08/05/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4) A 9 foot variance for driveway width (code requires 18ft), (1161.10) Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, (1145.07) and (1161.10). The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Variances Granteci 6. BP Amoco: 23425 Lorain Road: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a 6'x12' addition to the rear of the existing structure. The following variance is requested: A Special pernut to add to a non-conforming building. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1165.02). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variances requested. Mr. Turner the senior maintenance supervisor, and Mr. Evanko, the general contractor came forward to present their proposal. Mr. Gomersall indicated that he felt there was enough room for the addition and indicated there was no reason to not grant the special pernut. He asked if there were any further questions from the board members or the audience. No further comments were made. W. Kremzar motioned to approve BP Amoco of 23425 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a 6'x12' addition to the rear of the existing structure and that the following permit be granted, a Special pernut to add to a non conforming building. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1165.02). The motion was seconded by J. Konold and unanimously approved. Special Permit Granted 7. Patrick Denham; 28384 Aspen Drive: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of an addition to the existing home. The following variances axe required: _ 1) A special pernut to add to a non-conforming building, (1165.02). 2) A variance to enlarge a non-confornung dwelling, (1165.02). 3) A 29 foot rear yard variance, (code requires SOft, applicant shows 21ft), (1135.08 A). 4) A lfoot sideyard variance, (code requires Sft, applicant shows 4ft), (1135.07 A). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1165.02), (1135.08 A) and (1135.07 A). NOTE: Above is based on information provided by the applicant. Site inspection is scheduled for 8/2/99 at 4:00pm, as this entire area is fenced in and inspector needs to verify site conditions. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variances requested. Mr. Denham, the owner, Ms. Duncan, Mrs. O'Connor, and Mr. Peters, each concemed neighbors came forward to review the proposal. Mr. Gomersall indicated that he had been to the site and suggested there were so many deviations to the code that he felt it would be ha.rd to address the current request. He indicated that there were size deviations to the fence and the additions on the fence were never approved. Ms. Duncan indicated that there are several different sizes to the fence, the bottom portion is chain link, then there is 8- foot high lattice connected to that with wire and then 6 foot and 4 foot sections of lattice in other areas. Mr. Gomersall indicated that Mr. Denham needed a variance for the addition to the fence. Mr. Denham suggested that he was informed that he was allowed two 8-foot lengths on one side of the hot tub and two 8-foot lengths on the other side of the fence. 1V1r. Gomersall suggested that what Mr. Denham was saying didn't sound right. Mr. Conway indicated he wish to make a comment regarding the proposal. He indicated tliat the building department was una,ble to do a site inspection until 1Vlonda.y, August 2, 1999: The building department allowed the proposal to remain on the docket as a courtesy to the resident. When the inspector returned to the office Monday with his notes it was found that there were a few conflicts between what was, currently there and what the street files indicate should be there. The building department believes tliere are some additions on the home that there is no records of, they are unsure of property lines as the 'buildirig department has surveys from the 1970's that disagree with what is on the site today. He requested that the case be tabled to give the building department some time to look into what has accrued when and what is out there, and he is not sure how long Mr. Denham has owned the property. Mr. 4