10/04/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,. . ( rear;interior of their home was presented to help the members visualize the size and tightness of the spaae. Mr. Tompkins a neighbor reviewed that his home was reconfigured for a rear addition and lie did not believe that a rear addition would be enough to allow the neighbor's father to maneuver his wheelchair throughout the home; in fact it may even confine him to the addition space only. Mr. Conway stood by his comments from the last meeting. Mr. O'Malley reviewed Federal laws pertaining to Americans with Disabilities Act, Fairhousing standards and the standards which the board should use in reviewing the case. Mrs, Diver noted that the addition would be 18' x 20' and woulci include a restroom. Mrs. Sergi felt that the neighborhood would not be adversely affected as other homes have front additions. Mr. Menser felt the applicants only had two options; place addition in the front of home or move to a new home. Ms. Williamson felt that the need of the addition outweighed the rear placement and that the request was not substantial or out of character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Sergi felt there :was no other way for the applicants to provide for their father and did not believe the request ?was substantial. Mrs. Diver felt a rear addition would require more work than a front addition and the owner's circumstances were already placing a strain on the applicant's family. Mrs.' `Sergi believed that the home only yielded a beneficial use and reasonable return for everyone but the father in-law. The request is not substantial, governmental services would not be affec.ted and front additions are found throughout the neighborhood. Mrs. Diver reviewed that it is assumed that all property owners purchase their property with knowledge of zoning code requirements. The problem can be resolved by the applicants moving but that would have issues of its own. Mrs. Sergi felt granting the variances would serve the spirit and intent of the zoning code.' Mr.;IVIenser moved, seconded by Mrs. Sergi to approve Daniel and Karen Carson of 5639 Porter ? Road their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of an addition and the folloWirig variance is granted: 1) A 14 foot variance for front yard setback for residential addition (code requires 501, applicant shows 36'), in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135:06 (a)), which was unanimously approved. 4-0. Thorria`s?Hurst; 23071 VirLiinia Ave: (Ward 2) •'A,',special permit to add to a non-conforming building (1165.02), existing garage is 3 foot 6 inclies from sideyard line and code requires 5 foot. ? A:variance for section (1165.02) as the addition does not comply with sideyard setback. Request,for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a garage addition. The following variances are requested: 1. A` 1 foot 6 inch variance for an accessory structure too close to sideyard setback, (code requ'ires 5' applicant shows 3'6"), section (1135.02 (C2)). 2. A 22`square foot variance for a detached garage larger than code allows (note), (code permits 750 $q;;A applicant shows 772 sq ft), section (1135.02 (Cl)). Whi6 is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections; (1135.02 (C1)) and (1135.02 (C2)). Note; Existing garage is 372 sq ft. Proposed addition is 400 sq ft. Total square footage includirig addition is 772 sq ft. _ Representative: Thomas Hurst the owner was sworn in to review his request. Mr. Hurst. said he would like to place a 20' x 20' addition in line with the existing garage using the existing cement slab. The addition will house a third car and lawn equipment. Mrs. Diver reviewed a special permit to add to a non-conforming building was required. Mr. O'Malley reviewecl that non-conforming structures are grandfathered as they are but if expanded the expan`sion is expected to meet current zoning code requirements. Mrs. Diver questioned why the 2