10/05/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125, section 1135.06 A. Chairman, Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. The oath was administered to Mr. Smith, applicant's father, Mr. & Mrs. Konczos and Mrs. Nicholes, neighbors. Mr. Smith indicated that neither car would fit in the garage as it is currently packed. The addition would help elevate the problem. W. & Mrs. Konczos and Mrs. Nicholes each indicated that they were against the addition being requested. W. Konczos commented that the new neighbors were nice people, but the addition would not fit in the neighborhood. Mr. Koberna reviewed that the addition would only extend 9 feet further then what the applicant is allowed. Mrs. Nicholes thought that the addition would only be 9 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Koberna clarified that the addition would be 31 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Maloney felt that the addition would not hinder the neighborhood, but would add value to the home. Mr. Konczos questioned why they were asked to come to the meeting if their thoughts did -not count. The addition will be as big as the existing garage, Mrs. Nicholes suggested that everyone else has been able to fit his or her cars in the garage. Mr. Konold questioned what was currently being stored in the garage. W. Smith indicated that there were lawn tools, a snow blower, bicycles and toys in the garage. Mr. Konold questioned if the applicant thought about placing a shed in the back of the home. Mr. Smith thought that a shed in the back yard would also require a variance. W. Koberna voiced that he was not sure an addition to the garage was the only way to solve the problem. Mr. Konold suggested that now a day's families need a two-car garage. Mr. Koberna did not believe that the applicant could show that it would be a hardship if the variance was not granted. Mr. Rymarczyk suggested that the applicant could place an 8x10 shed in his backyard, if the shed was placed 5-feet off the side yard line and 10-feet offthe rear yard line. J. Konold motioned to approve Kimberley Botke of 28550 Holly Drive her request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of an addition to existing attached garage and that the following variance be granted: A 9 foot vaxiance for front yard setback (code requires 50' applicant shows 41'). This is in violation of Ord. 90-125, section 1135.06 A. The motion was seconded by T. Koberna and unanimously denied. Variance Denied. ?., .h 3. Joel Hoffman; 23821 Lebern Dr. Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a shed. The following variances are requested; 1. A 83 square foot variance for shed square footage, (code permits 77sqft applicant shows 160sqft), section (1135.02 (d) (1). 2. A 2 foot rear yard setback variance for shed, (code requires lOft applicant shows 8'), section 1135.02 (d) (4). ` Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 135.02 (D) (1) and (2). ?- Chairman, Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the r.equest. The oath was \ administered to Mr. Hoffman, the owner. Mr. Hoffman indicated that his garage was only a one car garage, therefore a shed is needed to store their belongings. Mr. Kremzar asked what the distance would be between the two buildings. Mr. Hoffman thought the distance to be 3- feet. No further comments were made. J. Konold motioned to approve Joel Hoffman of 23821 Lebern Drive his request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a shed and that the following variances be granted; 1. A 83 square foot variance for shed square footage, (code permits 77sqft applicant shows 160sqft),_section (1135.02 (d) (1). 2