits 0, applicant shows 151). 2. A variance for a fence in required side yard setback less than 50% open code requires 50% open, applicant shows 25% open (44nch fence boards with 2-inch spaeang between each board. 3. A 30" variance for a fence in required side yard setback higher than 3011, (code permits 30", applicant sovvs 60"). Tlne entire fence is to be no higlaer than 5 feet tall. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (I'1)). N. Sergi seconded the motion, roll call on the motion; J. Maloney, W. Kremzar, T. Ke11y,1V. Sergi "yes" and M. Diver "no". Variances Granted NEW BUSINESS: 1. Georye Dadas; 5596 Burns Road: (WRD 3) Request for vatiance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new garage on an existing slab. The following variance is requested: 1. A 5 foot variance for a private garage too close to rear property line, (code requires 10', applicant shows 5'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (C2)). Mr. Dadas the owner came forward to be sworn in and address the request. 1VIr. Dadas advised that he wanted to place a 2 car garage on the existing foundation. Mr. Kremzar questioned if the applicant replaced the driveway and sidewalks axid questioned if the garage foundation would be replaced. Mr. Dadas indicated that he had all the cement work completed and would fiY the foundation only it was not his intent to replace the slab. Mr. Maloney advised that the Engineer submitted a report stating that the garage downspouts would have to be tied into the sewer: The board questioried why the applicant could not build the new garage to code. 1VIr. Dadas advised that it would be very costly and the angle to get into the garage would be severe. Mr. O'Malley advised that the cost to comply with city codes is not a consideration for granting a dariance. Mrs. Sergi quesrioned how much room was required to have an acceptable distance between the house and garage. Mr. Conway advised that 22-feet was acceptable however 24-feet was preferred. There is enough room to bring the garage into code. Mr. lORaloney advised that the plans submitted show a total of 29-feet from patio to garage so to move the garage forward 5-feet would still give the applicant the preferred 24-foot distance the commissioner mentioned. The board questioned if the applicant knew that he would have to build a garage when he purchased the home. Mr. Dadas stated he knew he was required to build a garage but assumed that he would be grandfathered as the foundation was already in place. Mrs. Diver advised that the owner's predicament could be resolved through other methods than a variance. Mr. Dadas advised that due to the cost of moving the foundation he would then elect to not build a garage at a11. Mr. Conway advised the applicant that the city requires a minimum of at least a one car garage to be built on the site. He advised that the city would be required to enact an enforcement procedure to have at least a 1-car garage built. The board questioned why the applicant did not address the garage foundation when the driveway and sidewalks were replaced. Mr. Dadas sta.ted that he could see no benefit of moving the garage into compliance to today's code, as it will give the owners less mom on an already small lot. W. Kreinzar moeed to grant George I)adas of 5596 Burns Iaoad lnis request for variance (1123.12), whdch consists of a new garage on an egis#ing slab and that the following eariance is gramted: 1. A 5 foot variance for a private garage too close to rear property line, (code requires 109 , applicant sbows 51). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (C2)). N. Sergi seconded the motion which was etnanimously denied. Variance Denied laTote: Mirs. Diver advised that the applicant did not show there was a hardship to meet code it is just the expense of moving the slab he does not want to deal with. Prior to leaving the applacant requested the board reconsider their 2of7