07/12/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

matured the covered porch would not create a burden to the neighborhood. Mrs. Williamson voicecl 'she noted that there were no other porches covered and the roof would change the appearance of the neighborhood. Mrs. Sergi suggested the use of an umbrella or retractable awning could provide shade from the sun. Mrs. Diver voiced a concern that the porch once roofed would then be enclosed. Ms. Edman stated that the porch would never be enclosed. Mrs. Harmori said there were only three porches in the neighborhood and the roof would change the look of the neighborhood. The applicant's yard has the largest trees which would lesson the impact of the covered porch but if they are ever removed it would be very pronounced. Mrs. Edman felt the roof would improve the appearance of her home. Mr. Kelly did not think the variance was substantial nor would it takeaway from the home or neighborhood. Mrs. Sergi felt the roof would change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Menser did not feel it would change the neighborhood. Mr. Conway advised that if the roof is granted the porch could be closed in at any time. He suggested placing a condition if granting the roof that the porch could never be enclosed. Mrs. Sergi felt the porch was usable as is and the spirit of the code would not be observed granting the variance. N. Sergi moved to approve Tim Edman of 24356 Maria Lane the request for variance (1123.12) which consists of a porch and the following variance is granted: A 4.5 foot variance for a residence location within 50' front setback, (Code requires 50', applicant shows 45.5'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.06 (a)), with the condition that the porch is never to be enclosed. R. Menser seconded, roll call on the motion, T. Kelly, A. Williamson, and R. Menser yes, N. Sergi and M. Diver no. Variance granted. 4. Karen Smith; 24438 Rosita Lane: (WRD # 2) Request, for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of an addition and the following variance is reque"sted: • A special permit to add to a non-conforming building (1165.02), existing rear setback is only 38.6'). 1. A 19.6 foot variance for a residence too close to rear property line, (code requires 50', applicant shows 30.6'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.08 (a)). Ms. Smith the owner and Mr. Collins each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Collins said they would like to place a small addition on the back of the home. The size of the addition will be 8'x 14' to accommodate his and hers walk-in closet. The addition will match the existing structural materials of the existing home and the window will be moved to the back wall of the closet. The addition is to clear the second bedroom in the home for Karen's wounded military son who will be returning home soon. There will be a reverse gable roof to ensure the house patio and addition is properly drained. It also ensures that the addition will appear to have been built with the home. The size of the addition would actually be 8' x 14' not 8' x 12' as first shown. Mr. Conway voiced that although the variance is significant most of the homes in the area haye structures which stick-out as well. The entire neighborhood has a problem meeting the current setbacks. Mr. O'Malley provided the applicants a copy of his memo sent to the board members and reviewed the details of the memo addressing adding to non-conforming buildings. Board members did not believe the public peace, health, safety, morals, welfare or convenience would be jeopardized or affected. The use, value, development or, enjoyment of neighboring properties would not be adversely affected, nor would the health, safety of other persons residing or working in the neighborhood. There would be no public or private nuisance created by reason of noise; smoke, odors, fire, vibrations, objectionable lights or congestion of traffic. No traffic or safety, hazards would be created. Neither the combination nor accumulation of uses of the same nature is in close proximity or in the same neighborhood adversely affecting the public peace, 3