12/06/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r ,, . I The following variances are requested: 1. A 594 square foot variance for a detached garage addition larger than code allows, (code permits 750 sq ft, applicant shows 1344 sq ft), section (1135.02 (C1)). (Note 1) 2. A 5 foot sideyard variance for a detached garage addition too close to sideyard property line, (code requires 5', applicant shows 0'), section (1135.02 (C2)). (Note 2) 3. A 10 foot rear yard variance for a detached garage addition too close to rear property line, (code requires 10', applicant shows 0'), section (1135.02 (C2)). 4. A 9.9% and/or 462 square foot variance for total rear yard coverage, (code permits 20% and/or 931 sq ft, applicant shows 29.9% and/or 1393 sq ft), section (1135.02 (D3)). 5. A variance for no access driveway to garage addition, (code requires access drive, applicant shows none), section (1161.11). Note: 1). A 360bza square foot addition to south side and a 360 sq ft addition added to east end (rear) of existing 864 sq ft detached garage , both without building permits. 2). Total coverage includes hot-tub, existing garage and recent additions, rear yard area = 4655 sq ft. x.20= 931 sq ft allowed. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.02 (C1)), (1135.02 (C2)), (1135.02 (DS)) and (1135.02 (D3)). Mr. Goulding the owner and Ms Giordano a neighbor were each present to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Goulding said his request is to have a carport behind his garage and extend the existing overhang along the south side of the garage. He is not familiar with variance rules and did not think he was breaking any laws. He does not believe the variances are substantial. The property can yield a reasonable return without the variances and the neighbors will not be harmed from the addition and have no objections to„his request. Governmental services would not be affected and when he purchased the property he was not aware of the laws. He doesn't know how to solve the storage issues without the extra space and does not think granting the variance would create any problems. Ms. Giordano said that she had no objections to the structure as it was constructed. Mr. Conway felt the variances being requested were extensive and in 1999 the applicant was granted variances for an additional bay. There are issues regarding fire codes and currently the structure which has already been built breaks all zoning rules in the book. He was not sure why variances were granted to begin with. Mrs. Diver voiced that she was shocked that the applicant completed the work without a permit as the applicant was before the board in 1999 and was granted 4% lot coverage and 95 sq ft floor area variances so the applicant is fully aware that building permits are required and building codes are to be followed. The applicant not only built the structure on the side yard line but the rear lot line as well totally disregarding his neighbor's rights or needs. The fire safety issue brought up by the building commissioner shows the applicants blatant disregard for his neighbors. Mr. Menser noted that due to the fire hazards brought up he is concerned. Mrs. Sergi felt the variances are substantial the property could yield a reasonable return without the variances and the neighborhood would be altered and the neighbors would suffer a detriment as two sides of the roof are draining into the abutting neighbors yards. Governmental services would not be affected and the property owner had knowledge of the zoning codes. The issue can be precluded through other means than variances and the spirit and intent of the zoning code would not be observed granting the variances. She is not in fayor of granting the variances and knowingly placing the structures on the property lines is too much. Mrs. Diver noted that there was no driveway to the carport which is not allowed by code. Ms. Williamson noted that she agreed with all comments made. 2