12/07/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTH OI,MSTED BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS DECEMBER 07, 2006 MINUTES 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 7:45 pm. PRESEN'T: Members; J. Maloney, M. Diver, J. Burke, N. Sergi and T. Kelly AI..SO PRIESE1\iT: Assistant Law Director B. O'Malley, Assistant Building Commissioner T. Rymarczyk and Clerk of Commissions D. Rote. Chairman Maloney reviewed that there were 4 cases requesting 8 variances on the docket. He further advised that each board member had viewed the premises involved for each case. Three votes are required for approval and in addition, each case would be judged on the physical situation peculiar to itself, so that in no way is a judgment rendered considered to be a general policy judgment affecting properties and like situations elsewhere. II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: T. Kelly moved to approve the Board of Zoning Appeals minutes dated November 02, 2006 as written. J. Burke secondeci the motion, which was unanimously approved. III. RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS: 1. Abedel & Muna Mustafa; 6167 Park Riclge Dr. (WRD # 3) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of the addition of a family room. The following variance is requested: 1. A 12 foot variance for a residence too close to the rear property line, (code requires 50', applicant shows 38.1'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1135.08 (a)). Note: BZA tabled request 11-02-06. Mrs. Mustafa the owner, Ms. Maisa Mustafa daughter, Mr. LaRussa the contractor, and Mr. Baskin a neighbor each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. LaRussa reviewed that at the last meeting the board requested clarification as to what was being done so updated plans were submitted. The new plans show the family room, master bedroom additions and the porch located south of the proposed additions. Mr. Baskin advised that he had no objections to the request. Mrs. Diver questioned why the bedroom addition was not moved to the south side of the proposed family room and the porch decreased in size and placed north of the new additions eliminating the need for a variance. Mr. Baskin advised that the porch was to accommodate family gatherings. Mr. Burke again advised that if the room was relocated to the porch area there would be no need for a variance or the owners could decrease square footage of the proposed room additions or eliminate one of the rooms. There has been not hardship shown and there are other methods than a variance which would accommodate the applicant's additions. The applicants were unwilling to compromise the size of the porch, family room or master bedroom. They were also unwilling to discuss the possibility of the room additions being constructed to span the width of the home instead of staking them. Mr. Rymarczyk advised that there is an 18-foot area which could be utilized and still meet code. Mr. Burke advised that a letter from the applicants neighbor Mr. Banas was received and states that he is against the large addition as well as the covered deck. He is concerned that the deck will generate additional noise issues.