12/01/2011 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. .. still appears residential. Ms. Diver said the mixed zoning of the area seems to be creating issues. Ms. Rudolph said the opposite side of the street is zoned for exactly what the applicant proposes for his site. Not granting the variance would penalize the applicant as the character of the neighborhood appears to remain. If the lot is sold it's sold as light industry and the addition doesn't adversely affect the neighborhood. Ms. Bellido said the majority of the area is being used as residential this will have both residential and office use. Mr. Lopez felt that the variance should be granted as the lots were rezoned after the area was developed residential. Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Ms. Lopez, to grant Kerry & Star McFarland of 31407 Bradley Road a variance to expand a non-conforming use; applicants show a home addition which is not allowed in limited industry, Section 1165.04(a), which passed 5-0. Gregory Cuiffo; 5310 Dover Center Road: Proposal consists of parking a commercial truck in residential driveway. The following variances are requested: 1. A home occupation variance; parking overnight in driveways; code does not permit, applicant shows 23 ft. long truck, Section 1135.02(b)(6). 2. A home occupation variance; requires the residential character of the dwelling exterior shall not be changed; code does not permit, applicant shows truck in driveway, Section 1135.02(b)(5). 3. A home occupation variance for not residing within the dwelling; code requires members of the family, applicant uses as rental property, Section 1135.02(b)(1). Mr. and Ms. Cuiffo, Mr. and Mrs. Spisak and Councilman Schumann were sworn in. Ms. Cuiffo said they purchased the home in 2008 with the intent of it being a residence with a garage to use as storage and to park their work truck. The home is used as a single family residence and their box-style truclc is backed into the driveway and the garage is used as storage. This use has taken place for the past three and half years and they haven't received any complaints. The building, fire and service departments have all been to their home for one reason or another and have seen the truck in the driveway. They can't afford to rent a storage space and if she parked it in her own home's driveway it wouldn't fit the neighborhood and there would be complaints. The driveway is 120 feet deep and the truck is backed in so only the front of the truck is visible. Photos of the parked truck were submitted which they don't believe changes the character of the neighborhood. If their rear neighbor believes the line of site to the truclc is disrupting to their home they would be happy to plant tall evergreens to buffer their line of site. She noted a typed statement which their neighbors signed saying they do not oppose the truck parked in the driveway. She is concerned for her husband's safety if forced to store the vehicle at a warehouse; it would be very late at night and add additional driving time. Mr. Spisak submitted photos which he took of the applicant's parlced vehicle from his baclcyard. The code was written to protect residential neighborhoods and to keep commercial vehicles from disrupting residents. For the applicants to suggest at their home the truck would be an eyesore but at their rental property it isn't is insulting. The applicants use this home as a rental property, they are both fully employed and their business is a seasonal one which operates during the carnival season each year. The truck is started and loaded with a lift gate very early in the morning leaves and then returns to be unloaded after midnight. The applicant and his helpers 2