04/02/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Bellido, to grant Williaan c& Kathleen Carlin of 4450 Porter Road two variances to replace the garage: 1. A 554 square foot variance for the size of detached garage in combination with a 440 sq ft attached garage; code permits 750 sq ft, applicant shows 1304 sq ft. 2. A 6 inch height variance for a detached garage; code permits 15 ft, applicant shows 15' 611. The proposal is in violation of sections 1135.02(C)(3) and 1135.02(C)(2). The motion was unanimously approved 4-0. Hazelton-Foster; 24336 Elm Road Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new detached garage. A 3 foot variance for a detached garage too close to side lot line; code requires 5 ft, applicant shows 2 ft, which is in violation of section 1135.02(C)(2). Ms. Hazelton-Foster and Mr. Taylor were sworn in. Mr. Taylor said that the variance was for the detached garage which was being built to replace the original garage. The new garage would be constructed in the same location as the original though the cement slab will be replaced. The placement of the garage is to inaximize the baclcyard use and retail value of the home. Placing the garage to code would cut into the small backyard. He had spoken to his eastern neighbor who would be most affected by the garage who said he had no objection. Mrs. Diver asked if the new garage was the same size as the original or larger. Mr. Taylor said the original garage was 16' x 28'. Ms. Foster said though the horne was listed as having a two car garage only one car fit into the garage as there was a shed type dormer. Mr. Taylor said that they would lilce to align the garage with the existing driveway, moving the garage to code requires the garage be turned and the driveway expanded so cars could turn into the garage. Ms. Foster said her parents had owned the home since 1950 and sometime ago the garage fell. Mr. Mitchell said that in the 1950's footers were not required for slab garages, so the slab will be required to be removed and footers installed. Footers 2 feet off the property line would be very difficult to install without disturbing the neighbors yard. Since the slab is being removed the garage should be placed to code. This can be done without turning the garage as there is 13 feet between the hoine and side property line. The garage door is 16 feet wide with an additional2 feet fi•om the edge of the garage which places the opening 7 feet from the property line. Mr. Taylor said thirteen feet from their hoine places the garage along the paver path which runs along the existing driveway. He does not feel that there would be a problem placing the footers 2 feet off the property line and moving the garage 3 feet would create a hardship. Mr. O'Malley reviewed section 1113.02 of the zoning code pertaining to the purpose of the zoning code and said a non-conforming preexisting concrete slab did not constitute the grounds for a new garage to be grandfathered. Although the applicant should be encouraged to replace the garage, it should be placed in accordance with code. It is the applicant's burden to demonstrate why the code should not be applied to them. Mr. Taylor said that there were at least 17 garages along Elin Road which are less than 5 feet from the property line and placing the garage 2 feet from the property line would fit within the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Rudolph said viewing the property and fence she felt the placement fit the aligrunent of the existing driveway. The proposed placement would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or abutting neighbors as it is similar to other garages within the neighborhood. She felt the spirit and intent of the code would be upheld as most garages within the neighborhood were placed 2