10/01/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

therefore placing the fence from the outside corner of the house to the rear fence would serve the owner and better fit the character of the rieighborhood. All board members were concerned about the character of the neighborhood felt the fence should be moved inward which the applicants were not willing to do. Mrs. Sergi moved, seconded by Ms. Rudolph, to grant Cindy Mramor of 5716 Allendale Drive an 18 inch variance for a fence higher than 30" in a neighbors 50 ft setback on a corner lot; code permits 3011, applicant shows 48", which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1135.02 f(1), and was unanimously denied 4-0. Robert & Kimberlv Dovle; 5201 Dewev Road: Request for variance (1123.12), which consists of a new garage and the following variances are requested: 1. A 2 foot side yard setback variance for garage too close to side yard line; code requires 5 ft, applicant shows 3 ft section, 1135.02(c)(2) 2. A 7 foot rear yard setback variance for garage to close to rear property line; code requires 10 ft, applicant shows 3 ft section, 1135.02(c)(2) Mr. Doyle and Mr. Damico were sworn in. Mr. Damico said the existing garage was taken out by a tree that fell during a storm. They would like to use the footprint of the existing garage for the new garage. The character of the neighborhood would not be altered as all the garages in the neighborhood are the same. To construct the garage to code would place the garage closer to the home and require a large mature tree and fence to be removed which would make accessing the garage a challenge. Mrs. Sergi asked if the existing slab would be reused and Mr. Damico said there was an asphalt floor which would be replaced with a concrete slab. The new garage would be the same size and depth of the garage destroyed. Mrs. Sergi asked if the rear lot belonged to the auto dealership and Mr. Doyle said he owns a 3 foot strip of land behind the garage and the rest belongs to the auto dealership and noted the damaged section of fence was to be replaced. Mr. Mitchell said the garage includes a new foundation therefore he recommended the new garage be constructed to meet code which can be accomplished. A section of asphalt drive and fence would have to be removed and the concrete section shown could be removed as well. Mr. Damico said that the 3' by 20' concrete section is a transitional apron which is needed due to the inconsistent elevations of the asphalt drive. It ensures the garage floor remains level and the entrance edge doesn't drop off, but gradually lowers to the existing driveway. Even if the garage is moved inward and forward to the house it would still require a transitional curb due to the inconsistent grades. The closer the garage gets to the house the harder it will be for vehicles to access the garage and require the fence and driveway to be redesigned. Mr. Doyle said all the garages on Dewey have garages placed right on the property lines or in line with his. Mr. O'Malley noted that the zoning codes had changed over the years and the owner can no longer construct a garage to code without reconfiguring the layout. Mr. Mitchell said the fence could be moved, the driveway widened and the concrete slab decreased to achieve the 10 foot and 5 foot setbacks. Mr. Damico again reviewed why the transitional curb was needed and noted that the owner was just trying to replace his garage which was destroyed without reconfiguring the entire backyard. The lot is 50 feet wide, 128 feet deep with a 69 foot distance from the back of the house to the rear property line and only 12 feet between the house and side yard line which