Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />1.) An 8 foot vanance for width of drive, (code requires 18ft, applicant shows lOft), (1161.10). <br />2.) A 3 car parking variance for number of cars parking,(code requires 5, applicant shows 2).(1161.05 <br />0). <br />3.) A 1 foot variance for side yard setback, (code requires lOft, applicant shows 9ft), (1139.07). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, (1161.10), (1161.05 O) and (1139.07). Note: These <br />variances are granted for Dr. Peck's personal use only and will not be continued to the next <br />owner/occupant, or tenant of the property. The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously <br />approved. Variance Granted. <br />5. Evelvn Peltz; 6556 Charles Rd. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of adding a closed porch to eYisting home. <br />The followmg variances are requested: <br />1. A special permit to add to a non-conforming building, (1165.02). <br />2. A variance to enlarge a non-conforming dwelling, (1165.02 B1). <br />3. A 9 foot variance for front yard setback, (code requires SOft, applicant shows 41ft), (1135.06 A). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1135.06 A). <br />Mr. Gomersall called all interested parties fonvard to review the variances requested. Evelyn Peltz, the <br />owner, and Charles Crago, a concerned neighbor, came forward to review the request. Ms. Peltz <br />questioned why the request read a closed porch when it would not be a closed in porch. Mr. Conway <br />questioned if the porch would be screened in or walled in at a later date and asked to view a pictLire of the <br />proposed porch. Mr. Gomersall questioned whether the porch would have a roo£ Ms. Peltz indicated <br />"yes". Mr. Gomersall questioned if there was a banister around the porch. Ms. Peltz indicated "yes". Mr. <br />Gomersall indicated that the terni enclosed does not have bearing on the variance. Ms. Peltz suggested the <br />request was wrong as the measurements are 51-feet from the sidewalk and the porch would make it 42 foot. <br />Mr. Gomersall inquired if an inspector had been to the site to view the area. Mr. Conway indicated "yes" <br />a.nd the measurements are field measurements and suggested the field inspectors dimensions be followed. <br />Ms. Peltz indicated the house is over 50 years old and the e,cisting porch needs repair. She indicated the <br />concrete was comiilg out of the brick and ueeds to be tucked and the rod iron banisters were falling off. <br />The porch that is presently there is inore of a stoop and not a porch. Mr. Kremzar questioned what the <br />dimensions were compared to the existing porch. Ms. Peltz indicated that the porch would be a bigger <br />platform with railing and a roof. Mr. Crago, the neighbor, came forward to comment that he was present <br />because of the notice. The notice said enclosed, when it is not going to be enclosed. Mr. Gomersall <br />indicated that the Law Department had made a ruling years ago that once a variance is granted the owner <br />could enclose the porch a week later and it would have no affect on the variance that was granted. He <br />would like to see the motion prohibit the applica.nt from enclosing the porEh. Mr. Gomersall inquired if the <br />Board or audience had any further concerns or questions. No corrunents were made. <br />W. Kremzar motioned to grant Evelyn Peltz of 6556 Charles Rd. her request for variance (1123.12) as <br />acnended, the proposal consists of adding a porch that will not be enclosed to the existing home and that the <br />following variances be granted: <br />1.) A special pernut to add to a non-coiiforming building, (1165.02). <br />2.) A variance to enlarge a non-conforming dwelling, (1165.02 B1). <br />3.) A 9 foot variance for front yard setback, (code requires SOft, applicant shows 41ft), (1135.06 A). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.06 A). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney and <br />unanimously approved. Variance Granted. <br />6. Chi Chi's Restaurant 26410 Great Northern Shopping Center <br />Request for special pemut 1123.11 Proposal consists of remodeling the existing entry trellis with new entry <br />portico. A special permit to add to a non-conforming building. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 <br />section, (1165.02) <br />5