07/02/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

why the variance is needed. Mr. Willoughby said as the closest neighbor the improvements made to the lot and the way the lot is shaped the patio is not visible. All homes eventually have to be upgraded and improvements made to maintain the integrity of the home and neighborhood. He believed that the variance should be granted to his neighbor. Ms. Mason said that the layout of the rear yards within the neighborhood does not lend itself to accommodating any style of covered patio. However the odd shapes of the lots provide privacy and the patio will not be visible, the improvements the Ferrara's are making to their property enhances the neighborhood so the variance should be granted. Mr. Michael Ferrara said he reviewed the proposal with the building deparhnent and they had no issues with the structure. Mr. O'Malley said the board could place a condition that the patio was never to be enclosed if they wished but it would need to be included in the motion. Mr. Lopez felt the condition of not enclosing the patio should be placed on the variance as enclosing the patio would affect the character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Rudolph did not feel the condition was needed. Mrs. Diver, Mrs. Sergi and Mrs. Bellido agreed the condition should be part of the approval. Mrs. Sergi moved, seconded by Ms. Rudolph, to grant William & Susan Ferrara of 25121 laandall Drive a 23 foot variance for distance of patio cover to rear property line; code requires 50', applicant shows 27', which is in violation of Section 1135.08(a), conditioned upon the patio never being enclosed, which was unanimously approved 5-0. Rodger & Brencla Hedberg; 24739 Doe Drive: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of rebuilding fire damaged residential structure requiring a 3'4" variance for distance of residence too close to rear property line; code requires 50', applicant shows 46'8" which is in violation of Section 1135.08(a). Mr. Mally, the contractor, was present to represent the owners. Mrs. Diver asked if the contractor had a letter from the owners giving him permission to represent them in their absence. Mr. O'Malley reviewed the board's options in accordance to their rules of procedures. Mrs. Diver asked why the owners were not present and Mr. Mally said the owners asked that he address the request. The home was destroyed by fire and the main level which includes the addition would be constructed first to provide living space during construction. Due to the circumstances of not wanting to delay construction the board said they would allow the contractor to represent the owners. Mr. Mally was sworn in and said the new home would remain a bi-level home using the existing foundation. The main level will include a living room, dining room, kitchen, laundry room and a master suite which requires the 3 foot variance. The second floor which is above the garage will include two bedrooms and one full bath. Mrs. Sergi asked why the 3 foot couldn't be eliminated. Mr. Malley said if 3 feet is removed the master bedroom would only be 8 feet wide which would not allow handicap access. Mr. Mitchell said the existing foundation would be reused which dictates the square footage of the home and just the master bedroom extends past the existing footprint. Mr. Lopez asked what the standard size of a two car garage was. Mr. Mitchell said a standard garage is 22 feet or a minimum 20 feet. The architect has worked with the building department to provide the owners a method to live on site as the home is being constructed. The 3 feet requested is not substantial and provides the owners living space during construction therefore he has no objections to the request. Mr. O'Malley said consideration could be given to the owner for reusing the existing footprint and the fact that most of the lots were cut precisely to the building line which does not lend itself to any alterations. Mrs. Sergi said the variance was 2