04/02/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

similarly. Mrs. Sergi felt the applicant was creating their own hardship as the garage could be placed to code. Considering it's a new garage this is the tiine to Uring the garage into code. The applicant has other options than seeking a variance; although the lot is narrow it can be done. There are existing garages within the area which have slightly angled garages and there are no obstacles involved which require the garage be placed 2 feet off the property line. There could Ue maintenance issues created Uy placing the garage 2 feet from the property line including maintaining the garage, garage overhang and drainage. Mrs. Bellido said she was not sure if moving the garage was beneficial or not as the fonner garage was constructed under old codes. Mrs. Diver felt that the property could continue to yield a reasonable return without a variance. Although it does not appear to be a substantial variance, maintenance of the yard and garage itself would be an issue so close to the property line. Governmental services would not be affected and it is understood that all property owners have lcnowledge of the zoning codes. The owner's predicament can be precluded through other means than a variance. She did not feel the spirit and intent of the code would be upheld granting the variance. Furthermore noting other properties within the neighborhood is irrelevant to the applicant's request. 1VIrs. Sergi moved, seconded by Ms. Rudolph, to grant Ms. Hazelton-Foster of 24336 Elm 12o7d a 3-foot variance for a detached garage too close to the side lot line; code requires 5 ft, applicant shows 2 ft, which is in violation of section 1135.02 (C)(2). Roll call: Diver, Sergi, Bellido-no, Rudolph-yes; motiou denied 1-3. Robei•t Thomas; 26650 Butternut Ridge Road Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new detached garage. A 474 square foot variance for a detached garage larger than allowed; code permits 750 sq ft, applicant shows 1224 sq ft, which is in violation of section 1135.02 (C)(3). Note: Applicant must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Landmarlcs Commission. Mr. Thoinas was sworn in and reviewed an aerial photo of his hoine's location. His home is set baclc 850 feet fioin Butternut Ridge Road. The home faces north as it originally supposed to fi•ont Kennedy Ridge Road. The nearest home is about 180 feet south, other homes are at the top of the drive along Butternut. Two apartment complexes are behind his home which lends itself to cut through traffic. He has had things stolen and vandalized in his yard which is why he is requesting the variance for such a large garage. His mother lives with hiin and he wants to make sure all tlu•ee vehicles can be secured. The garage layout showed vehicle placement and yard equipment storage. The existing garage is 20' x 20' with a 6 foot opening which is not tall enough for a van. The garage will face Butternut Ridge Road and have two doors. He noted that inost neighbors don't even lcnow his home is within their neighborhood. Mi•. Mitchell said that the size of the lot could accommodate the large garage and existing shed without exceeding the 20% lot coverage. The Building Department had no objections to the request. Mrs. Bellido questioned if the existing shed would be removed once the garage is coinpleted. Mr. Thoinas said yes, once the garage is completed the shed would be reinoved and the yard fenced to detour foot traffic. Mr. O'Malley reviewed the board's jurisdiction compared ro Landmarlcs Commission review process. He said it was not mandatory for the board to condition their approval upon Landmarks approval as each approval is separate from the other.