07/02/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

not substantial nor would the neighborhood be altered by the request. The rebuild will enhance the neighborhood and provide the owners the opportunity to live in their home throughout their lives as it will be handicap accessible. Governmental services will not be altered and the spirit and intent of the code would be upheld. Mrs. Bellido said granting the variance would ensure the owners could continue to live in their home. Mr. Lopez said the variance is not substantial however design wise the home could be constructed using the existing foundation and meet zoning codes. He questions where the board should draw the line in granting variances when other options are available. Mrs. Diver said understanding the circumstances of needing accessibility and the fact that the rebuild will enhance the neighborhood she has no objections to the request. Ms. Rudolph moved, secondeci by Mrs. Sergi, to grant Rodger & Brenda Hedberg of 24739 Doe Drive a 314" variance for distance of residence too close to the rear property line; code requires 501, applicant shows 4618" dvhich is in violation of Section 1135.08(a) which was unanimously approved 5-0. Frank Monteeani; 5195 Park Lane: Request for variance and special permit. Proposal consists of adding onto existing attached garage requiring a 43.6 foot variance for distance of the addition to rear property line; code requires 50', applicant shows 6.4', which is in violation of Section 1135.08(a). Note: The proposed 20 foot garage addition reduces the existing nonconforming setback from 26.4' to 6.4'. • A special permit to add to a non-conforming building (1165.02). • A variance from Section 1165.02 as existing rear yard setback is 26.4 ft and existing front setback is 36 ft, code requires 50' for both front and rear setbacks. Mr. Montegani; Mr. Hooker, the contractor; Ms. Drossis; Ms. Tyrone and Mr. Lemp were sworn in. Mr. Montegani said his home was built fronting Mastick Road with a 700 foot long driveway. The original owner purchased a section of land on Park Lane and installed a driveway to the home which is now the only point of access. He would like to expand his garage to accommodate his cars and lawn equipment, as the single story home doesn't have enough storage space. When the plans were submitted for the addition he was advised that the lot's frontage faced Park Lane which is the side of his home and what was once his sideyard is now his backyard which is required to have a 50 foot setback. The impact of the addition on the neighborhood would be none as the lot is heavily wooded and is not visible to his neighbors. The only neighbor who would see the addition is to the east and she provided a letter stating she had no objections to the addition. Mrs. Diver read the letter and noted Ms. Drossis was present for the meeting. Ms. Rudolph questioned if the east line of trees defined the property line. Mr. Montegani said the trees which border the property would not be removed but would be pruned. Mr. Hooker submitted photos showing the current views of the home. Mrs. Sergi asked if the white garage to the east was the neighbor's garage. Mr. Montegani said it was the neighbor's detached garage and the neighbor's home was over 200 feet from the proposed addition. Ms. Tyrone asked what the setback of the home to the valley was and asked if the variance was related to the distance to the valley. Ms. Rudolph reviewed what was considered front, baclc and side yards. Ms. Tyrone said that the home is contrary to all the homes within the cul-de-sac. Mr. Lemp said the Parlc Lane owners objected when the lot was split was decided which fell on deaf ears as the variance was granted. The Park Lane owners still object to what is being requested both the lot and home does not fit the cul-de-sac and allowing the garage to be expanded only