11/02/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

be an additional 467 square feet, the garage will be an additional 535 square feet and the second floor will be a total of 1,646 square feet and asked if the first floor additions would be brick. Ms. Brown reviewed that the first floor additions would be brick but the second story would be vinyl siding. Mr. Maloney asked if the existing garage would be demolished. Mrs. Sergi thanked the applicant for reducing the amount of variances but still felt that the proposed additions were too much for the neighborhood. The variances being requested are substantial the proposed size of the home is too large for the lot and neighborhood. The location of the home is very visible to the neighborhood as it is a corner lot. She questioned the distance of the home to the rear yard line. Ms. Brown reviewed that the home sits 46 feet from the rear yard line then there is a 43 foot area of concrete leaving a 3 foot distance to the rear property line. Mrs. Diver said she had visited the site at least 6 times and on paper the plan looks good but the site is too small for what is being proposed. The character of the neighborhood would be severely altered thereby adversely impacting the neighborhood. Mr. Maloney felt the proposed addition would enhance the corner of the development although the home was too large for the lot itself. Mr. O'Malley reviewed how non-conforming buildings/homes are created or come about and how code's were created to allow or provide methods in which a non-conforming home/building could be altered/expanded or modernized under section 1165.02. However in this applicants case the proposeci addition does not meet area requirements therefore there are variances within a variance being'requested i.e. a variance from the standards of chapter 1135 as listed out 1 througli 3relating to area'requirements which then in turn creates a deviation from chapter 1165.02 non-conforming building standards which state a special permit is acceptable only if the addition meets all other building and zoning code requirements. The provision of 1165.02 non-conforming chapter is trying to give an owner an opportunity to modernize/expand their building and at the same time trying to bring the building closer to meeting current building and zoning code requirements. Therefore the request for a special permit to add to a non-conforming building should be addressed first. Mrs. Mate stated that under the State of Ohio they are in a revitalization area which is seeking to improve the quality of the houses and the neighborhood. Mr. Burke thanked the applicant and architect for all their hard work but the character of the neighborhood would be adversely altered. The variances being requested are substantial even with the changes which have been made. Mrs. Mate felt that the proposed addition would only enhance their property as the existing sidewalks would be replaced and the detached garage would be removed. They would like an attached garage just like the other homes in the neighborhood and the garage is what makes the home appear to be larger than what it is. Mr. Kelly thought looking at the plans it appeared to be an improvement to the area. Prior to reviewing the special permit findings Mrs. Sergi made a motion which she withdrew from tlie table so the findings could be addressed. Board members findings: (1) The public peace, health, safety, morals, welfare or convenience would be jeopardized or actively affected; Not applicable (2) The use, value, development or enjoyment of neighboring property would be adversely affected, or the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood would be adversely affected; Board members felt the health and safety was not a concern but they were concerned about the impact of the proposal on neighboring properties. The home is massive compared to neighboring homes. (3) A public or private nuisance would likely be created by reason of noise, smoke, odors, fire, vibrations, objectionable lights or congestion of traffic or persons; not applicable. (4) Traffic or safety hazards would be created; not applicable. (5) The combination or accumulation of uses of the same nature in close proximity or in the same neighborhood would adversely affect the public peace, health, safety, morals, welfare or convenience, adversely affecting neighboring property or creating a nuisance; Board members again felt that the neighborhood would be affected as most homes currently have detached garages and are not two story homes. (6) The proposed use would not comply with other provisions or standards specified in this Code. 2