07/02/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

increases the non-conformity of the home. He does not believe that the variance should be granted as it devalues the neighborhood. Mr. O'Malley advised the board that they should allow all testimony to be presented prior to questioning applicants, audience members or staff. Mr. Mitchell said the agenda notes the existing non-conformances of the home as the front and rear setbacks currently do not meet zoning requirements. The request is to expand the garage further to the east property line which is considered the rear yard and increases the rear yard non-conformance by proposing to be only 6 feet 4 inches off the property line. Although the applicant prefers to place the garage in the proposed location the ability exists to erect a new garage which meets zoning codes. Board members questioned how the Park Lane address was assigned and a brief discussion ensued pertaining to the home's history. Mr. Hooker said the garage would not be closer to the valley and the increase in traffic is due to the work taking place at the house. Mr. O'Malley briefly reviewed how non-conformities come about, either after a lot or structure is created, local zoning laws change or as in this case it occurred after a lot-split was approved. If the home was facing Park Lane the garage could be 5 feet from the side yard line, however due to the position of the existing home on the lot the garage faces the rear yard which requires a 50 foot setback. Mr. Lopez said the proposed addition looks to be more of a luxury then a necessity as there is an attached garage and the building official has noted that a garage can be built to code. The variance request is substantial and granting it could affect the character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Sergi noted that the applicant created the situation for himself as he requested his lot be split and was advised that it would create a non-conforming building at that time. She does not believe that the garage addition would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood as it would only be visible to the neighbor to the east who has no objections. Mrs. Bellido said the variance is substantial and the garage can be built without a variance. Ms. Rudolph said that she is unsure because the variance is substantial even though the neighbor does not object. Mrs. Diver said the owner created the condition that exists. This is not a 3 foot variance it is a 43 foot variance which is substantial and the need for storage is a condition created by the owner. Mr. O'Malley advised the board to address the special permit first then the area variance and if the board wished the law department would draft written findings for the board. Mrs. Diver said the board wanted the Law Department to draft their findings. Board members did not believe the public peace, health, safety, morals, welfare or convenience would be jeopardized or affected nor would the use, value, development or enjoyment of neighboring properties be adversely affected. Nor would the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood be adversely affected. Neither public nor private nuisances would be created nor would traffic be affected by the request. Mrs. Sergi moved, seconded by Ms. Rudolph, to grant Frank Montegani of 5195 Park Lane a special permit to add to a non-conforming building section (1165.02) which was unanimously approved 5-0. Mrs. Diver said the area variance requested is very substantial. The majority of the members believed that the character of the neighborhood would be adversely affected. Governmental services would not be altered granting.the variance. The property owner had knowledge of the 4