Laserfiche WebLink
1: A 7.5 foot variance for minimum lot width (code requires 80 feet, applicant <br />shows 72.5 feet) section 1135.05 (a) <br />2. A variance for insufficient lot width, section 1165.04 <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections 1135.05 (a) and 1165.04. <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward to review the variances <br />requested. The oath was administered to Mr. Rutt the applicant, Mr. Nunnari, the <br />owner, Councilman McKay, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Rolf-Thomas and Mrs. Polo, <br />concerned neighbors each whom came forward fo review the request. There was <br />discussion regarding whether or not a variance was required; between the Law <br />Director and the Building Commissioner. Mr. Rutt indicated that because the size <br />of the lot does not meet today's codes, a variance to build on the lot is needed. <br />Councilman McKay questioned if the lots were being split. Mr. Conway indicated <br />that there were two existing lots. Mrs. Rolf-Thomas suggested that she heard <br />there was going to.be two homes on the lot. Mr. Conway reviewed that there had <br />always been three lots and at some point in 1990, according to the engineering <br />department two lots were combined, then one lot was split off that combination. <br />The lot that was split off is the right dimension to build on, the lot that has existed <br />forever is undersized. Since the under-sized lot and the other lots owner is the <br />same, code requires that the owner combine the lots if he builds on the smaller lot. <br />Mr. Gareau suggested that the issue of combining the lots should have been <br />addressed when the lots were established not now. He does not believe that this <br />board has any discretion because if in their discretion they refuse to grant the <br />request the lot becomes un-buildable and this board does not ' posses that <br />discretion. When the lots were realigned by the Planning Commission when ever <br />that was that is when it should have been sent to the Board of Zoning Appeals for <br />a variance to create an under size lot. Mr. Conway indicated that the issue should <br />have been looked at a little more closely in 1990, so it is complicated. 1VIr. Helms <br />reviewed why he lived in the neighborhood and suggested that if there was a code <br />that had been written it should be followed.. Mr. Gomersall commented that he did <br />not believe that the neighbors understood what Mr. Gareau was saying. The lot is <br />72.5feet and the Board of Zoning Appeals can not prohibit him from building on <br />this lot as it is preexisting. Mr. Helms questioned if the board could require the <br />applicant to build a home on the lot, which meets the code. Mr. Gareau reviewed <br />that the code provides that if a lot that is subdivided and is less then the current <br />requirements the owner can still build on the non-conforming lot. Provided a <br />conforming building is built. This board can not make this lot bigger, each of these <br />lots have their own parcel numbers. Mr. Koberna indicated that the board could <br />not say that the lot is non-build-able. There has been no plans submitted for a <br />home, but if the applicant submits plans that do not conform then he will have to <br />apply to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals again. If that happens each of <br />you will be notified again. Mr. Maloney questioned if there was a motion needed. <br />Mr. Gareau suggested that board would need-to grant the request as this lot has <br />been non-conforming. <br />6